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:
-
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. -
Tom Curtis at 12:22 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Yes, JimJim, all those very smart scientists who are so determined to falsely report their results in the full knowledge that any of their colleagues (and any reasonably educated lay person) can show they where falsely reported and blow the whistle, all to secure a job on 50 thousand a year and a life time supply of abusive emails and death threats from global warming deniers. Meanwhile, in other news, JimJim proves that 911 was a CIA conspiracy and that mankind has never walked on the moon ... -
Stephen Baines at 12:20 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
JimJim You can make just as much or more money saying its not real. If money were the real issue there would be no consensus. -
JimJim at 12:10 PM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
E So in your world you think there is no bias with climate sciences that live off grant money saying that 97% of them think it's real?Response:[DB] Next ye'll be sayin' that climate scientists hate Christmas...
-
adelady at 12:05 PM on 24 May 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Sphaerica - I see what you mean about the snow, esp across Russia. No wonder the fires have started a few weeks early. -
macoles at 11:07 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Re my point about Navarre above. An better comparison would be against another state within Spain that has attracted a similar investment per capita ratio Finding an EU country to compare apples with apples is just too difficult. -
macoles at 10:55 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Quick nitpick: The section "Falling Unemployment in Navarre" doesn't really support your thesis. That the employment in Navarre has outperformed the rest of Spain has more to do with the greater level of investment sent there (at the expense of other places in Spain?) rather than the type of investment. If the green investment was more homogeneous throughout Spain and nationwide employment performed better than a comparable country, then that would be a better supporting argument. Otherwise great work, I'd wondered about the veracity of this often quoted denialist report a while back too. -
Andy Skuce at 10:43 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Tom C It may well be the case that coal is less labor intensive than renewables but the kind of analysis is fraught with difficult assumptions about what is included in the investments and how the jobs are counted. Economies of scale and maturity of technology are very different between established big industries like coal and emerging industries like PV and wind making any comparison very difficult. And I would prefer not just to rely on one study from an advocacy group like REPP, especially in a report that is nearly 10 years old. My point is, costs aside, that I would be for renewables over coal regardless of which means of production of energy was the more labor intensive. -
NewYorkJ at 10:02 AM on 24 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Some teachers approach the topic of global warming like it's a debate on a political topic, like it's "abortion rights - pro or con". Students are asked to chose a "side", either "pro" global warming or skeptic, and then conduct debates for or against each position. The end result is those choosing (or being assigned) the "skeptic" side will inevitably gather and present material from denier blogs, with of course little consideration for the scientific validity of the arguments gathered from search engines. Such "debates" are won by who sounds most convincing, not on the evidence presented. I don't think that's the best way to teach science to non-technical audiences. It works when the students have the technical competency to sort through various arguments, as it mostly would in a debate about abortion, where much is a value judgment. If students have minimal background on the hard sciences, such a "debate" on science topics is of limited value. It's not as if the students will end up with real discussions on radiative forcing and climate feedbacks. I don't know of formats for debating whether or not the Earth is flat, or the basics of gravity and Relativity. Why must teachers succumb to the false balance on the topic of climate change that is evident in mainstream media and political spheres? It all goes back to: Teach the Controversy -
citizenschallenge at 09:30 AM on 24 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
Very worthy book. #3 The Five Types of CC Denial Arguments, #4 History of Denial did a wonderful job of summarizing the situation. For my purposes #5 Do We Let Denial Prosper may have been the most informative. Though I found myself wondering if the majority of American politicians and citizens are capable of the intellectual integrity to actually face down these problems. Rolling Back Denial - The Big Picture will be an eye opener to many. The list of things we can do on p129 was a bit heartbreaking considering that 11 of those 13 items, we should have been actively pursuing since, and as, good ‘ol President Carter was trying to explain to my nation way back in the 1970s. :-( The next chapter Rolling Back Denial - The Technological Solutions, summation of renewable energy was first class. I liked that you remained very skeptical of Nuclear Power - the section on Carbon Capture was an informative introduction for someone like me who hasn’t familiarized himself with those particular issues. I applauded your bravery and hope in the face of this ultimate of challenges humanity has created for itself. May it be read by millions. -
Stephen Baines at 09:17 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
I'm also having a hard time understanding CharlieA's point. 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 would be news to Spencer, I imagine. He also seems to lean a lot on this longterm shortterm response distinction. -
Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Andy S, I believe the relevant quote from the post is"Similarly, a 2001 Renewable Energy Policy Project report found that wind and solar photovoltaic investments lead to at least 40% more jobs per dollar than coal."
