Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 Next
Comments 85801 to 85850:
-
John Hartz at 01:59 AM on 14 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
Is a chapter outline of the book available on SkS? -
Albatross at 01:59 AM on 14 May 2011Tracking 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). -
michael sweet at 01:57 AM on 14 May 2011Tracking 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:51 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Berényi Péter at 01:51 AM on 14 May 2011Tracking 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:45 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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). -
michael sweet at 01:19 AM on 14 May 2011Tracking 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. -
Stephen Baines at 01:09 AM on 14 May 2011CO2 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. -
les at 01:01 AM on 14 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Phil at 01:00 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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". -
Phil at 00:58 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
les at 00:52 AM on 14 May 2011Lindzen 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. -
Harry Seaward at 00:46 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Harry Seaward at 00:41 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Tom Curtis at 00:40 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Harry Seaward at 00:34 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:11 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:05 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Utahn at 00:00 AM on 14 May 2011Infographic: 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? -
Bob Lacatena at 23:56 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
dhogaza at 23:55 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
dhogaza at 23:54 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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.) -
Harry Seaward at 23:50 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Harry Seaward at 23:46 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
Harry Seaward at 23:37 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
RSVP at 23:35 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen 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 -
dhogaza at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 13 May 2011Models 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. -
chris at 23:23 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen 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... -
Bob Lacatena at 23:16 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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). -
Bob Lacatena at 23:11 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 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. -
les at 23:06 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
40 chris - or, is Wagner a good analogy for Hansen, Broecker et al? Lets say the first firm indications for AGW piled up between the mid 70's and late 80's based on very rudimentary measurements compared to what's available today. I recall that even in the early 90's many scientists in associated fields where still unsure (in my direct experience, the European earth-observation crowd where still 'more measurement needed' in the mid 90's), till now where there is pretty broad based consensus, except for a few stragglers in the science community... ... and a pile of nutters in the public sphere, of course. -
drrocket at 23:02 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric (skeptic), 5/13/11, 11:35 AM I agree that AR4 Figure 7.3 is not altogether sterling. The partitioning of air-sea fluxes I take with a grain of salt, and I have not relied on it. I accept the 6.4 GtC/yr from fossil fuels at face value along with the totals of 92.2 GtC/yr into the ocean and 90.6 outgassed. IPCC puts the natural or background land-air flux 119.9 ± 1 GtC/yr, an imbalance of 0.83%. It puts the natural air-sea flux at 70.3 ± 0.3 GtC/yr, an imbalance of 0.43%. If we were to add another 20 GtC/yr shown in red, the air-sea flux would be 90.3 ± 0.3, an imbalance of 0.33%. IPCC puts the ACO2 flux at 28 GtC/yr up and 24.8 down, or 26.4 ± 1.6, an imbalance of 3.2%. If we deduct the questionable 20 GtC/yr, we have 6.4 ± 1.6, an imbalance of 12.5% for ACO2. In most references to these fluxes, the 20 GtC/yr is not included, yielding 8 up and 4.8 down, and the ratio is given in terms of full scale, 4.8/8 = 40% of ACO2 absorbed in the land-sea surface. IPCC shows the preference both in its mass balance results and in its equilibrium chemistry. 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. You write about what IPCC "wanted to show". What I take away from the chart is it wanted to show that the natural C cycle was in mass balance (it uses the term equilibrium) while the anthropogenic C cycle accumulates ACO2 in the atmosphere. You and I agree that the ocean is nonpreferential between these species. I extend that nonpreferential property from the fluxes to the relative rates of absorption. If the rate of absorption of ACO2 is only 50% of the rate of emission, that should be true of nCO2 also. IPCC's entire equilibrium chemistry justification for this preference is fatally flawed for two reasons. First, the stoichiometric equilibrium coefficients are not applicable. Secondly, IPCC applies its carbonate chemical analysis only to ACO2 and not nCO2. -
