Recent Comments

Prev  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  Next

Comments 85451 to 85500:

85451. Bud at 02:34 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       In science, a consensus or testimony by one of more authorities does not validate an hypothesis. However, experiments, data or analysis of data by another person, scientist or not, climate scientist or not, can be sufficient to falsify an hypothesis. For example: Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods (i.e. a misuse in principal component analysis) in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The Wegman Report to Chairman of the U.S. Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the [Mann et al.98/99] analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the [Mann et al 98/99] analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of [Mann et al 98/99] suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” Statisticians Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University invalidated the claims of so-called "climate scientists" Mann et al by using the tools of their science. As this audience is probably aware, the climate studies in question, by Dr. Michael Mann, et al, formed the basis for the IPCC conclusions (1) that the increase in 20th century Northern Hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. I am not trying to rehash the Mann arguments here. My point is that it is incorrect to say or assume that a non-climate scientist cannot falsify he claims of a climate scientist. (1) The IPCC report Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report consists of four sub-reports: 1) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 2) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities, 3) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, and 4) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.
       Response:

       [DB] You have been pointed to various threads here that are more appropriate threads to discuss the topics you bring up.  Please do so.

       As others will no doubt be happy to point out, Wegman's report has been thoroughly discredited.

       Future off-topic comments on this thread will be subject to deletion.

85452. Albatross at 02:32 AM on 17 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       CW, I am not going to argue with you about your misguided "perspective". You seem reticent to concede error, a common trait amongst "skeptics". So it is pointless trying to inform you. To CW and Arkadiusz: You seem intent on missing the point of Rob's post. Instead, happy to argue and nit pick at Rob's piece. Can I assume then that you support Solomon misinforming, misrepresenting the work of scientists and using the science as a political tool? Because that is what he is doing. As Stephan Leahy noted, Solomon is essentially a professional misinformer. Please let readers know where you stand on Solomon's propaganda. Thanks.
85453. Stephen Baines at 02:23 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Albatross is right. There are other threads and posts just a click away that deal directly with Bud's comments. He probably knows that and is only trying to distract from the topic at hand. John...spectacular work! At least member of Parlaiment can't say in honesty they weren't properly informed about the science, and the dis-science. The burden lies on them now to act according to their conscience and wisdom...
85454. John Hartz at 02:18 AM on 17 May 2011
       National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
       A brief discussion of how “Many factors complicate and impede public understanding of climate change” on page 35 of the NRC report includes: "Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well-supported by scientific evidence. U.S. media coverage sometimes presents aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial among the research community as being matters of serious scientific debate. Such factors likely play a role in the increasing polarization of public beliefs about climate change, along lines of political ideology, that has been observed in the United States." Although this statement is specific to the USA, I suspect that the same situation exists in many other countries of the world.
85455. Albatross at 02:06 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       The misguided and oft refuted statement being made by Bud @23 are passé. Really, the "skeptics" and deniers of AGW (like Bud) just keep recycling the same old trash. Not sure what the quoted text @23 even has to do with this thread. Anyways, this myth has been dealt with here and here, and here. Now a true skeptic would seek out the information in the links above, instead of finding something that supports their preconceived and uninformed ideas. Please take further discussion of this point to one of the above linked threads.
85456. Philippe Chantreau at 02:01 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Bud, does it say in the Mudelsee paper that, because CO2 acted as feedback in the past, it can't act as a forcing ever? Following links on the page where your reference took me, I found this Feedback between deglaciation, volcanism, and atmospheric CO2 Peter Huybers and Charles Langmuir. Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 286, Issues 3-4, 15 September 2009, Pages 479-491 Abstract: "An evaluation of the historical record of volcanic eruptions shows that subaerial volcanism increases globally by two to six times above background levels between 12 ka and 7 ka, during the last deglaciation. Increased volcanism occurs in deglaciating regions. Causal mechanisms could include an increase in magma production owing to the mantle decompression caused by ablation of glaciers and ice caps or a more general pacing of when eruptions occur by the glacial variability. A corollary is that ocean ridge volcanic production should decrease with the rising sea level during deglaciation, with the greatest effect at slow spreading ridges. CO2 output from the increased subaerial volcanism appears large enough to influence glacial/interglacial CO2 variations. We estimate subaerial emissions during deglaciation to be between 1000 and 5000 Gt of CO2 above the long term average background flux, assuming that emissions are proportional to the frequency of eruptions. After accounting for equilibration with the ocean, this additional CO2 flux is consistent in timing and magnitude with ice core observations of a 40 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the second half of the last deglaciation. Estimated decreases in CO2 output from ocean ridge volcanoes compensate for only 20% of the increased subaerial flux. If such a large volcanic output of CO2 occurs, then volcanism forges a positive feedback between glacial variability and atmospheric CO2 concentrations: deglaciation increases volcanic eruptions, raises atmospheric CO2, and causes more deglaciation. Such a positive feedback may contribute to the rapid passage from glacial to interglacial periods. Conversely, waning volcanic activity during an interglacial could lead to a reduction in CO2 and the onset of an ice age. Whereas glacial/interglacial variations in CO2 are generally attributed to oceanic mechanisms, it is suggested that the vast carbon reservoirs associated with the solid Earth may also play an important role."
85457. KR at 02:00 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Bud - "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." You should look at (i.e., please read) the CO2 lags temperature thread, where this is debunked. In the past, CO2 acted as a feedback, amplifying other changes such as Milankovitch cycles. We've artificially raised CO2, so now it's acting as a forcing. Natural fires in the past don't rule out arson in the present.
85458. Stephen Baines at 01:57 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       "Consensus is not a scientific process." No, it is the result of the scientific process. The fact that consensus has arisen from a notable lack of consensus in the not so distant past is a remarkable testament to the robustness of the evidence for the position that climate is changing and that humans are responsible. "But the gravy train was too big" It never ceases to amaze me that this argument gets any traction. Individual scientists could easily make quite a bit more money as hired guns, consultants for private interests or through grants from corporations than they do working for universities and competing for grant money. Plus, you wouldn't have to deal with those pesky reviewers. If greed were truly the motivating force here, how would such a consensus have been reached? In any case, you don't get grant money from anyone by claiming that a problem is basically settled and that you want to study it some more. Try running a business as a mechanic by fixing a car and then asking for more money to fix it again. In the end, it is the anti-AGW crowd that are keeping climate scientists working on this problem at all -for the most part they have moved on to more interesting and useful things.
85459. Stephen Leahy at 01:57 AM on 17 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       #20 ENSO is complicated and difficult to ascertain impacts of CC over short period of time. Here's what some experts said in my recent article published for a Latin American news service: “It would be surprising if there wasn’t an effect,” Trenberth said..... latest research seems to show “that we may even see new ‘flavours’ of ENSO emerge as we move into the future, Climate Change Could Be Worsening Effects of El Niño, La Niña
85460. JMurphy at 01:56 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Bud wrote : "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." Oh, is that the same as this : The evidence of forest fires prior to human influence contradicts humans as a cause of forest fires.
85461. Bob Lacatena at 01:52 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       23, Bud,

