Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 Next
Comments 86051 to 86100:
-
Albatross at 00:54 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken @75, He uses the NODC data, the same data Tisdale manipulated and cherry-picked to hide the incline. "You must have beaten Lindzen to death by now.." "...not included Dr Pielke Snr in the firing line." " Dr Trenberth's putative global warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m" Please tone down the innuendo and rhetoric. And one last request, please read the paper just published by von Shuckmann and Le Traon (2011)...there are hyperlinks provided above. -
Tom Curtis at 00:42 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Camburn @54. Ignore the comment about religious demeanour. It was a pun based on your mistyping of "irrelevant". I should have known better."I understand the model run quit well. His paper does not tease out the individual contributions of water vapor, clouds, etc. It holds those fixed while changeing one dynamic....which is co2."
From Schmidt et al:"In one set of calculations, we remove the radiative effects of each major absorber in turn (water vapor, clouds, CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs, ozone, aerosols), and then in the second set, we only use each individual absorber, thus defining the minimum and maximum impact of each radiative constituent (Table 1). For each absorber, both short‐ and long‐wave effects were used or removed simultaneously, though we focus on the LW impacts here. We also performed a number of combination experiments..."
Clearly you do not understand what was done. You claim that all factors where held constant, and just CO2 removed. What Schmidt et al actually did was hold everything constant, and remove the effect of H2O and run the model; then restore H2O, and remove clouds and run the model; then restore the clouds, remove the CO2 and run the model; and so on. They then repeated the whole procedure except that they kept in just one element, and removed all the others - one by one. By doing this, to the extent that the model is accurate, they determine the TOA forcing of the entire system with circa 1980 climatology but without each component, one at a time and the same climatology but with just one component for each component. And just for good measure, they ran some combination experiments in which they removed or retained groupings of components of the system. Granted that this is a model, and has whatever inaccuracies are inherent in that. But we cannot, after all, actually remove all the CO2 in 1980 to see what happens. However, given that limitation, how else could you possibly determine the relative effect of each component of the atmosphere than by the method used by Schmidt et al? That is a serious question. If you don't like that methodology, propose a methodology that would improve on it. I'm betting that you cannot; and I'm betting that because what Schmidt et al looks pretty much like text book procedure to me. In the end, your objection merely comes down to a claim that in the real world, if you removed all the CO2 (or H2O, or clouds) you would not retain the circa 1980 climatology. The claim is true but irrelevant. That does not preclude the determination of relative effect in a 1980 climate. It only means the determination once made is of theoretical rather than practical import. Your objection then, comes down to either pure obscurantism; or a bizarre insistence that only questions in which you are interested in are allowed to be answered, ie, that because you are not interested in the theoretical issue addressed by Schmidt et al, therefore any attempt to answer it is flawed. -
KR at 00:24 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Glenn Tamblyn - Why the disconnect with meteorologists? I suspect (opinion only, mind you) that it's because weather can only be predicted out to a short time frame. Most meteorologists don't have anything to do with long term predictions, like climate - perhaps they intuitively just don't see it as a possibility? -
Harry Seaward at 00:20 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009). This question is ambiguous. Which human activity (or activities) is meant? And, in what context is the word significant being used? It should have been quantified. It is interesting to note that neither of the papers referenced by Mr. Cook mention CO2, and they should not be construed to do so. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:19 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
54, Camburn, Just to follow up, for more info on models, see these specific sections in Spencer Weart's pages: Simple Models of Climate Change General Circulation Models of Climate Both of these are very, very informative, and more importantly, they don't so much tell you what the results are as how they are achieved. There is nothing arguable or partisan about the topic under discussion. These pages simply provide a wonderful view of the depth, scope, complexity, evolution and current state of climate models. If you read this, you will have a much better understanding of Schmidt et al 2010, and everything else that is based on climate modeling. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 12 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
54, Camburn,It holds those fixed while changeing one dynamic....
For the last time, you have this 100% wrong, and you will be stalled in your understanding of climate science until you abandon your Wattsian belief system and start to figure out what is really going on.I stated that in the chaotic climate that is not fixed, the results of this study do not apply.
I had not seen this statement, but... why on earth would it not apply? First, the climate is not (normally) chaotic. Weather is chaotic, but the climate, without forcing, does not vary by more than ± 0.3˚C, and within that, I would doubt that the percent contributions of water vapor/clouds/CO2 vary by much, if at all. In fact, I would doubt that the percentages vary much even in a more chaotic climate, however that remains to be seen/studied/proven.He has used h20 vapor as a positive forcing.
