Recent Comments

Prev  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  Next

Comments 85851 to 85900:

85851. dhogaza at 03:14 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       "MSU data does cover the poles ( the NOAA satellites are 'Polar Orbiters' ). The RSS analysis does exclude Antarctica because of its high elevation, but the MSU data provides superior global coverage to surface or sea surface measurements." RSS cuts off at 82.5 degrees north and south, and it's not because of the altitude of Antarctica. From the RSS site itself, which I trust to be more accurate than CW's misrepresentation: "We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view." UAH attempts to extend their reconstruction further north and south but not to the poles. I'm too lazy to look up their exact cutoff latitude. "Further, the GISS data does not differ because of number of stations included but rather the huge smoothing radius that GISS employs ( 1200 kilometers ). This allows GISS to induce data where none actually exists ( polar regions and Africa )." Teleconnections are real ... the analysis done by the Anthony Watts et al paper that was just published depends on the reality of this, too ...
85852. dhogaza at 03:07 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       "Since we don't know the budget, we can't know sensitivity to changes. That could mean that 'global warming' is a huge problem that has somehow been masked. Or it could mean that climate is completely INsensitive to changes in CO2 ( at least in the range experienced so far )." No, it does not mean that sensitivity is *unbounded*. And, what masking are you talking about? It's been pointed out numerous times that temperature trends are following model ensemble predictions, within the error bounds given for them. "Trenberth knows this. Hansen knows this." They'd both say you're lying about what they know.
85853. WheelsOC at 03:04 AM on 15 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       kdkd, seriously, theories don't become laws. They stay theories, which makes them extremely powerful and useful since they seek to tell you what's going on. Laws only state a relationship, theories explain how the relationship works. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was not a theory. Einstein's General Relativity is a theory; it will never be a law, no matter how well-vetted (and it's being tested and confirmed constantly, even into last week).
85854. ClimateWatcher at 02:54 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       89. Marcus: CW. You are aware that the Satellite Data (RSS & UAH) doesn't cover the poles, which have been shown to be warming much faster than the rest of the planet. HadCru also suffers from a lack of coverage. GISS is actually the most accurate because it relies on the greatest number of weather stations covering the greatest portion of the globe. MSU data does cover the poles ( the NOAA satellites are 'Polar Orbiters' ). The RSS analysis does exclude Antarctica because of its high elevation, but the MSU data provides superior global coverage to surface or sea surface measurements. Further, the GISS data does not differ because of number of stations included but rather the huge smoothing radius that GISS employs ( 1200 kilometers ). This allows GISS to induce data where none actually exists ( polar regions and Africa ). The GISS indicates a higher trend than CRU because of this. In the early twentieth century warming, GISS indicated a lower trend than CRU. By assuming data where none exists, GISS is more variable than CRU, That is why comparing data sets Surface versus Sea Surface versus MSU lower versus MSU middle gives us more confidence. Among these data sets, GISS is the highest, UAH middle is the lowest. Throwing both of these data sets out and averaging the remainder is probably a reasonable measure of temperature trend.
85855. Riccardo at 02:50 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
       RW1 "delay" doesn't mean that nothing happen in the meanwhile. The seasonal forcing is huge in comparison and the diurnal forcing is even larger. Still we see part of the effect. Should we be locked into a perennial winter or night it would be worse.
85856. ClimateWatcher at 02:38 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       85. Ken Trenberth 97 Trenberth 2009 NOAA satellite measurements of OLR And you can plot GISS values for the various models on the GISS site for modeled albedo and OLR. Since we don't know the budget, we can't know sensitivity to changes. That could mean that 'global warming' is a huge problem that has somehow been masked. Or it could mean that climate is completely INsensitive to changes in CO2 ( at least in the range experienced so far ). Trenberth knows this. Hansen knows this. You may have read his recent paper in which, despite claiming to know the budget, he dedicates discussion to the albedo problem ( reflection has varying angles which can't be captured by single satellite vantage. ) We may not know albedo precisely enough for a century. So anyone saying global warming is a huge problem or not a problem at all is not doing so on the basis of knowledge of the energy budget, because we don't know the energy budget.
85857. RW1 at 02:35 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
       DB, My question is not answered there. How do you explain seasonal change with a 40 year delay?
       Response:

       [DB] In addition to Riccardo's comment, seasonal variation is a consequence of the Earth's tilt, relative to it's plane of orbit around the sun, and intense heating of the sea surface in the regions at the equator. See illustration below:

       

       Earth's tilt relative to it's plane of orbit around the sun. Left-hand side=southern hemsiphere (austral) summer. Right-hand side= northern hemisphere (boreal) summer. Image courtesy of the Austalian Bureau of Meteorology 

       Thanks, Rob P!
       