It is certainly desirable, though probably not possible, that we should reduce the cost of electricity by switching to green options. All else being equal, however, if costs are identical and green power results in 40% greater employment for a given cost, then green power is preferable on that ground alone. -
Andy Skuce at 08:59 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Allow me to play the contrarian here. I think that the green jobs argument is a distraction and may even be counterproductive. It’s useful for reminding opponents of any investment in renewable energy that green jobs will be created that will offset the loss of black jobs in the coal or oil industries. But we are not trying to reduce CO2 emissions because we want to move employment from one sector to another, or even because we want to stimulate economic growth. This will sound radical to some people here but I would argue that the fewer green jobs are ultimately necessary, the better will be our chances of mitigating climate change. Let me try to explain why. Imagine that we could, through more efficient business practices and better design, reduce the cost of building wind turbines and reduce the frequency of breakdown and required maintenance. This would mean that, per turbine, we could employ fewer workers. Imagine also, that a technological breakthrough allowed us to build wind turbines that were twice as efficient for the same cost. This would mean that for a given number of renewable kilowatts, we could use, perhaps half the labor. Surely, we should welcome, even encourage, such progress, even though it would reduce the number of green jobs created. Our motivation for moving to renewables is not, after all, because we want to grow the economy but because we need to put the brakes on our atmospheric CO2 emissions. Achieving this will have costs. For example, the Stern Review estimates that stabilizing CO2e at 500-550ppm by 2050 will have annual costs of 1% of GDP, “a level that is significant but manageable”. Of course, the benefits we and our descendants will accrue from incurring these costs lie elsewhere and stretch out into the far future. Every job, green or black, ultimately has to be paid for, either by consumers or taxpayers. By arguing that moving to renewable energy will necessarily generate many new net jobs, we are, in effect, conceding that the costs of decarbonizing the economy will be unavoidably high. I recommend Paul Krugman’s long essay on Building a Green Economy ; I agree with almost every word in it. He doesn’t mention green jobs even once -
JMurphy at 08:28 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
bbickmore wrote : "Honestly, I'm having trouble following your logic. And to be perfectly frank, you don't seem to have read what I said very carefully before accusing me of misunderstanding Spencer and failing to link to his blog." I believe this is the same comprehension problem that used to be exhibited by a certain poster named Gilles - whom I believe is now called Charlie A.Response:[DB] "whom I believe is now called Charlie A"
I do not believe so.
-
jarch at 08:20 AM on 24 May 2011Humlum is at it again
Marcus, it seems to me again that you don't answer my questions : I said that I don''t know how to evaluate a likelihood that a given theory is true (I know only how to evaluate a confidence interval of numerical parameters using a proven theory), and you didn't offer the slightest clue to answer that - just imprecations. Now if you believe that there is a numerical method to compute this kind of likelihood, nothing prevents to apply it retrospectively to a past stage of knowledge. For instance how would you evaluate the "likelihood that the Earth is the center of the universe" with the knowledge people had in 1400 ? or the "likelihood that the simultaneity of time is independent of the observer " ? I have no idea how to compute that - and the result , if any, would be probably totally wrong. -
bbickmore at 08:20 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Dana's right, Charlie. I guess I thought you were agreeing with me at first because this point is so obvious. If Spencer's meant his 1.3 °C figure to be interpreted as transient sensitivity, then why was he comparing it to the IPCC's most probable range for equilibrium sensitivity? I just can't understand how you can think so clearly about how climate models work, and then stop short of admitting that Spencer wasn't. -
The Shadow at 08:15 AM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
It is well known that scientific publications and the scientists who referee climate science papers are strongly pro-CAGW. It is, therefore, not surprising that the number of skeptical publications is small. If the standard for being included in the survey is pulications then it is no surprise that the results are strongly in support of CAGW. The general public seems to understand, rather intuitively, what the the pro-CAGW science community generally denies, that conflicting/confounding data (of which there is substantial) means a theory is flawed. If we were to execute another study which included only those climate scientists that had been in their field for 20+ years, I would imagine the results would look substantially different.Response:[DB] You should perhaps learn to differentiate between a theory and a hypothesis. While you're at it, please study this site's Comment Policy. Most readers here understand rather intuitively that the use of "pro-CAGW" is a major red flag, and tells the reader much indeed about those who freely bandy the term about.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol @40, I found my first encounter with your theories several years ago quite educational. I had to actually learn the true basis of the theory of global warming to understand what was wrong with them. But learn I did, from blogs by Eli Rabbet, Chris Colose, and Tamino, and a book by Pierrehumbert. Do you wish to argue that any of these are inadequately educated in mathematics or science to understand climate? Or that Hansen is insufficiently knowledgable in physics to do so? Or that Archer is insufficiently educated? Your listing of Bill Kinninmonths qualifications are a pure appeal to authority, and nothing more. In this case the appeal is unwarranted because Kinninmonth demonstrably makes fundamental errors on a repeated basis, wether by design or through incompetence. He is so incompetent that his colleague, you, is still refuting a back radiation model of the the green house effect without having realized after three years that that is not the theory of the greenhouse used by climate scientists. Nor, apparently, for all of Kinninmonths qualifications in Eularian theory has he realized that your model of the atmosphere and radiative transfer is unphysical. (Or perhaps he does, and is too focussed on strategy to say.) 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. 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 to discussion on this forum. -
dana1981 at 08:03 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Charlie #25:"And I originally noted, a finding of transient sensitivity of 1.3C is not sufficiently novel to motivate me to wade through the mess."