No. This is more Watts-speak, and comes from your misunderstandings of models. If nothing else, please review the links at the end of this post. But in a nutshell, most models (and modelE in particular) are physics based. One does not set parameters. One does not say "I will declare that H2O feedback will be +3.53". They program in the absorption bands of H2O, and the specific heat, and the parameters surrounding evaporation, etc., etc. They let it run, and H2O does whatever it does under the physics programmed into the model. The fact that all of the models (programmed by different people using different methods and different assumptions) demonstrate the same behavior is one confirmation that they have it right. The fact that real world observations demonstrate very similar behavior in various resulting outputs is another confirmation. The fact that their final global mean temperature of the planet matches reality is another confirmation. Beyond this, models are not just run once. They are run multiple times, with variations in parameters and random events, so that an ensemble average can be computed. This stuff isn't done in a vacuum, and it's not done just by setting parameters. Please read: FAQ on climate models FAQ on climate models: Part II It is also highly recommended that anyone interested in climate science take the time to read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. It is a very easy read, very, very informative, and provides a great foundation for understanding the current state of the science, regardless of whether or not you agree with current conclusions about climate change.Response:[DB] Fixed text.
-
Harry Seaward at 00:02 AM on 12 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The limited sample size of respondents, 79, seems to lead to questions of the accuracy of the Doran paper. Ask the right questions of the right people and you get the right answers. Was the paper legimtately peer reviewed? -
Camburn at 23:44 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Tom Curtis @ 52: I don't know where religion entered here, but if you think Schmidt is religious or not religious, that is your perogative. Sphaerica: I understand the model run quit well. His paper does not tease out the individual contributions of water vapor, clouds, etc. It holds those fixed while changeing one dynamic....which is co2. The study isn't inadequate, and I have never stated that. I stated that in the chaotic climate that is not fixed, the results of this study do not apply. He has used h20 vapor as a positive forcing. The data from both balloons and satillites concerning this issue has such a large error bar that it, at this time, is unreliable. That is why I posted the paper that links to this. Anyways, thanks for the discussions and pointers. I learned one thing, I will not use slab as a description again as it seems to raise red flags and offend some. That was not my intent. -
Nicholas Berini at 23:35 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
John, what about the Stanford study?! A third, independent review with even stronger conclusions (ie that not only are 97% of climate scientists convinced by the evidence but they are the more qualified scientists based on standard metrics) Also I think this could be a great social networking piece - ask all SS readers (and I'm sure JR would get on board too) to make this their facebook picture. I hate social media as much as the next but that cr*p seems to influence public opinion (and at minimum would be worth the minimal effort.)Response: [JC] The Stanford study is the Anderegg 2010 paper listed above. -
Ken Lambert at 22:59 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Albatross #72 Where did Tamino get the OHC chart from? I went to the site and could find no reference. It does not even compute with Fig 1 from the top of this thread. dana1981 #74 "We'll present Lindzen's alternative to AGW in Lindzen Illusion #7, coming in a few days. I can't say it's based on real-world data though, as the post will show." You must have beaten Lindzen to death by now - surely not another beat-up in #7. I notice that you have not included Dr Pielke Snr in the firing line. He seems well respected enough to correspond with leading ocean heat scientist Josh Willis and publish their email exchange on his website. This from 13FEB11: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/update-of-preliminary-upper-ocean-heat-data-analysis-by-josh-willis-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9can-unpublished-update%e2%80%9d/ It seems that Willis **preliminary** analysis of the Upper Ocean Heat Content 2005-2010 is showing around 0.16W/sq.m globally. If we add Purkey & Johnson's number of about 0.1W/sq.m from the deep oceans the total is about 0.26W/sq.m globally. This is a lot less than Hansen's 0.6W/sq.m and Dr Trenberth's putative global warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m.Response:[DB] Willis himself had this to say:
This estimate only goes back to 2005. The reason for this is that Argo still has a number of floats for which no PI has responsibility for quality control of the data. For early incarnations of these floats, this could mean that significant (albeit correctable) biases still exist in the pressure data. Normally, these biases are corrected by the PI, but since these floats are sort of homeless, they have not yet been corrected. It is also difficult (or in many cases impossible) for the end user to correct these pressure data themselves. Argo is still trying to figure out how to deal with these data and I sure they will receive bias corrections eventually, but for the moment we need to exclude them. So, for this reason I am still not comfortable with the pre-2005 estimates of heat content. – Josh Willis
The uncertainties will eventually be hammered out; the gap will eventually close. Your earlier 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...