85858. Dikran Marsupial at 02:32 AM on 15 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket, let's try going through this line by line. Forgetting for a moment about the mechanisms by whcih it takes place, would you agree that there is conservation of matter in the carbon cycle? i.e. dC = E_a + E_n - U_n i.e. the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is the difference between total emissions (anthropogenic and natural) and total uptake (assuming for simplicity that anthropogenic uptake is effectively zero - we are not achieving significant carbon sequestration at the current time). I would hope you do agree with this, as it is basically just saying that any CO2 (from any source) that is not taken up by the oceans/terrestrial biosphere remains in the atmosphere, which seems completely uncontraversial as far as I can see!
85859. RW1 at 02:28 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
       Can anyone quantify specifically how the amount of seasonal change the occurs in ocean water temperature corresponds to a 40 year delay between forcing and final response? No one, including Lindzen, disputes there is a delay, but it certainly can't be anywhere near 40 years. If it were, seasonal variability would not even occur. Heck, there would barely even be any difference between night and day with a decades long response time.
       Response:

       [DB] See here: The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect

85860. Glenn Tamblyn at 02:14 AM on 15 May 2011
       Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
       Harry Seaward #158 If you haven't already followed Sphaerica #153 to Spencer Wearts history run don't walk to read it. All the major theory and observational history is there. And most of the imprtant names - Arhenius, Hulbert, Callender, Plass, Revell Suess, Bolin. In may ways all the key discoveries and understandings of AGW were in place by the mid 60's. What followed was refinement of the understanding and people starting to get their heads around the idea that this was real and serious. Also this article by Ray Pierrehumbert in Physics Today covers a lot of the radiative physics side really really well. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf Particularly read the section related to figure 3 - the exquisite agreement between theory and observation wrt to the Earths outgoing IR spectrum. The two spikes highlighted are modelled so well because the stratosphere warms as you go higher and this effect is captured by the theory, but only at the frequencies with the highest CO2 absorption. A thing of beauty!
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-linked URL.

