Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 Next
Comments 86101 to 86150:
-
Bern at 09:26 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
arch stanton: yep, it makes for an easy reply. When a skeptic asserts "Water is the most important greenhouse gas", the simple reply is thus: "Not even the scientist who said that still thinks it's true." -
KR at 09:12 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Albatross - Thank you for the link and the information. It's great to see actual data and detailed analysis, rather than the subset analysis sometimes presented here as a skeptical argument. BP? Ken Lambert? I suggest you read the link Albatross provided to Hansen et al, in press 2011. I believe it to be a far more accurate and definitive description of the state of the climate than selecting the last 8 years starting with a high residual (i.e., 2003), or integrating poorly limited values over a century+ rather than looking at ongoing actual data. -
LazyTeenager at 09:11 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
I have been telling the skeptics who will believe anything, that it's a 20% contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect purely from consideration of the infrared absorption spectrum. So I can't understand why Lindzen is so far off the mark. Does he still believe his "orders of magnitude" claim? -
Berényi Péter at 09:09 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
#122 Albatross at 08:19 AM on 10 May, 2011 Now who to trust on the science, BP or Hansen et al.? Easy, Hansen et al. of course. Well, the last time I've checked no one was to be trusted on science. All you have to do is to understand what was being said and check the logic using your own mind. Admittedly, some effort and discipline is needed to stick to the subject at hand and not to talk about something else, but that's the price. Of course if you do not trust either CERES or ARGO data are presented faithfully, that's entirely another matter. And a serious accusation as well. But once the data are given as they are, the conclusion is inevitable. There is no missing heat, but there was some, in the past (it was not measured properly, that is). -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
And more from Hansen et al. (2011), again highlights are mine: "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. This dominance of positive climate forcing during the solar minimum, and the consistency of the planet's energy imbalance with expectations based on estimated human-made climate forcing, together constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change. Positive net forcing even during solar minimum assures that global warming will be continuing on decadal time scales." -
Albatross at 08:19 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Well, BP seems to believe that we are idiots or at the very least cannot grasp simple mathematical concepts. Hopefully he has more time and respect for Hansen, Sato, Kharecha and von Shuckmann (in review, 2011), but there are no guarantees on such maters with D-Ks. I have bolded some of the text: "The slowdown of ocean heat uptake, together with satellite radiation budget observations, led to a perception that Earth's energy budget is not closed (Trenberth, 2009; Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010), as summarized in Fig. 19A. However, our calculated energy imbalance is consistent with observations (Fig. 19b), implying that there is no missing energy in recent years. Note that, unlike Fig. 19b, real-world climate and planetary energy imbalance include unpredictable chaotic interannual and interdecadal variability. A climate model with realistic interannual variability (but muted El Nino variability) yields unforced interannual variability of global mean energy balance of 0.2-0.3 W/m2 (Fig. 1, Hansen et al., 2005)." And "An alternative potentially accurate approach to measure Earth's energy imbalance is via changes in the ocean heat content, as has been argued for decades (Hansen et al., 1997) and as is now feasible with Argo data (Roemmich and Gilson, 2009; Von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011). This approach also has sampling and instrument calibration problems, but it has a fundamental advantage: it is based on absolute measurements of ocean temperature. As a result, the accuracy improves as the record length increases, and it is the average energy imbalance over years and decades that is of greatest interest. 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. At least some such errors are likely to exist, so continuing efforts to test the data and improve calibrations are needed. The Argo program needs to be continued and expanded to achieve further improvement and minimization of error." Now who to trust on the science, BP or Hansen et al.? Easy, Hansen et al. of course. -
Berényi Péter at 07:54 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
#118 Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 10 May, 2011 And what do we see in this graph of the Net TOA anomaly? Why, a clear positive trend with a slight negative trend from 2008 to 2009. The reverse of the trends you show in your second and third graphs of post 109. Tom, you don't know what integral means, do you? Study it please and come back later. -
Albatross at 07:35 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Tom @118, I was just busy posting the same message (more or less) when SAFARI crashed on me. I have downloaded the data and the slope of the OLS line is positive. Hansen et al. (2011, in review) also have some interesting insights on the alleged "missing" heat. -
Tom Curtis at 07:31 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
DB, thanks for the graphic fix. -
Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Berényi Péter @117:"Yes. And what do you see in the "Heat Content Anomaly of the Climate System" graph? First derivative of the blue line changes sign from negative to positive at the beginning of 2008. Just the way it should."
