Recent Comments

Prev  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  Next

Comments 85701 to 85750:

85701. Dikran Marsupial at 04:49 AM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket@55 wrote: "If the rate of absorption of ACO2 is only 50% of the rate of emission, that should be true of nCO2 also. " This is incorrect, the IPCC do not say that the rate of absorption of ACO2 is only 50%. They say that the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is about half anthropogenic emissions, but that doesn't mean that half the anthropogenic CO2 emitted each year is absorbed by the biosphere. In fact about 20% of the ACO2 in the atmosphere is shunted into the other reservoirs each year, and that rate of absorption is the same as it is for NCO2. That is because the residence time for both ACO2 and NCO2 is about five years. However, as has been pointed out to you, residence time is not what controls the rate of growth or decline of atmospheric concentrations, that is decided by the adjustment time. The residence time depends on the volume of the flux of CO2 out of the atmosphere (which is vast, hence the residence time is short). The rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 however also depends on the volume of the flux into the atmosphere. To be specific, the rate of increase is proportional to the difference between total emissions and total uptake. This difference is much smaller (about half anthropogenic emissions), hence the adjustment time is much longer. The thing you don't seem to understand is that the atmosphere exchanges vast quantities of CO2 with the oceans and terrestrial biosphere each year. However, this is an exchange, with natural emissions approximately balanced by natural uptake, so even though it make residence time very short, it has very little effect on atmospheric concentration. Our emissions have altered the balance by increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, which increases uptake by the oceans (and it is plant food, so some extra goes into the terrestrial biosphere), and hence the natural environment has become a net carbon sink. That is why the observed rise is only about half anthropogenic emissions. Do the differential equations for a one-box model of the carbon cycle and you will find this is correct.
85702. dana1981 at 04:31 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Albatross #52 -

       "I'll let Dana and others point out the obvious problems with some of your claims."

       I'm not really interested, honestly. He clearly didn't read the article, which contains all the necessary info to refute his arguments, so why waste the time?
85703. Albatross at 04:25 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       ClimateWatcher, "Lindzen's research has greatly advanced meteorology and the understanding of the atmosphere." That may be true, but it certainly doesn't seem to apply to his foray into climate research. And it does not make him infallible as some 'skeptics' would believe-- just look at the findings from the "Lindzen Illusions series", and his thorough (and multiple) debunkings of some of his work in the scientific literature. His insistence on repeating debunked myths, some for over 20 years now, and thereby misleading policy makers (and you) is simply bad science. Denial is a very strong trait in humans, and we are very apt about convincing/deluding ourselves that there is not a problem, even when we are already in the midst of experiencing that problem. Lindzen is free to do that, but I find it despicable that he uses (abuses?) his credentials and authority to delude, misinform and mislead others on such an important issue. But I thought appealing to authority, as you seem to be doing, is something that 'skeptics' accuse those who understand AGW to be a legitimate concern of?
85704. Bob Lacatena at 04:24 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       50, ClimateWatcher, Your diatribe would have been more effective if you didn't try to deconstruct every single aspect of climate science. Do you really believe that Lindzen has it all right, and everyone else has it all wrong? 1. The earth hasn't warmed... You completely and totally missed the point. Go back and re-read the post, several times. 3. global warming is not a concern

       And we know that humans and all the other species of life on earth evolved through all the glacial/stadial changes.

       Humans, yes. 6 billion of them, no. Civilization, no. Modern, technological civilization, definitely not. This is about the most pathetic argument you could muster. 4. climate sensitivity is low

       Well, the lower warming rate from 1. indicates this to be true. But nobody can be sure.

       Your understanding of this issue is abysmal. Please study more. Start here, but there is a whole, whole lot more to this than what is posted on that page (and certainly more than your minimalist treatment of the subject). 5. the water vapor feedback is negative

       There are reasons to believe this to be so.

       Yes, but not good reasons. Just reasons you can throw around with people who don't understand the issues, so they get lost in your misrepresentation of the details, and pretty much the fabrication of your own personal brand of climate science. 6. the cloud feedback is negative Try reading Dessler.