85861. dhogaza at 02:13 AM on 15 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       No, please leave #11 - Ken doesn't understand that greater cooling due to aerosols pushes climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 in a direction opposite to that he wants ...
85862. Dikran Marsupial at 02:09 AM on 15 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket@64 You have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger, there are aspects of the carbon cycle you are ingorant of, and your ego is getting in the way of you correcting this failing (calling an argument you don't understand 'gobbledygook' is a classic example of D-K in action). "Natural emissions are exactly balanced by natural uptake, as modeled (incorrectly) by IPCC." No, the models of the carbon cycle used by the IPCC do not have natural emissions exactly balanced by natural updake. If they did, the airborne fraction for their model would be 100% instead of 45%. "It's incorrect because natural emissions follow sea surface temperature, keeping the atmosphere perpetually out of balance as it responds to the long term waxing and waning of the Sun" One of the things you appear to be ignorant of is that the ocean uptake is also governed by the difference in partial pressure of CO2 between the atmosphere and the surface waters. This means that if atmospheric CO2 rises, the oceanic uptake increases. The increase in uptake due to increasing atmospheric CO2 exceeds the increase in emissions due to the modest rise in temperature, which is why the oceans are a net sink. This is carbon cycle 101 stuff. "(1) The fact that it is in balance, i.e., that E_n = U_n does not make the residence time either short or long. " It is not a fact that E_n = U_n, and I did not say it makes the residence time short or long. The residence time does not depend on E_n only on U_n. It is the adjustment time that depends on the difference between E_n and U_n. "(2) What does determine the residence time is [CO2_air]/(U_n + U_a). It is the ratio of the concentration in the reservoir to the uptake rate. " Yes, you know that, I know that and the IPCC knows that. However, where the you (and Essenhigh) differ from the IPCC and I is that we know that residence time is irrelevant to the discussion of the increase in atmospheric CO2, and it is tha adjustment time that matters. " The residence time of each type of gas has a huge, proportional effect on its atmospheric concentration." No, it doesn't as the residence time is dominated by an exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and oceans/biosphere that has no effect whatsoever on the atmospheric concentration. Right, if you are still reading at this point, here is a variation on the challenge. Explain how the natural environment can be a net source of CO2 into the atmosphere while the observed annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is less that anthropogenic emissions. If you can't answer that question, your position is untenable.
85863. Albatross at 01:58 AM on 15 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Re "collected a huge climate science research grant." Come one. Can we delete #11 please.....
85864. Riccardo at 01:56 AM on 15 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       In common language "it's just a theory" is used to indicate something unproven, an hypothesis. In science "theory" has different meaning. And yes, gravity is only a theory, like "Intelligent falling".
85865. caerbannog at 01:48 AM on 15 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       ScaredAmeoba@4 The Tripati paper is quite credible but should be treated as preliminary at this time. The "at least 2 million years" line is probably overly conservative, but it's an appropriate figure to use until there is independent confirmation of the Tripati results... Skepticalscience is kind of like the IPCC -- it's a conservative alarmist organization that tends to understate the evidence out of an abundance of scientific prudence. And that's what makes these alarmists so dangerous. They very cleverly understate their cases so that skeptics will have nothing to attack -- it's all part of a very clever plan to smear the skeptics.
85866. WSteven at 00:42 AM on 15 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       @RickG #10 I try to drill this into kids' heads all the time. Hopefully some of it sticks before they leave high-school.
85867. Ken Lambert at 00:17 AM on 15 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Chris #83 If this were a trivia night, you would win a point. Willis is mentioned once in the text on page 28 of this 52 page paper - Willis et al 2007 re Argo ie: "Even this well-planned program had early instrumental problems causing data biases (Willis et al., 2007), but it was possible to identify and eliminate problematic data." Willis is a co-author with Lyman and he is indirectly mentioned in the 5 pages of references at the end of the paper. I said a 'couple' - so you have 2 points. There is no mention of any of Dr Willis' recent 'prelim' OHC analysis and quoted by Dr Pielke. You know Chris, I have been raving on about +0.9W/sq.m net forcings from Dr Trenberth's Aug09 paper based on Hansen's 2005 estimate etc - for a long time. In the 'missing heat' discussions, Climategate - the predication of the AGW position is that 'its there but we can't measure it adequately'. We know its about 0.9W/sq.m but we can only measure about 0.5-0.6W/sq.m is a theme of Dr Trenberth's papers. This very long paper by Hansen is a game changer. He accepts that von Schukmann's measurement of the global energy imbalance is about 0.5W/sq.m, holds fast to the theoretical CO2 GHG forcing, and then proceeds to explain the reduced positive balance - chiefly by picking Aerosols as the main culprit. He argues that aerosols have a forcing of -1.6W/sq.m (negative), when prior models used around -0.4-1.1W/sq.m. Quote (pp45): "We also must quantify the causes of changes of Earth's energy imbalance. The two dominant causes are changes of greenhouse gases, which are measured very precisely, and changes of atmospheric aerosols. It is remarkable and untenable that the second largest forcing that drives global climate change remains unmeasured. We refer to the direct and indirect effects of human-made aerosols. We have inferred indirectly, from the planet's energy imbalance and global temperature change, that aerosols are probably causing a forcing of about ‒1.6 W/m2 in 2010. Our estimated uncertainty, necessarily partly subjective, is ± 0.3 W/m2, thus a range of aerosol forcing from ‒1.3 to ‒1.9 W/m2." endquote Well, I should have applied for a job with Prof Hansen, because I have been banging away with a similar argument for some time - highlighting the wide error bars on the IPCC AR4 estimate of Aerosol forcing and also the unknown amounts being added by rapid industrialization by developing countries. There are several other bafflements in this paper (eg. the flatline von Schukmann OHC figure 2005-10) - but the jaw dropper for me is that Hansen has killed the 'missing heat' hypothesis and accepted that the OHC measurement **is** the imbalance and fitted the known unknown forcings to that observation. If Dr Willis OHC analysis turns out to be 0.25W/sq.m and overrides von Schukmann - then another revision down of the warming imbalance will be necessary - and more bafflements could follow.
85868. Ken Lambert at 23:42 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
       Sphaerica #80 #81 The resolution is poor, but if you look at Fig 22(f) of Hansen's paper, the Pinitubo (1991) 'rebound' forcing could does not scale to than +0.1-0.2W/sq.m, and it has all dissipated by 2000. Prior to that has negligible effect to the net energy uptake of the planet, because the net area under the spike and rebound roughly cancel out. To add a negligible 'decline' in the already exhausted 'Pinitubo rebound effect' to the Solar minimum for the decade 2000-2010 is just a furphy. There are several other more important things in this paper which I shal; touch on in my response to Chris #83
85869. Ken Lambert at 23:19 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       kdkd #9 If you have not already seen this latest Hansen paper, check it out here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.1140.pdf ( -Snip- ).
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic ideological inflammatory snipped.