And what do we see in this graph of the Net TOA anomaly? Why, a clear positive trend with a slight negative trend from 2008 to 2009. The reverse of the trends you show in your second and third graphs of post 109.
-
JMurphy at 07:03 AM on 10 May 2011Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
batsvensson, this is getting ridiculous so I will just write this, if I may be allowed to post one final off-topic distraction : Your assertion was seemingly based on a quote from The Discovery of Global Warming, which I linked to to show a prediction that "snowing will increase when the climate warms up" - something you asked for. I.E. your assertion was seeming wrongly based on one line of one paragraph from that link - a paragraph that ended thus : At a time when scientists could not explain the observed general circulation of the atmosphere, not even the trade winds, theories about climate change could be little more than an amusement. Also, you used the title of another link I provided to suggest that it was "not a prediction", even though, beyond the title and within the body of the article, was this : Recent increases in the water temperature of the Great Lakes are consistent with global warming,” said Burnett. “Such increases widen the gap between water temperature and air temperature – the ideal condition for snowfall. I.E. increased snowfall was expected and confirmed. Perhaps the use of the informal pronoun 'you', rather than the more formal 'one' was a mistake, but, to return to the accusation you have made, that was why I suggested reading more than the title and/or first line of anything. However, nowhere have I suggested that you "lacked proper knowledge" - as far as I can see. That would explain that particular puzzlement. Nor did I suggest that you did "not have proper understanding of English" - I suggested that, if English was your second language (which I don't know; which is why I asked), that might explain why my words looked different to you than they did to me; or why the way I used the language (perhaps more playfully than warranted) could be misinterpreted or (mis)construed. In conclusion : yes, I disagree with you on this. -
Bibliovermis at 06:20 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
rpauli (#5), The graphic neatly displays my standard response to any breath-related dismissal, e.g. "You breathe out CO2, stop breathing if you want to do something about CO2 emissions." All exhaled carbon recently came from the atmosphere. Plants absorbed it from the atmosphere and were then eaten. If you don't eat plants, you eat animals that ate the plants. -
Albatross at 06:10 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Thanks Dana, I think that figure @86 makes things abundantly clear. Maybe an updated version would be a useful addition to the main post? -
dana1981 at 05:39 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Alby #84 - Gavin made a figure similar to what you're asking for, though it's a little out of date:
-
Berényi Péter at 05:34 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
#115 Albatross at 02:42 AM on 10 May, 2011 I had a quick look at the abstract for the FLASHFLUX link you provided @113 and they state that the net radiation in 2008 increased by 0.8 W m-2. Now in my line of work at least, that means that there is an increase in the energy available to the system. Yes. And what do you see in the "Heat Content Anomaly of the Climate System" graph? First derivative of the blue line changes sign from negative to positive at the beginning of 2008. Just the way it should. Heat content is the temporal integral of radiative imbalance. If there is a step change in the latter one, local slope of the former one changes direction. Only there was more decrease in heat content between 2000 and 2008 (about -5×1022 J) than increase afterward (1.5×1022 J). It is pretty simple, really. -
John Bruno at 05:22 AM on 10 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
Rob, great points about obesity, smoking, skin cancer, etc. At least government (mostly) doesn't challenge the validity of these problems, but I agree, the policy response to them isn't as effective as they could be... -
John Bruno at 05:15 AM on 10 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
