Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 Next
Comments 85901 to 85950:
-
trunkmonkey at 12:55 PM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
KR 365. The models are unable to make specific predictions at a decadal scale to be contradicted or confirmed, except that it will be warmer at the end.Various alternative celestial and cyclical hypotheses are likewise untestable at a decadal scale. Those who wait breathlessly for yearly GAT data are making essentially the same mistake as one who guages global warming by his backyard thermometer. -
Stephen Baines at 12:31 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Previous post addressed to drrocket @ 49 -
Stephen Baines at 12:30 PM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
"I would have no use for adjustment time under any circumstances because the climate system never reaches equilibrium. " The fact that the atmosphere is not now in equilibrium has no bearing on this debate. That is a red herring. The residence time also has almost no bearing on how quickly the CO2 added to the atmosphere will be absorbed by the biosphere. What matters are net exchanges between the atmosphere and the terrestrial and oceanic reservoirs and how those net exchanges have changed with increasing pCO2. These net exchanges are small relative to the atmospheric reservoir. You are misinterpreting the phrase 'anthropogenic fluxes' in the IPCC graph. The 'anthropogenic fluxes' are simply the difference between pre and post industrial fluxes. It does not refer to fates of carbon dioxide molecules specifically produced by natural or anthropogenic carbon emissions - although I can see where the confusion arises. Basically the fluxes into the ocean have increased due to the effects of increasing pCO2 on solution chemistry. On land net losses have increased due to forect conversion and inputs have increased slightly because of CO2 fertilization (yes, skeptics, it is accounted for). It's that simple. This usage of "anthropogenic fluxes" makes sense to scientists, because it is the only way to discuss the effect of humans on the carbon cycle. The idea that these processes don't discriminate between natural and anthropogenic carbon is a given to them, and it's ludicrous to suggest that the scientists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes on that front. The reason the confusion is arising is precisely because it wouldn't even enter their minds that someone would consider that possibility. They are naive that way (and I include myself in that judgement). Your outrage is misplaced. -
kevin s at 12:20 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
RW1: Wow. You show me a list of what you would call "accepted theories" and I'll show you a list of what I would call "laws of nature." But then, what would you call a theory that is a synthesis of known physics that does meet your "accepted theories" criteria (but also includes elements that involve some uncertainty), has good predictive value, has no competing theories that come anywhere close to explaining the data as well, and that has survived decades of spirited challenges? And what word would you use to express the idea that, among those most familiar with the evidence in the field, almost all are persuaded by this theory? -
RW1 at 12:13 PM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
BTW, I'm not dismissing the trend. I'm simply saying the trend is not large enough to clearly distinguish causation - primarily natural or anthropogenic. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:10 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
124, RW1, I don't think you understand. "Consensus" is just a word, which describes the situation where scientific theories generally become 'accepted' after rigorous falsification testing fails repeatedly and when all the existing evidence is in strict accordance with the theory (i.e. no pieces of contradictory evidence exist). This has pretty much happened, and the only case where there is more still unknown than known and significant uncertainties and contradictory pieces of evidence abound is in the minds of those who desperately want such uncertainties and evidence to exist, to the point that they are in complete denial, and turn everything upside-down. You are correct in saying that significant research on the subjects' many facets continues from all perspectives, but that research is being done by the real scientists, not the skeptics in denial, and the goal is to learn more, wherever the truth may not, and not to simply prove it wrong at all costs. In the meantime, we're digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole. -
RW1 at 12:08 PM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Stephen Baines (RE: 123), "And what happens when scientific propositions survive attempts to falsify them? What is/are the primary falsification tests for AGW? -
dana1981 at 12:08 PM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Victor - we addressed the hypothesis of an internal forcing in Christy Crock #3, I believe. But that wasn't Lindzen's argument, so I didn't address it here. -
RW1 at 12:05 PM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
I'm well aware of what I've been 'told'. -