       The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change.

       This is like saying that studies of patients with advanced colon cancer prove that old age is not a factor in death. Of course, you could actually intelligently look at and understand the distinctions. That would lead to a different conclusion. Suggestion: Go do some studying first, and then reach conclusions after you have acquired and understand all of the information.
85462. JMurphy at 01:47 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Bud, what makes you believe and trust those not involved in Climate Science, when getting your information about Climate Science ? Is it all to do with your belief in a conspiracy and "gravy-train" ? If so, what evidence do you have ? Also, you still haven't given your backing to the 100 scientists against Evolution. Why not ? Don't you agree with them that "Consensus is not a scientific process" ? Or would you prefer to avoid being questioned, and continue copying-and-pasting your tenuous appeals to authority ?
85463. Philippe Chantreau at 01:45 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       So Bud disputes the idea of a "testimony" by offering somebody's opinion. I'm sure it makes sense, in some obscure way. You have it wrong on consensus, Bud. The consensus does not precede the science, it follows from it. It is the result of all these scientists doing their work and reaching similar conclusions through different avenues. It is a consensus of research results, not of opinion. Although it is a grotesque and stupid accusation, although it is nothing else than appeal to conspiracy, I find it funny that you would argue that they need to keep the gravy train rolling. Let's be logical in the paranoid delirium here: If that was truly the case, then those evil scientists who are in it for the money would cultivate doubt, promote a lack of knowledge and argue that they don't really know the stuff they know, so as to continue studying it ad-infinitum. That's pretty much the opposite of what all the so-called skeptics say is the problem: claiming certainty where there supposedly isn't any. I don't know which skeptic to believe any more. I guess I'm just not going to believe any then.
85464. Berényi Péter at 01:38 AM on 17 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       #140 michael sweet at 00:40 AM on 16 May, 2011 Where did you come up with the idea that Hansens' paper is a review paper? He does not have any original research supporting the idea of dismissing satellite net TOA radiation balance measurements altogether, not even looking at changes in the rate of heat accumulation. At least in that respect it is a review paper, or not even that, because he does not have any reference supporting the low precision of satellite data in addition to their well known low accuracy. If satellite data are disregarded, there is of course no any "missing heat". Heat can only be "missing" relative to something, in itself heat is just heat without any further qualification. He pretends the "missing heat" problem is a supposed discrepancy between computational climate model projections and OHC measurements, that is, between theory and measurement. It is not. The thing is we have two independent measurements of the same quantity, rate of change for radiative imbalance, and they are inconsistent with each other. We can't even begin to compare theory to measurement until the measurement problem itself is settled.
85465. Bud at 01:36 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change. Plenty of examples in peer reviewed literature, here's one. "The phase relations (leads/lags) among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume are key to understanding the causes of glacial}interglacial (G}IG) climate transitions. Comparing the CO2 record with other proxy variables from the Vostok ice core and stacked marine oxygen isotope records, allows the phase relations among these variables, over the last four G}IG cycles, to be estimated. Lagged, generalized least-squares regression provides an e$cient and precise technique for this estimation. Bootstrap resampling allows account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3 +/-1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7 +/- 1.3 ka." "The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka." Manfred Mudelsee Institute of Meteorology, University of Leipzig, Stephanstr. 3, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583-589
85466. Stephen Baines at 01:34 AM on 17 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       KR @ 177 I agree whole-heartedly. I guess I was pointing out that the consensus on climate change is proof positive that what you say is true. Given the potential for personal material gain for naysayers, we would see a much more even distribution of opinion if scientists didn't care as much about the truth and "being caught out."
85467. CBDunkerson at 01:31 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Bud, the David Evans claim that CO2 driven warming was disproved in the 1990s is based on the supposed necessity of a tropospheric hot spot (which really isn't indicative of CO2 warming at all) and its absence in decades old weather balloon data (which have been proven to be inaccurate). See: There's no tropospheric hot spot Note also that he's a mathematician, not a climate scientist. As to Happer's claim that there is little support for positive feedback effects... pure fiction. The positive feedback from water vapor has been conclusively demonstrated for a long time now. See: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
85468. Bud at 01:20 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       “How are important climatic systems (e.g. the role of clouds, water vapor, etc.) simulated in computer models that are used to predict climate change.” Answer. "Most models predict that water vapor and clouds will greatly amplify the warming due to CO2 alone. There is little observational support for these predictions. Furthermore, the models do not explain relative large climate changes in past when there was negligible combustion of fossil fuels." Statement of William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives May 20, 2010
       Response:

       [dana1981] Once again, Happer is not a climate scientist, and it shows, since his comments are entirely false.  Also, listing a handful of "skeptic scientists" does not disprove the consensus among 97% of climate scientists

85469. Bud at 01:10 AM on 17 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Amazing that you could find a group of people to produce such meaningless statistics. Consensus is not a scientific process. In using claimed authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact. 97% of practicing climate scientists is a meaningless, worthless statistic...whether or not it could be proved true. Most of these climate scientists are dependent on continuing money from governments for the pay checks to study global warming, so most of them are heavily biased to keep the gravy train rolling. However, there are many Auzzie scientists who dispute the fallacy of AGW. Here's just one recent example: “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.” David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
       Response:

       [dana1981] David Evans is a computer programmer who doesn't understand even the most basic climate science

85470. Ken Lambert at 00:12 AM on 17 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Chris #97 You are not arguing on the numbers Chris. "There is some good evidence that the mass component of sea level rise has increased somewhat in proportion to the thermal component during part of this period. But all analyses of the latter indicate that thermal component of sea level rise has continued to be positive." It would need to be positive because if not there is no steric expansion at all and no temperature rise in the oceans. You know that mass increase from land ice melt absorbs only about 4E20 Joules/year which is equal to 0.025W/sq.m globally compared with 0.9W/sq.m prior imbalance. "And why didn’t K/D cite Willis’s data in Lyman 2010? The VS result wouldn’t have been an outlier anymore" Why indeed? All the Argo analyses show flattening from 2003 onward, and VS happens at 0.54W/sq.m globally to be the highest of these. Has Willis rejected the K&D treatment of his data for 0-700m obtained in reference (6) in that paper? It seems like Willis is rather generous with his data in handing it to K&D and perhaps Dr Pielke to see what you claim is - 'misuse'. "dismal, butchered, atrocious scholarship" - not exactly arguing the numbers Chris. I am not carrying a torch for K&D or anybody else. I am quoting analyses which you are free to criticize on the numbers - not emotive catcalling.
85471. DSL at 00:08 AM on 17 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       E Sat, I'm assuming you're not a bot. We studied the oscillations, the wobble, the sun, the whole nine yards. Science did that. Now we understand a great deal more than we did, and it didn't take that long to understand these environmental features. When we discovered ENSO, there were no cries of doom and gloom, nor were there when the wobble was discovered. Why? Because the science said these things were not likely to be catastrophic. We've been working on the CO2 problem for about 130 years, since Arrhenius. The alarm has only grown in the last 30 years, since we've begun to observe and measure accurately the changes required by the physics. That's right: the changes are required by the physics, or else we need to toss aside everything we know about physics. The funny thing is, though, that climate science is, in one aspect, a social science. It does not serve the market. If there were no governments, there would be no climate science, because no one would want to spend money on making long-range climate forecasts. Even if a business collective formed an institute to study the climate, it's unlikely such an entity would have much of a social effect. The collective would simply treat the information as private and use it to make market decisions. I'm sure a few backyard scientists would figure things out, but to what effect? I can't, then, think that there's "too much science" out there. Climate science serves me, with no other agenda. Contrary to rumor, climate scientists are not swimming in coin--unless they go private. There's not much benefit to them if they predict a warmer future. As I've said elsewhere, when governments begin to spend serious money on mitigation and damage control, other government services will suffer, including public higher education. It's entirely possible that within 20 years, a number of university climate science positions will be cut as an indirect effect of the changing climate. How can you tell an honest scientist from the deceivers? Study. Spend some time with Spencer Weart, this website, and the studies linked from this site. Even if you don't have the time to do the math, you can get at least a glimpse of the answer to your question by comparing the rhetoric here to that of a leading "denialist" site like Watt's Up With That. You won't see a lot of evidence-free cheering and jeering here, and you won't see a comprehensive alternative theory there. What you should look for is a consistent, comprehensive theory that tries to explain all the observational data and incorporates everything we know about the physical universe. There is only one such theory where the climate is concerned (unless you're hiding one in your back pocket). Finally, it would be arrogant of us to assume that the economy of billions of people over 200 years would have no effect on the environment. I think you know it has and it does. But why single out this particular effect for falsehood?