Hi Phlia and Rob, I was just thinking about the civil rights analogy before I checked back to SkS. I certainly agree; in the US civil rights movement and in fights for political rights (eg, Egypt 2011) mass civil disobedience makes sense and was obviously effective. I also think it can be effective for other social and moral issues, eg, gay rights and critical mass bike rides (advocating cycling rights). But these are all largely simple moral or policy issues, not complex scientific and socioeconomic ones like climate change. Was there a truth that needed to be explained to people and policy makers regarding discrimination and civil rights in the US in the 1960s? Maybe just the truth of humanity, equality and respect. Or maybe people just needed some prodding (and symbolism provided by Rosa P and others) to recognize these truths that don't need numbers or peer review or graphs or international working groups to be documented, proved and explained. Listen, I don't feel strongly about this and maybe I am wrong. I am certainly not against bad behavior either and I revere Edward Abbey (Hayduke lives!). I just can't see how that could help in this and some other environmental issues. Couldn't it just play into the narrative of "warmist" being wooly headed contrarian hippie pagans that loathe material culture? Which in my case, may indeed be true:) One exception I can think of is the actions by the Sea Shepherds to limit whaling in the Southern Ocean and the work by activists opposing dolphin slaughter in Japan. Somewhat effective; but largely again because whaling is a simple moral issue that primarily needs attention brought to it. There isn't a need to explain to the public all the science about whaling doing this, that and the other decades from now, etc. Know what I mean? What do you think? -
Albatross at 05:14 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Global surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies in the GISTEMP data for 2010 were 0.63 above the 51-80 baseline. I expect the global SAT anomaly to be between 0.80 and 0.85 C in 2020, compared to about +0.70 using a sensitivity of +3 K and best estimate of emissions between now and then. And now the elephant in the room-- using Lindzen's reasoning, we should expect a global SAT anomaly relative to the 51-80 baseline of just under 0 C in 2020, in other words still in negative territory! That is not surprising, b/c values based on his reasoning have been diverging from reality since the early eighties. Interestingly, that occurred before he made his comments in 1989 that are cited above. -
jyyh at 05:11 AM on 10 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
thinking complex systems like weather, oceanography or ecology (well, (economy)) it is near impossible to be well aware of all the studies involved in these, so, if I was a scientist I'd welcome more review articles by accomplished scientists, this place does the same sometimes on the level of science graduates, sometimes more generally so this is to me a good place to read of climate science and and communication of it (M.Sc, Biochemistry) -
Albatross at 05:00 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Hi Dana, Thanks for #78, that is what I was driving at. I'm not sure how people are trying to take away solace from these findings. A climate sensitivity of +3 K does not bode well for society, especially given that we will very likely easily double CO2. I see what is going on here, every effort must be made to obfuscate (and yes I do understand what it means angusmac) and detract form Lindzen's "prediction". Really, who do me trust, Lindzen who is an order of magnitude out or the science which has converged on +3 K for climate sensitivity, and a value which is in fact seems to produce temperatures that are a tad on the low side, with +3.5 or so providing the "best" fit using the observed radiative forcing, at least for these data. Now, what might help address some of the confusion (although I'm still not convinced the confusion in some quarters is innocent in nature) is a graphic (much easier to interpret than numbers) showing the observed radiative forcing since 1958 to present, together with the radiative forcing for the various scenarios. That will hopefully make is abundantly clear to certain "skeptics" that the relatively good agreement between Scen C is coincidence, or perhaps more accurately, the more-or-less correct answer for the wrong reasons. -
dana1981 at 04:52 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
I should also note in comment #70 you said "I am not arguing for higher sensitivity." Then in comment #81 you asked "how long does it take for a coincidence to become reality?" If Scenario C "becomes reality", then climate sensitivity is 4.2°C for 2xCO2. So contrary to your previous claim, you are indeed arguing for high climate sensitivity. -
dana1981 at 04:42 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
angusmac -"how long does it take for a coincidence to become reality?"
