Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 Next
Comments 85051 to 85100:
-
Albatross at 09:00 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
Dana, Camburn seems to wandering off topic again and arguing strawmen. OHC is not relevant/critical to this story as far as I can tell. But is he claims to be so interested might I suggest that he add von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) to his list of reading. Now back to the topic at hand please?Response:[dana1981] Agreed, as I suggested in #2, further discussion of OHC should go in 'oceans are cooling'.
-
chris at 08:51 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apiratelooksat50 at 07:36 AM on 23 May, 2011 "....The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory. However, the faculty at the state university of about 30,000 students generally leans toward support of natural causes of GW. " Seems a little perverse to me. Does the state uni have science departments? Can you tell us which State you're referring to? I'd be interested in looking at the publications of the relevant science faculty. There's really little question that 20th century and contemporary global warming is dominated by anthropogenic contributions. It's not a subject that there is much doubt about. The last century has seen a truly massive amount of excess energy in the climate system, and there simply isn't any sensible evidence for natural causes (which "natural causes"?). The enhanced energy must be the result of an external forcing, and there simply isn't another possible source for this. So if an entire uni faculty have come to some contrary collective decision on this, there's something a little skew-whiff! -
actually thoughtful at 08:50 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Apiratelooksat50 - what appears to be missing from your comments is your self-knowledge that as a personal denier of global warming, you are deeply biased in your presentations to your students. Thus your first attempt is "controversy" - when there is none. Even "polarizing" is not particularly correct. There are those who go where the science leads them (even if it is uncomfortable) and those who continue to find controversy and polarization where none exists. The problem, of course, is that your students suffer. Teach reality, not your own personal anti-science prejudices (as you have previously shared here on skepticalscience). -
Camburn at 08:40 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
Dana1981: The Schuckmann paper threw out some ARGO data, and if memory serves me, used a combination of xbt and ARGO. The xbt data is so prone to error that for specifics it is not very reliable. I have not read Purkey and Johnson, but will have to do so. Thank you.Response:[dana1981] regardless of what you think of XBT data, it is data. I accept your withdrawal of your previous comment.
-
Albatross at 08:40 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Camburn, Your comments do not appear to have anything to do with Dana's posts about reconstructions of TSI. If you want to talk about GCR's or clouds then please go to the appropriate threads. -
Albatross at 08:38 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Dana @11, Good points. But, is this thread not about TSI. IIRC, there is no firm relationship between TSI and GCRs. But please correct me if I am wrong about that. Riccardo @10, INdeed. What is more, they found evidence of a possible weak relationship over the mid-latitudes, that does not speak to or explain recentfrom increasing GHG concentrations. Response:[dana1981] Well, TSI and GCRs are reasonably well correlated, but you're right that it's off topic here. I think Camburn is trying to look for some other solar effect to blame recent warming on, but at least he's not trying to blame it on TSI.
-
Camburn at 08:36 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
No, I am not suggesting the GCR are a huge driver of climate. I was trying to show that TSI is not the only item that the sun provides or shields that affects climate. As far as low clouds, there is question as to whether they are a driver or feedback. This has to do with OHT etc. -
jonicol at 08:36 AM on 23 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
I was only attempting to change the approach here to one of more genuine debate on the science which Bob Carter is proposing, as a very experienced (thirty five years) paleo-geologist whose work has centred on past climate for millions of years worth of records, I believe he understands much more about climate than you give him credit for. As a "marine" geologist, he spends his time on marine expeditions which are internationally funded, drilling for both deep and shallow cores - in the ocean floor - with which to study past climates and other geological history. Your article stated that it was intended to examine "In this first installment, we will examine Carter's claims that there is no evidence that the observed global warming is man-made.. ". I was simply responding, I thought, to that comment in the article. Your phrase "Carter seems to attempt to jam as many climate myths into as few words as possible, interspersed with a lot of empty political rhetoric and the usual misunderstanding of climate economics..." suggests that you are criticising the person, not his statements and seems to me to move at least to the edge if not outside your own guidelines. I would like to hear your comments on the newest "climate scientist" to enter the debate, Ross Garnaut. John NicolResponse:[dana1981] Where exactly do you see Carter proposing "a more geniune debate"? If you read his article, it's hard to find any such proposal. What Carter does is repeat a whole bunch of long-debunked myths which have no scientific basis. That's an attack on the content of the article, not the man.