Harry Seaward at 22:56 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Let's make sure we are using terms properly. 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. A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it. A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory. By the way, what is the historic observation that led to the formation of the AGW hypothesis? -
Harry Seaward at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Phil at 139 What if the 3 C rise doesn't happen? -
chris at 22:44 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
In fact what I just wrote isn't fully fair. Dr. Lindzen continues to publish basic research on atmospheric physics, and presumably does retain the imperative to find stuff out. Perhaps it's fairer to state that he seems able to compartmentalize his science-science from his science-politics... -
chris at 22:32 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Wegener is an interesting example. Of course he's not an "analog" for Lindzen since Wegener followed his scientific heart honestly (and of course turned out to be correct - but also a little incorrect too), whereas Dr. Lindzen knowingly misinterprets the science and presumably has rather sadly lost the impulse to make real discoveries that all young scientists (and most not-so-young ones!) have. Every individual and their circumstances and social/scientific environment is different. So Wegener's studies were done at a time when there was neither a particularly strong scientific imperative to address the apparent physical, geological and environmental relationships between several adjacent continental margins, nor any political imperative whatsoever to do so. And whereas Wegener's ideas were right in essence (those inter-continental margin relationships were real and the result of actual juxtapositions in the deep past), Wegener couldn't propose any sort of realistic mechanism, and this differs from the situation today, re the evidence base that informs us on climate change, and the false evidence base that drives Lindzen-style analyses. Wegener's mechanistic proposals were rightly rejected (he suggested that the continents might be driven through the oceanic crust under the gravitational influence of the moon, for example). And he was inherently incorrect in that continents don't "drift". Rather they "piggy-back" on the plates to which they are very firmly attached.... -
Phil at 22:20 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1 @131 You are playing semantics here too: The AGW theory of a 3 C rise in the next 100 years is not falsifiable in the way other 'accepted' scientific theories are. A 3C rise in global temperatures is not a theory, it is a prediction made by applying the theories of climate physics (along with a guestimate of projected fossil fuel use). Those theories are typically not only applicable to the planetary atmosphere and so can be independently verified by experimentation. (An obvious example is fluid dynamics which can be studied in the lab). Other theories of climate physics can be verified either by direct observation or by hindcast. The fact that the prediction is not falsifiable is obvious - if it were it would not be a prediction, and would therefore be of no use to us. -
JMurphy at 22:13 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud wrote : "Consensus is a political process." This seems to be the definition of 'consensus' that the so-called skeptics are using : Consensus has been decided by politicians (presumably led by Al Gore ?), who have somehow forced the science to comply. It is a very ideological meaning which is totally opposed to the actual meaning of consensus, i.e. general, widespread, majority agreement. -
Camburn at 21:44 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Does Alfred Wegener come to mind....and he is very recent. -
Berényi Péter at 21:17 PM on 13 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
The situation with satellite measurements of net TOA radiative imbalance is worse than we thought. I have already shown you ample evidence that the absolute magnitude of this imbalance is not measured at all by satellites alone in any reasonable sense. The only thing we can hope for is a relative measurement of net TOA radiative imbalance by satellites, that is, its changes over time independent of the (unknown) baseline. Indeed, using Net_TOA_Imbalance_Stackhouse_2009.txt derived from slide 21. Stackhouse 2009 and assuming a uniform error of ±0.41 W/m2 for their monthly averages (as indicated in the presentation), we get a positive trend of 113 ± 14 mW/m2/year for net TOA radiative imbalance between March 2000 and September 2009 (the entire timespan of their data). Therefore heat content accumulation in the climate system, being proportional to the temporal integral of net TOA radiation imbalance, should be accelerating in this nine and a half year long interval. That is, the acceleration term has a positive value of 0.182 ± 0.023 × 1022 J/year2. On the other hand all reconstructions show a marked deceleration of Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly accumulation for the same period.
Specifically the NOAA NODC Global Ocean heat Content page shows the same.
