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:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:53 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket, I am looking at the diagram that you linked (just to confirm: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html) and I see only 0.8 - 70.6 + 70 or "net 0.2 into the ocean" for nCO2. For red arrows interacting with the ocean I see only 22.2 in and 20 out or "net 2.2 into the ocean" for ACO2. Seems a little odd until we consider that the red ACO2 is really the "new" CO2 and about 1/3 of the 6.4 "new" Gt/yr goes into the ocean, about 1/6 of the 6.4 into the biosphere and the rest (1/2 of the 6.4) ends up in the atmosphere. I'm not sure the IPCC directly defines "well-mixed" but (CAGW skeptic) Jack Barrett has a nice graph of the isotope ratios as they vary by season and latitude: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page33.htm which shows that mixing between hemispheres is generally slower than a season otherwise the NH peaks would bleed into the SH instead being damped out by the seasonal vegetation uptake in the NH. Both Barrett and Ferdinand Engelbeen (another skeptic) show that CO2 is well mixed in most circumstances (F.E. here: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#Variations_due_to_local_circumstances:) #3, some of the rise in CO2 is indeed "surely natural" but only a few percent. The reason is that without man-made CO2, there would have been a natural rise in CO2 of about 5 ppmv due to natural warming from the LIA (sorry I don't have a reference from that, but again it is from CAGW skeptic sources that consider the majority of observed warming to be natural). The analysis of M Loa raw data is in the link from F.E. above, very much worth reading. In particular, where he talks about reasons for local variations (e.g. upslope winds from local agriculture which lowers the CO2). No mention of pacific ocean outgassing and F.E. is nothing if not thorough. BUt remember that even though some small amount of the rise is "natural", the entire increase in CO2 atmosphere comes from the anthropogenic sources since nature is actually absorbing about 1/2 of the ACO2 as I pointed out above. -
Albatross at 11:41 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken @77, I'm not sure how your quote is meant to help your case, I know that you have attached your horse to this "missing heat" cart and are reluctant to change your mindset, but please be open minded. I'm not sure why you insist on being focussed on the 0-700 m layer (although I have an idea or two), von Shuckmann's research (and that of Hansen et al. and Trenberth) suggest that one really ought to be going two to three times that depth to better capture what is going on. So using the 0-1500 m or 0-2000 m data versus the 0-700 m data makes a notable difference, and we all know that the mean depth of the oceans is much, much greater than 700 m. You say "It looks like Von Schuckmann is the likely outlier amongst the OHC analyses here. " That would be your opinion, but von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) is a published paper, not preliminary data as you admit. Willis is looking at only the 0-700 m Argo data (see above comments), so that makes comparison with von Shuckmann's data difficult. And that is likely the reaosn that Willis is 'finding' a much weaker warming trend. This is not new, Trenberth came to the same conclusion back in 2010. Please read Hansen et al. (2011, in review), I was quoted some pertinent portions of the text. You seemed to have missed/ignored this on the first pass (see #71 for full quotes). "A verdict is provided by the ocean heat uptake found by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011), 0.42 W/m2 for 2005-2010, averaged over the planet. Adding the small terms for heat uptake in the deeper ocean, warming of the ground and atmosphere, and melting of ice, the net planetary energy imbalance exceeded +0.5 W/m2 during the solar minimum. " "The error estimated by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) for ocean heat uptake in the upper 2000 m of the ocean, ± 0.1 W/m2 for the ocean area or ± 0.07 W/m2 for the planetary energy imbalance, does not include an estimate for any remaining systematic calibration errors that may exist." -
Doug Mackie at 11:31 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
I tried reading it slowly JG but you still aren't making much sense. Are you saying that the oceans have not absorbed a lot of CO2? If so, do you have an alternative explanation for the observed decrease in ocean pH? Currently the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. This means the supply processes are greater than the removal process. That is, once CO2 is added to the atmosphere it stays for a long time (= long residence time) because it is not removed. -
Albatross at 11:24 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward, Please answer my question posed @45. Thanks. -
scaddenp at 11:21 AM on 12 May 2011Models are unreliable