-
Bob Lacatena at 22:59 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Camburn,my point is that in the real world of climate Schmidt's paper is pretty much irreverent.
You have pretty decisively failed to prove a single point. You have failed to grasp even the basics of his paper. Your posts amount to casting aspersions and declaring that things are not what they are. Schmidt's paper takes a simple problem -- a subset of the much larger problem -- in trying to tease out the individual contributions within the atmosphere to radiative warming of water vapor, clouds and CO2, within the "starting point" 1980 climate regime. It does so using complex physics based models that you do not understand, and which you have grossly oversimplified in your own mind. He comes up with results that are reasonable, and trustworthy within the current limitations of climate science. Lindzen's entire position, on the other hand, is comically and cosmically ridiculous. He has made no effort to support it, and it is in fact so flawed in so many ways that deconstructing it is trivial. He makes a child's argument, hoping that the childish will fall for it. He operates, as you do, simply by declaring things, without supporting evidence or complete understanding (although in this case, his demonstrated ignorance is an intentional convenience). Your ability to arbitrarily declare the study inadequate, "fixed," or anything else does not detract from the validity of the science. It merely detracts from the validity of your contribution to the discussion. -
Tom Curtis at 22:58 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Camburn @51, I don't know what Schmidt's religious decorum has to do with anything ... More seriously, we know you are trying to assert the irrelevance of Schmidt's paper. What you have not done is provide any reason to consider it so. The best you have come up with so far is that you are more interested in the result Lacis et al than in Schmidt et al. Fair enough. Each to their own; but your personal preference has no bearing on whether Schmidt et al asked an interesting question and answered it effectively. The question in fact may not be interesting of itself, but has been made so by the frequent false assertions by deniers that CO2 has an inconsequential greenhouse effect. The answer was effective because it was clear, and derived in the only practical way to do so. It also gives every indication of being rigorous within the current limits of modelling. -
seeohtoo at 22:53 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
@ John Cook: nice concept, but WHERE ARE THE WOMEN? There are female climate scientists, after all. @Daniel Bailey: here in the US, I can't show this to a general audience! Is there a version without the F-bomb?Response:[DB] The Hungry Beast's lair is here (in it I can find no clean version though).
As far as the rest of your comment, well, Mars Needs Women, too.
-
Camburn at 21:44 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
scaddenp: No, my point is that in the real world of climate Schmidt's paper is pretty much irreverent. dana1981@50: Yes, in the lower atmosphere it appears to be. Upper atmosphere? It doesn't appear to be. -
Jesús Rosino at 20:54 PM on 11 May 2011Animals and plants can adapt
Another link that doesn't work is in "it left out most ecological detail" (http://www.mncn.csic.es/pdf_web/maraujo/Thuiller_et_al_2004Nature.pdf). It may be this one: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/ThuillerEtAl2004.pdf -
Daniel Bailey at 20:48 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
So, where do you get your information from? I go with the experts, the real climate scientists: (H/T to Tim Lambert and Tom Curtis) -
Tom Curtis at 20:47 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
funglestrumpet @14, I've pinched myself and checked, and yes, I am awake! And being awake I've noticed that most deniers including those that dominate popular media and politics deny that CO2 levels have any significant effect on global temperatures. Therefore even if you could get them to agree that the Earth was warming catastrophically, they would not agree that reducing CO2 levels would effectively combat the warming, what ever the cause. So avoiding the argument about the climate effects of CO2 is no short-cut to effective political action. On the contrary, abandoning that argument is a guaranty that no effective action will be taken until it is too late for my children, and for theirs. -
Tom Curtis at 20:39 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
JoeRG @13, A) Given the ordinary operation of the climate system, anthropogenic emissions are a sufficient condition for climate change. What is more, B)Given the known current circumstances, anthropogenic emissions are the only sufficient condition that has actually occurred over the last century. It follows that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of climate change in the most relevant sense of the term. It is also the most common sense of the term. Splitting hairs based on an obscure philosophical definition of causation simply causes confusion for those who don't understand your obscure usage, and adds nothing to clarity of public communication. The most likely consequence is 'deniers' picking up your claim and interpreting it as a denial of A and B above. -
Jesús Rosino at 20:07 PM on 11 May 2011Animals and plants can adapt