With the additional advantage of having digital data with proper error bars online, of course.
Therefore it is possible to calculate the acceleration term for the accumulation of heat in the upper 700 m of oceans between 2nd quarter 2000 and 3rd quarter 2009. This value is −0.116 ± 0.038 × 1022 J/year2, it is negative, as expected.
Heat content of the upper 700 m of oceans is only a fraction of heat content of the entire climate system, but it is a considerable fraction, close to 70%. That is, acceleration term of heat content accumulation calculated for the entire system should be even less, around −0.166 ± 0.054 × 1022 J/year2
Taking into account the error bars we have calculated for the acceleration term of heat content accumulation arrived at by two different methods (statellites for net TOA imbalance vs. in situ measurement of OHC), the results are absolutely inconsistent, separated by some 5σ(!).
The inconsistency is indeed profound. And it shows up between two independent measurements of the same quantity, not between theory and measurement.
It means the radiative imbalance at TOA is not measured at all, not even by satellites aided by OHC measurements. Something is surely wrong here, even if at this level on can't readily pinpoint the error.
My best guess is the inferior quality of OHC data prior to mid-2003 (the ARGO era), which would imply a negative average radiative imbalance at TOA over the last decade, that is, net loss of heat by the climate system, not a gain, as it would be required by computational climate models. In other words, Trenberth's missing heat is not going into some mysterious current heat reservoir, but it can be found in the past (and was radiated out to space since then).
But even if it is not so, the inconsistency shown above still begs for a resolution. If anyone knew a paper explicitly discusing the issue, a pointer is welcome.
-
Phil at 20:40 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Oops sorry. les was @34 not @31 -
Phil at 20:39 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
les @31 Just saying "The maverick in science is often correct" without the justification is gibberish or propaganda... You could say "the Maverick in science who is correct is more often remembered by posterity than the maverick who is wrong". -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:30 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Tom Curtis@128 Interesting points. It seems to me that Popper is trying to define what science is, whereas Kuhn seems more concerned with how science actually happens. Since scientists are human beings, rather than vulcans, it isn't that surprising that the way science actually happens isn't necessarily always completely scientific. However the point about concensus is that (i) concensus is a consequence of science, not a cause, and can also occurr for sociological reasons and (ii) as no group of scienctists every agree completely on anything some common sense has to be applied as to what is meant by a concensus. At the end of the day, the fact that a very broad concensus does exist in climatology, is good evidence that the science is solid. This is especially true given that the dissenters from the concensus are not ignored, they get their papers published in the journals, where their work is discussed. If the dissenters had some solid evidence behind them, they would eventually break down the concensus and there would be a paradigm shift. But such shifts only occurr where there is good reason. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:18 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket@50 I made no such assumption, the fact that the natural environment is a net sink, not an emitter is a conclusion, not a premise. The observed annual rise is less than anthropogenic emissions, therefore the natural environment must be a net sink. "I would have no use for adjustment time under any circumstances because the climate system never reaches equilibrium." This is a silly statement, the adjustment time describes the accumulation or dissapation of atmospheric CO2, not the residence time. This is true whether the system reaches equilibrium or not. The average time molecules stay in the atmosphere is irrelevant, becuase almost all of the flux out of the atmosphere is an exchange of carbon with the oceans/terrestrial bioshpehe, not an uptake. If carbon is only being exchanged between reservoirs, it has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, and hence is entirely irrelevant. As I said, like Essenhigh, you are confusing residence time with adjustment time. It is adjustment time that matters. "It's missing E_a altogether." As E_a is in my equation, I suspect you mean U_a. The reason for that is U_a, which represents uptake of carbon by anthropogenic means, is negligible compared to anthropogenic emissions. How much carbon sequestration are we doing at the moment? Very little. If you assume that U_a = 0.6E_a then you obviously don't understand the mass balance equation. U_a would be the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere each year by our activity rather than by natural mechanisms (i.e. essentially zilch). It is not the amount of anthropogenic CO2 taken up by the environment. "If you have any accountancy homework, just post it here, too, for lessons. " You still have not risen to the challenge, so I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you. The challenge was to provide values for E_a, E_n, U_n and dC, where the natural environment was a net source (i.e. E_n > u_n) but where the annual rise in CO2 was less than anthropogenic emissions (i.e. dC < E_a). You won't be able to do so, for the simple reason that it is mathematically impossible, and that is how we know for sure that the natural environment is a net sink. Go on, all you need to do is provide those four numbers, if you are right and the natural envionment is the cause of the aobserved rise, you ought to have no problem doing so. -