       I have a difficult time with any theory predicting any change in cloudiness.

       Yes, you seem to have a difficult time with all of climate theory. 7. global warming is just due to internal variability

       ...pretty much all attribution is a fairy tale.

       That's just plain making stuff up. Simply saying it doesn't make it true.
85705. Rob Honeycutt at 04:20 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       This is OT but in response to the aviation thing... The electric vehicle market should help aviation out quite a bit. Currently there are a couple of two seater electrics out that can fly for about 1.5 hrs on a charge. Battery technology is supposed to improve in efficiency by 3-5X this decade. That means the same plane will be able to fly up to 7 hours on a charge. That's longer than most small aircraft even with extended range fuel tanks. Electrics also have some huge advantages over ICE engines. Simplicity. You wouldn't believe it if I told you how much it costs to keep up a modern small aircraft engine. There's also the elimination of pressure altitude issues with normally aspirated engines. Service ceiling goes up significantly without adding complexity. The list goes on and on. My sense is small personal aircraft will go all electric in the coming decades, while larger corporate aircraft and commercial aircraft will move to algae based bio fuels as that becomes economical.
85706. Albatross at 04:14 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       ClimateWatcher @50, Look, you clearly believe that AGW is non issue. However, the facts and data simply do not agree with you. Thus, attempts to misrepresent the facts and data to support that belief may work well on internet blogs or 'skeptical" sites, but some of your content @50 won't pass muster here. Perhaps your impressions are misguided. If so, please then be willing to listen and learn from not necessarily what people say here, but the peer-reviewed scientific literature that has withstood the test of time is saying. I'll let Dana and others point out the obvious problems with some of your claims.
85707. ClimateWatcher at 04:06 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       If Lintzen's last name wasn't MIT, who would pay attention to him? Your background is probably not meteorology. Regardless of you opinions on so called 'climate change', you will find from numerous citations in journals and textbooks that Lindzen's research has greatly advanced meteorology and the understanding of the atmosphere.
85708. ClimateWatcher at 04:00 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       1. Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected Trends since 1979 are all below the IPCC "low scenario" rate. Trends since 2000 are all below the IPCC ".2 C per decade for all scenarios" rate. One for Lindzen. 2. the surface temperature record is wrong SST and MSU are pretty close to land rates ( except for the high outlier GISS ) UHI effect does exist, but it is not a huge part of the temperature averages. 3. global warming is not a concern Concern reflects emotion, not a scientific quantity. But we know the recent rate is quite similar to the early twentieth century rate. We know that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were higher for millenia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, a time which corresponded to the advancement of human civlization. And we know that humans and all the other species of life on earth evolved through all the glacial/stadial changes. Pretty hard to get worked up about this when there are so many real problems to be concerned about. 4. climate sensitivity is low Well, the lower warming rate from 1. indicates this to be true. But nobody can be sure. Why? Because we don't know how much energy earth is receiving, mostly because we don't know how much the earth reflects away: And we don't know how much earth is emitting: The uncertainty in the balance is larger than the projected forcing from a CO2 doubling. 5. the water vapor feedback is negative There are reasons to believe this to be so. There is great uncertainty as to whether or not water vapor is increasing or decreasing ( the sonde data indicate drying aloft, but are subject to instrumentation changes over time, some satellites indicate increasing, some indicate decreasing humidity ) But beyond that, water vapor is a dynamic quantity. It gets pushed around in the atmosphere, mostly pushed toward the equator by polar air masses. And water vapor, by its mere presence, works against an increase. That's because if water vapor injects into the upper atmosphere, which was previously arid, that region of atmosphere then radiates more effectively and cools. This cooling allows subsidence to occur. And subsidence then dries this layer. The total column water vapor might increase, but the top of this layer would emit just as effectively as with a lower total column water vapor. 6. the cloud feedback is negative Since the meager attempts to create a long term trend of cloudiness disagree in sign ( some indicate increasing cloudiness, others indicate decreasing cloudiness ) I don't think anyone can justify a conclusion on what has actually happened. And since cloud formation depends on some many processes from the macro ( synoptic scale convergence ) to the micro ( condensation nuclei ) and in between, I have a difficult time with any theory predicting any change in cloudiness. 7. global warming is just due to internal variability Since we don't actually know the energy balance well enough ( see above ) pretty much all attribution is a fairy tale. On the other hand, look at the 97-98 El Nino. Temperatures changed by almost 1 degree C, but oceanic heat content didn't show a pimple. This was internal variability. The warming rate from 1910 through 1945 is about the same as the recent rate. And that was natural variability. 8. water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas CO2 is significant, largely because of the band from which emissions to space leave from the stratosphere. That's a big deal because that makes the energy level that leaves from CO2 much lower and mostly (though not completely) independent of the surface temperature. H2O vapor, on the other hand, diminishes with height. It is the vertical variation of temperature coupled with the vertical variation of the emitting constituent that determines the energy that leaves earth. In this regard, forcing from water vapor is constrained and coupled to the surface temperature while CO2 emissions are not, and in this way CO2 is more 'important'. On the amount of 'greenhouse effect', my understanding is the relative importance goes: Clouds > Water Vapor > CO2 The question of 'importance', we might agree, is secondary to what will actually happen with changes in CO2.
85709. dana1981 at 03:47 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       