"I have seen many projections of the models into the future. You claim that the models are hindcast, but I have never seen a graphic to demonstrate." Running a full climate model over 800,000 years or so? Um. That would be tricky so you need simplication. More common to do full runs for specific period of interest like LGM, PETM, YD etc. Again, IPCC WG1 is place for the references. You could see the Hansen and Sato for a much simpler calculation covering last 800,000 years. -
Bern at 10:54 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Firstly, I'd like to say "well done!" to everyone here for keeping the discussion as civil as possible (and also the mods for ruthlessly keeping it that way!). It makes it so much more pleasant to read the comment thread, to the extent that I actually *do* read the entire comment thread, rather than giving up after the first half a dozen posts. Secondly, in regard to definition #2 in Harry Seaward's post on the Urban Dictionary definition of 'warmist': yep, that one all by itself rules out pretty much everyone commenting on this site, and every climate scientist who's written a paper I've read. In fact, I recommend Hansen's Milankovic paper to see a nice discussion about how natural forcings affected climate over the past 60-odd million years. I found it to be quite a fascinating read. -
Chemware at 10:27 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward @60, It's clear you are no scientist. The only thing a scientist believes in absolutely is the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> experimentation -> disproof. Every climate scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that it is possible that the current warming is natural in origin due to some as yet unknown phenomena. They will then go on to say that the probability of that is vanishingly small due to the weight of multiple lines of evidence in many scientific disciplines, and because other plausible explanations (eg: it's the sun) have been disproved. On this basis, according to your definition, I have not seen a "warmist" as yet, because no scientist I've met holds absolute beliefs about global warming. Though, being a scientist, I do admit the possibility that such people exist. On the contrary, I have meet a very large number of deniers, who have remarkably similar characteristics to your "warmist": 1) An absolute belief that humans cannot change the average temperature of the planet. There is even a subset who believe that temperatures are really constant or declining and that there is a global conspiracy of meteorologists to forge the temperature record to make it look like there is warming. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that CO2 emissions may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies at coal and oil companies, "just to prevent economic catastrophe." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes cannot possibly be related in any way to humankind's CO2 emissions. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause. -
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
"The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural. As the Vostok record shows, it is in sync with temperature, but always lagging." Nope. CO2 isotope signature in ice bubbles shows is carbon-cycle CO2. CO2 in atmosphere today shows its FF in origin. By your logic the isotope signatures should be the same. -
scaddenp at 10:20 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
IPCC summaries the published science for consumption BY policy makers. The IPCC are not policy makers themselves. Your other assertions are simply political statements. They express what you wish to believe without a trace of supporting evidence and are laughable to those who know the people involved. -
adrian smits at 10:15 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Has anyone seen the peer reviewed article that seems to be suggesting TSI is close to six times greater than previously estimated for solar max and minimum?Response:[DB] You'll have to provide more info than that. Publication, author, title, year is usually the minimum. Direct link is best when you want an opinion on a paper. Thanks!
-
Bob Lacatena at 09:43 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I think one of the things that really floors me about those in denial about climate change is that they think that we -- the people who trust and understand the science -- are just like them, that our understanding is a "belief" that we've arbitrarily chosen, that we cling to it like a dying man clings to a tree in rising flood waters, that we ignore evidence because somehow climate change is a good thing that we want to happen, and that we're the ones who are putting civilization at risk... because if Exxon doesn't make 30 trillion dollars in the coming decades, the economy will crumble and we'll all be thrown into the stone age. It's really just amazing the way they stand everything on it's head, so that down is up, hot is cold, the incline is a decline, the MWP is but current temperature increases ain't, CRU engaged in a global conspiracy but Exxon Mobile is funding research, and on and on and on. With a straight face, they say things like:And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold.