RW1 at 11:52 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Sphaerica (RE: 121), "You have it upside-down. We don't have a consensus because we need proof, we have a consensus because we have proof." I don't think you understand. There is no such thing as 'consensus' on anything in science. Scientific theories generally become 'accepted' after rigorous falsification testing fails repeatedly and when all the existing evidence is in strict accordance with the theory (i.e. no pieces of contradictory evidence exist). When any such theories become accepted, there is never a 'consensus'. There is more or less a cessation of further testing and research on the theories. This is certainly no where near the case with climate science, as there is more still unknown than known and significant uncertainties and contradictory pieces of evidence abound. Significant research on the subjects' many facets continues from all perspectives. -
Michael Hauber at 11:46 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
'One side is behaving hysterically while the other relies on science' A generalisation which I think is true quite often. But there are plenty of exceptions. Or at least as long as I take relying on the science to cover those who make the attempt but fail. And I think by far the biggest problem with denialism is the fact that discussion on genuine uncertainties suffers. Initiating discussion on an uncertain topic is likely to be savagely attacked by the deniers, as such a topic is going to be the closest thing they have to a real argument. And so it takes confidence to raise such issues, and none are so confident as those who are certain of themselves, when no justification for this certainy exists. -
Stephen Baines at 11:40 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
115 @Tom Curtis Thanks for the link! Exactly what I was asking for. That matches my memory pretty well. I wonder if there would be a way to turn that info into a nice graphic. 119 @ RW1 "Science advances primarily through falsification and paradigm shifts. So-called 'consensus' has nothing to do with science." And what happens when scientific propositions survive attempts to falsify them? You get consensus. Without it you cannot have establish settled scientific propositions upon which to build future work and science essentially stops. I'm not sure how you can say consensus has no role in science. The fact is there used to be plenty of scientists skeptical about the proposition that the earth was warming and that humans were responsible. They have slowly been convinced by the evidence over time. Only a few diehards still remain concerning those two central issues. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:35 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket, the IPCC diagram that we both linked above is misleading and I should have said so instead of saying the red arrows are the "new" or ACO2. Going from the atmosphere to the ocean there 22.2 red down and 20 red up. And there is 70 black down, 70.6 black up. Those ratios cannot be different since the ocean is nonpreferential. Nor are those arrows equal ratios of the reservoirs, not that it matters. The simplest explanation of the red down and up arrows is that they wanted to show some amount of CO2 exchange but wanted the net exchange to equal 2.2 down or about 1/3 of the 6.4 from fossil fuels. Net red transfer cannot possibly differ from net black transfer, but they ignored that fact and made it different. Other than that correction, my closing remark above still stands. I didn't justify it, but other people in the thread did. It is not shilling for this site, but my own conclusion from a few facts. One fact is that the 6.4 GtC/yr released by fossil fuels and cement is an accurate estimate. The second fact is that the year to year increase in the atmosphere is about 1.9 ppm measured at numerous locations. The first fact means that the atmosphere should rise by about 3.6 ppm. The second fact means that the ocean and biosphere is absorbing some of that 3.6 so we only see 1.9 remain in the atmosphere on a yearly basis. -
Victor at 11:29 AM on 13 May 2011Models are unreliable
Here some new stuff about climate models. According a paper from J.Hansen, M.Sato and P.Kharecha most IPCC models and GISS modelE-R mix heat too efficiëntly downward through the oceans. The result is that models respond slower on forcings as the real world does. On page 18 in Hansen et al 2011 I read "Below we argue that the real world response function is faster than that of modelE-R. We also suggest that most global climate models are similarly too sluggish in their response to a climate forcing and that this has important implications for anticipated climate change." Adjustments towards less ocean heat uptake are in better agreement with observed OCH trends. Despite the slow response IPCC models do a good job in mimicing global warming. The IPCC underestimates aërosol cooling effects and some models have too large GHG forcings according Hansen. Since the oceans are NOT the favourable place for large antropogenic aërosol influences the answer may be quite more simple: Climate models are too sensitive to GHG (and other forcings) and thus OVERestimate AGW. You can read more about this in chapter 5 t/m 7 of the paper.(Excuse me if this subject is discussed before). -
Bob Lacatena at 11:04 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
86, Victor,Internal variability as a change in heat distribution around the globe also implies effects on snowcover, clouds en water vapour.
The forcing must be maintained. Clouds, water vapor, and even snow cover all react to temperature as well as affecting them. Without a continuous forcing, each of those feedbacks will drop back down....no other forcings exists?
Beyond those we know of, no. Of course, there's a crowd of people trying to come up with new ones (GCR, for example), but so far these are only unproven theories, and to date evidence contradicts rather than supports these theories.Don't forget that these feedbacks, like changing ice-albedo and watervapour, disturb earth radiation budget as well and thus act like forcings.