This is a bizarre question. How long does it take a hypothetical scenario which is not reality to become reality? An infinite amount of time. Unless you invent a time machine, go back to the late 20th century, convince them to phase-out GHG emissions, and then alter the global climate such that it has a short-term sensitivity of 4.2°C. If you can do that, Scenario C will become reality. Look, there are an infinite number of possible scenarios you could model. A large number would match observed temp changes reasonably well. But only one scenario matches reality, and it's not Hansen's C. That's just one of the many possible scenarios that so far match observed temps reasonably well. But we know it's wrong because we've measured the actual radiative forcing to a high degree of accuracy. There is simply no way Scen C matches reality. It just doesn't (unless you invent that time machine and a way to change the planet's sensitivity). There's a phrase "skeptics" like to use but don't seem to understand that it applies to their arguments too: correlation does not equal causation. -
Paul D at 04:26 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
rpauli@5 The cow is I assume a food source, a carbon/energy input for humans. One could also say it is third hand solar energy, after the tree (second hand). -
angusmac at 04:25 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Sphaerica@80, in which you state that, "Humanity, and civilization, are saved by a simple and convenient re-interpretation of history." There is no re-interpretation just a bald statement of historical measurements which show that the GISS LOTI real-world temperatures match Scenario C better than the other scenarios. If those pesky people at GISS choose to publish figures that are too low to comply with your preferred warming scenarios then it is not my fault. @79"Scenarios A, B, and C represent emissions growth patterns, not temperature predictions." I disagree. Hansen, in his 1988 congressional testimony, concentrated almost exclusively on discussing higher temperatures and the dire consequences of his (global) warming predictions. Similarly, Hansen (1988), quoted by you, expends most effort on temperature predictions and consequences thereof. He only expends one-third on emissions. DB @74, "This has been clarified multiple times on several threads." Not so. There have been many statements in SkS that Scenario C does not follow real-world emissions and consequently is irrelevant. There have been no clarifications; just repetition of the mantra that Scenario C is either irrelevant or a coincidence. I ask a simple question, how long does it take for a scenario that is nominally a coincidence to become reality? See below. Albatross@76 and Sphaerica@79, the Cambridge Dictionary defines to obfuscate as, "to make something less clear or harder to understand, especially intentionally." What could be clearer to anyone than the real-world emissions being significantly above Scenario C but real-world temperatures (GISS LOTI) following Scenario C? There is no obfuscation just a bald statement of facts. Yet, SkS repeatedly state that this is coincidence. Question: I repeat, how long does it take for a coincidence to become reality? Answer: I agree with the Hansen (2006) estimate that 2015 would be long enough to differentiate between the scenarios. This represents a period of 27 years from 1988 to 2015 but DB@74 seems to think that this is reinventing the flat tyre [I don't get the allusion]. If the real world is still following Scenario C in 2015 then there would need to be a rethink of climate sensitivity and/or forcings. Is this why SkS is so vehement in stating that Scenario C is a coincidence? Sphaerica@79, if I were to use your Scenario X with the following figures: Temperature Anomaly = 0.015175 x Year - 29.903 I would have an excellent model for the temperature anomaly between 2000 and 2011. Furthermore, if were to use this model to predict the anomaly for 2019 to be 0.74°C, and this prediction turned out to be correct, then you would have to agree that I had quite a skilful temperature model. Yet, there are no emissions used in this model. This would be a case of a dumb (empirical) model giving good results. If real-world physics gives poor results then I suggest that we need to re-examine the physics to give better results. Dana has started this process. The 3°C sensitivity model appears to give better results than Hansen's original Scenario B. It predicts 0.69°C for 2019 compared with 0.61°C in Scenario C. However, do be aware that this is not a "minor" change. This is a massive drop from the 1.10°C in original Hansen's Scenario B. -
F. Murdoch at 04:13 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
@4 seeohtoo I think that would unnecessarily complicate a simple graphic which drives the concept home with little more than a glance. Best just to think of the arrows as net contribution. -
Riccardo at 03:06 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Apart from the obvious error in the sign of the imbalance (unless Stackhouse et al. misinterpreted their own data), I can see no reason why the 0-700 m OHC should follow the radiation imbalance with no delay. The average ocean mixed layer depth is much smaller than this. The simple direct comparison is definitely misleading. -
dana1981 at 02:58 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
I find it rather irritating that Gilles tells us he doesn't have time to give us a physics lesson, then proceeds to make an unphysical argument. Some unnamed, unknown cause of centennial internal variability, which somehow makes both the oceans and air warm, is to blame? Sounds like a 'magical natural cycles' argument to me. For his next trick, Gilles will disappear! -