(implying that research funded by Exxon Mobile and other businesses is real research that is not looking for a predetermined conclusion, but the work done by scientists on government grants is -- but I'm too darned silly to realize the truth of it all). *sound of muffled gunshot, then a thud as something heavy hits the floor, followed by the clunk of the gun also hitting the floor* -
Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward @28, read my statement again. Unless you wish to suggest the negative forcing (ie cooling effect) of aerosols and land use changes have been mistaken for positive forcings (warming effect) by climate scientists; or that climate scientists mistakenly believe the 0.1 W/m^2 forcing of black carbon some how dominates the 3 W/m^2 forcing from GHG your original point is still wrong, and your attempt to suggest the respondents where confused about the significance of the questions they were answering is still laughable. Seriously, where I not so familiar with the regular output of denialists, I would have thought your comment a parody. The whole output of denialists on this thread has been absolutely ridiculous. It is premised on the suppositions that: 1) Climate scientists are so confused that they cannot understand questions regularly put to the general public in polls; or 2) Multiple surveys of scientific opinion which regularly show agreement in the high 90's with the two simple propositions polled by Doran can some how be out by multiples of 10% because of methodological flaws (which are only ever hinted at, not pointed to); or 3) The existence of three dentists in Woking-on-Rye who disagree with the IPCC (or some equivalent) somehow invalidates the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have actively researched the issue to a standard that can pas peer review agree with the IPCC (or think it is too cautious. -
Ken Lambert at 09:37 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
DB & Albatross #75 #76 Thank you for acknowledging my suggestion of a "global gridded system of floats to measure the deep waters as well remains a good one. The task is to convince someone to pay for it..." China (a 20% AGW contributor) is cashed up at the moment - maybe a call to Mr Hu?? This is from von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011) - (excuse the length of the quotation) Quote "Many attempts have been made to estimate long-term as well as recent global OHC changes. But the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are still unclear. An overview on the different analyses estimating OHC can be found in Lyman et al. (2010). For example, several teams have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies. Patterns of interannual variability, in particular, differ among methods. Especially correction methods of historical measurements (XBTs) dominate among method variability in estimating this GOI (Domingues et al., 2008; Lyman et al., 2010; Gouretski and Reseghetti, 2010). Recent short term estimations of global OHC are mostly based on Argo measurements,and thus reduce possible errors due to large data gaps in space and time as well as due to inhomogeneous sampling. But nevertheless, as interannual variability of OHC is large in the long-term estimations, analyses of global OHC during the last decade differ as well among methods (von Schuckmann et al., 2009; Willis et al., 2009; Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010)." endquote All of the Argo analyses show a flattening of the Upper 700m OHC since around 2003. Your references to the Tisdale manipulated 'cherry pick' - which explicitly produces a plot of Argo analyses only, does nothing to explain why several teams analysing Argo are getting small if any OHC increase. The 'step jump' in OHC from the NODC Upper 700m plot in 2001-2003 period of transition to Argo data is glaringly apparent. This 'step jump' has never shown in any satellite record measuring TOA imbalance. The suggestion that it is quite legitimate to splice XBT, and other methods with Argo and linearize into a 1993-2010 chart timeline, yet manipulative and bogus to look at the recent and probably more accurate Argo data by itself really defies logic. We should wait for Josh Willis published analysis of the **preliminary** data he shared with Dr Pielke - however unless Dr Willis is out by a factor of 2 or 3 in his prelim analysis - the chances are that he is finding less than half the heat of von Schukmann and less than a third of the heat of the purported warming imbalance. It looks like Von Schuckmann is the likely outlier amongst the OHC analyses here. -
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Bray and Storch, "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (2008) is a detailed survey of 373 climate scientists. Regarding the key questions that match the Doran survey, it shows the following results: 20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now? With 1 being "not at all" and 7 being "very much", 97.6% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 67.1% of respondents scored 7 (the highest possible confidence). (Mean score 6.44; median score 7; mode 7) 21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes? Again 1 is "not at all" and 7 is "very much". 88.9% of respondents scored 4 or higher, and 34.59% scored 7, with an additional 31.89% scoring 6. Only 1.351% scored 1, and 2.973% scored 2. (Mean score 5.68%; median score 6; mode 7) Also of interest are a series of questions about the IPCC and the scientific consensus, of which I will give one example: 39. The IPCC reports tend to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or over estimate the magnitude of the impacts resulting from changes in: 39a. temperature In this question, 1 is interpreted as "underestimates" and 7 as "overestimates", with 4, therefore, indicating accurately estimates. 