The link to "a study I conducted in 2003" doesn't work (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Brook_2003_Extinctions.pdf). It may be this one?: http://www.dbs.nus.edu.sg/lab/cons-lab/documents/Brook_etal_Nature_2003.pdf -
funglestrumpet at 19:48 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
For pities sake, WAKE UP! All the while the argument regarding climate change is about whether the current warming is anthropogenic in origin or not, the action that is becoming more and more urgent gets put on the back-burner. Why? Because those politicians who, for reasons known to them and suspected by us, take either no action, or the absolute minimum necessary to keep their seats, the situation gets worse. The main problem is that the public sees the cause as important rather than the cure and who can blame them – it seems to be the only thing that the scientific community is interested in – this site included. The current debate makes me think of a situation where a jumbo-jet is spiralling out of control while the captain and first officer are busy arguing as to the cause. Whether it was due to too much rudder or too low an airspeed is only of academic importance. (The flight-recorder recovered from the bottom of the resulting crater will determine the answer to that argument.) What they should be doing is getting the aircraft back under control (and organising an orderly queue for the toilet). they can leave the cause to be decided later. The evidence is not going to change in any detrimental way. The argument should be centred on whether the world is warming or not and whether we should do whatever we can to offset that warming. Once the public sees that the debate is about the danger they and their offspring face and what we as a species should do to offset the warming that is causing that danger we might move forward. I.e. get the plane out of the spin and sod the cause for now. If greenhouse gases are a source of warming, they should be reduced - period. For now, it doesn’t matter whether they are the main cause or not. We can, and most certainly will, debate the cause of the warming when it comes to dealing with the results of climate change. When we have to re-house tens of millions of Bangladeshi refugees, just to cite one example, and pay for the expense of same, the debate will get really serious. I rather think that the current batch of politicians who will be seen to have hindered remedial action will be called to account, as will their nations that failed to take that remedial action as a result. There will be many grandparents viewed with contempt by their grandchildren, not a nice situation for anyone and one to be avoided if possible, yet, unless they understand the science, they cannot be blamed for following their political leaders. As things stand, the fossil fuel industry continues to make its corporate profits and its employees their bonuses while we all go to hell in a handcart. This side of the fence will be seen to be partially culpable, despite the clarity of the science. That clarity does not excuse the failure to redirect the debate towards the dangers of inaction; where the debate should really be. So I repeat: WAKE UP! -
JoeRG at 19:26 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Heraclitus #6 One may say, that we force climatic effects significantly in several cases -we do indeed- but without causing them, and therefore it is an inaccurate conclusion. But, of course, this does not change the fact that we have a major impact on climate and that we have to act to minimize such effects. It's just the "normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that." (see D. Adams for details) It makes me wonder if some "sceptics/denialists" might use this inaccuracy as an argument against the consensus. -
alan_marshall at 19:24 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
David Horton @ 1 I know who the 3 in 100 are! I have amused myself by calling them "The Three Stooges". This might be a bit harsh, even unfair, as the obvious stooges like Monckton, Plimer, etc. are not climate scientists. I was fond of the earlier infographic, but this one is more accurate in showing the grey, undecided, figures. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:13 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
This quote from the paper is interesting "The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36)." Economic Geologists is understandible. Their field is digging stuff up out of the ground for profit. What Is less clear, and I have come across this before, is the disconnect between what climatologists think and meterologists. Oceanographers, geochemists etc are more likely to agree than the meteorologists. What give with that bias? -
OPatrick at 18:52 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
les, you're right that's the important point. The question leaves no ambiguity that the experts think human actions affect the climate and therefore the implication is that through our actions we can do something to reduce the problems we face. -
les at 18:38 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
6 JoeRG /8 Heraclitus Interesting issue... maybe the important point is that we are in the causal loop in such a way that we can actually change things - continue to contribute to GW more strongly or stop the escalation. -
OPatrick at 18:28 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
JoeRG, I'm sure everyone reading this has had the same thought, but I note that you missed out a significant word - the question included "significant contributing factor", which I would say nudges the brief headline "causing global warming" to an honest summation. We can't live our whole lives assuming the worst in human nature, no matter how strong the evidence seems to be. -