       "Bob Tisdale has an excellent post"

       Don't hear those words very often :-)

       "I read what Tamino posted, and will only say that he degrades himself in his response"

       I wouldn't call pointing out a textbook example of cherrypicking "degrading oneself". However, this discussion is off topic. Please stick to the content of the article.
85710. Camburn at 03:41 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       les@46: I had not been to wuwt in ages, but as a result of your post I went there. Bob Tisdale has an excellent post on OHC verses a model. I read what Tamino posted, and will only say that he degrades himself in his response. There is a def divergence, at this time, between observations of OHC and the models.
85711. Stephen Baines at 03:34 AM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Eric...yes, the red lines are differences in fluxes pre and post industrial. Those differences represent the anthropogenic changes to the fluxes, not the fluxes of anthropogenic carbon. The thing we actually measure/estimate are the current fluxes/pools (the sum of red and black). The natural preindustrial levels are actually backcasts - some of which are well measured and other estimated based on reasonable constraints. Because CO2 was pretty steady during most of this interglacial, those preindustrial solutions are constrained to balance (inputs to atmosphere ~ outputs from atmosphere). That balancing assumption does not hold under current conditions because the system is out of equilibrium. The graph is an attempt to tease apart the effect of humans on the carbon cycle fluxes resulting from this shift to non-equilibrium conditions. There is no indication in that graph that aCo2 and nCO2 behave differently. To measure fluxes of anthropogenic carbon specifically, you would multiply the fluxes by the % of each source reservoir that is anthropogenic carbon. Don't be misled though. That ratio is not related to the red:black pool sizes, as those red numbers in the pools also simply reflect a difference in pool sizes pre and post industrial. If you did that you would find that there is net movement of aCO2 into the oceans simply because the fraction of the atmospheric C that is derived from human activities is larger for the atmosphere than for the ocean. That number is really only interesting to those looking at isotope tracers though. It's the changes in the pool sizes and fluxes that actually matter to the carbon cycle. Why? Precisely because nature does not care if its aCO2 or nCO2. I'll have to say, when I saw this graph before reading the background material, I too was puzzled by what it actually meant. It makes perfect sense from an academic viewpoint, though. Tracing aCO2 is actually less informative in many ways.
85712. Albatross at 02:56 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       This is what the US National Academy of Sciences stated in a 2010 report: "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems…. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
85713. Eric (skeptic) at 02:54 AM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Stephen, they are in fact not fluxes? IOW, the red arrows are differences between natural and present fluxes, but do not represent actual fluxes.

       drrocket, what I gave as an argument (I am mostly just paraphrasing Englebeen's argument) and what Dikran Marsupial and others said previously in no way depends on prefential absorption. The IPCC's misleading diagram does not form the basis for what I said or what Dikran said, we simply observe the total ACO2 estimate (from reliable estimates of power generation and fuel sources, transportation uses, cement making, etc); and the total atmospheric buildup from reliable measurements. The ACO2 is about double the atmospheric increase. There is no isotope ratio argument or any references to carbon fluxes other than those two.