True, but as already stated, they respond to temperature, as well as affecting temperature. Without a non-temperature influenced, continuous forcing, they will eventually swing back (and generally fairly quickly, based on the climate's known reactions to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar radiance). The factors that are long lived enough to swing the climate are few:- Anthropogenic CO2 (non-anthro, in almost all of the rest of history, has been a very powerful, long lived feedback, rather than a forcing)
- Changes in solar radiance
- Changes in insolation due to orbital changes
- Changes in insolation due to aerosols from dramatic and constant volcanic activity
Satellite measurements of reduced cloudiness (ERBE, ISCCP-clouds) implies that such internal forcings do exist.
I don't know what this means. Can you clarify? -
Bern at 10:59 AM on 13 May 2011Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
mclamb6: you're absolutely right, it's not difficult to see which is which. That's why I come to sites like this one, or Real Climate, or Tamino's Open Mind, or many others (there's a great listing of links in the right column on Real Climate, for example). They're always eager to discuss the latest developments in the science, and many of them do it in a surprisingly accessible fashion for the non-climate scientists like myself. The Ville: The podcast will be available at The Science Show's website. It's a great radio program, I've been listening to it for many years (although I have to say I'm well behind in listening to the podcasts). It's also available on iTunes. -
RW1 at 10:58 AM on 13 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Robert S (RE: 193), "No, it can't. I think you're confused as to what a trend represents -- it's the average slope, not the temperature [anomaly] at a point in time." No, I fully understand the what a trend represents. I've never not understood what a trend represents. Yes, a trend does not represent a temperature anomaly at a point in time. I fail to see how this in anyway contradicts anything I've said. "If that were the criteria we would never be able to discern a trend in any observational series. I'd feel a whole lot better about my stock portfolio over the past 4 years." We are talking about natural variability here, not whether or not there is trend. The point is when the trend amount is less than or equal to the observed short term variations over the whole of the trend, it can't really be distinguished from random natural variability. Contrast this with a trend of 3 C over 30 years. This is much more likely to be outside the range of natural variability since the trend amount is so much greater than the short term, random variability.Moderator Response: You have been told before that it is not legitimate to offhandedly dismiss a trend merely because the noise seems large. There are rock solid statistical methods for computing probability of the trend over a given amount of time, given the particular noise level. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:51 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
120, apiratelooksat50, Sorry about your Achilles. That's got a long recovery time, but I know a few people who have done it, and they were all fine (eventually). Prove/Disprove: 1) Bigfoot- Prove: Find physical evidence, such as a carcass, skeleton, DNA, or live specimen
- Disprove: can't ever be done (unless maybe you can program an army of surveillance robots capable of scouring the entire northwestern part of the continent, leaving no stone unturned).
- Prove: This is a case where real science comes in, because one can rarely ever "prove" anything, and even when you do, that "proof" is founded on other "proven" hypotheses, so if one of them is overturned, everything else collapses as well. But after a while, a compilation of confirming evidence and a paucity of contradictory evidence strengthens the case to the point where one no longer feels that "proof" is needed.
- Disprove: First you need an alternative hypothesis, whether it be a variation on or complete refutation of evolution. Then you need a compelling body of evidence supporting that hypothesis and unambiguously contradicting that of evolution. As an example, Intelligent Design will never be proven or disproven, unless God comes down and interrupts a science lecture at MIT to assume the role of guest speaker.
- Prove: We already have substantial evidence, but this can no more be "proven" than one can "prove" evolution. It's better to speak in terms of "confidence" than "proof."
- Disprove: The answer is the same as with evolution: a feasible hypothesis with supporting (but unambiguous) evidence.