Albatross at 02:42 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Tom @113, Re this comment made at #114: "Now I will have to wait until you realize your misunderstanding" This condescending attitude of BP's is not constructive or helpful. I had a quick look at the abstract for the FLASHFLUX link you provided @113 and they state that the net radiation in 2008 increased by 0.8 W m-2. Now in my line of work at least, that means that there is an increase in the energy available to the system. -
arch stanton at 02:40 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
…this is one of Lindzen's 1989 climate beliefs which has gone by the wayside, but unfortunately, remains a fairly widespread belief amongst global warming "skeptics". This is a useful factoid for those that counter denialists’ points in the ether of forums and comments sections. -
Albatross at 02:20 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Thanks Daniel. -
Berényi Péter at 02:19 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
#113 Tom Curtis at 01:52 AM on 10 May, 2011 I repeat, you have the sign wrong. Fine. You have repeated a false statement. It does not make it true. Now I will have to wait until you realize your misunderstanding, because it does not make much sense to proceed this way. -
funglestrumpet at 02:18 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #6: Importance of Greenhouse Gases
When all of these posts regarding Lindzen are complete, let us have a general discussion regarding ways that the scientific community should deal with proven erroneous statements by the usual suspects being regularly repeated, as is shown by this series of posts. Unless, of course, "two decades" of such behaviour being tolerated can be said to be anything other than ridiculous. Every time they repeat an erroneous statement you can bet that some politician somewhere leaps on it as a reason not to act and God knows it is action that is becoming more and more urgent. It isn't as though we have the church telling us that the earth is at the centre of the galaxy and that sort of stupidity that happened in Galileo's day. These people are free to act in any way their conscience leads them. -
muoncounter at 02:08 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
The frequent use of " : " was a clue. -
DSL at 01:52 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
"a perfectly adequate explanation in CO2 forcing : circular argument : the question is precisely whether we can explain a part of these variations without CO2 forcings. You cannot answer this question by saying that no, because we can explain them with CO2 only ! the point raised by Lindzen is precisely that there may be other explanations - and as far as I can judge, it has not been really disproved." Johnny = Gilles? I was wondering where I smelled logic like this before. "Officer, you're wrong. I wasn't doing 75 in a 50. Your radar gun is bad. Somewhere there may exist a radar gun that would correctly measure my speed, and since you can't disprove that possibility then I have done nothing wrong." -
Tom Curtis at 01:52 AM on 10 May 2011Tracking the energy from global warming
Berényi Péter @111: 1)"The FLASHFlux (Fast Longwave and Shortwave radiative Fluxes from CERES and MODIS) project derives daily averaged gridded top-of-atmosphere (TOA) and surface radiative fluxes within one week of observation. Production of CERES based TOA and surface fluxes is achieved by using the latest CERES calibration that is assumed constant in time and by making simplifying assumptions in the computation of time and space averaged quantities. Together these assumptions result in approximately a 1% increase in the uncertainty for FLASHFlux products over CERES. Analysis has clearly demonstrated that the global-annual mean outgoing longwave radiation shows a decrease of ~0.75 Wm-2, from 2007 to 2008, while the global-annual mean reflected shortwave radiation shows a decrease of 0.14 Wm-2 over that same period. Thus, the combined longwave and shortwave changes have resulted in an increase of ~0.89 Wm-2 in net radiation into the Earth climate system in 2008. A time series of TOA fluxes was constructed from CERES EBAF, CERES ERBE-like and FLASHFLUX. Relative to this multi-dataset average from 2001 to 2008, the 2008 global-annual mean anomalies are -0.54/-0.26/+0.80 Wm-2, respectively, for the longwave/shortwave/net radiation. These flux values, which were published in the NOAA 2008 State of the Climate Report, are within their corresponding 2-sigma interannual variabilities for this period. This paper extends these results through 2009, where the net flux is observed to recover. The TOA LW variability is also compared to AIRS OLR showing excellent agreement in the anomalies. The variability appears very well correlated to the to the 2007-2009 La Nina/El Nino cycles, which altered the global distribution of clouds, total column water vapor and temperature. Reassessments of these results are expected when newer Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) data are released."
Stackhouse et al, 2010, my emphasis. I repeat, you have the sign wrong. An increase of "net radiation into the Earth Climate System" can only be interpreted as an increase in the energy stored in the Earth's climate system. 2) The only way the lack of coverage of the Southern Pacific can be significant is if it showed an opposite trend in temperatures to the rest of the worlds oceans, and of such magnitude as to cancel out the warming detected by pre April 2003 Argo buoys in the rest of the world's oceans:
Nope. Sure looks like its warming to me.