       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Indeed, I downloaded data on land use and FF emissions from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, and CO2 data from the MLO so I could verify the mass balance argument is correct (which it is). The story is similar if you use the other monitoring stations - even WUWT had a post a while back explaining that the MLO data were reliable, which puts into perspective how far out on a limb you have to be not to accept it!
85714. Tom Curtis at 02:41 AM on 14 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       e @131, if the graph of the function has a positive slope, then once it goes above zero it cannot go below zero (without changing slope) at a larger value of x. Therefore, while it may be below zero and have negative values for some x', for all x" > x' it will either be negative with a smaller absolute magnitude, or positive. And of course, -4 < -2 < 1. Hence I do not see how your point can refute my claim. Returning to his original calculation as shown in the second graph of 109, we see that it definitely shows total incoming energy in 2008 to be less than total incoming energy in 2000. The original data, however, shows that throughout 2008, the TOA radiative balance for 2008 was higher in Watts/meter squared than that for 2000. Therefore the Earth must have retained more energy in 2008 than in 2000 given the accuracy of the data. Despite this BP shows the reverse. Therefore he has made an error, and his ability to parrot the words "integrate", "convex function" and "concave function" cannot alter that. You cannot reduce the Joules received over the whole year by increasing the Joules received every second, but that is what BP would have us believe in his post @109. In his post 132 he suddenly changes tune without acknowledging the previous error and now wants to claim he has determined a rate of change (acceleration) in the satellite data from a linear trend. A constant rate of increase of the change between each year of 0.182 ± 0.023 × 1022 J/year^2 (not the years squared) does not result in a linear function, and so cannot be derived from a linear trend. I am not saying BP could not (or even has not) fit the data to and exponential function and hence derived an acceleration from the data. But he has certainly not shown us the fit, nor the correlation to the fit. Consequently he has not justified his claims about the "acceleration" of the satellite data; or even told us he has used a method that could justify it. To the extent that I can check BP's mathematics, it is garbage. It shows every indication of being stuck onto the analysis to convince the mathematically illiterate that he is making some profound analysis whereas he is really just spouting nonsense.
85715. Albatross at 02:18 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Utahn @151, Excellent point.
85716. Albatross at 02:12 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Tom @113 and Harry @118, Sorry been away from my computer for a while. Believe it or not, I had originally worded it that way (i.e., find a society that does not agree that human emissions are a major contributor of the warming), but in a moment of generosity I took it out so as to try and afford Harry some more wiggle room. A mistake, b/c now Harry is under the misconception that he has scored some kind of goal. Anything but. So Harry, here is the new challenge using Tom's more accurate wording (very similar to the wording provided in the link that I provided by the way): "Please list for us all the professional scientific societies of the same standing as the American Meteorological Society (for example) who state that human emissions of GHGs are not the major contributing factor to global warming." The list in my post @100 contains numerous agencies who support that understanding.
85717. owl905 at 02:08 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Interesting sideshow - Galileo is popularized as a science rebel martyred by religion (which Lintzen is not). But historically, Galileo's 'crime' with the Church was the re-interpretation of scripture (which Ricky MIT most definitely is). If Lintzen's last name wasn't MIT, who would pay attention to him?
85718. Bob Lacatena at 02:00 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       161 typo alert: I meant "purview", not "prevue" (dang auto-type spell checker!).
85719. John Hartz at 01:59 AM on 14 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Is a chapter outline of the book available on SkS?
85720. Albatross at 01:59 AM on 14 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       BP @133, "That's not a peer reviewed publication." Well, not yet :) Seriously, we'll see what it looks like after review, my understanding is that it is in review now, including by the public. So I'm sure Dr. Hansen would love to hear the errs of his ways from you BP. Talking of peer-review, Hansen et a. (2011) cite works that have undergone peer-review and that have been published, for example, von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011).
85721. michael sweet at 01:57 AM on 14 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       Hansen's publication has been submitted for peer review. You can wait for it to be published if you want, it usually takes six months to a year.
85722. Bob Lacatena at 01:51 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       157, Harry Seaward,

       Based on the factors mentioned, modeling can give quite different results. The 3C rise should not be thought of or tossed around as an absolute.