89.8% of respondents thought the IPCC predictions where reasonably accurate (responses 3 to 5). Slightly more (5.248% vs 4.972%) respondents thought the IPCC significantly overestimated the temperature increases (responses 6 and 7) than thought they significantly underestimated it (responses 1 & 2). (Mean score 3.99; median score 4; mode 4) In questions regarding precipitation, sea levels rise, and extreme events, respondents where slightly less confident in the IPCC, with the lowest confidence being in predictions of extreme events with just 75.9% of respondents agreeing (scored 3 to 5) with the IPCC. The general pattern is that statements given high confidence by the IPCC in their reports are very widely agreed to, while statements given less confidence have greater dissent. That suggests the beliefs of the scientific community as a whole (rather than those of individual scientists) are determined by the quality of evidence; and that the IPCC is accurately reporting on that evidence. So, the general pattern is very clear! The IPCC is reporting on a genuine consensus amongst scientists. The scientists, however, have a variety of opinions on detailed points which shows they are not practising "group think" or following dogma. Indeed, where the evidence is assessed by the IPCC as very good, support of the IPCC position is near universal amongst climate scientists. Deniers such as Harry Seaward and Bud are terrified that the general public might realize this, ie, that the scientific controversy over the core issues in climate change are manufactured by a very few ideological warriors who seem unable to follow evidence. Therefore they will try every trick they know to try and distract from these facts - as can be seen on this thread. -
idunno at 08:27 AM on 12 May 2011Wakening the Kraken
Hi Daniel and Agnostic, As I have little scientific credibility, and have already posted on this subject before elsewhere, I have thought long and hard before commenting on your excellent article. I have two criticisms. 1. I think that you have not distinguished enough between two possible nightmarish processes; the first that the clathrate stability zone begins to melt, at 50 metres depth, and thus 6 bars atmospheric pressure, releasing 168 x 6 litres of methane at surface pressure; the second, that the melting of the East Siberian shelf could then "uncap" much larger deposits of already gaseous methane. In the second of these scenarios, the venting of a whole gasfield directly into the atmosphere would be possible. This may, or may not, be an event similar to the Storegga shelf collapse of approximately 8100 BC. 2. ...which brings me on to the Kraken - a scary beastie. To digress slightly, high on the coastal hills of Eastern Japan, covered in lichen and moss, and almost completely forgotten until the last few months, when they have achieved a certain cyber-fame, there are a series of inscribed stones, which say something like "Please, children, do not build anything below this height. It is not safe." This, in a written solid form, is an unmistakable warning from people who had seen a tsunami, and who cared about their descendants' fate. It is now clear that ignoring this advice was bad policy. Akin to these concrete written warnings, I would suggest, there are numerous very old folk tales, oral traditions which were passed from mouth to mouth, that were perhaps the ancients' way of passing on essential survival information to their descendants. The treasure of the tribe, as described for example by Bruce Chatwin, in "The Songlines". Many of these old tales concern floods and terrifying sea-monsters. I would suggest that these are precious ancestral heirlooms, which we ignore at our peril; and which may very often have their basis in real pre-historical events - the Thira eruption, the flooding of the Mediterranean basin, the flooding of the Black Sea, etc. On the other hand, some are just the deranged ravings of a pack of Stone Age loons predicting events so far in the future, or so far beyond their actual comprehension, as to be entirely meaningless. I am slightly discomforted by this Kraken, as I'm not sure enough of the corpus of Scandinavian myth to know which it might be... a folk memory of the awful Storegga tsunami; or a load of old bollocks about the end of it all. It is easier for me to draw a distinction using classical Greek texts. I don't think there is much to be gained by invoking the stories of the patricidal Zeus usurping Chronos and all of that Gaia stuff out of Hesiod... This pertains to the gods, or God, or whatever. Now, while I concede that we may already be completely fracked already, I still hope that we may yet be in the condition of the first recognisable human hero to arise from the sea of Greek myth: wily Odysseus. Who survives. Despite picking a fight with the ocean, despite provoking the anger of the sun, and despite the various monsters he meets... At any rate, I thought your article was excellent, and thought you'd also be amused to learn that your reference to the Kraken was the second I'd seen recently. Try searching for "Kraken" on "The Onion"; still America's finest news source.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! We have plans for a sequel: The Kraken Returns... -
dhogaza at 08:20 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward: "2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. " So none of us are "global warmists". And you won't find a single climate scientist who is not aware that natural phenomena not only MAY cause climate change, but DOES cause climate change. Milankovich cycles, variations in solar output, positions of the continents (over geological timescales), etc are all know to affect climate. This information comes from science in the first place, thank you very much. The denialist position is that ONLY natural phenomena can cause climate change, which is, of course, incorrect. Denialist is an appropriate descriptive term because to believe this, you have to deny the physical properties of CO2, the fact that when plenty of water is available that rising temperatures don't increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (or that water vapor is not a GHG), etc . -