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:35 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
119, RW1, You have it upside-down. We don't have a consensus because we need proof, we have a consensus because we have proof. There is also a consensus on lung cancer, ozone and CFCs, the right ways to construct buildings, fly planes, prepare food, etc. The only reason we don't discuss the consensus on those issues is because there aren't masses of people who have been fooled into thinking there's actually any question in those matters. The only reason we do discuss the consensus behind climate change is because of the number of people who so adamantly refuse to look at, understand, and accept the science that proves the facts behind climate change. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:20 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
This question may not be that well thought out, but I am asking mercy. I ruptured my Achilles tendon and recently had surgery and the Lortab sometimes REALLY has an effect. Let's take 3 situations: AGW, evolution, and the existence of Bigfoot. I believe in AGW (to a limited effect). Definitely believe in evolution. And, I think the existence of Bigfoot MIGHT be a possibility. All have multiple lines of evidence and the first 2 have scientific consensus. All are currently a theory or maybe hypothesis. What would it take to prove or disprove any of the 3? -
RW1 at 10:15 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
This is utter nonsense. Science advances primarily through falsification and paradigm shifts. So-called 'consensus' has nothing to do with science. 'Consensus' is pure propaganda. The bottom line is you don't use consensus if you have proof. -
Harry Seaward at 10:07 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Albatross @ 100 You are so intent on making your point that you are not reading what I posted. I knew you had your list waiting and to clarify my response to that let me state the following: "the organizations may be endorsing their support of catastrophic AGW, but there are individuals within those organizations who do not." Your task was: "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 contributing to global warming." I replied: "I don't know of any scientists period that would make that statment." You replied: "Bad news, I'm a scientist and I made that statement. But then again, you don't know me ;)" If you would slow down and read what is posted instead of anxiously waiting to cut and paste your trump card, you might finally understand that we really aren't that far apart. I've said it before and I will say it again - human activities do have impact on the global climate. We disagree on the level of impact, future ramifications, and current strategies to cope with those anticipated changes. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:00 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
111, JMurphy, Back in the 80s (in hang gliders in Chicago) I launched two ways, from the Indian Dunes by foot, or by tow off the back of a station wagon on an abandoned army air strip (basically, a long, straight dirt road through the fields). The dunes were low, so I could carry the glider the 100 feet up. The north wind coming in over a smooth-as-glass Lake Michigan, hitting the sand dunes that had been built over the millenia by that same wind, produced tremendous lift, especially in the natural "bowl" where we launched. Landing was actually a problem, because the lift was so strong in the bowl, but it was the only safe place to land. The shore line itself was too narrow, crowded with beach goers, and you were likely to drown if you ever had to try to come down there. Of course, it was over an hour and a half drive to the dunes from Chicago, with the glider on the roof. And launching at Lookout Mountain in Tennessee required an SUV to get up the mountain (after having driven 6-8 hours to get there). Basically, the hobby used a lot of fuel, even if the actual flying was "emissions free" (not counting the energy expended in constructing the high-tech glider to begin with, of course). -
Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bud @87:"It is irrelevant how many scientists there are in total nor how many are "climate" scientists. It only takes one experiment by scientist or non-scientist to prove them all wrong. Consensus is not part of scientific method. Consensus is a political process."
Consensus does not make anything true, but it was (and is) a fundamental assumption of the enlightenment and of science (which grew out of it) that close examination of the evidence with an open mind will lead people to the same opinion. The will converge on truth. So, arriving at a consensus by negotiation is a political process; but arriving at a consensus by independently examining the evidence is the hallmark of science. It is a sign that the consensus theory accurately represents the available evidence, which in turn means any superior theory is not likely to be very different in its predictions. As can be seen from the evidence in my preceding post, the consensus on global warming was reached slowly and arduously. Slowly, one scientist after another has moved from rejection or agnosticism about the theory to endorsement, and what has moved them is the accumulation of evidence. You would be arrogant indeed to think that you no better without a full and detailed knowledge of the evidence; and any politician who bases their policy on the consensus being wrong is a fool. -
Victor at 09:53 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
I'm not convinced why Lindzen is 'wrong'. "Internal variability means that heat is just being moved around from one part of the Earth's climate system from another, i.e. in Lindzen's example, from the deep ocean layers to the surface." "Clearly this warming of the entire global climate system must be caused by an external forcing, and the radiative forcings over the past century have been dominated by greenhouse gases. " Why is an 'internal' forcing ruled out? Internal variability as a change in heat distribution around the globe also implies effects on snowcover, clouds en water vapour. This in turn changes the radiation balance and an internal forcing is born. There is obviously some long term warming trend due to increased GHG's but does this mean that, besides the known external forcings (solar cycle, aërosols), no other forcings exists? Climatologists widely believe that the initial forced GHG-warming will be amplified by a factor 2 to 4, the positieve feedbacks. Don't forget that these feedbacks, like changing ice-albedo and watervapour, disturb earth radiation budget as well and thus act like forcings. It seems to me rather odd that only and only temperature can change these parameters. Satellite measurements of reduced cloudiness (ERBE, ISCCP-clouds) implies that such internal forcings do exist. -
~Qt~ at 09:47 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
By the way, I love the Lindzen's Illusions button!!! -
~Qt~ at 09:42 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
I meant to include this link with my previous post: Dessler and Davis (2010) - full paper -
Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Stephen Baines @84:"What I would like to see someday is a historical perspective of how the level of consensus has changed over time."