I have no doubt that Carter has done some good research in the field of marine geology. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass when he publishes error-riddled and politically-tinged (to put it lightly) climate-related articles like this one.
As for Garnaut, we comment on science, not on individuals. If you would like to ask a question about a particular statement Garnaut has made, we would be happy to answer it.
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:36 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apiratelooksat50, Can you find a "skeptical" site that you consider to demonstrate good science? Just one? One that demonstrates the science in a balanced way, with no games, no tricks, no misrepresentations, no blatant falsehoods? If you find one, let me know. If you can't... that sort of says something, doesn't it? -
Riccardo at 08:18 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
I tell my students to be strongly selective for their sources, expecially on the internet. -
Stephen Baines at 08:18 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Apirat @60 I'm actually interested in what specific part or section of skeptical science you think is not scientifically founded? As Dana points out, taking a position on an issue is not, in and of itself, a sign of being slanted in a scientific sense. Is there a post or a section that you think seems to not reflect a proper summary or evaluation of the evidence? -
dana1981 at 08:15 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
To be fair, I think Camburn is suggesting that low clouds are a huge driver of climate (which is untrue - they are a potentially significant feedback, but not a driver). I don't think he's suggesting that GCRs are a huge driver of climate. At least I hope not, since the scientific literature strongly indicates otherwise, and the paper he references likewise discusses "little ( 0.088 C/decade) systematic change in temperature at mid-latitudes has occurred over the last 50 years." -
dana1981 at 08:08 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apiratr #60 - with all due respect, again you seem to favor teaching the controversy to teaching the science. A "neutral" stance is not always a correct one. For example, if I were teaching a biology class, I would refer my students to websites which examine the science behind evolutionary theory, not websites with "neutral" stances which also present Creationist arguments. Same for flat Earthers, those who think the Earth is the center of the universe, or only 6,000 years old, etc. Some arguments are just wrong and have no place in a science class because they are not based on scientific evidence. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:47 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
ProfMandia @ 55, With all due respect, how about links to sites that are relatively neutral on their stance where merely the science is shown? I would never tell my students to only get their information from either SkepSci, or WUWT. I teach 3 classes of a fairly technical level Environmental Science class, 2 of College Prep Biology and 1 of Honors Chemistry. As you know, there are certain things that students of different abilities can do. With my Honors Chemistry class (regardless of the subject) I make sure I supply them with various sites for their research, and they invariably find others which are added to our list. They at least have the opportunity to see all sources of information. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:39 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Barnes @ 53 I can't tell you why there is a difference between my experiences and yours. I'm sure we are both being honest. I would like to see a formal poll on the matter. And, point taken on your last paragraph. We do exactly that. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:36 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
JD @ 52 You are spot on on your observation about emotions beginning to rule the closer it gets to humans. I have had the same experience time and time again. The statement, "I didn't come from a monkey!" is what I often hear. I respond by saying, "I never said you came from a monkey. But, you do share a common ancestor with a monkey." Your observations on how people arrive at their opinions on the AGW issue is also very interesting. That could go to great lengths explaining the divide between liberalism and conservatism and their stances on this issue (and others). I teach at a very large public high school in the American south. Our school district has 3 high schools, and our county has at least 10 high schools with which we regularly interact with other faculty members. And, of course we see many more during the summer in our continuing education courses. Interestingly, of the two universities I work with the most in getting CEUs or placing students, one has 18,000 students and is just up the road. The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory. However, the faculty at the state university of about 30,000 students generally leans toward support of natural causes of GW. There exist somewhere a survey conducted at all the state colleges on this subject and I will see if I can find it. Neither school is religious based or labeled liberal or conservative. I have an idea on the difference, but I am interested in hearing your opinion first. -
Riccardo at 07:36 AM on 23 May 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 it's typical of many to show up transmittance spectra and draw conclusions from them. I was just trying to show how one should look at this kind of spectra. It is essential for a proper understanding of radiation in the atmosphere. Never mind, those are pretty standard concepts. You will easily find them whenever you think it's appropiate. -
