Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 Next
Comments 85701 to 85750:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:45 AM on 17 May 2011Special 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. -
Berényi Péter at 01:38 AM on 17 May 2011Tracking 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. -
Bud at 01:36 AM on 17 May 2011Special 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 -
Stephen Baines at 01:34 AM on 17 May 2011Infographic: 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." -
CBDunkerson at 01:31 AM on 17 May 2011Special 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 -
Bud at 01:20 AM on 17 May 2011Special 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, 2010Response:[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
-
Bud at 01:10 AM on 17 May 2011Special 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
-
Ken Lambert at 00:12 AM on 17 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
DSL at 00:08 AM on 17 May 2011Climate'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? -
JMurphy at 00:03 AM on 17 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Tom Curtis at 23:55 PM on 16 May 2011There'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?
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:52 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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 ...” -
CBDunkerson at 23:44 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
chris at 23:42 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen 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.") -
Riccardo at 23:35 PM on 16 May 2011Climate'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. -
Ken Lambert at 23:33 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen 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! -
ClimateWatcher at 23:16 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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. -
ClimateWatcher at 23:11 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen 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? -
chris at 22:36 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen 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? -
JMurphy at 22:05 PM on 16 May 2011Climate'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 ? -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:36 PM on 16 May 2011Is 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 -
MA Rodger at 21:08 PM on 16 May 2011Is 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. -
E Sat at 21:00 PM on 16 May 2011Climate'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.
-
RSVP at 20:37 PM on 16 May 2011Waste 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.
-
Rob Painting at 19:38 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 18:59 PM on 16 May 2011CO2 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). -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:17 PM on 16 May 2011CO2 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. -
Michael Hauber at 18:12 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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. -
owl905 at 17:51 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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 -
JoeRG at 17:51 PM on 16 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:24 PM on 16 May 2011Special 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. -
Marcus at 16:15 PM on 16 May 2011Who 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 ;-). -
Rob Painting at 15:48 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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. -
alisha66 at 15:39 PM on 16 May 2011Does 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. -
David Horton at 15:13 PM on 16 May 2011Drought 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"? -
John Brookes at 14:12 PM on 16 May 2011Special 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.... -
dhogaza at 14:02 PM on 16 May 2011Who 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.
-
dhogaza at 14:00 PM on 16 May 2011Who 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! -
Albatross at 13:52 PM on 16 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
CW @10, "The ITCZ is NOT driven by solar heating but, as its name implies, by CONVERGENCE of polar air masses from each hemisphere." No. From Wang and Wang (1999): "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." -
Bern at 13:43 PM on 16 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Marcus: he's a politician, so, sadly, we pretty much *expect* him to be a hypocrit (although there are, fortunately, some politicians who aren't). Re the "CAGW" label - I've only seen that used by the Watt's Up With That brigade. Ironically, it is the intransigence by the deniers that will be responsible for the "Catastrophic" part of the term, if it comes to pass. -
Albatross at 13:26 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
CW, Have you noticed that none has bothered to answer your missive @110? Have you asked yourself why? And I am willing to bet that you will provide yourself and readers here the wrong answer as to why. -
KR at 13:20 PM on 16 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Stephen Baines I think that being bought out requires a very different mindset than the general scientist. I say that as someone whose close relative (sibling) was a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry for denying "second hand smoking" dangers. Scientists know that if they state something ridiculous, they will be caught out. Whereas advocates don't care, as long as the discussion/disagreement continues, and no action is taken. The more irrelevant issues, the better, for them! -
Albatross at 13:16 PM on 16 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken @95, "There are a few great minds who don't subscribe to the AGW theory." A moot point, but wrong anyhow. Dyson does accept the theory of AGW: "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." [Source] Also, there are probably some great physicists you do not believe the Americans landed men on the moon. And thanks, but I and other scientists do not 'subscribe' to the theory of AGW. You see Ken, your innuendo and rhetoric and attempts at using pejorative text belie your intentions and undermine your credibility. And you avoided answering my question @93. So when can we expect the manuscript by you and BP available online? And no, I am not being facetious. -
Marcus at 13:16 PM on 16 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Got to love Abbott's extreme oversimplification of the impacts of a Carbon Tax today. He was at a Leather-goods manufacturer saying "well their electricity bill is X now, so under a carbon tax it will be X+(X/10) dollars a year extra". Well *sure*-if said manufacturer continues to source *all* its energy from fossil fuels & *if* they don't implement any demand management strategies, then that is what will happen, but the Carbon Tax isn't simply going to happen in a vacuum. Of course the irony for me was this-what impact did the GST have on this leather-manufacturer's costs? Not just electricity, but *everything* they purchased became about 10% more expensive-& no way to avoid it either. It was also ironic given that it was manufacturers like these who got *stiffed* by the unilateral reduction of tariffs. Sorry, but Abbott is a complete *hypocrite*. -
Michaelf at 12:57 PM on 16 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Seriously brilliant. So worried that the debate was being hijacked by herald sun commentators and politicians more worried about getting into power than the planet itself. Great idea Thanks -
Stephen Baines at 12:52 PM on 16 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Think of how much money individual scientists could get from vested interests for stating that climate change isn't happening, or, if it is, that it can't be caused by humans. Now compare that to the amount of money they could hypothetically get from the government after slavishly writing multiple grants a year and being raked over the coals by reviewers. If opinion followed money, the 97:1 consensus for AGW should be in the opposite direction. So I find it amazing how few scientists have been actually been bought off in the end to hold a position they feel is scientifically untenable. It's reassuring actually. -
SteveS at 12:30 PM on 16 May 2011There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
michaelkourlas @6: Where is this image from? The top graph contains one curve, but is labeled "Air Temperature at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet" on the left and "Approximate global temperature anomaly" on the right. Unless these track exactly (which would seem surprising), something's wrong there. Greenland temperatures wouldn't be useful in comparison. I think the author of the graph should include more recent CO2 values to show that the current spike in temperature is matched by the current spike in CO2. He/She could have used a dotted line similar to the one in the temperature graph. Additionally, I was under the impression that the correlation was only for the latter part of the 20th century (another reason why the author should have included the current CO2 values). Previous to that, I was under the impression that other climate forcings were stronger than CO2; eg, the sun in the early 20th century. As such, it would seem that this graph is a strawman. -
Chemware at 12:23 PM on 16 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Well done John ! The very best of luck at Parliament ! Patrick @5: This is a science blog. It is not the comments column of a trashy News paper. As such, you need to support your claims by reference to peer-reviewed literature. In contrast to your claims that "the science is not settled", there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature - see Skeptic Argument #4: There is no consensus. -
Riduna at 12:23 PM on 16 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Senator Christine Milne will definitely read this book from cover to cover before handing it to her staff. Let us hope it receives the same attention from Greg Hunt and, for that matter, Greg Combet. Let me guess the answers to the questions posed by actually thoughtful #7. Are they: a lot, very bad and before 2100 ? -
Stevo at 12:19 PM on 16 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
Michael Hauber, Thankyou for the explanation. I guess I'll just have to keep watching to see how weather patterns match up to the model projections. Also glad you helped me to identify what are real trends and what are cherry picks. Wet in the North and dry in the South certainly fits the current weather patterns. (Now I know to wait some more years in order to determine if it is just weather or a real change in climate, but if I was a gambling man I'd put my money on climate change.)
Prev 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 Next