Bray, 2010, "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" draws on three surveys by Bray and Storch, the first in 1996 and the last in 2008, to answer your question. It turns out that: 1) In 1996, just over 60% of climate scientists believed the Earth was warming; just under 40% believed humans where responsible; and just under 60% believed the IPCC was an accurate reflection of the science. 2) In 2003, just over 80% of climate scientists believed the Earth was warming; around 55% believed humans were responsible; and around 75% believed the IPCC reports accurately reflected the science. 3) In 2008, around 95% of climate scientists believed the Earth was warming; just under 90% believed humans where responsible; and 80% believed the IPCC reports accurately reflected the science, or understated the risks. Based on Doran and Zimmerman, Bray indicates that the proportion of climate scientists believing humans where responsible for global warming had risen to around 95% by 2009. (All data from Figure 1 in the paper.) Robert Lichter (2008) also compares the results of a 1991 Gallup Poll of climate scientists to his 2007 Survey:"We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes: In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today. In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today. The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991. The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from 20% to 32%. Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007."
There is a clear pattern of a rising consensus as scientist by scientist is driven by the evidence to conclude that temperatures are rising, we are responsible, and it is dangerous. -
~Qt~ at 09:38 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
@ Climate Watcher 22 Paltridge et al. found that specific humidity in the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis declined between 1973 and 2007. However, this reanalysis is incredibly biased and almost certainly inaccurate for several reasons. 1) Other reanalyses indicate that the long-term water vapor feedback is positive, as chris noted. 2)The NCEP/NCAR reanalysis was solely dependent on radiosonde humidity measurements to constrain upper tropospheric humidity. As you note, there are problems with these measurements. 3) While the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis showed that the long-term water vapor feedback is negative, it also indicated that the short-term feedback is positive. This makes very little physical sense. 4) Newer reanalyses include improvements that are designed to increase the fidelity of long-term trends. Thus, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is not as accurate as the newer reanalyses which indicate the existence of a positive feedback. -
Tom Curtis at 09:02 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
funglestrumpet @82, quoting Tyndale is all very well, but their are deniers who believe that the climate response for a doubling of CO2 is around 0.5 degrees C after feedbacks. Indeed, I recently came across one who claimed increasing CO2 reduces the temperature. There is no way that you will convince such deniers and their gratefully hoodwinked political allies that reducing CO2 emissions will be a cost effective means of combating rising global temperatures. This is particularly the case seeing the same people also tend to believe that the major drivers of increasing temperatures is natural, and is in the process of reversing, ie, entering a sustained cooling period. You certainly would not convince me, if I believed those falsehoods, to reduce CO2 emissions without first convincing me that those beliefs were false. That is because I am rational. Further, Stephen Baines @85 is entirely correct. This is my last comment on this topic which is OT on this thread. I recommend, however, that you become familiar with the arguments deniers actually present before you recommend how we can overcome their political effect. -
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Albatross @100, I believe Harry Seaward was playing coy. Your statement was:"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 contributing to global warming."
You would not agree with that statement, and neither would Lindzen or Christie (although I know of some scientists who would). I believe the question should be:"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."