       But modeling is not the only source of information or confidence in climate sensitivity. Again, visit this page on climate sensitivity. A large number and variety of paleoclimate studies support the proposed climate sensitivity. A large number and variety of real world observations support the proposed climate sensitivity. A large number and variety of physical mechanisms support the proposed climate sensitivity. And lastly, a large number and variety of models support the proposed climate sensitivity. The number of completely different lines of evidence that support the proposed climate sensitivity is becoming overwhelming. The 3˚C rise is not being "tossed around," and the implication that it is being pulled out of a modeling hat is simply incorrect. It's the most important area of climate science right now (in my opinion), and there is a growing body of evidence to support it, and a complete dearth of evidence that would refute it.
85723. Berényi Péter at 01:51 AM on 14 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       #133 michael sweet at 01:19 AM on 14 May, 2011 James Hansens recent analysis here shows that there is no missing heat. That's not a peer reviewed publication. On top of that, it does not discuss the problem at hand.
85724. Bob Lacatena at 01:45 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       155, Harry Seaward, I don't see, from your post, how A follows from B. Perhaps I got lost in what you were saying. The IPCC makes a projection (based on emissions scenarios) of a rate of warming for the next two decades. Individual scientists, or models, make predictions based on very specific sets of starting parameters, including a specific course of emissions which may or may not ever come to pass. The science defines "climate sensitivity" as how much the global average temperature will rise, after all feedbacks come into play, based on an initial (non-feedback) forcing which raises the temperature by some initial value. This is necessary because feedbacks are temperature based. Climate sensitivity is often stated in terms of a doubling of CO₂, as a convenient metric, but it really applies regardless of the forcing, and for that reason I do wish that climate science adopted a different convention, specifically one based on forced temperature change (e.g. "3˚C total change per 1˚C forced change". But, specifically: The statement about 3˚C per doubling is a specification of climate sensitivity. A prediction about climate is a specific range of events/temperatures that would/should/could/might occur based on a specific set of initial conditions, and a proposed forcing (or set of forcings). A projection is a broad approximation of a range of events/temperatures that would/should/could/might occur based not only on the information required for a prediction, but also factors outside of climate science (i.e. changes in global emissions, which are in turn dependent on economic, political and social factors that are far outside of the prevue of either the IPCC or climate scientists in general).
85725. michael sweet at 01:19 AM on 14 May 2011
       Tracking the energy from global warming
       BP: James Hansens recent analysis here shows that there is no missing heat. The slowing in heat increase in the ocean is due to a rebound effect from recent volcano eruptions and the recent solar minimum. The rebound effect is over and the solar cycle has started its upswing so we can expect record heat in the nexxt 5 years. It is obvious that since 2010 was a record setting hot year at the bottom of the solar minimum that the climate continues to heat up.
85726. Stephen Baines at 01:09 AM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket "No matter how you slice the baloney, IPCC claims the land-sea surface has a huge preference for nCO2 over ACO2, and in the last analysis, that's why we ought to curtail CO2 emissions" As I explained above in 52, you and Eric are misinterpreting the actual meaning of 'anthropogenic' fluxes used by the IPCC. 'Anthropogenic' (notice how they use quotation markes) fluxes simply refer to the change in rates that has occured because pCO2 in the atmosphere has increased and landuse changes have occured. When pCO2 increased over perindustrial, there was an increase in net CO2 flux into the ocean. That is a well established chemical and physiological response to changes in CO2 concentrations. Those changes would have occured if CO2 were released from methane hydrates, volcanoes or if it spontaneously arose out of thin air. The numbers would be the same. I repeat...There is nothing special about anthropogenic carbon. The IPCC graph does not imply in anyway that there is. "The partitioning of air-sea fluxes I take with a grain of salt, and I have not relied on it." It is interesting that you drop perhaps a number we can constrain well with current measurements (i.e., the flux into the ocean under current conditions) but accept instead a number that is only a projection to past conditions, albeit one based on good understanding of physical and chemistry. That is an arbitrary decision.