dorlomin at 18:19 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
David Horton "Always puzzles me as to who the other 3% are!" Its hardly unusual for there to be a few contrarians in any field. Older scientists who have not moved with the paradigm shift and perhaps a couple of younger ones who were drawn to the field to challenge the “orthodox”. -
JoeRG at 17:56 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Dear John, Sorry for critisizing you, but with this post you gave a fine example of an incorrect conclusion. There is quite a difference between being a "cause" (your conclusion) and being a "contributing factor" (what was asked for). Nevertheless, it doesn't change the main evidence. -
villabolo at 17:31 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
@1, David Horton: "Always puzzles me as to who the other 3% are!" No need to be puzzled. Based on the few whose ideology I've been able to ascertain that 3% are hardcore right wing ideologues and quite a few ultra-fundamentalists. Both are predisposed to be anti-whatever their ideology/religion happens to be. -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:15 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Doran 2009: "While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory." Mmmm! the usual suspects. -
danno at 16:43 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
the 1% is a handful of scientists funded by the fossil fuel industry? -
AndrewMF at 16:12 PM on 11 May 2011It's the sun
Thanks, that's helpful. :) AMF -
John Cook at 16:12 PM on 11 May 2011Upcoming 'Climate Change Denial' book launches in Sydney and Canberra
No plans for Adelaide or Melbourne, sorry. Haydn and my resources are limited and a tour of all capital cities is beyond us, I'm afraid :-( -
adelady at 16:03 PM on 11 May 2011Upcoming 'Climate Change Denial' book launches in Sydney and Canberra
Yes, Adelaide. I was wondering about that too. -
dana1981 at 15:16 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
"H20 vapor may not be always positive as a feedback. It depends where it is at."
Globally it's positive. -
Bern at 15:14 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Thanks for this, John - I'll be putting it to use quite shortly here at work! I particularly like the way you've distinguished between the "No it's not" and the "I'm not sure" categories. It reinforces the message, that those who think humans are not responsible are a very tiny minority. -
David Horton at 14:53 PM on 11 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Always puzzles me as to who the other 3% are! -
scaddenp at 14:30 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Camburn, as far as I can see, your objection to Schmidt amount to "Models cant be right, so attribution cant be done, therefore CO2 isnt a problem". Or do you have better way to do it? -
dhogaza at 14:02 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Go read the whole friggin' abstract, folks, to see how fragile the straw is that Camburn grasps at. The authors, in the abstract, say this, for instance: "it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks." if any ... like, we don't really believe this ourselves, we're just putting the radiosonde data out there for people to look at and, hey, don't blame us, we're putting caveat after caveat in our abstract and paper. Camburn thinks it's significant, even though the authors think it probably isn't ("if any"). -
Marcus at 14:01 PM on 11 May 2011Upcoming 'Climate Change Denial' book launches in Sydney and Canberra
So when can we expect you in Adelaide Mr Cook? -
dhogaza at 13:59 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
"H20 vapor may not be always positive as a feedback. It depends where it is at." Or whether or not radiosonde data is of better quality than satellite data and model expectations, of which the authors of the paper you cite are clearly not convinced. Stick to pizza ... acquire enough empty boxes and you might begin to gain insight into how GISS Model E and other GCMs work. -
scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 11 May 2011It's the sun
Also, what the various temperature system do is determine a global temperature anomaly, (that is, a spatial average of anomalies because these are strongly correlated). It is extremely difficult to determine a global average absolute temperature that has any meaning. See Hansen 2008 for detail. However TSI is just a number. You can determine an anomaly if you like by subtracting from an arbitary baseline. It cannot change the shape of the curve however. -
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 11 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
"IPCC's Policymakers". What Policymakers are associated with the IPCC and what are they supposed to do? -
actually thoughtful at 13:37 PM on 11 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