85472. JMurphy at 00:03 AM on 17 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Here's another quote that Ken Lambert can cheer and agree with : "If you want to tell (students) there are not weaknesses to evolution and it's as sure as the Earth going around the sun, it's not," he said. "You've got to be honest. You ask why I'm so passionate about this? I don't want America to lose its scientific soul. I feel I am the defender of science." It's a dentist giving his views on Evolution but it has the same relationship and worth as a Theoretical Physicist giving his views on AGW, as Dyson himself might admit : I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.
85473. Tom Curtis at 23:55 PM on 16 May 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       michaelkourlas @6: First, as Dr Humlum knows very well, the temperature record of any single site makes a very poor proxy for global temperature. Any such site will always show far more variability than a true global temperature because other locations across the globe will not warm or cool synchronously with the first location. This is easily seen in the following graph of several proxies for temperatures at individual locations during the holocene: As you can see, the individual temperature proxies are all over the place, and the GISP2 record (light blue), which shows four of the five highest peaks, is probably the most variable amongst them. Of course, as you can also see, if you take an average of the individual records there is very little remaining variability, compared to that of GISP2 alone. Indeed, taking a multiple proxy mean shows global temperature variability to be confined to a 1 degree C range, not the 2 degree C range Dr Humlum would have you believe. The multi-proxy mean is not the best reconstruction. This is so because it treats individual site specific reconstructions as of the same value as multi-proxy regional reconstructions; and also because of the eight reconstructions used in this case, only two are from the tropics (33% of the Earth's surface), only two from the Southern Hemisphere extra-tropics, in both cases from Antarctica, and the other four are from the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics. Without this Northern Hemisphere bias, it is likely the reconstruction would show even less variability. As can be seen from the diagram below, Dr Humlum chose to compound the misleading choice of a very variable single site proxy by using global mean temperatures (which because they are a global average have low variability relative to single sites) to represent the modern era. In this way the false impression is created that modern global temperature temperature change is much less than past episodes, whereas modern global temperature are at levels rarely if ever exceeded in the Holocene. Second, the range of CO2 levels over the Holocene as shown by the Epica core is just 20 ppm. A increase of CO2 from 260 to 280 ppm will result in an increased forcing of just , and a temperature increase of just 0.4 Watts/m^2, and a temperature increase of just 0.32 degrees C. That is significant enough, and may well be why the Holocene has not slid into another glacial, unlike the previous inter-glacials. But it is certainly not enough to swamp the many forms of natural forcing, being of a similar magnitude to changes in solar forcings over the last two thousand years, and smaller than changes to volcanic forcings. So, to summarize, variation in Holocene temperature is much smaller than Dr Humlum purports it to be, and CO2 variation is sufficiently small for non-CO2 forcings to be the primary drivers of temperature in the Holocene. Dr Humlum knows this. I wonder why he does not mention it?
85474. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:52 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       This is what he writes Michael Hauber be supplemented by the recent paper: Influence of El Nino and ITCZ on Brazilian River Streamflows, Lopes & Dracup, 2010.: “At the Amazon river basin, almost all dry years occurred when NINO3.4 was above average (El Nino years). Moreover, in almost every year when NINO3.4 was below average (La Nina) the streamflows were above average. Thus, it seems that La Nina have strong effects in floods in Amazon river. Moreover, El Nino events seem to be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for low streamflows at Amazon river.” Add to ENSO North Tropical Atlantic SST indexes (NTA). During El Nino in the atmosphere also are adding even more than 5 ppmv CO 2 (average of many years - since 1980 - 2-2.5 ppmv). Is CO2 affects the formation of drought in the Amazon? First you have to prove the impact of CO2 on ENSO and the NTA ... I hope that proves to the next post on this topic. I recommend to analyze the sentence: „...on the ITCZ moving north from the Little Ice Age to the Modern Warm Period, correlated to solar-modulated cosmic ray variation ...”
85475. CBDunkerson at 23:44 PM on 16 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Ken, perhaps some quotations which actually states his position on the issue, rather than a side concern: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." "I begin this review with a prologue, describing the measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science." Your claim that Dyson does not agree with AGW theory is false. Your quotation of his concerns about climate models does not change that.