Riccardo at 07:26 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Camburn you didn't read the paper, did you? From the conclusions: "This work has demonstrated the presence of a small but statistically significant influence of GCRs on Earth’s atmosphere over mid-latitude regions." Where is the huge driver of climate? -
Marcus at 07:23 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
So come on Camburn, you've been asked to back your claim of having papers showing a cooling in OHC, yet you still haven't provided it. Until then, I don't think we can take any claims by you seriously. -
RW1 at 07:20 AM on 23 May 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Riccardo (RE: 233), Obviously you haven't followed the discussion in this thread. The definition of transmittance, in the context of this discussion, is the amount of surface emitted LW that passes straight through to space as if the atmosphere wasn't even there. The claim is this reduces by 7.4 W/m^2 when CO2 is doubled, because the referenced 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 supposedly already includes the effects of half up/half down. -
Camburn at 07:07 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
And then there is this recent research, which demonstrates an effect on low clouds, which is a HUGE driver of climate. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf -
Camburn at 07:03 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Dana1981: There is a lot more to the sun than TSI. We both know that....or at least I would hope that you know that. We have just ended the longest solar max in recent times. Since the ending of that solar max in approx 2003, the upper atmosphere has shrunk to the smallest size ever recorded. That is just one effect. http://www.space.com/8770-record-collapse-earth-upper-atmosphere-puzzles-scientists.html -
Riccardo at 07:00 AM on 23 May 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 any textbook will explain you this point. As for the contention, I did not quote any number, just explaining the meaning of transmittance with which apparently you're not familiar. -
Camburn at 06:43 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
dana1981: You are correct that the upper 700 meters has leveled off and a linear trend, even with the leveling off of temp, is correct. As far as 2,000 meters, the results have been models, not measurements to date. There are current measurements being taken, but the reliability of said data is so short that nothing of consequence can be derived from that data. Sorry paul@4: I don't get Fox news, as I can see no value in cable so don't subscribe. I read literature instead, is much more reliable and interesting.Response:[dana1981] Incorrect - von Schuckmann (2009) is based on ARGO data, and Purkey and Johnson (2010) use data from ship-based Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) instruments, for example. Please don't just make stuff up, Camburn. I lose patience with people who make false unsubstantiated claims very quickly.
-
KR at 06:27 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
John Donovan - Your class on "Weird Science" sounds fantastic - my compliments on presenting such a wonderful experience to your students. -
KR at 06:24 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
chris1204 Learning about how science progresses is really important, and I wish the history and philosophy of science I've studied was more available and known. That background can inform further thinking considerably, IMO. But - learning actual physics is not the place for the history of physics. And it's certainly not the place for presenting discredited or out of date hypotheses (like ether) on an equal footing with what we consider correct. -
Chris G at 06:05 AM on 23 May 2011Oceans are cooling
One might also consider there there is a relationship between ocean heat content and atmospheric heat content. In a nutshell, the ocean leads the atmosphere around by the nose. It has a lot to do with the fact that there is as much mass in the first 10 meters of the ocean as there is in all the air above it. Plus, there are increases in specific humidity to account for. So, it would be interesting to see a refutation of rising OHC that would be compatible with the observed rise in atmospheric heat content. -
paulgrace at 05:56 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
(Argh. The Faux-News-ification of knowledge) -
paulgrace at 05:53 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
@Camburn: Agree to disagree? This is a matter of data, not agreement, or theory. With a little house cleaning to toss away "some parts of some oceans are cooling sometimes" nonsense, papers on opposite sides of "the oceans are warming" question can be resolved, as a matter of fact. If the ocean is warming, and a citation says it is not, then the citation is flawed. Citing a flawed study does not change fact. -
dana1981 at 05:42 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
Papers can't change reality, Camburn. Although OHC in the upper 700 meters has leveled off over the past few years, the upward long-term trend is clear. Especially if you look at all the data, which the 'papers' to which you refer (probably Douglass and Knox) do not. Regardless, if you want to argue this subject, please take it to oceans are cooling. -
Camburn at 05:33 AM on 23 May 2011Humlum is at it again
Let's agree to disagree about OHC. You can cite papers showing it is rising, I can cite papers showing it is cooling. When looking at a lot of literature, the error bars overlap enough that about all that can be concluded is that the OHC is flat with a negative bias.Response:[DB] OK, what published, peer-reviewed papers do you have? Links to sources (not blogs) please, to be taken seriously.