I may be a Pollyanna here - or a realist. I can only speak for the US, but I think what will happen is we will have a year with many signs of AGW - basically the next El Nino, a 6-9 month string of "weather anomalies" that match what the science predicts. And that will essentially be a tipping point for a better policy in the US. We almost had that after the last El Nino (at that time even Republican candidates for office were in favor of cap and trade (which is ironically, a Republican idea that actually works)). Then the country convulsed over the economic problems (some of which, like the reliance of foreign oil, are integrally linked with AGW) and we lost the collective will. I don't think the loud, vocal 20% on the far right will ever get it. For them God will fix any major problems, and it is hubris to think humans have any role in climate (and this group is not swayed by science, they see conspiracy if anything challenges their core beliefs). There is already 20% on the other side that is ready to bury all cars and turn off all coal plants right away (although I think this group, of which I count myself, could be doing more NOW - how many of us have cut our emissions in half over the last 10 years, and plan on cutting them in half again in the next 10? We claim this is doable - so let us each lead the way!). So the 60% in the middle is either too busy, or is currently buying into the right wing propaganda as there isn't ENOUGH real world evidence that directly impacts their world. So, I think the next El Nino is the time to put forward a rational climate policy (I favor cap and dividend). In fact, given our ability to predict the timing and severity of an El Nino, it might make sense to time the debate of the policies such that the votes are taken at the summer-time peak of a strong El Nino. I am quite sure that a winter vote on climate change will not be as successful. Human nature trumps a strictly scientific analysis of the world (obviously climate change is still happening and a problem in January, but it is harder for the human mind to process it. Part of my work is as a heating contractor. My phone rings much more on September 1 (the first cold day in my part of the world) than on June 15 - when I have slack resources. Human nature).Response:[DB] Here's human nature:
-
Publicola at 12:49 PM on 11 May 2011Meet The Denominator
Hi all, Poptech is on record claiming that articles on his list are "peer reviewed" because they "can be" peer reviewed: -------------------------------------- Poptech: "[My list] is overwhelming evidence of a peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW or AGW Alarm" Me: "Your joke of a list counts multiple 'viewpoint' - aka OpEd - articles authored by non-natural scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed?" Poptech: "Because these can be and you have not demonstrated otherwise." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html -
Camburn at 12:37 PM on 11 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
Pizza anyone? dana1981@42. You are totally correct. I was wrong in my ref to Dressler and h2o vapor. H20 vapor may not be always positive as a feedback. It depends where it is at. http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/ -
Riduna at 12:29 PM on 11 May 2011Upcoming 'Climate Change Denial' book launches in Sydney and Canberra
Comments by Dr Hewson should be interesting. Particularly to Tony Abbott. -
DSL at 12:11 PM on 11 May 2011It's the sun
For me, it's just a simple way of showing that TSI and Temp have come completely unhinged in the last 35 years. -
AndrewMF at 11:53 AM on 11 May 2011It's the sun
Hi. First Post, please be nice :) Can someone (anyone?) explain why in this graph we are comparing TSI Actuals against Temperature Anomalies? I've done a (very little) bit of stats and one thing I remember is that if you want to compare things you have to get those things onto the same playing field.
On the whole, SkS does a great job helping me to understand what's going on. Sometimes (like this for example) I'm left wondering why the author didn't do the proper job...
Thanks.
Moderator Response: Using the anomaly instead of the raw temperature merely is a good way of reducing noise. An example of another way of reducing noise is to smooth a curve with a moving average. The anomaly still addresses our question: Does temperature change across time correlate with TSI? Temperature anomaly change mirrors raw temperature change. Think about what the raw temperature curve would look like next to the anomaly curve. A very rough analogy: It doesn't matter whether you plot the temperature in degrees Farenheit or degrees Celsius, if what you are interested in is the shape of the curve across time. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:22 AM on 11 May 2011CO2 has a short residence time
drrocket, welcome back to the thread! I disagree with your item 1, that the IPCC is claiming different ocean uptake rates for NCO2 and ACO2. There is a slight isotope preference for vegetation uptake, but that is mostly cyclical (the same isotope ratios are released after the vegetation dies in the NH fall). Someone else will have to address your other items, but certainly item 7 (CO2 is well mixed) has much more evidence than you imply, in particular your item 10 which is verifiably true, not just a claim derived from your preceding items. Your denouement, "claim" 12, is one I might also argue with, but I would certainly consider more evidence than the single claim of thermodynamic equilibrium at the ocean surface. Are trying to prove your claim that CO2 rises are due to a warming ocean? If so, you still haven't addressed the point that net CO2 uptake can be positive in a warming ocean. That cannot be disproven by using local thermodynamic equilibria since those need to be integrated to determine the net effect. You certainly cannot use global average T, P, and other parameters to do this.
Prev 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 Next