It's also worth noting that Spencer is claiming 1.3°C equilibrium sensitivity. -
Alexandre at 07:56 AM on 24 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
John, any chance of someone recording and posting a video?Response: [JC]I'll ask but I'm doubtful.Update: turns out people on campus have asked for the talk to be videoed and they'll be posting it online. So a video of the talk will be available. -
bbickmore at 07:48 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Hi Charlie, 1. I didn't think anything of your comment about it being unsurprising that you would get short-term sensitivity by fitting a simple climate model to 55 years of data. Sounds reasonable to me. If there are both fast and slow feedbacks in the system, a 1-box model can't capture that. 2. At one point I e-mailed Roy and asked him where to find the forcings and he pointed me to the page I linked. I also digitized his forcing curve from his graph, to make sure they were the same (through 2003, at least). Anyway, I don't see why this would merit an update in the text, since I just linked to where Roy said he got the data. Anyone who's interested in pursuing it further is more than welcome to ask me how I got the rest of it, like you did. (You're the only one, so far.) Given that I was just trying to reproduce Spencer's work, rather than produce a sensitivity estimate of my own, do you feel that I've been disingenuous about this? If so, I can't fathom why. 3. When I was talking about the depth of the mixed layer, I was talking about Roy's modeling adventures that he reported in his book. (See the links to my previous book review.) The point was that I had previously criticized him for a model in which he assumed a 700 m mixed layer (i.e., the same temperature, or at least the same temperature changes throughout.) There was no averaging--the temperature of the entire 700 m layer was assumed to be the same as the surface temperature. This is nonsense, as you seem to acknowledge. In THIS episode of Spencer's modeling adventures (i.e., the blog post I'm critiquing here) he averages the temperature of the 700 m layer, which as you point out, is perfectly fine. However, Spencer's comments about the top 700 m illustrate very nicely that I was right in my previous criticism. 4. Look at my last point, the re-read your criticisms of me in the post above. Your reading of Spencer's blog post is, well... exactly what I said. And yet, you criticize me for writing in "attack mode" and not understanding what Spencer was saying. 5. There are, in fact, at least two links to Spencer's blog post in my article above. Again, you don't seem to have looked very hard. (And for the record, I'm not one of those people who comments on someone else's post without linking to it, just to avoid boosting their google rating. I avoid that on moral grounds.) 6. I said I didn't think anything of it when you said it was unsurprising that Spencer would find a low climate sensitivity from a short data series. Why? Because to me you seemed to be acknowledging that analyzing 55 years of OHC data via a 1-box climate model probably wasn't an adequate way to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity. Which was my point in the first place. But you seem to be saying that this is a reason NOT to criticize Spencer's modeling effort. Honestly, I'm having trouble following your logic. And to be perfectly frank, you don't seem to have read what I said very carefully before accusing me of misunderstanding Spencer and failing to link to his blog. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:39 AM on 24 May 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Well, here we are in late May, and... [Caveat: I still say ice watching/predicting is a fruitless endeavor, because it is the long term impact of warming that matters, and regardless of how long it takes, it's going to happen... but with that said...] If you visually compare May 21 of 2007 to 2011, the extent is roughly the same, but there are many indicators that the 2011 ice is headed in a different direction. There are many areas where the ice is not as dense now compared with 2007, pointing to the potential for a lower final extent. It's also interesting to note the difference in snow cover on land at the same time. Visually compare May 21 2007 to May 21 2011 I hope things slow down. -
Rob Painting at 07:17 AM on 24 May 2011Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling
Arkadiusz Semczyszak - See the discussion, references, and particularly Figure 3, provided in the advanced version of this rebuttal. Coral bleaching is likely to have caused the "drowning" of ancient atolls as continental plate motion transported them north through the equatorial "hot zone". And don't confuse natural bleaching with mass coral bleaching. -
jonicol at 07:14 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