JosHagelaars at 08:16 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
For those interested, you can find the list of the 77 scientists mentioned in response #30 on http://tinyurl.com/ltakyk. EIKE is a German lobby group of climate sceptics, their slogan on the website says "Not the climate is threatened, but our freedom!". I don't have the impression that a climate scientist is present on the list, in fact in a German newspaper article the public relations man of EIKE states : "We don't need climate scientists" (If you can read German : http://tinyurl.com/2a8354c). -
scaddenp at 07:57 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
apirate - the likes of NSF fund scientists to find out what isnt known. The funders have no interest in the whether your research ends up supporting one theory or another. By contrast, funding from lobby groups is interested in finding out particular results that support that lobby. This doesnt necessarily mean that the research was badly done but it obviously needs deeper scrutiny. Contracts for research in areas where there is a political interest by lobby group tend to be rather particular about what can be published from that research! In contrast, NSF funded research requires data openness to other researchers. -
pbjamm at 07:55 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
HS@60 By that definition I would consider "warmist" to be an insult and not applicable to any of the regulars here at SkS. @62 I must have missed that one. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:49 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry... Again, you're getting some stuff wrong. 1) There is NO absolute here. Nothing in science is absolute. Given a competing theory that would explain all the current empirical evidence every one of us here would change their opinion. 2) We continually entertain other possibilities. The problem is, every other explanation is not consistent with the data or even between ideas. 3) No. We believe that science clearly understands the problem and if we don't start applying solutions (that cost, yes, billions of dollars) we are going to have a much much bigger problem on our hands, and one that is likely not to be solvable. 4) No again. The frequency and severity maybe. That's different. 5) Have you ever tried posting as a person who believes AGW over at WUWT or JoNova? This is a pony ride you get here. -
Tom Curtis at 07:47 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
apiratelooksat50 @50, sure apirate, all those American climate scientists produced studies that show global warming is dangerous because it would ingratiate them with the Bush administration. The fact is that funding from governments in western democracies is tied to quality of research; while funding from commercial interests is tied to furthering those commercial interests. -
drrocket at 07:46 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
scaddenp, 5/11/11, 13:50 PM [sic] CO2 residence time IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR) has an introductory part titled Policymakers Summary. The Second (SAR), Third (TAR) and Fourth (AR4) have an introductory part titled Summary for Policymakers. IPCC explicitly addresses no one else in its Reports. The Policymakers associated with the IPCC would include US Democrats, formerly including Al Gore, and other Western politicians on the left. What they are supposed to do is heap honors on IPCC and its climatologists, turn a blind eye to scientific challenges to IPCC's model, fund evermore super supercomputers and studies with them, and redistribute world GDP among all nations by voluntarily crushing energy use in proportion to national GDP. -
Harry Seaward at 07:45 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
PBJAMM@56 The comment I was referring to was deleted because it was ad hominem. It referred to my initials being HS being the same as high school just like my thinking pattern. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:44 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
JMurphy... I prefer the term: Warmanista ;-)Response: [JC] Rob, weren't you the one that tried floating the term "hottie". I notice it never took off. -
Harry Seaward at 07:43 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
JMurphy @ 58 From the Urban Dictionary (these are not my words) To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits: 1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause. And while we are at it: Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. -
dana1981 at 07:38 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
warmist = realist -
JMurphy at 07:34 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
So, can anyone explain what the made-up word "warmist" means ? -
Harry Seaward at 07:34 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Rob @ 55 Apologies accepted. Thanks. -
pbjamm at 07:33 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
HS@52 Arguing that "you look like a boiled prawn" or that "you are ugly and your Mom dresses you funny" would be ad hominem. Saying "You're digging very hard, Harry" (DSL@46) is not. The pros/cons of the surveys have been hashed out on SkS more than once before. Is There a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming? How Many Climate Scientists are Skeptics? -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:28 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry... Okay. I can accept that. I just wanted to make sure you weren't some teenage troll with a bad attitude and an overly clever pseudonym. Believe me, I've heard plenty of derivations of my name. My apologies. -
Harry Seaward at 07:19 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Sphaerica at 53 Why not use warmists? Deniers is frequently thrown around on this site. And, I agree with your last paragraph as long as you agree that sometimes the answer might not agree with what your ideals hold. -