85476. chris at 23:42 PM on 16 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       "The imbalance number would be 0.63 +/-0.13 W/sq.m over the Solar cycle based on Hansen's paper which is a third less than the 0.9W/sq.m used by Hansen, Trenberth et al. to date." No, according to the Hansen 2011 paper that you are addressing, the solar cycle-averaged imbalance is around 0.75 W/m2. The estimated current energy imbalance (2005-2010) is 0.59 W/m2 (+/- 20%ish) and averaging in the solar-cycle-averaged solar contribution this increases to 0.72-ish W/m2 (+/- a bit). I was actually using Hansen's statement on page 43 ("We estimate the energy imbalance averaged over a solar cycle as ~ 0.75 W/m2.")
85477. Riccardo at 23:35 PM on 16 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       We humans might be said to be arrogant because we've tried to fly, or because we think we've found the origin of the universe, or how life evolved on our earth, or almost anything we understood with the tools of science. If working hard to find answers to our questions means being arrongant, then yes, we are a very special kind arrogant animals.
85478. Ken Lambert at 23:33 PM on 16 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Albatross #96 Perhaps a quote from Dyson might clarify his position: "When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models." Hear hear!
85479. ClimateWatcher at 23:16 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       "The antisymmetric solar forcing due to annual variation of the solar declination angle can convert a stable latitudinal symmetric climate into a bistable-state latitudinal asymmetric climate by changing trade winds, which in turn control annual variations of the ECT. The ECT then interacts with ITCZ, providing a self-maintenance mechanism for ITCZ to linger in one hemisphere, either the northern or southern, depending on initial conditions. The establishment of the bistable-state asymmetry requires a delicate balance between counter effects of the antisymmetric solar forcing and self-maintenance." They're arguing that ocean temperatures drive convection and convection drives the ITCZ which controls ocean temperature. My perspective is this: Dynamics seem to account for this pretty well when you consider the orientation of the Andes. They run sharply and close to uniformly from south to north. This channels Antarctic air masses nearly due north, all the way past the equator, In the Northern Hemisphere, Eastern Pacific, however, Arctic air masses tend to encounter the North American continent. From Baja California to Panama, the Pacific is sheltered from Arctic air masses, allowing the channeled Antarctic air masses to penetrate into the Northern Hemisphere, even in the Northern winter. This is driven by asymmetric insolation because the cooling of the winter hemisphere creates denser air masses which push harder into the summer hemisphere.
85480. ClimateWatcher at 23:11 PM on 16 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       111. I suspect it's more fun to post on a new topic. People probably don't really want to understand but rather have fresh opportunities to make snarky comments. Just you and me left here. What you got?
85481. chris at 22:36 PM on 16 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Ken Lambert at 23:41 PM on 15 May, 2011 “Recently there was heavy action on this blog re: the Knox & Douglass paper which called the VS result an 'outlier' here: Jeesh KL, that’s pretty desperate – can’t you summon up just a teeny bit of skepticism? The only reason Knox and Douglass (K/D) found the “VS result an “outlier”, is that they compared it with (a) a truly dismal “analysis” by Loehle in a non-science magazine that used Willis ARGO data that was known to be compromised by artefacts, and (b) an opinion piece by Pielke in a house magazine that used what looks like a very similar data set. And why didn’t K/D cite Willis’s data in Lyman 2010? The VS result wouldn’t have been an outlier anymore. If K/D had sent their paper to a proper journal it would have been soundly rejected for that nonsense. However Int. J. Geophysics isn’t really a proper journal (there is some discussion about whether “Scientific Research” publishing is a scam or merely a truly low grade vanity publishing enterprise). K/D’s paper was received, “peer-reviewed”, revised and accepted in the space of around 10 days. Doesn’t that tickle your sceptical buds just a little? Unfortunately, Emeritus Profs Knox and Douglass get it repeatedly wrong (not surprisingly since they researched respectively in physics aspects of photosynthesis and superconduction until their normal retirement age before embarking on late second careers in climate change). Knox and Douglass have previously butchered an analysis of climate forcing effects of Mt. Pinatubo eruption, an analysis of geothermal contributions to Iceland surface temperatures, and an analysis of comparison of model and empirical tropical tropospheric temperature data (AGU site down this evening so can’t link to the respective messes). Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be very good at climate science. Or maybe that's the point. Apart from that, there is a problem with your unskeptical embracing of Douglas and Knox. During the last decade (2000 through 2010), the sea level rise has continued relentlessly (with some wiggles) at a rate of 3.1 mm.yr-1. This has happened during a period of slightly downward drifting solar output since the mid-late 1980’s, the transition of the sun from the maximum to minimum in the solar cycle, and an anomalously protracted solar minimum. There is some good evidence that the mass component of sea level rise has increased somewhat in proportion to the thermal component during part of this period. But all analyses of the latter indicate that thermal component of sea level rise has continued to be positive. Why hasn't Willis published on very recent ARGO 700 m data? I expect because he recognises that there are still some problems and there's not much point in publishing on the ARGO data per se until these are better resolved. As Willis has stated recently (Willis et al 2009): "Nevertheless, some discrepancy remains in the globally averaged sea level budget, and observations of the rate of ocean mass increase and upper-ocean warming are still too small to fully account for recent rates of sea level rise (Willis et al. 2008). Temperature changes in the deep ocean (e.g., Johnson et al. 2007) may account for some of that discrepancy, at least over multidecadal time scales (Domingues et al. 2008)." So there are some significant uncertainties in these data. We know surface temperatures and sea levels are continuing to rise despite the solar downturn. At some point the uncertainties will likely resolve. I'm comfortable with waiting til we know what's going on a bit better. You prefer to place your bets on the some atrocious scholarship that supports a non-scientific approach to uncertainty. I hope that's fair. Not sure there's much point in continuing debating this since (a) we're really reliant on the science to inform us, and we can't easily be properly informed if the discrete elements of science dn't yet exist to answer the specific question...and (b) you seem to have fixed on a point of view that has some raher non-scientific inputs. So we're simply not going to agree ...yes?
85482. JMurphy at 22:05 PM on 16 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       E Sat wrote : "We know that the climate is changing and we know that it has changed before but isn't a bit arrogant to think that at this exact point in time we are in a position to predict the climatic future of our planet?" No arrogance involved at all - simply what we as a species should be proud of : The human search for answers, using rational, scientific methods. No-one should be arrogant enough to think that all the answers can be found but surely we should give the experts a chance (and our backing) to do their work without constantly judging them according to our own personal criteria ?
85483. Dikran Marsupial at 21:36 PM on 16 May 2011
       Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
       The hubris of Christopher Booker never ceases to amaze! The Surface Temperatures project has been set up to look at homogenisation issues and data provision, which addresses many of the criticisms of surface temperature datasets. Their webpage is here
85484. MA Rodger at 21:08 PM on 16 May 2011
       Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
       The sceptics would point out that UEA, GISS & NCDC all use the same source of raw data. Indeed a certain Mr Watts has expended a vast amount of effort in recent years to demonstrate that the surface temperature sites are not fit for purpose. (I recall he has even recently been published with some finding from this work.) Such a view does appear a little strange as the satellite data used by UHA & RSS give pretty much the same results as the surface data. Even arch-sceptic Roy Spencer has made this observation that both surface & satellite sourced records giving similar results.
85485. E Sat at 21:00 PM on 16 May 2011
       Climate's changed before
       I read the comments of Quietman and I feel refreshed. You are able peel a lot of the scientific language away from many of the theories like the skin of an old banana. What is left behind is not worth digesting. I really like the sections about the people you have labelled "Nemesis hypothesis' writers. There are always some people out there who reckon the world will end tomorrow and we are the cause. We took years to learn that there is an El Nino - La Nina cycle. Before that we just had bad weather and managed to live through it. What about the effects of the many wobble cycles of the Earth's axis? We are only beginning to understand their effects now. Why do we have to panic whenever a new piece of science causes the alarms to go off, bringing our day of doom even closer? I am sometimes forced to think that there are times when there is too much science out there for our own good. This is an ironic point to take, I suppose, as I am using the Internet to post this comment. How are we meant to be able to tell what is an honest scientific theory from one that is popular just because it has been better financed and makes better sales for the media? We know that the climate is changing and we know that it has changed before but isn't a bit arrogant to think that at this exact point in time we are in a position to predict the climatic future of our planet?
       Response:

       Welcome to Skeptical Science!  There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions.  That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

       I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

       Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is).  If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

       Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

       Actually, most of the effects you describe in your comment are pretty well-understood.  That the planet is warming is now considered an established fact.  That humans are the principal cause behind most of the warming since about 1970 or so is very likely (greater than 90% likelihood).  All that's left to be determined is how much warming is to come - and how soon - and what its attendant effects will be.

85486. RSVP at 20:37 PM on 16 May 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       muoncounter 410 "No, 'heat transfer fundamentals' are not enough to explain this behavior" In reference to the graph appearing above this sentence, and all other hockey stick curves for that matter. Supposedly, GHG warming increases as a log of CO2 doubling, and yet the portion of the graph where temperature starts to "take off" is always a straight line, or at best global temperature increase tracks linearly with CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, the caption here reads, "No, 'heat transfer fundamentals' are not enough to explain this behavior". I would say its just the other way around. Given this jibberish about logarithic behavior, a GHG temperature increase would be bending over asymptotically for a linear increase in GHG.
       Response:

       [DB] Both here and elsewhere: PRATT.

85487. Rob Painting at 19:38 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       Michael Hauber- it's now 4 years since the IPCC AR4 was published. Although by no means definitive, La Nina & El Nino (cool/warm) episodes are now happening more frequently and with greater intensity, within the last millenium at least. Although there is no trend toward greater La Nina, or El-Nino frequency, this still has serious implications (the drying of Southern Amazonia I alluded to in the post). I'll try to get that post knocked out tomorrow or the following night, depends how long it lingers in forum-review before it gets published. I don't want to go over it, in the comments section, before I'm able to provide some further background and context.
85488. Eric (skeptic) at 18:59 PM on 16 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket (#77) you said "...you want first to filter the MLO record with a low pass filter with a time constant between 30 and 2000 years. What do you get then?" My concluding sentence in #75 would still stand (any excess over 10 ppm is man-made since the ice core change is about 10 ppm per degree C).
85489. Dikran Marsupial at 18:17 PM on 16 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket wrote: "Answer: No. I disagree with your definition and evaluation of U_a ... U_a are those particular molecules of ACO2, whether from fossil fuel combustion or land use, that end up in the surface reservoirs per year." Sorry drrocket, you are just being absurd now. I set out the mass balance equation and defined exactly what the terms mean. The question is, do you agree with the mass balance equation with the terms having the meanings I defined. If you do not, your position is absurd as it means that you don't agree that the annual increase in CO2 is the difference between total emissions (E_a + E_n) and total uptake (U_a + U_n which is approximately just U_n as U_a is essentially zero). Which is blindingly obvious to anyone capable of balancing a bank account. I suspect your attempt to change the meanings of the terms is just an attempt to avoid properly engaging in a line of discussion that will rapidly prove you wrong. It happens a lot in discussions with "skeptics". So, give a direct answer the question as posed and prove that you are not just trying to evade a line of discussion that will prove you wrong.
85490. Michael Hauber at 18:12 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       Rob Painting - ENSO will be covered. There's a fair amount of evidence that ENSO frequency/intensity increases as the tropics warm. Do you mean more frequent and severe events in both the warm and cool direction with little overall trend towards warming of cooling? That is currently my gut feel. Is there any of the fair amount of evidence you can easily refer me to? Of the top of my head IPCC says nothing much more than ENSO impacts are uncertain.
85491. owl905 at 17:51 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       Mr. Solomon invents generals from exceptions. The 'rebounding' dolphin population probably came from this report: http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110513/ew110513c.html Connecting two Amazon studies published years apart, and covering the drought-impact in two very different contexts, probably came from the ScienceDaily article on the second study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305141625.htm The sidebar to other articles features the 2007 study. The easiest way to kick out the chair is to challenge the relationship - the response correlated to precipitation levels, not CO2 levels. From the ScienceDaily report on the 2007 study: "The UA scientists and their Brazilian colleague already knew the Amazon forest took advantage of the annual dry season's relatively cloudless skies to soak up the sun and grow." Who would have thought that the canopy cover would grow during warm, sunny periods? Well, apparently everyone but Mr. Solomon. However, this 'Joy of CO2' isn't even his best square dance; four days earlier, he claimed that record tornado levels in the Midwest are part of a global-cooling onset: http://www.financialpost.com/news/Global+cooling+wind/4722245/story.html