-
ProfMandia at 05:15 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
#51 apiratelooksat50 at 04:02 AM on 23 May, 2011: This is a great example of how even very intelligent people can be so confused because they have failed to follow the literature. I highly suggest that your uninformed colleagues visit: http://americasclimatechoices.org/panelscience.shtml -
Alexandre at 05:13 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apiratelooksat50 at 04:02 AM on 23 May, 2011 It is a very compelling assertion. I assume your group is not just handwaving, but have actually specific objections to the AGW scientific basis. My suggestion: take a few of these objections and describe them on the relevant thread here at SkS. This way the interaction can be much more productive. -
Stephen Baines at 05:02 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apiratelooksat50 @ 51 (hmmm...just noticed the irony there) Re your poll... That's funny. I'm having a hard time thinking of a single colleague out of hundreds who doesn't think humans are the primary cause behind the recent warming. Almostall think there is a high likelihood of significant impacts from continued warming in the future. I have worked at a three tier one research universities in the US and have worked in Europe and Canada as well, and I go to meetings regularly, so it not like I'm out of touch. Not sure what's going on in the local high schools in my area, but it would be easy and interesting to find out. High school curricula often plays catch up in these fast breaking areas. I remember my first year in college finding out that a lot of what I learned in high school was off the mark according to more recent research. As for debating, there are legitimate reasons for them in class. I have done them myself. The lesson just can't end there. The discussion about the differences between arguing as an advocate in such a defined forum and conducting research and evaluating evidence as part of the scientific community should be made clear. -
Berényi Péter at 04:56 AM on 23 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
#123 Ken Lambert at 23:30 PM on 20 May, 2011 Are we being asked to believe that warmed surface water travels down through a 700m column of water of lower temperature without giving up heat to that column? For that to occur the warm surface water must be packaged in insulated bags which suddenly pop open when propelled below 700m. Something like that may indeed be going on, although the science is most probably very far from being settled. Anyway, several things seem to emerge. The deep mixing rate in the open ocean is at least an order of magnitude smaller than that necessary to support the meridional overturning circulation. Which is not a heat engine, it does not produce, but consumes mechanical energy. This mechanical energy (in the terawatt range) is supplied by deep tides and wind-generated internal waves, and is dissipated intermittently over small regions of complex bottom or boundary features causing vigorous vertical turbulent mixing there. If deep mixing of heat occurs in this manner, it can circumvent the upper 700 m over most of the oceans (without resorting to insulating bags to carry heat down). Most of the deep turbulent mixing (about 80%) happens over the southern ocean, the region which was poorly measured until quite recently. In any case, surface warming itself would not cause deep mixing, it would diminish it instead by making stratification more stable. There are other ill-understood forces at work here, with quite large time constants that control general circulation patterns which move vast amounts of heat around (this looks like the primary source of so called internal variability). There is a good review article online that summarizes it all. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 36: 281-314 (Volume publication date January 2004) DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122121 Vertical Mixing, Energy, and the General Circulation of the Oceans Carl Wunsch and Raffaele Ferrari "MODELS Numerical general circulation models are a powerful tool for understanding the ocean. However, in their present state they prove not as helpful in elucidating mixing and energetics as one might anticipate. Several sources of difficulty can be identified, including the arbitrary introduction of eddy-mixing coefficients with numerical values tuned to provide realistic simulations. These lack any link to the underlying sources of the implicit turbulence. That is, they imply a turbulent field, but one without an associated energy source; this omission is of particular concern in models without any wind forcing, including even simple box models [e.g., variants of Stommel (1961)]. Another source of difficulty is the near-ubiquity of the Boussinesq approximation (several versions in several numerical representations), which renders problematic even a gross energy budget for the system". Even if they say "Reasons of space preclude a serious discussion of the energetics and mixing in models", it is clear that GCMs (computational General Circulation Models) are lacking in a most embarrassing way. They are not able to resolve the small scale processes that keep the MOC (Meridional Overturning Circulation) alive while the underlying energetics is not modeled at all. That much about models working from first principles. Anyway, I would like to see trends in wind fields over the southern ocean and an analysis of the recent Supermoon's effect on internal tides. -
John Donovan at 04:40 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
apirate said: "Instead of "controversial", a better word choice would have been "polarizing"." Yes. Perhaps an even better word would be "emotional". I had a student once that mentioned to me that she didn't like what she was hearing in her human anthro (and my) class. After class she described how she could almost see how plants could evolve, and possibly even animals, but humans? No way. One thing I have observed with many students is that the closer the science gets to us (humans) the more emotional the response. The problem with most human beliefs is that if they were not originally arrived at through an evidence based process, there is often no way in which evidence can change someone's mind. The difference between moral intuition as opposed to moral reasoning is instructive in this regard. For example, we automatically "know" what is right and wrong using our evolved moral intuitions (which can be observed to some extent even in other primates) but we then later seek to justify those intuitions through subsequent moral (post hoc) reasoning, often without any understanding the evolutionary reasons for the original intuition. I see a lot of this type of behavior in climate science discussions which is I think why the nonexpert positions often seem to divide on ideological (intuitive) grounds, but are then argued on "science" grounds (the post hoc reasoning point discussed above). The problem again of course is that if the decision was originally arrived at on the basis of an emotional/ideological intuition (it's bad for the economy, too many regulations, loss of national autonomy, etc.) there is little that science can do to change ones mind. The public controversy (or polarization if you will) of evolutionary science is indeed another excellent example of this behavior since I suspect most people who do not accept evolutionary science do so for what are ultimately moral reasons (if we are decended from animals then we'll act like animals, if the bible is not literally true then we can't trust any of it,, etc.), but argue instead about the "science" (where are the transitional fossils, radioisotope dating isn't reliable, etc.) I just saw your comment on your faculty polling. The humanities are often more politically progressive than the sciences so for non experts in climate science, that alone might explain your observation there, but I hope you realize that textbooks are always playing catch up to the science, not the other way around! Would you tell us what school you teach at? -
Camburn at 04:13 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
It is very obvious from the literature that TSI and past temps do not correspond well. To use temperature as a metric to put the results of this paper in question has very little validity.Response:[dana1981] Yes because we know the sun has no impact on global temperatures...