85870. drrocket at 23:19 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       KR, 5/14/11, 14:50 PM [sic], CO2 residence In the quotation you attribute to me, you dropped the source, falsely making the quotation appear to be my words. Or, did you not realize that you were criticizing a quotation from IPCC? Then in your last ¶, you reinforce the misimpression. You should have written, It's just that the sinks don't match up to the sources, drrocket IPCC. Otherwise, we are in substantial agreement – so far.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You appear to have misread KRs post, AFAICS he was not attributing anything to you, but directing the statement to you.
85871. RickG at 22:28 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       kdkd, Many people misunderstand what a scientific theory or scientific law is. Laws "describe". Theories "explain". A theory never becomes a law nor are there any proofs in science.
85872. kdkd at 22:27 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Ken. Nice spot on the typo. It's a good job I'm not an electrician ;)
85873. kdkd at 22:27 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Kevin, I'm familiar with popper, kuhn and feyarbrand, however I have only read kuhn's book from cover to cover. Feyarbrand gets me in trouble relatively often, both with my wife, and my job. But he's also useful :) The point is that if a scientific theory is proven, it's only proven in the sense that a mathematical proposition can be proven. Once you move outside the scope of the propositions, the proof is no longer valid. So really a scientific law is a proposition where there is a strong belief that the premises are valid. However this means that the scope of scientific laws are always extremely valid. For the vast majority of scientific questions, proof, and therefore scientific laws are unattainable as there are too many parameters involved to be able to develop a proposition which is tractable for proof. So yeah, I agree with you.
85874. Ken Lambert at 22:18 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Hello kdkd, (i.e. in the case of the law of gravity to weak gravitational fields, ohms law to constant currants). I was a bit of a fan of Sunbeam's law of self-raisins, which of course was falsified by John Cook's observation of the transit of the Venal.
85875. Kevin C at 22:02 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       kdkd: I think you might want to read some philosophy of science. Start with Popper, father of the scientific method as we now understand it: Karl Popper then go back to Bacon and forward to Kuhn and possibly Feyerabend. The idea that gravity is 'proven', or indeed that any theory can ever be proven is the problem here. The best we can do is repeatedly fail to falsify a theory. A theory which has withstood many severe tests (test which would be likely to falsify it) is considered to be a strong theory, but can still not be said to be proven. Gravity is no exception. Part of the problem is that scientists suffer all the same cognitive biases as normal people. Training and discipline in application of the scientific method help, but are not sufficient. As a result, there have evolved a set of social structures around science (the scientific institutions and journals, peer review, and consensus) which also tend to counteract the problem of the cognitive bias of the individual investigator. (I tend to refer to the social structures and conventions as 'how science is done', to distinguish them from 'the scientific method'. Consensus and peer review are a case in point, and highly relevant to the current discussion. Scientists tend to think highly of their own intelligence, and indeed we get in the habit of thinking we are smarter than other people. So our natural inclination presented with the work of others is to find holes in it to show our own cleverness. This is good, because it helps to weed out the errors which are present in every piece of work due to the cognitive biases of the investigator. But it also means that if, in a field in which there are a reasonable number of testable hypotheses, some sort of consensus is reached, then there can be a fair degree of confidence in that consensus. The comparison to gravity is thus, in scientific terms, completely valid. The real difference between gravity and AGW is that AGW is not 'self-evident' to the man in the street, because the man in the street has not examined the data systematically. We can envisage events which might change that, for example in the case of an early loss of the arctic ice cap.
       Moderator Response: Just a nit: Popper is not really the father of the scientific method as we know it. He had the best public relations campaign, though, and so is the best known. One good summary is by Martin Gardner.
85876. kdkd at 21:09 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Now, here's the right forum where I can get this off my chest :) Gravity is a law, not a theory. Although when it was originally proposed, Newton'proposition was a theory. However, it has subsequently been proven, so while it started life as the theory of gravity, now it's the law of universal gravitation. The reason that has been proven, is because it can be postulated as a set of propositions (parameters), for which the final proposition (conclusion) is self evident. Of course if the propositions that describe a law are found to be invalid, the law is then shown to be false, or that the law is only applicable to a specific situation (i.e. in the case of the law of gravity to weak gravitational fields, ohms law to constant currants). For that reason, scientific laws only tend to apply to very specific situations that probably won't arise in the real world. Gausses' law of competitive exclusion is a classic example of this, and about the only scientific law in the whole science of biology. *phew* I'm glad I offloaded that I feel so much better now.
85877. trunkmonkey at 20:25 PM on 14 May 2011
       Models are unreliable
       scaddenp 373. Thanks for the Wally link. That is a very impressive paper. The models get the jist of the YD but they don't relicate it's full amplitude. From what little progress I have made in the decade of study you guys have prescribed I've gleaned that models have their own logic when they find a stable sweet spot. You guys know better than anyone that when you do certain things the model gets crazy and runs out of bounds like a kid who's eaten too much candy. So we have this happy model that refuses to reproduce the amplitude of YD by adding a reasonable amount of meltwater. Models have a good track record in these situations. So either the proxy data are wrong, there is anther stable point the model should be initialized at, or another unknown factor is contributing. I still do not understand exactly how CO2 works in the models. I played with the edgcm model but all it will let me do is imput a ppm for CO2. In the idealized model in my mind I would be able to right click on CO2 an pull up its properties. A screen would pop up showing all the relationships for CO2 and the values applied to these relationships. For example the absorbtion of outgoing IR would show a relationship to air temperature at 6 w/m^2 or so and there would be diminishing relationships to soil, ocean and plant sequestration, an exaggerating relation to temperature as it feeds back to increased microbial activity, etc. My suggestion on the control knob is to back off these values to bare bones. Can YD be too fast for CO2 if sucking 380 ppm of it out of the atmosphere today would drop GAT 6 degrees in a year?
85878. chris at 19:27 PM on 14 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       haven't yet congratulated you John on a really dogged effort over the years to rachet up the scope of your contribution to the promotion of clear thinking on climate sience. Truly from little acorns...!
85879. ScaredAmoeba at 18:04 PM on 14 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       John, Thanks for all your hard work and for the scientists who collaborated with the project. However, when I was reading it, I spotted on page number 6:

       ...levels unseen for at last 2 million years[14].

       when I looked at the endnote it was a reference to Tripati (2009). I had remembered a figure of 15 million years. Since I don't have a copy, I checked SKS to see whether my memory was playing-up. When I looked at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

       .... a level unseen for at least 15 million years (Tripati 2009).

       I believe that something seems to have gone wrong.
85880. Rob Painting at 17:54 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       I've watched that clip a few times, still difficult not to laugh. Good to see more climate scientists stepping up to the plate.
85881. Marcus at 17:05 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       CW. You are aware that the Satellite Data (RSS & UAH) doesn't cover the poles, which have been shown to be warming much faster than the rest of the planet. HadCru also suffers from a lack of coverage. GISS is actually the most accurate because it relies on the greatest number of weather stations covering the greatest portion of the globe.
85882. Marcus at 16:50 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Its funny how if a Climate Scientist claims the planet is warming, people like Cloa513 tell us that they've been "bought" by some vested interest, rather than telling us the truth. Yet when the likes of Lindzen, Christy, Plimer et al tell us that Global Warming isn't happening, then people like Cloa513 just accept it without any doubt whatsoever, & certainly without daring to question the motives of said group. There's a word for that-*selective* skepticism.
85883. Bern at 16:40 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       cloa513: thank you for providing a case in point for why we need to listen to actual climate scientists on climate issues... :-) Seriously, if my car is broken (even a ridiculously expensive one!) I'm taking it to a mechanic, and not even thinking about calling a politician, or a talk-back radio host, or a geologist. And while some mechanics may specialise in, say, tuning of fuel injection systems, that doesn't mean they have no idea what a muffler is. They've probably got a much better idea how everything in the car works than you or I do... And, yes, there are good mechanics & there are some bad mechanics. Fortunately, unlike mechanics, there's an easy way to tell who's a good climate scientist - their peer-reviewed work is cited frequently. How many mechanics can you assess by looking at whether other mechanics think they've done a good job?
85884. cloa513 at 16:22 PM on 14 May 2011
       Who Ya Gonna Call???
       Is this Rediculous Week? Taking your comparison of a calling a mechanic. So you'd call any mechanic to work all parts of your extremely expensive car say the price of the Space Shuttle even he has never fixed a whole one before. He has a vague idea of some of the systems or a general idea of the whole thing. He makes predictions such it will burst into flames which are proved wrong. The long term world weather system or thermohydrodynamic system is not a climate (it is hot/cold/wet/dry at the same time all year round no climate is that at once) so your not expert in that. Noone is an expert in that.
       Response:

       [DB] Weather is not climate.  Conflating "A" mechanic in general into one capable of fixing an expensive Italian sports car is simply wrong and at the same time a wondrous example of "skeptic's" skepticism.  And in the pole position here no less.

85885. alan_marshall at 15:52 PM on 14 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       John, It is just awesome what you have achieved in the last year.
85886. Stevo at 15:15 PM on 14 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       This is the only resource I've so far found which neatly encapsulates the case for AGW. It is a great guide to the big picture and cites plenty of sources so that one can make investigations in further depth and detail. I won't travel without a copy of it now.
85887. Bob Lacatena at 14:50 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drocket, I don't understand why you can't get this. It's simple. You are confusing yourself. I also don't understand why [ - snip - ] have to debate every single niggling detail of climate science, as if climate scientists can't get the slightest thing right, and it's amazing that they even find their way to work every morning. I mean, debate climate sensitivity or cloud feedbacks or something. Debating this is beneath everyone here. Really, something like this should not be this hard. Go study some and stop wasting everybody's time with utter and complete nonsense. Hint #1: Study basic chemistry, diffusion, and rates of reaction, and then come back. Hint #2: Sometimes an ability to put things into numbers and equations translates into an inability to grasp the basic, underlying concepts.
85888. Tenney Naumer at 14:49 PM on 14 May 2011
       How people are using the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       This is a wonderful work, John! Kuddos to you!
85889. KR at 13:54 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket - "Note that 45% of ACO2 has remained in the atmosphere." That is actually quite incorrect. An amount of CO2 equivalent to half the anthropogenic emissions has remained in the atmosphere. Not the individual molecules, but a sum total. This is because the natural sinks (as we don't act as a sink to any significant degree) have absorbed an excess amount of CO2 equivalent to 55% of our emissions. There is no difference to the sinks (especially in the ocean) between anthropogenic and natural CO2, aside from the slight plant preference for one isotope over another. Each CO2 molecule has about the same chance of being exchanged. It's just that the sinks don't match up to the sources, drrocket. By an amount equal to not quite half to what we emit.
85890. Rob Honeycutt at 13:49 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Camburn... The problem is that Lindzen is claiming lower sensitivity with very little to no evidence to back it up. In the meantime there are a wide range of other studies that come to a range f results but none of those authors are touting their results as a definitive answer the way Lindzen does. Lindzen is taking aim and firing a gun at the rest of the scientists when he has no bullets while the rest of scientists are busy making real bullets and lack the weapons to fire them.
85891. James Wight at 13:33 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       All cranks like to compare themselves to Galileo. There’s a book out there arguing the Moon was intelligently designed by time-travelling humans – the authors compare themselves to Galileo too.
85892. Camburn at 13:09 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       dana1981@84: Yes, Dressler, but his paper doesn't agree with observed trends and if you incorporate the error bars, once again, nothing is certain. I found this to be a good analysis of the current understanding: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.80/abstract 3. In addition to better routine observations, underpinning reference observations are required to allow analysts to calibrate the data and unambiguously extract the true climate signal from the inevitable nonclimatic influences inherent in the routine observations.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Firstly, his name is Dessler.  Secondly, your claim about his error bars is nonsense.  Thirdly, even though I only quoted Dessler's, I referenced a number of studies.  Fourthly, your reference pertains to the tropical troposphere 'hot spot', not the water vapor feedback.