You have no basis to consider the number of Argo buoys pre April 2003 to be insufficient to get a reasonable sample. If you believe otherwise, show mathematically why 750 buoys, each making multiple samples is not a statistically significant sample.
Alternatively, provide alternative evidence (from XBT buoys, for example) of the massive cooling trend in the South Pacific which is required for the operational Argo buoys to not have given a fair sample.
You will, of course, be unable to provide either of these because the meme that Argo coverage was insufficient pre-2003 was made up by people wishing to cherry pick a high point in the data as their start point. Both I and Daniel Bailey have provided a link to an article which clearly explains this.
Response:[DB] Fixed graphic. Tom, the GISS site uses a dynamic display; to ensure the graphic continues to be visible, post it to a static site and then link to it. For example, I saved the image to my HD, uploaded it to SkS and then used the SkS URL to fix your html tag. Clunky, but effective.
-
Albatross at 01:49 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Oh wonderful. And Gilles is probably perplexed why 'skeptics' have no credibility. Suites me fine :) -
DSL at 01:45 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
COW - CO2 = W2. In the U.S., a W2 is a tax statement. Therefore, the hidden message in the cow is that we need a carbon tax. -
Albatross at 01:43 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Re #50, "both arguing that contrarian blogs cannot contradict peer reviewed articles, and using your own blog to dismiss the work of real scientists." No, you are the one playing games. Had you read the multitude of posts on this site, including the one I referred you to, you should have noticed that it extensively cites the scientific literature. Moreover, John Cook et al. do not choose to distort the science in their favour like WUWT routinely does. Real scientists follow this site, so that myth has been busted. Also, John would have more scientists endorsing him publicly in writing if it were not for the fact they were working for Federal agencies. Lindzen's work has been refuted by his fellow scientists and by the observations, and their efforts are reproduced here in a format that is more accessible to the public. " you're playing a strange game here -but I think that what Lindzen says is that we cannot exclude possible long term variations - that are unnamed since they may be not identified." Please support such assertions, preferably with a link to where he said it. Also, please present a model which explains the observed warming as well as the known fingerprints associated with enhanced GHG fingerprints, and which does not have internal inconsistencies like Lindzen's musings. Yet again Occam's razor applies, one does not have to invoke mystical, hitherto undetected long-term variation to explain the observed warming. I'm also curious when this mystical long-term cycle will peak and set off a long-term cooling of global temperatures.Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Albatross. johnny is a ghost; revealed to be Gilles in disguise. I've implemented measures to ensure johnny not being a further distraction. -
Phila at 01:43 AM on 10 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
Rob, I have to disagree about civil disobedience; lies have to be overcome with the truth, not bad behavior. I'm curious. What should, say, Rosa Parks or the Selma marchers have done instead of indulging in "bad behavior"? What truth could they have told that they weren't telling already? -
r.pauli at 01:40 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
Why is a big cow in the center? Is it that important? -
timdiller at 01:21 AM on 10 May 2011Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
How much fossil carbon in the human carbohydrate diet? Is it negligible? If not, then breathing is not net zero. There's an increasing popular literature devoted to showing the synthetic origins of much of what we call "food." (See Michael Pollan's "In defense of food" for example.) This is not a comment about the carbon intensity of agriculture (a separate discussion) but rather the source of the carbon in the carbohydrate content of our diet. There are many chemicals (polyethylene glycol, for example) in our diet that are synthesized from petroleum. I would be interested to know what portion of the CO2 breathed out by humans has fossil C. I think this would rather strengthen the "real food" argument more than anything else. -
Gianfranco at 01:19 AM on 10 May 2011Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Good qualitative picture. Now could you please add some quantitative data e.g. how much net CO2 on average does a single tree or a square mile of forest absorb through photosynthesis? How much net oxygen does it release? P.S. "net" to take into account plants respiration. Thank you very much. -