-
apiratelooksat50 at 04:02 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Our science faculty of 10 (2 PhD's, 1 PhD pending, and 6 more teachers holding a combined 9 Master of Science degrees) is a very intelligent and experienced group. All of the teachers (including me) believe that humans do have an effect on the environment, and that the climate is warming. However, only one (Honors Chemistry and Honors Physics)believes that the influence humans have on climate change could be called significant. None of us believe that any human induced or human influenced climate change presents any case for alarm or legislated action to prevent or mitigate possible changes. In my interactions with other science instructors at the Middle School, High School, College, and Post-Graduate levels, what I stated in the above two paragraphs generally holds true. Interestingly more of the faculties outside the field of science support a pro-AGW theory than the science faculties. Even our textbooks (2009 editions) are not fully committed to supporting the AGW theory. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:48 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
On the debate: The debates are not held to determine a winner of pro or anti AGW. They are held to allow the students to collaborate and encourage the participation of students who might not be at their best at test taking or writing. The debate requires them to process presented knowledge, or their own research, organize their findings, and communicate well with peers. We teach the students more than just science and the ability to work together in a group, take on multiple roles, and participate in public speaking is important to their success after high school. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:43 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Instead of "controversial", a better word choice would have been "polarizing". We are instructed by our local school districts to make sure we present evolution as a "theory" even though it is required curriculum. Of course, all of the science teachers believe in the theory, as do the vast majority of the rest of the faculty and most of the students. I personally support the theory of evolution because of the multiple lines of evidence (homologous organs, the fossil record, genetics, etc...) that make predictions, such as common ancestors, that can be supported. A rather vocal creationist in the area was published in the local paper as stating that you couldn't expect anyone to believe that all of a sudden a living organism turned into cats and dogs. I replied that the organism (Tomarctus) actually existed and the process of evolution from Tomarctus to canines and felines took millions of years. What was once proposed by the fossil record is now supported and strengthened by the genetic evidence. -
John Donovan at 03:27 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
For my first post on this site I wanted to congratulate John Cook (and the many excellent contributors) for what is arguably the best moderated and most informative climate science site on the web and also to specifically comment on the issues of teaching science to students as described by Mandia. I myself am an analytical chemist but I deal with these issues of publicly controversial science topics in my "Weird Science" freshman seminars at the University of Oregon that I offer every fall. In my own case, I spend the first six weeks of the quarter going over the scientific method (and history thereof) in as entertaining a manner as possible using a variety of stimulating activities such as optical and cognitive illusions, magic tricks, and student designed experiments (for example, how could we test the ability to detect if we are capable of knowing when someone is staring at us from behind). Then the students pick a topic from a long (but not exhaustive or exclusive) list of possible "weird science" topics for example, "big foot", ESP, ghosts, etc. and give an oral presentation of the subject by taking one side or the other (in which I usually find a way to get pairs of students to argue pro and con against their own intuitions by swapping the sides they wanted to argue). This is followed by a final paper summarizing the evidence on both sides and stating their conclusions. The motivation for this class of almost completely non-science majors is I think similar to Mandia's goal: to teach students how to think critically and scientifically. Something that I suspect most here will agree is a highly unnatural state of mind and one that must be painfully inculcated within each new generation of students (e.g, how to look for evidence that falsifies ones hypothesis as opposed to the general human practice of only accepting data that confirms their heartfelt but naive intuitions). For science majors this is traditionally performed through a sort of osmosis, with the senior undergraduate or grad students learning at the elbow of a practicing scientist. But for non-science majors the opportunity for understanding this type of knowledge process is almost nonexistent even at the college level (not that excellent scholarship isn't abundant in other areas of the university, but some of the humanities have an uneven track record in a few respects on this score). Of course there's a lot more to say on this subject but I will just close by proposing that Mandia's class is another wonderful example of how teach this type of critical analysis for both science and non science students in an academic environment. That is, by giving the students something to think about that they actually care about. -