drrocket at 07:10 AM on 12 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric (skeptic), 11:22 AM, 5/11/11, CO2 has a short residence time 1. Take a look at the air-sea flux in IPCC's carbon cycle for the 1990s here. AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515. The natural fluxes in black, left to right, positive into the ocean, are 0.2-119.6+120-70.6+70 = 0. The anthropogenic fluxes in red are 2.6-1.6+22.2-20-6.4=-3.2 GtC/yr. In other words, 100% of nCO2 emissions are absorbed each year, but only 69.2% of ACO2 is absorbed per year. If the nCO2 and ACO2 uptake has the same mix as the emissions, then the absorption for 13CO2, x13, and correspondingly x12 must be equal to 1 for nCO2, and equal to 0.692 for ACO2, where 0 ≤ x_i ≤ 1. But how could x13 or x12 be aware of the origin of the species? The ratio of 13CO2 to the total CO2 is the variable R, and for the two species, R_n = 1.11123% (R_PDB) and R_A = 1.08101 ((1 + delta_13C)R_PDB = (1-0.0272)R_PDB). If we aren't particular about the mix of each species, then R_n*x13+(1 - R_n)*x12 = 1 and R_A*x13 + (1 - R_A)*x12 = 0.692. The solution, x13 = 1007.7 and x12 = -10.3, is not possible. 2. IPCC can't be pinned down on its well-mixed conjecture because it never quantifies what well-mixed means, (and because it has no mechanism to respond to challenges). IPCC ought to report the mixing as the variability in standard deviations divided by the average, or something equivalent, and then compare the ratio to a standard or requirement before qualifying it. IPCC admits that gradients exist in atmospheric CO2, detectable EW and an order of magnitude greater NS, which seems to be an admission that the gas is not well-mixed. IPCC shows that the ocean outgasses CO2 dominantly in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, and absorbs a major portion in the polar regions, which are the headwaters of the thermohaline circulation. IPCC shows these effects in its Takahashi diagram. AR4, Figure 7.8, p. 523. However, the fluxes in the Takahashi diagram add to about an order of magnitude too small compared to IPCC's total fluxes in Figure 7.3. Deep, cold water saturated with CO2 is drawn to the surface by the Ekman suction on the Equator, where it is warmed to tropical temperatures to outgas CO2. The surface water then follows mean surface circulation patterns, arriving at the poles about a year later to feed the THC at about 0ºC. All along the year-long route, surface water cools, on average absorbing CO2. This creates a background flux of CO2 in the atmosphere that should be detectable without IPCC's calibrations. IPCC gives no indication in any of its Assessment Reports that its models account for these ocean and atmospheric circulations. NASA published a July 2008 image from AIRS of mid-tropospheric (8 km) CO2 here. The AIRS chart from July 2003 here showed much weaker patterns. NASA's 2003 caption includes this under-stated observation: This global map of mid-troposphere carbon dioxide shows that despite the high degree of mixing that occurs with carbon dioxide, the regional patterns of atmospheric sources and sinks are still apparent in mid-troposphere carbon dioxide concentrations. Climate modelers are currently using AIRS data to study the global distribution and transport of carbon dioxide. Note that atmospheric CO2 in 2003 had a high degree of mixing, no longer well-mixed. Still apparent indeed. CO2 patterns at the surface must be much more pronounced than the extreme lumpiness of CO2 evident at 8 kilometers. The atmosphere acts as a filter to reduce both resolution and evidence of surface patterning. It is not well-mixed above 8 km; it is even less well-mixed below. Whatever IPCC means by well-mixed, the satellite measurements puncture the conjecture. 3. The CO2 concentration rise is surely natural. As the Vostok record shows, it is in sync with temperature, but always lagging. The increase is a local effect at MLO, and IPCC's calibration to make other measuring stations agree with MLO is unwarranted. Furthermore, an intense pattern of CO2 rising from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific splits poleward, enters the Hadley Cells, then the Westerlies, with half descending across MLO as it cools. This puts MLO in a plume of outgassing, a major source amounting to about 60% of the estimated 90 GtC/yr from the ocean. The bulge at MLO is not 30-40% of 8 GtC/yr, but about 3-4% of 90. If that plume were stationary, then the rise seen at MLO might be just due to sea surface temperature. However, the plume might be wandering, a slow, climatic effect moving its ridgeline closer to MLO in modern times. This is speculation, but necessary on the heels of the failure of the IPCC model. An analysis of MLO data closer to raw data, along with wind vector, might shed light on why MLO CO2 concentration has been rising for the last half century. 4. Nothing can be established using thermodynamic equilibrium because it doesn't exist on Earth. It is precisely IPCC's reliance on that fiction that leads to a severe debunking. 5. I don't find any use for a net effect of the ocean. It always uptakes CO2 at 0ºC and at today's partial pressure before the water descends to the bottom. It outgasses CO2 from water 500 to 1000 years old, effectively at the concentration then, but released at the tropical temperature now. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:04 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
50, apiratelooksat50, Don't use the term "warmists." As far as funding... the difference would lie in whether the funding was supplied to actually do research and find the correct answer, whatever it may be, or if it was supplied to find a specific answer (along with any twisted, convoluted method to support that answer), no matter where the truth lies. -