85727. les at 01:01 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       43 - Chris Excellent! Although maybe you being less then generous to the substantial improvements in climate systems simulations, models etc. I'd love to see an equally detailed [attempt at a] comparison between Galilao and Lindzen! Of course no such comparisons work in all details. Still, such details provede more insight than a the sort of thin posted on wuwt etc.
85728. Phil at 01:00 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sorry, slightly mangled 159: he then thinks he can attack climate science as being unscientific for producing unfalsifiable "theories".
85729. Phil at 00:58 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward @140 My point at @139 was that, since RW1 mistakenly calls the 3C rise projection (as I now know to call it :-) ) a theory, he then thinks he can attack climate science as being unscientific erproducing unfalsifiable "theories". In actual fact it is RW1 being unscientific since he chooses to obfuscate a projection and a theory. You ask what happens if after a century we get, say, a 6C rise instead of 3C ? Something was wrong with projection ! It behoves us (and our policymakers) to understand what theory and assumptions went into that projection so that we can judge it and do better next time.
85730. les at 00:52 AM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       44 - RSVP sure, but he's not considered a classic example. Still, if you like; I'm not fussed about that, I'm fussed about the justification of the comparison based on history if science etc. Clearly the simplicity of ohms law isn't that - there's nothing nearly as simple about climate science! So, we're still awaiting your detailed justification for your suggestion.
85731. Harry Seaward at 00:46 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica at 152, Thanks for the apology and I probably owe you one as well.
85732. Harry Seaward at 00:41 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       dhogaza@148 I mentioned that last line because of the words "substantial uncertainty". Based on the factors mentioned, modeling can give quite different results. The 3C rise should not be thought of or tossed around as an absolute. You are, as usual, absolutely correct in your statements.
85733. Tom Curtis at 00:40 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward @155, instead of lecturing you might actually pay attention. Sphaerica clearly referred to the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. You are referring to the projection of global mean surface temperature for the year 2100 (or more accurately, the average over the years 2090 to 2099). The projection follows more or less straightforwardly from a Business As Usual scenario and the climate sensitivity, but the climate sensitivity is not the projection.
85734. Harry Seaward at 00:34 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica @ 150 Your second paragraph demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding of the use of proper scientific terms. Even the IPCC calls it a projection. Directly from the IPCC AR4 Synthesis SYR Report: "3.2 Projections of future changes in climate <>For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios (Figure 3.2). {WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGIII 3.2} Since the IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade from 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {WGI 1.2, 3.2}" Now, explain to me how my grasp of the IPCC glossary is weak.
85735. Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward @145, as is fairly clear from reading it, the IPCC reports make 'projections' (in its terminology) not predictions. The difference is largely semantic in that a projection is a prediction conditional on certain circumstances obtaining. The IPCC AR4 mean global temperature projections are:

       " The multi-model mean SAT warming and associated uncertainty ranges for 2090 to 2099 relative to 1980 to 1999 are B1: +1.8°C (1.1°C to 2.9°C), B2: +2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A1B: +2.8°C (1.7°C to 4.4°C), A1T: 2.4°C (1.4°C to 3.8°C), A2: +3.4°C (2.0°C to 5.4°C) and A1FI: +4.0°C (2.4°C to 6.4°C).

       Reducing that to a single number without confidence intervals, and without reference to particular scenarios over simplifies to the point of misrepresentation. @146 Sphaerica referred to the fast feedback climate sensitivity which is approximately 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. That is a prediction of the theory, not a projection. It can be and has been applied to past climate changes as a test of the theory, assuming you have a sufficiently strong paleo signal to make the test. @147 If you are interested in the history of the green house gas theory, Svante Arrhenius'1896 paper "On the influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air on the Temperature of the Ground" is the first attempt to calculate the effect of CO2 as a green house gas. Of particular interest are his predictions that: 1) Greenhouse warming would be stronger towards the poles than the equator; and 1a) The polar warming would be accentuated by the melting of arctic ice. 2) The warming would be stronger at night than during the day, resulting in a narrowing of the diurnal temperature range. 3) The warming would be stronger in winter than in summer. 4) The warming would be stronger on land than at sea. 5) The warming would be stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. (See page 265 for the exact details of these predictions.) To that we can add the prediction that: 6) With increased CO2 content, the troposphere and surface will warm, but the stratosphere will cool. Arrhenius, of course, did not make that particular prediction because he did not know of the internal structure of the stratosphere, particularly the presence of ozone. These six predictions are unique to green house theory in that no other method of warming the Earth predicts all six of them. All six predictions are plainly falsifiable, but all six predictions have, of course, been verified. Five of those predictions where made 115 years ago, but still we get deniers accusing AGW theory of being without falsifiable predictions.
85736. Bob Lacatena at 00:11 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       147, Harry Seaward, FYI, this page is where you want to start on Spencer Weart's site.
85737. Bob Lacatena at 00:05 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       147, Harry Seaward,

       Thanks for the link, and, again, you could have left out the words within the parantheses.