All of the scientific societies you listed endorse that human emissions of GHG is the major contributing factor, as of course, do you. -
KR at 08:48 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Tom Curtis, Rob, etc. - Take a look at the Sunseeker, a solar powered glider which crossed the US on solar power in August 1990. See also the Sunseeker II and other projects on that page, including the Sunship - a solar powered dirigible. -
JMurphy at 08:46 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Sphaerica wrote : "Except to do any gliding you need power to get the glider aloft (or for a hang glider something to lug you and the glider up to a launch point, and then go pick you up where ever you wind up landing)." The last time I went gliding, I was launched by a winch, which is like launching a kite. I suppose the winch still needs fuel for the motor but, apart from that, and presuming a landing back on the airfield where you start, the carbon footprint should be very small ! Best way to fly, unless you need to get somewhere... -
KR at 08:43 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Sphaerica - There's a lot going on in terms of electric airplanes, which can address at least small craft in the forseeable future. I believe there were several present at Sun-and-Fun this spring, and more to appear at Oshkosh. But battery recharge times limit distance traveled per day, which means even the best won't be replacements. For general and commercial aviation, however, we're more likely to end up with either biofuels or solar/wind generated (carbon neutral) liquid fuels. For example, there's a pretty serious effort by Swift Enterprises to certify their 100LL replacement (propeller driven planes), which is a biofuel, for FAA approved use. They're in testing now, and should have that cleared fairly soon - and it appears to be price competitive. I expect some kerosene/jet fuel replacements hitting the market in <5-10 years as well. -
Tom Curtis at 08:40 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Rob @104, I have always wondered about the viability of an electrically powered ducted fan based on a glider frame and with PV cells in the wings. Sphaerica, most air transport needs could be met with derigibles again propelled by ducted fans and powered from battery power with PV cells recharging the batteries during daylight hours. Granted it would take five days to cross the atlantic, but that is almost irrelevant for freight; and if you need a faster personal meeting, there is skype. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:17 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
106, Albatross, Except to do any gliding you need power to get the glider aloft (or for a hang glider something to lug you and the glider up to a launch point, and then go pick you up where ever you wind up landing). One of the big sins (I think) about how we're wasting fossil fuels today is that they're the only practical solution to powered flight. We're wasting it all puttering around to the corner store, when a hundred years from today people are going to regret all the things that can't be done because flying is so prohibitively expensive (because there's so little fuel left to meet the needs of aviation). -
Chris G at 08:15 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
@Dana 21, Just to connect some dots, that is the same link posted by dankd, whom I suspect is the same climate researcher who studied under Lindzen as a graduate student about the time that the 1993 discussion and unpublished AGU presentation were written. So, I suspect that Dan has a better understanding of what Lindzen's views are, or were, than anyone other than Lindzen himself. Which makes the AGU presentation, where he is the primary author and Lindzen the second, interesting. -
JMurphy at 08:15 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
In fact, the AAPG have decided that it would be best if they just didn't get involved in trying to work out where they stand : Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee ...as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geoophysics through either our education or our daily professional work. For our members who want to follow the climate change discussions there are numerous, easily accessed Web sites. If there’s a demand, and if it helps us to find hydrocarbons or characterize potential sequestration reservoirs, AAPG can host climate-related technical sessions at our meetings – but like our other sessions, they should be composed of presenters who are doing the primary research. In the meantime, the Executive Committee saw no advantage and several significant potential pitfalls in maintaining an AAPG Global Climate Change Committee. The AAPG Global Climate Change Committee has fulfilled its mission with passion and energy, providing lively debate. The members are sincerely thanked for a job well done. The Professional Geologist And that is pretty good, coming as it does from such a group (geologists), some of whom are die-hard so-called skeptics - *cough* Plimer... -
Albatross at 08:11 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Rob @104, There is always gliding :) -
drrocket at 08:06 AM on 13 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Dikran Marsupial, 5/13/11, 03:37 AM CO2 residence time On 5/12/11 at 17:43, you wrote on the If this were true, then the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions (as both man and the natural environment would be net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere). The second part about the natural environment conditionally being net emitter is an assumption, your assumption, and one that doesn't follow from your hypothesis that the CO2 concentration rise is surely natural. I used your exact words; there was no problem in reading or citing what you wrote, then or now. Could it be that what you object to is your assumption being called an assumption? You assumed the conclusion would follow from your hypothesis. You say, You (like e.g. Robert Essenhigh) are confusing residence time and adjustment time. They are not the same thing, both are well defined in e.g. the IPCC reports. How did I confuse what I didn't use? Here's what IPCC says on this subject: Response time The response time or adjustment time is the time needed for the climate system or its components to re-equilibrate