85893. drrocket at 13:09 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Eric (skeptic), 5/14/11, 12:05 PM, CO2 residence Let r = S/M, the ratio of the uptake from the reservoir, S, in a period to the volume in the reservoir, M, at the start of the period. Mean Residence Time = M/S = 1/r in periods. Half-life = log(0.5)/log(1-r) in periods.
85894. drrocket at 12:48 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Dikran Marsupial, 5/14/11, 4:49 AM, CO2 residence You claim, 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. Please supply a citation. You say, 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. (1) As pointed out to you on 5/13/11, 2:36 AM, the formula provides 1.51 years if leaf water is included, and 3.48 years otherwise. (2) The fact pointed out is false. (3) The actual definition of adjustment time has nothing directly to do atmospheric concentrations. I provided you the official IPCC definition of adjustment time on 5/13/11, 8:06 AM. You ignored it. It contradicts your unsupported claim. You say, 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 formula in the TAR and AR4 glossaries is T = M/S, where T is the Turnover Time, aka the Mean Residence Time. M is the volume in the equation, but it is the volume of the reservoir, not of the flux. S is the flux in the equation, but it is a rate not a volume. There is no volume of the flux. You say, 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. I agree; I don't under gobbledygook. Natural emissions are exactly balanced by natural uptake, as modeled (incorrectly) by IPCC. (It's incorrect because natural emissions follow sea surface temperature, keeping the atmosphere perpetually out of balance as it responds to the long term waxing and waning of the Sun.) (1) The fact that it is in balance, i.e., that E_n = U_n does not make the residence time either short or long. (2) What does determine the residence time is [CO2_air]/(U_n + U_a). It is the ratio of the concentration in the reservoir to the uptake rate. (3) The residence time of each type of gas has a huge, proportional effect on its atmospheric concentration. See the details in my post of 5/14/11, 9:25 AM. On 5/13/11, 20:18 PM [sic], you correctly noted that I had in one place written E_a for U_a.
85895. Ken Lambert at 12:43 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Climatewatcher #60 Your points are valid ones. [- snipped-] Strangely enough, I speculated on the accuracy of the Earth's albedo measurement some many threads ago. A 1% error in measurement of the roughly 100W/sq.m reflected is 1W/sq.m - greater than the proposed warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m which is now probably reduced by Hansen to 0.5-0.6W/sq.m "Is it the 29.8% in Trenberths recent paper" - could you point me to that paper?
85896. dana1981 at 12:42 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Camburn #81 - it's 2011. There has been a lot of research on the water vapor feedback since 2007, which I referenced in LI #4. The water vapor feedback is positive.
85897. dana1981 at 12:33 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Camburn - being consistently wrong doesn't necessarily make a person an idiot, and I never suggested otherwise. In fact I think Lindzen is a very smart guy. But the fact is that he's been consistently wrong. All I did was point out that reality.
85898. Camburn at 12:31 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       To the moderator: Please remove this after you have told me how to find a link to my previous posts. I was just reading a paper about two climate models, and the descriptions of the models were dynamic and slab. I want to post the paper to the thread where I was lamblasted for using the word slab to describe a model. Thank you in advance.
       Response:

       [DB] AFAICT, your first usage of the word "slab" occurred here.

85899. Camburn at 12:29 PM on 14 May 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
       Rob: Yes, he is claiming sensativity lower than other research. But that does not make him wrong, nor does it make him right, as all research at this point is subject to correction. I know there was a thread about h2o vapor etc. The following highlights the ongoing research....two different conclusions. A 2004 report by Minschwaner and Dessler noted an RH decrease, whereas studies by Soden et al in 2005 and Gettlesman et al in 2007 reported a maintenance of MT RH – the issue is not settled. To the extent that the water vapor increases in the MT have not kept pace with temperature increases, the potential for MT warming is diminished. This is extremely important in climate, yet still up in the air per se. There are just a lot of important things that have not been ironed out yet.
85900. Eric (skeptic) at 12:05 PM on 14 May 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       FWIW, I practiced with "numbers" on the mac which I installed today. I took the MtC emissions for each year since 1751 from this table: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2007.ems and used a starting amount of 597,000 MtC. I added the amount from the table at that link each year and subtracted the amount : (E3-597000)*EXP(-1*$I$2) where $I$2 is my lambda and E3 is that year's MtC. I picked a target year of 2008 and 818,000 MtC. I achieved the target with lambda of 4.25 which is a fairly steep decay. Finally, I'd like to convert that to a half life number (in years) but I'm not sure how.

Prev  1710  1711  1712  1713  1714  1715  1716  1717  1718  1719  1720  1721  1722  1723  1724  1725  Next