85492. JoeRG at 17:51 PM on 16 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Tom Curtis @154 These six predictions are unique to green house theory in that no other method of warming the Earth predicts all six of them. Except 6) these predictions are universal for all warming scenarios regardless of the causes and not limited to the GHG only. Simple physics: 1) Greenhouse warming would be stronger towards the poles than the equator; and A logical behaviour because of the different content of water vapor in cold and warm air. A lower water content means a higher rise of temperatures with the same amount of energy. 1a) The polar warming would be accentuated by the melting of arctic ice. This is of course obviously. Besides, a look to ice cores shows that the actual interglacial seems to be abnormal, because the ice shield of e.g. Greenland is much larger as in previous IGs. 2) The warming would be stronger at night than during the day, resulting in a narrowing of the diurnal temperature range. This behaviour also occurs with more clouds. Warmer air will have more water and therefore the cloud cover will rise. 3) The warming would be stronger in winter than in summer. Same reason as with 1). 4) The warming would be stronger on land than at sea. In short time intervals this is true and also a normal behaviour because of the higher heat capacity of water. In longer timescales the temperatures of land and sea will adjust. Because of the inertia the sea surface temperatures will be higher if the trend turns to negative. 5) The warming would be stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. This behaviour is also obvious because of the larger landmasses in the North. 6) With increased CO2 content, the troposphere and surface will warm, but the stratosphere will cool. To your prediction 6) it is to say, that the observations (see the last of fig. 7: 'LST') counter it. As you may notice, the main drivers of stratospheric temperature rise are volcanic activities. Since the last major event (Pinatubo), what means since 1994 there is no trend in the LST. The lower stratospheric temperatures remain on a constant level. For this, one has to explain whether this prediction is correct at all. Regarding the topic one may say that the consensus is based on predictions that are generally valid for all cases of warming. Of course, this makes it easy to confirm. But, Arrhenius' theory has a small but important mistake. He did not account for clouds in the right way. Correctly he regarded the cloud albedo for the incoming radiation but he did not for the outgoing. (We are able to confirm the reflection by comparing the radiations at a clear sky contition to those at cloudy conditions. If there were no reflection, what means no albedo for the outgoing radiation, one would see the atmospheric window almost unchanged. This, of course, has influence on the emission coefficient of the whole system Earth and with it on the equilibrium temperature. So we finally have to ask whether the consensus is on the right basis.
85493. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:24 PM on 16 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       John. High 5. If not already considered, how about a press release to the media, including some of the key political journo's to the effect that the polies now have a copy. Then a followup media release in a month or so for the journo's to find out if they have read it. May be an emailed request for feedback to each member of parliament with the responses released to the press as well. Patrick... "green commentariat!" Oh LOL man, can we have some more comedy please. Even J Edgar Hoover is probably chuckling in his grave.
85494. Marcus at 16:15 PM on 16 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Come on dhogaza, cut Agnostic some slack. There is taking your work seriously, then there's taking your work *seriously*-like the guys in this Rap video so obviously do ;-).
85495. Rob Painting at 15:48 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       Michael Hauber - Climate scientists are divided over whether warming should lead to a cooling or warming of the ENSO ENSO will be covered. There's a fair amount of evidence that ENSO frequency/intensity increases as the tropics warm.
85496. alisha66 at 15:39 PM on 16 May 2011
       Does Urban Heat Island effect add to the global warming trend?
       Thanks for sharing this important information effect of global warming. We should concentrate more on alternative energy to reduce carbon emissions and save the earth.
85497. David Horton at 15:13 PM on 16 May 2011
       Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
       #14 villabolo Yes, and in any case I may be wrong but my impression was that there is little if any population ecology data available, and certainly none in the kind of time frame he is talking about, but that these are very rare animals. So how does he come to make a statement like that which will almost certainly be repeated on denialist blogs, become established as "fact"?
85498. John Brookes at 14:12 PM on 16 May 2011
       Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
       Well done John! But I'm not sure the Nationals will appreciate a book - if you could somehow write it on stubby labels, you might get through to them....
85499. dhogaza at 14:02 PM on 16 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       " I never knew that climate scientists took their science so .... “seriously”?" Every professional takes their profession seriously. So do many non-professionals. I can only assume that Agnostic does not take *his* job seriously, which is odd, because even a burger-flipper asked for medium rare rather than well done will cook his patty with diligence ... Agnostic is less concerned with his job than a burger flipper? I only hope he's compensated accordingly ...
       Response:

       [DB] As Marcus notes below:  Poe's Law.

85500. dhogaza at 14:00 PM on 16 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Michael Hauber: Look, it's worse than you say ... they've been talking about the risk of a new ice age because of the solar minimum for a decade, at least. Laughable ... but ... don't ignore them, because you'll miss an opportunity to laugh!

Prev  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  Next