to a new state, following a forcing resulting from external and internal processes or feedbacks. Bold added, AR4, Glossary. I was addressing nothing like the so-called equilibration time for the climate. I would have no use for adjustment time under any circumstances because the climate system never reaches equilibrium. I was talking about the average time molecules of CO2 stay in the atmosphere, and that is given by the residence time applied to some scenario for emissions. I was talking about CO2 uptake, not about climate equilibration. Your formula, dC = E_a + E_n – U_n, doesn't have enough variables. It's missing E_a altogether. Using your symbology, IPCC's ludicrous, irrational assumption is that U_a = 0.6E_a while U_n = E_n, where E_a ~ 8 GtC/yr and E_n ~ 210 GtC/yr. What you might have written is dC = E_a – U_a + E_n – U_n = 8.0 – 4.8 + 210.2 – 210.2 = 3.2 GtC/yr This is the equation for the air-sea flux in AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515, where I happen to score IPCC's 20 GtC/yr of ACO2 flux between air and ocean as nCO2 with no loss of generality. The problem is that IPCC's ratio of U_a/E_a = 0.5 while its ratio of U_n/E_n = 1 is unjustified, if physically possible at all, considering that ACO2 and nCO2 are just different mixes of 12CO2:13CO2:14CO2. If you have any accountancy homework, just post it here, too, for lessons. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:39 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
103, cynicus, And yet even they were forced to mollify their position in 2007 because (in their words) "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." The revised statement pretty much says nothing. It says that climate has changed in the past (no, really?), that the most extreme predictions of climate change aren't likely to come to pass (no, really?), and that they support alternative energy sources and conservation (with constant references to the need for it to be economically palatable). It's hardly a resounding refutation of current climate science. -
KR at 07:13 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
ClimateWatcher - "Make the world more like the subtropics and it will cool off because it will emit more energy to space. Make the world more like the polar regions and it will warm up because it will emit less energy to space. " This is one of the more outrageous statements you've made. You are, I hope, aware of the T^4 relationship between temperature and power emitted? Of course the tropics emit more energy, they are warmer! I would rather not turn the polar regions into tropics, myself - it would have rather harsh consequences for the middle latitudes, let alone the present tropics. Moist air emits less energy than dry air at any particular temperature, ClimateWatcher. Predicted, tested, proven. -
Michael.M at 06:48 AM on 13 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
Got my copy yesterday - ten days earlier than expected when ordering at amazon germany. :-) -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:39 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
DSL @ 99.... Right! I really don't think the skeptics quite understand that no one wants AGW to be real. We would all be relieved if this weren't real. I'm a licensed general aviation pilot and I'd love to feel free to burn as much fossil fuel as my little heart desires but I've grounded myself until an adequate bio-fuel alternative is on the market. My passion for aviation takes a backseat to the future my kids will inherit. -
chris at 06:24 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
ClimateWatcher, your assertion that "But even in recent decades, as the instrumentation has become more uniform, the sonde data do not show positive feedback", isn't true. For example, the radiosonde reanalysis of McCarthy et al (2009) does show a positive water vapour response to tropospheric warming. Likewise the reanalyses described by Dessler and Davis (2010). Likewise with the new radiosonde analyses described in Dai et al. (2011). Paltridge et al is not a particularly convincing example for your argument. After all the authors themselves conclude:"It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."
I don't think one can dismiss the very large body of work from satellites and now from raiosonde reanalysis that global warming is accompanied (amplified) by enhanced tropospheric water vapour. -
cynicus at 06:20 AM on 13 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
@101 Sphaerica, I bet the "American Society of Petroleum geologists" would fit that question. Does it surprise you? -
Bob Lacatena at 06:06 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
22, ClimateWatcher, I can't believe anyone would still put forward the Partridge paper as evidence/argument for anything. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:53 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
#12 There are problems with satellite estimates of humidity also: (see slide 15 for contradictory trends between two satellites ) As to RAOB, I'm sure you're familiar with the Paltridge paper There are problems with sonde data, notably spatial coverage and instrumentation change. But even in recent decades, as the instrumentation has become more uniform, the sonde data do not show positive feedback. One should also look further. People assume that when humidity increases, infrared emission to space decreases. But we observe the opposite. Excluding cloudy areas, the moist subtropics emit more to space than do the dry polar regions. It is temperature and vertical variation of humidity that govern earth's emission amount and not to total water vapor. Make the world more like the subtropics and it will cool off because it will emit more energy to space. Make the world more like the polar regions and it will warm up because it will emit less energy to space. -
dana1981 at 05:38 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
chris #17 - interesting letter, thanks for the link. -
les at 05:26 AM on 13 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
Chris G 16 - yes the odds are against it, but the cost of believing you're Galileo is small (is you do do quiet to your self) and the payoff is high is you are right. Well worth it! 19 - yes, it is curious and fascinating...
Prev 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 Next