Charlie A at 03:00 AM on 23 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Missing links for above comment: Hansen forcings link from the article More detailed set, with net forcings equal to the above link The linked dataset of forcing is the one referenced in Hansen 2007 paper, Climate Simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE, Clim. Dynam, 29, 661-696. Rather than just looking at graphs, I would like to do a more precise analysis of the change in forcings between Hansen's 2007 paper and the recent draft paper "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications". The caption Fig 1 of that paper reads "Forcings through 2003 are the same as used by Hansen el al. (2007b), except the aerosol forcing after 1990 is approximated as -0.5 times the GHG forcing. Aersol forcing includes all aerosol effects, including indirect effects on clouds and snow albedo." -
Charlie A at 02:49 AM on 23 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
What is the source for "Hansen's forcing data" in Figure 1? The link you give in two places above is the GISS-E forcing data 1880-2003 -- the set that zeros out the rate of change in black carbon and aerosols as of 1990, as can be seen in the file that includes details. Figure 1, however, shows forcing up through 2010. Is this the set from the draft Hansen et al 2011, that assumes net aerosol forcing for all years after 1990 will simply be -0.5 times the well mixed GHG forcing? Do you have a link for the forcing set used in the the graph? Thanks in advance -
RW1 at 02:30 AM on 23 May 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Riccardo (RE: 231), "RW1 modtrans does take into account emission; infact, you can see light coming from the saturated bands. On the contrary, transmittance measurements or calculations don't." OK, show me where or how it does this. Is it your contention that the reduction in transmittance from 2xCO2 is 7.4 W/m^2? -
Riccardo at 02:01 AM on 23 May 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 modtrans does take into account emission; infact, you can see light coming from the saturated bands. On the contrary, transmittance measurements or calculations don't. -
WheelsOC at 01:42 AM on 23 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
I agree with Bickmore, lack of self-criticism seems to be a huge issue here. It was present just as strongly when Spencer concluded in his book that, "[e]ither I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it." Being wrong never seemed to occur to him then, and it doesn't seem seriously considered now when he's still playing around with models in a seemingly blind, groping way. He should perhaps take his own advice from this tract on climate models: This is why validating the predictions of any theory is so important to the progress of science. The best test of a theory is to see whether the predictions of that theory end up being correct. In fitting his model to 20th/21st century data about OHC, he also seems to run aground on his own criticism of modelling again: The modelers will claim that their models can explain the major changes in global average temperatures over the 20th Century. While there is some truth to that, it is (1) not likely that theirs is a unique explanation, and (2) this is not an actual prediction since the answer (the actual temperature measurements) were known beforehand. If instead the modelers were NOT allowed to see the temperature changes over the 20th Century, and then were asked to produce a ‘hindcast’ of global temperatures, then this would have been a valid prediction. But instead, years of considerable trial-and-error work has gone into getting the climate models to reproduce the 20th Century temperature history, which was already known to the modelers. Some of us would call this just as much an exercise in statistical ‘curve-fitting’ as it is ‘climate model improvement’. Unless I have that wrong, he seems to be guilty of exactly the sins he's seen in others. Why is it alright for him to adjust his model to try and match observed OHC variation, but not for climate modellers to do the same with global temperatures? Shouldn't he be working blind, from 'first principles,' and wait in real-time for his model results to match future OHC measurements before declaring his 'predictions' accurate? It seems to me that his earlier critique of modelling in general would refute his own exercises if taken seriously. -
dana1981 at 01:17 AM on 23 May 2011Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
Ken, your question doesn't really make sense. The Earth will be in equilibrium if the net forcing is zero. Thus the TSI value to keep it in equilibrium depends on all other forcings. -
Tom Dayton at 01:11 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
chris1204, how can you possibly be unconvinced by the importance of multiple converging lines of evidence in scientific decision making, if you really are as knowledgeable about science as you claim? -
grypo at 00:54 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Well, any digging into the issues Ken L outlined (besides the thermodynamic one, huh?), would entail much more then just mentioning those areas as "uncertain". As Prof Mandia pointed out, just mentioning that there is a "debate" over scientific subjects will only sow confusion without expert analysis. I don't believe the assignment is set up to do such a thing. -
Albatross at 00:53 AM on 23 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Chris1204, A very eloquent articulation of your thoughts. With that said, please read Dr. Spencer Weart's excellent book titled The discovery of global warming"-- a fascinating read and demonstrates that many of the arguments being put forth today are merely recycled from those made in the early 20th century and before that even. The roots of the theory of AGW go way back.
Prev 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 Next