Harry Seaward at 06:59 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Rob @ 49 and DSL @ 50 ROB I've heard that before and sorry, but it does not bother me. I'm actually 58 years old and a Harold Seaward, Jr. Can't help it that my name has been hijacked in the modern world. Try your own last name in the Urban Dictionary. It's kinda funny! Especially #3 and #4 which I hope aren't apropo. DSL Thanks for the ad hominem attack. Proves I'm on to something. Aren't your comments outside the bounds of the Comments Policy? -
David Horton at 06:40 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
MIne was a rhetorical "puzzle". Needs to be some better measure. "100% of climate scientists not paid by big oil", "100% of climate scientists without libertarian ideological beliefs" "100% of scientists who have done research into climatology" and so on. The "97%" figure always suggests that there is a serious minority, some brave, Galileo-like souls struggling against the crushing weight of enforced consensus, of actual climate scientists who disagree with the reality that increasing ghgs are causing rising temperatures and that humans are responsible for increasing ghgs. Instead it seems to be just Lindzen and Christy deliberately maintaining an illusion that there is still some serious scientific debate on these fundamental matters. I just have a feeling that they, and many other deniers, and the Koch brothers, would be quite happy with this graphic being reproduced for the next 20 years. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:37 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Danno @ #3 You are stating that the source of funding for research influences the scientist's results. "the 1% is a handful of scientists funded by the fossil fuel industry?" I see this a lot when referring to skeptics. Not so much when referring to warmists. But, if you are right, then all sources of all funding to all scientists must be considered. And, you are thus implying that all scientific research is inherently flawed based on funding. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
I think folks should look up the urban dictionary term for "Harry Seaward." -
JMurphy at 05:57 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry Seaward, rather than copying the views of a certain individual who maintains a little list of what he considers to be 'peer-reviewed' papers against AGW Alarm (whatever that means), why not actually search out the facts for yourself. Here is the Doran listing. Here is a world-wide survey. Here you can count up to fifty, to find all the scientists who go against the consensus. (Actually, the number doesn't reach fifty but some will prefer any little number to the thousands who agree with the consensus. Why is that, I wonder ?) Also, Harry Seaward can you confirm your backing for the 100 scientists (i.e. twice as many as those mentioned in my last link here) I mentioned in previous post. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:55 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Again, Harry... Where is the information showing that the studies are in error? Where is the study showing that a larger number of climate scientists doubt AGW? You're not putting forth any reasonable refutations of these two papers. RE: Anderegg... 1. Has no bearing on the results. 2. Has no bearing on the results. 3. Has no bearing on the results. 4. Has no bearing on the results. 5. Also, has no bearing on the results. The statistical margin of error in both of these papers is small due to the number of respondents. -
DSL at 05:53 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
You're digging very hard, Harry, but I think you'll find more of the type of gold you're looking for in Poptech's hill. Just once I want to see a self-identified "skeptic" go after another self-identified "skeptic". Just once. -
dana1981 at 05:44 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
KR - angusmac is trying to find a way in which Scenario C, which doesn't reflect reality, could reflect reality. He seems completely unwilling to accept the fact that it is not an accurate scenario. I think continuing to try and explain this is a waste of time. -
dana1981 at 05:41 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - aerosols are taken into account in Schmidt's and my analyses. You're eyeballing and speculating. I ran the actual numbers. -
KR at 05:40 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - I really don't understand what you are going on about. Hansen's 1988 model had a climate sensitivity that was (in hindsight) far too high - 4.2°C, rather than ~3°C/doubling of CO2. It was run on three different emissions scenarios, which are not predictions of economic and political action, but rather guesses, to see how the model would evolve in temperature. Now, many years later, the emissions that actually occurred are closest to Scenario B. Taking Hansen's (rather simple, by today's standards) 1988 model and re-running it with Scenario B emissions and a sensitivity of 3°C/doubling of CO2 matches the actual progression of temperatures surprisingly well. And if you use actual emissions (slightly different than Scenario B), Hansen's model has a best match at a climate sensitivity of 3.4°C/doubling. That's pretty amazing for an early model - Hansen is to be congratulated! Scenario C? That didn't happen, and is hence irrelevant to current conditions. The only way you see the match to Scenario C you are going on about is if you keep the 1988 sensitivity of 4.2°C/doubling, which has been shown not to be a reasonable estimate. So - you're arguing about an emissions scenario that did not occur, and how that matches to a climate model run with a sensitivity that later proved incorrect. Why are you wasting your time, and everyone elses, with this? -
Albatross at 05:35 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry, 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. -
angusmac at 05:18 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana@86, I agree with Albatross. Your diagram makes the forcings absolutely clear. However, let me try to make it clearer by adding temperatures.