I am agasin disappointed that the reponses to my attempts to draw attention for the need to discuss the scientific aspacts of climate change have failed to ignite any passion beyond discussing what climate scientists know and what meteorologists, geologists and physicists know from their background. Sure basic Lagrangian mechanics is the subject of second year physics but Eulerian theory in its fullest form is certainly third year level and well beyond, being the basis in tensor form of Einstein's theory of General relativity. I know this is irrelevant. I am not going to speculate on what climate scientist's background's might be but up until fairly recently climate scientists came across from geography as in the case of Andy Pitman and Matthew England UNSW for instance. That too is irrelevant. However, you must surely recognise that climate science is basically mechanics, fluid dynamics, hydrology, oceanography and, if you include the effects of carbon dioxide, quantm mechanics and high resolution spectroscopy with experience in line broadening and statistical mechanics of gases. Without deep knowpledge in all of these areas, there is not a lot to be done which is useful in the field of climate. As even the climate scientists would agree, climate is a long term assessment of what happens in the weather. The physics which is used to understand this is what is applied to meteorology.Response:[dana1981] Perhaps you are unfamiliar with our site, but discussing the scientific aspects of climate change is the fundamental purpose of Skeptical Science.
We've allowed this discussion to get far off topic. Everyone please keep future comments relevant to the subjects in Carter Confusion #1, or take your comments to the relevant discussion subject.
-
Paul D at 07:00 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Ron@6 "Once it becomes more economically feasible to invest in alternative sources of energy there will be a period in which transitioning from old technologies to new technologies..." But fossil fuel based technology is 'un-naturally' cheap in historical terms, we are effectively in a very short 'blip' in history where energy has been held at artificially low levels, by exploiting 'solar energy' stored millions of years ago. The historical normal 'price' for energy should be a lot higher, the question is whether humanity can see through the artificial state we are in now and start excepting the fact that energy prices should be higher in order to survive. -
Charlie A at 06:57 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Albatross, I find do not fully understand Spencer's calculations (assuming that I have found the one that Bickmore refers to ---- it is quite strange that there is no link to Spencer's blogpost). It is also clear from the article that Dr Bickmore does not understand what Spencer has posted. I have not bothered to try and resolved the differences in approaches and understanding between the two gentlemen. My main interest in the article was the graph of forcings from Hansen through 2010, along with a link for those forcings. Unfortunately, it turns out that the Dr Bickmore's statement about the provenance of the forcings is erroneous (which he corrected in comment #7, but not in the headpost), and his link only shows the 1880-2003 GISS forcings, with fixed aerosol forcings post 1990. A typical problem I have with serious discussion of this article are statements like "One of the problems I pointed out was that his model assumed a 700 m mixed layer in the ocean, when it is really something more like 100 m. In other words, his model assumed that the entire top 700 m of the ocean heats up and cools down at the same rate, which is nonsense." A simple review of Spencers calculations shows that, if one is using OHC for the upper 700 meters and the heat capacity for the upper 700 meters, then what one calculates is the average temperature for the upper 700 meters. That Spencer calculates an average temperature for the upper 700 meters is not the same as Bickmore's assertion that "his model assumed that the entire top 700 m of the ocean heats up and cools down at the same rate, which is nonsense." For the sort of analysis that Spencer attempted to make any sense, the layer used for OHC must have essentially zero heat flux crossing the lower boundary, and therefore it is a given that there will be a temperature vs depth variation. Dr. Bickmore's article is written as an attack rather than a discussion or review. And I originally noted, a finding of transient sensitivity of 1.3C is not sufficiently novel to motivate me to wade through the mess. -
Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
JimJim@23, Please also note the Anderegg 2010 paper which found that out of the top 200 climate researchers (out of 1,372, ranked by number of climate publications) 97% agreed with the conclusions of the IPCC. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:07 AM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
23, JimJim, Don't be silly. The questionnaire went out to over 10,000 people. Of those, a little over 3,000 responded. Of those, they belonged to various sciences, so about 150 were climate scientists. Of those, only 79 were actively publishing in the field in the last five years. You expect them to have worked with 100,000 questionnaire's? 1,000,000? There is nothing whatsoever wrong with a survey of that sort. Especially when the result was an overwhelming 97%. -
JimJim at 05:28 AM on 24 May 2011Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
Talk about cherry picking he is using the 97% number which is based on one study of 77 scientist. Only 77 people and he talks like that is 97% -
Albatross at 05:17 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Charlie, Spencer arrived at the curious number of 1.3 C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (he refers to climate sensitivity is the same context as reported in the IPCC) for doubling CO2, because he made several errors as outlined by Dr. Bickmore. Spencer has again been shown to be guilty of undertaking a seriously flawed analysis-- do you dispute Dr. Bickmore's debunking of Spencer's error riddled analysis? -