       I apologize for letting my ire slip out, especially since you are not entirely at fault. In the past month a large number of "deniers" have inundated the comments with a fair amount of sarcasm, ignorance, and a lecturing tone, supported either by a gish-gallop of illogical facts, or by nothing whatsoever -- often, their tone and sarcastic, backhanded implications are all they have going for them. After a while, one loses patience, sometimes at the wrong moment.
85738. Utahn at 00:00 AM on 14 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward, Perhaps getting back on topic, about the surveys, any thoughts on my comment 102?
85739. Bob Lacatena at 23:56 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       145, Harry Seaward, You're playing word games, and you obviously didn't bother to read anything I pointed you toward before you replied. I'm not sure how serious anyone should take the posts of someone who wants to expound but refuses to learn. The 3˚C rise is neither a projection nor a prediction. It is a theory which is close to a law (i.e. "any forcing X will result in a temperature change of 3X") and is backed by a substantial body of evidence that spans an unbelievable variety of methods and sources. The strength behind the statement is very, very strong. There is still uncertainty involved, but with every new study that uncertainty diminishes. Your weak grasp of the IPCC Glossary, on the other hand, highlights much of your problem. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the text you quoted, and in particular I see nothing "doozyish" about the last line. Their point is that climate science can make predictions based on climate facts. But since one of those facts is actual greenhouse emissions, which in turn are based not on scientific or natural factors but rather on socio-economic factors, then climate projections are difficult to make. In fact, a related debate just finished "raging" over on the Linzen Illision #2 thread over the difference between a projection in future temperatures, and the emissions scenario used to make the projection.
85740. dhogaza at 23:55 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       "And, is the second sentence really necessary in a scientific discussion? " At the risk of seeming rude ... a discussion about something like "the AGW hypothesis" is not a discussion about science, so you shouldn't be too surprised at the kind of responses your posts elicit.
85741. dhogaza at 23:54 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward: "The last line is a doozy." Why? The physical theory regarding the change in climate due to changes in concentration of GHGs comes with error bounds, but is reasonably complete. Our ability to predict the future of human history is not. We don't really have a clue as to what life will be like a century from now, nor how much CO2 society will spew into the atmosphere over the next 100 years. Perhaps there will be a fusion breakthrough and electricity will be too cheap to meter and generation will be free of any negative environmental effects at all! (cough cough.)
85742. Harry Seaward at 23:50 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       dhogaza at 144 "It is a prediction based on theory." Prediction or projection, but I agree with your statement. "On the slight chance that what you're asking is what observation led to the theory describing the climate response to differing concentrations of CO2, it all started with observations made by Tyndall a long time ago. I'll let you do the google to determine exactly how many years ago this was." Thank you. I really am curious about that.
85743. Harry Seaward at 23:46 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica at 143 Your statement: "At this point, the evidence supporting a 3˚C rise is pretty darn strong. Attempts to paint it as otherwise are just demonstrations of ignorance." You could make the first sentence more accurate by inserting the word projected in front of the number 3. And, is the second sentence really necessary in a scientific discussion? "In addition to the above link on climate sensitivity, it is suggested that you read Spencer Weart's A Discovery of Global Warming (unless you don't really want answers, and just like the idea of implying that the foundations of climate theory don't actually exist)." Thanks for the link, and, again, you could have left out the words within the parantheses.
85744. Harry Seaward at 23:37 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Sphaerica at 143 The 3C rise is a prediction, or more accurately a projection (which is less precise). You can't slice it any other way. Read the definitions from the IPCC Glossary. The last line is a doozy. Climate prediction A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario. Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.
85745. RSVP at 23:35 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       les 34 "ignoring the fact that Ohm is a pretty poor example of controversy in science" Considering that "Ohm's Law" was rejected for being too simple, and then turned out to be spot on, not sure where you're coming from. Here is another link: http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/OhmBio.htm
85746. dhogaza at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       "The predicted 3C rise is a hypothesis, not a theory. It could be stated: If atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise at current rates, then we can expect a 3C rise in temperature over the next years" It is a prediction based on theory. "By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis?" There is no such thing as the "AGW hypothesis". On the slight chance that what you're asking is what observation led to the theory describing the climate response to differing concentrations of CO2, it all started with observations made by Tyndall a long time ago. I'll let you do the google to determine exactly how many years ago this was.
85747. CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011
       Models are unreliable
       trunkmonkey #372: There is a well documented hemispheric see-saw to DO events... whether you see it or not. In any case, your description of "cooling the Pacific and Indian Oceans and warming the Atlantic" is just fine for making my point too... because the Pacific and Indian Oceans did not cool over the course of the 20th century. They warmed. Just like every other ocean on the planet. Total ocean heat content increased. Total atmospheric heat content increased. Ergo, none of these changes can be put down to 'internal variability'... because that would require decreasing temperatures somewhere else and there just isn't any data showing that.
85748. chris at 23:23 PM on 13 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Yes, that works a bit better les! But again the analogies aren't terribly strong (and it's very easy with the compression of nearly a century of time to look at the Wegener situation as if it was very cut and dried, whereas it was also a mess of personal, social and scientific interactions, just like now). Whereas it seems that Wegener's ideas were soundly rejected at the time (in fact he had some supporters who were very important in geology/geophysics), and he was only vindicated after his death when new discoveries forced reassessment of his ideas, Hansen and Broecker were reinforcing an already quite well understood subject. Their insight was to strongly grasp the significance of the growing atmospheric CO2 levels, in the 1970's (Broecker) and 80's (Hansen), and to foresee the likely future consequences. And their contributions were not so much ignored/ridiculed, as considered not to be terribly important (at the time; I think that's about right). In fact their attempted ridicule (largely Hansen) occurred considerably later when the evidence base concerning the consequences of enhanced greenhouse gas levels became sufficiently strong, that some powerful interest became concerned that steps might be taken to do something about the problem...
85749. Bob Lacatena at 23:16 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       141, Harry Seaward,

       The predicted 3C rise is a hypothesis, not a theory.

       At this point, the evidence supporting a 3˚C rise is pretty darn strong. Attempts to paint it as otherwise are just demonstrations of ignorance. For more information, see the thread on the evidence behind a 3˚C climate sensitivity.

       By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis?

       In addition to the above link on climate sensitivity, it is suggested that you read Spencer Weart's A Discovery of Global Warming (unless you don't really want answers, and just like the idea of implying that the foundations of climate theory don't actually exist).
85750. Bob Lacatena at 23:11 PM on 13 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       136, EFox, I don't think climate scientists snub the social sciences, so much as it's just not their thing, so they don't ask. That said... I am sure John would put up some relevant social sciences posts if he got them. You could submit something yourself.

Prev  1707  1708  1709  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  Next