Two observations are evident:
• Scenario B temperature predictions are in good agreement with real-world forcings but they fail miserably when compared with real-world temperatures.
• Real-world temperatures do not follow real-world forcings. However, they are in good agreement with the dogleg forcings and temperatures of Scenario C.
Dana, I totally agree that "correlation does not equal causation". However, Hansen (2000) offers an alternative scenario that would change the "bizarre" coincidence of Scenario C into reality and also providing causation. Hansen suggests that the effects of anthropogenic aerosols could balance CO2 forcings. However, he does note that this is a wild card and that current trends are uncertain. I show the forcings from Hansen's alternative scenario below.
Figure 1: A scenario for additional climate forcings between 2000 and 2050. Reduction of black carbon moves the aerosol forcing to lower values (Hansen et al, 2000)
Hansen's 1988 scenarios only consider CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC11 and CFC12. However, it is evident from Figure 1 that the largest anthropogenic climate forcing (due to CO2) could be reduced by negative forcings from aerosols.
Perhaps this is the reason why Scenario C gives good results? If we plugged the negative forcings from aerosols into Scenario B it would result in similar forcings to Scenario C. We would then change the coincidence of Scenario C into a reality of new Scenario B. This new scenario would be able to simulate the post-2000 temperature flattening that is so well modelled by Scenario C.
Tropospheric aerosols look to be the likeliest candidate for a reduction in the CO2 forcing in Scenario B.
China and India have seen huge growth in the last 10 years, most of which is founded on industries that produce large quantities of aerosols. These countries also represent half of the world's population. Therefore, it is not difficult imagine that their aerosol emissions would dwarf Gavin Schmidt's 1940s aerosol blip. Consequently, it is likely that they produce enough negative forcing to cancel out the CO2 forcing in Scenario B thus allowing it to conform to real-world temperatures.
-
dana1981 at 05:15 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Let's not forget the Oreskes study, which was subsequently confirmed by the Peiser study, despite Peiser's aim to disprove Oreskes. Neither found any valid peer-reviewed studies rejecting the consensus in a sample of approximately 1,000 searched (though it took Peiser a while to admit this). Really, how many studies and surveys confirming the consensus does it take to convince you, Harry? -
Harry Seaward at 05:08 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The Anderegg paper is poorly done. 1. Google Scholar instead of an academic database was used. 2. The search was only done in English, despite the global nature of climate science. 3. Names are incorrect. 4. Job titles are wrong. 5. The number of publications and citations is incorrect. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:07 AM on 12 May 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Justripped this offborrowed this from Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog:[Courtesy of FrankD] Based on PIOMAS volume data. Can you say "
Death Spiralfaster than linear?" -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:07 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Harry @ 41... If you'll note, there are two papers referenced here. Each used different methods to come to their conclusions. Each got near identical results. That's generally an indication that the results are robust. The "skeptics" have yet to put forth any study showing anything to the contrary. They've only used the tactic of big numbers with no denominator (i.e., 31,000 "scientists" without saying how many "scientists" there are). -
dana1981 at 05:04 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac - nope sorry, Scenario C would not match up well with the temperature rise if not for the 4.2°C sensitivity. Your whole point is that Scenario C "looks good". It wouldn't look good without high sensitivity. You can't just ignore the aspects of the scenario and model that you don't like. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Clearly you don't want to argue for high climate sensitivity, but that is nevertheless exactly what you're doing. Or more accurately, you're arguing for an alternative reality in which one aspect is high sensitivity.
Prev 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 Next