Ron Crouch at 05:01 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
It is inevitable that jobs will be lost within the carbon sector only to be offset by job increases in alternative energy technologies. The catalyst will be rising costs due to growing demand and shrinking resource within the carbon sector. Once it becomes more economically feasible to invest in alternative sources of energy there will be a period in which transitioning from old technologies to new technologies will likely produce a temporary spike in unemployment rates as workers will need to transition as well and will likely entail learning all new skills before re-entering the job market. However once this period of transitioning is complete there is potential for substantial growth within the alternative energy sector (not just in construction projects, but trained technicians to maintain the systems) as it scales quite well to suit a multitude of needs (right down to micro, or even nano scale). Needs that could only be met with large scale offerings in a carbon based economy. And substantial growth brings jobs, and wealth, and most of all -- energy security (think outside the obvious). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:59 AM on 24 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
Eric, ??? The study clearly states that the 97% of actively publishing climate scientists comes from:...those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change...
How is this in any way a problem? The CO2 nitpick is similarly silly. Obviously the problem is more nuanced than just CO2, yet the implication that maybe some of those scientists might subscribe to the Pielke "it's land use" or some other variation, and would have ticked off "no" if the question had explicitly stated CO2 emissions, is absurd. This train of thought is a real stretch in trying to diminish the authority or reach of the Doran study. P.S. Your post has a serious "concern troll" scent to it. -
CBDunkerson at 04:49 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Eric the Red wrote: "That renewable energy has higher labor costs per unit of energy than coal or gas?" In the short term renewable energy creates more jobs than coal or gas. This seems self evident given the relative amounts of construction required. That doesn't necessarily translate to higher labor costs as not all workers are paid the same wage. For instance, dangerous coal mining probably pays better than digging post holes for solar panels. I don't think the article above provides enough information to determine overall labor costs. It is also noteworthy that renewable energy doesn't have many costs other than labor. That is, you don't have to pay for wind and sunshine like you do coal, oil, and gas. Ergo, comparing only construction costs or even just labor costs could be very misleading. -
Charlie A at 04:42 AM on 24 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Albatross -- as shown in the table 8.2 linked in your post #22, the Transient Climate Response for the various models averages about 1.8C, and for GISS-E is listed as 1.5C. Note that the TCR is higher than the short term transient sensitivity, as the TCR is defined as the model output with a 1% increase of GHG each year, averaged over the 20 year span centered on the point where the GHG have doubled. Since doubling at 1% rate takes 70 years, the 20 year averaging period is from year 60 to year 80. Now look again at my comment #9 that seems to have caused such great angst. All I said saying is that the short (1955-2010 is ONLY 55 years) period of the OHC over which Spencer calculated sensitivity means that his calculated 1.3C for doubling sensitivity is not surprising since it consistent with the various models used in AR4, including GISS E which has short term sensitivity of 1.2C/doubling at 5 years and 1.8C/doubling at 100 years. (or perhaps 1.1C at 5 and 1.6C/doubling at 100 years if 2.7C/doubling is used as equilibrium sensitivity rather than the 3.0 that I have more recently). Somehow, my saying "Spencer's 1.3C for doubling CO2 doesn't matter because it isn't all that different than GISS E sensitivity" gets treated as a heretical statement. Strange. -
Eric the Red at 04:17 AM on 24 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Am I reading this correctly? That renewable energy has higher labor costs per unit of energy than coal or gas?Response:[dana1981] Possibly, depending on the costs per job. But renewable energy is lower cost on other fronts (i.e. fuel and transportation)
-
Eric the Red at 04:06 AM on 24 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
I think it would help to communicate the realities of climate change if references to the Doran study were removed. According to the study 82% of participants thought that human activities (without specifying which) were a significant factor in changing global temperatures. CO2 was never mentioned. In fact among climatologists, the number was only 88% (not 97%), and nowhere did it saw they were convinced. Part of the difficulty among those of us who which to communicate climate change effectively is overcoming these types of errors which have been used against us as examples of "exaggerations." It is difficult to counter disinformation from our adversaries, but it is even more difficult when the perpretrators are our own.
Prev 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 Next