EFox at 19:42 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I'll admit that I haven't had time to read through all of the large list of comments here so this point may have already been raised. I do not dispute that there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a consensus in climate change science - Anderegg, Oreskes are good surveys in this matter. However Doran's survey, as I know has been commented, only 79 specialised climate scientists were present in the sample of 3146. The 97% comes from that small sample. I think it is only fair and wise that this article should mention it. I Believe it is an excellent survey and shows the strength of the consensus within the related natural sciences and that is sufficient as climate science is a subfield of this. I am from the field of social science and study climate change receptiveness of the public. Trust is a vital part of that response. To not mention the figure of 79 appears as disingenuous. Trust can be very hard to build but extremely easy to break. A further point - although I am a big fan of this blog it follows the model of information-deficit where what is needed to move the public is more accurate knowledge. However in the social sciences there is plenty of evidence where knowledge doesn't lead to change. It is far more complicated than that. However despite this I see this info-deficit model repeatedly trundled out in uncritical style - The Paul Nurse Horizon programme is a classic example of this. No real change will occur until we move beyond this blind-spot into the very depths of the structures of our societies. It is a contradiction that climate scientists keep saying listen to the experts but when it comes to the social element of climate change they continually snub the experts in societal dynamics (Sociologists, human geographers etc (I exclude social psychology as it is too individualist a science and thus reduces society to the myth of individuals) If you really want to know about changing the public's mind we need to understand how they encounter climate change in their everyday lives - two books I would highly recommend in this regard is Hulme "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" and Norgaard "Living in Denial". If climate change teaches us anything it is of the complex and systemic nature of the earth systems to which only an interdisciplinary response is sufficient. -
chris at 19:20 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
RSVP "An analog much harder to find is a mob that admits its mistake. You're being a little hard on the likes of Drs Lindzen (and e.g. Spencer and Christy). I wouldn't call them a "mob" even if their actions are rather ill-considered. Perhaps you meant that they have a tendency to incite "mobs"! Maybe a bit of British-style kettling would be in order.... Actually Drs Spencer and Christy didn't so much "admit their mistakes" as have them pointed out in a manner that was impossible to deny (see pages 972/3). -
alan_marshall at 19:12 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Galileo had to do deal with the skeptics of his age. He parodied them in his “Dialogue” by putting their arguments in the mouth of a character he called Simplicio. Galileo put his own life in danger because he would not deny the evidence of his eyes. Lindzen is not a Galileo, but rather a Simplicio. -
les at 18:47 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
31. RSVP Indeed (ignoring the fact that Ohm is a pretty poor example of controversy in science!) ... Again the point is that history contains examples of people who swam against the tide - some where right, some wrong, some right about some things and wrong about others (which includes Newton and Einstein), some recognized as right before they died, others after, others where just plain wrong... You have to justify - over and above "doesn't agree with the consensus" - why you think X is like Y, and justify it against the relevant history of science. Just saying "The maverick in science is often correct" without the justification is gibberish or propaganda... As I mentioned above, Laithwaite was, to some degree, "The maverick in science is often incorrect"... Why isn't he like that?!?!? Of course, for people who aren't used to doing a careful analysis and argument, such throwaway lines come naturally (see the blog links in the above article). I'd hope that SkS commentators would function at a higher level.
Prev 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 Next