johnny4550 at 00:58 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Phil, sorry, you're addressing very basic issues that should be obvious if you want to discuss these topics. Of course the energy comes from the sun - and is, in a very large extent, reemitted towards the deep space. The enthalpy change is only an extremely tiny part of the amount absorbed and reemitted by the Earth. That's why energy conservation is not a problem - there is much more energy than what you need to "warm" the Earth by a fraction of degree - you only need less than 0.1 % of this energy. So arguing that these 0.1 % could not stem from natural variations because of conservation of energy is not justified. To be a little bit more mathematical. Energy conservation doesn't imply ∆H = 0 since the Earth is an open system. It only implies ∆H = Fin-Fout (I hope notations are obvious). Now quasi steady state implies on average ∆H=0 so Fin=Fout, and you expect Fout being some complicated function of the average temperature. So the equation Fout(T) = Fin gives an implicit equation whose solution determines implicitly the equilibrium temperature. For an isothermal black body for example, Fout = S. sigma.T^4. So what is "unforced" variability ? it is the fact that for a complex system, the relation Fout(T) is by no means univocal and can depend on very complicated things like snow or vegetation coverage, oceanic circulations, cloud coverage, and so on. So even with a constant input energy, the equilibrium temperature can fluctuate, and you can even easily get spontaneous cycles when the system never reaches the equilibrium solution - that is the essence of the predator-prey model, or the ENSO. The ENSO exists because the coupled ocean-atmosphere system is never stable - the equilibrium value is unstable, if you prefer, because strong non-linear, delayed feedbacks make the temperature and the function Fout(T) vary continuously. These cycles exist both in observations and in computations, there is no doubt that they do exist. The only question is about their amplitude and their frequency. Now energy conservation has nothing to do with these questions - energy is not conserved during an oscillation. They only depend on very complicated features of non linear couplings and are totally dependent on the system you consider. Now people like KR argue that : (A) a lack of evidence for them : wrong of course, there is plenty of evidence for decadal oscillations, and good hint for secular ones. Even the variations of climate between MO and LIA seem to imply changes in thermohaline circulation. (B) a lack of a plausible physical mechanism for them : wrong again, these kind of oscillations are very common in natural non-linear system, and again hints for their existence do exist. (C) a perfectly adequate explanation in CO2 forcing : circular argument : the question is precisely whether we can explain a part of these variations without CO2 forcings. You cannot answer this question by saying that no, because we can explain them with CO2 only ! the point raised by Lindzen is precisely that there may be other explanations - and as far as I can judge, it has not been really disproved.Moderator Response:[DB] Note to all: johnny is Gilles under a new account name. Please refrain from replying to him. He has returned to waste yet more time of others.
-
seeohtoo at 00:54 AM on 10 May 2011New SkS graphic: the Respiration Carbon Cycle
The graphic leaves out an important part of the carbon cycle: plant cellular respiration. Plants burn the sugar they make for their own energy needs, returning part of the photosynthetically-fixed carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. -
adelady at 00:34 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Johnny "If you're not yourself very good professional scientists, with a very good knowledge of what you're dealing with, it's very unlikely that you'll be able to bring a valuable piece in the debate. Are you claiming you are ?" Good grief no! Like many others here, I'm not a scientist at all. I'm just an interested person who's willing (not as often as I should be I'll admit) to plough through scientific papers that interest me. I'm deeply grateful to others, more skilled than I am, who put in the time to highlight the meanings of items which, very often, I've not grasped as clearly as I'd like. The value I can bring is simply to ask relevant questions, or to refer to other items I've come across, or to encourage or thank those who put in extra work for the benefit of readers. "... unidentified, spontaneous cycles..." This I find puzzling. I can see where there will be occasional coincidences of an exceptional phase of a very long cycle like the thermohaline circulation with a strong La Nina and the IOD going a bit haywire - on a long enough time scale this might recur and look like a "cycle". The only reason I can think of for a cycle to be unidentified is that it is much longer than, say, Milankovitch. If that is the case, I can't see how it would be relevant to current warming. We know where we are with Milankovitch and, for all intents and purposes it's irrelevant. We're talking a couple of centuries with this warming process, Milankovitch (or any other cycle as long or longer) is about millennia. -
KR at 00:21 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
johnny - The major issues with "internal variability" for warming on a century+ timescale are (A) a lack of evidence for them, (B) a lack of a plausible physical mechanism for them, and (C) a perfectly adequate explanation in CO2 forcing. The energy accumulation in atmosphere, surface, and primarily ocean over the last 150 years or so is large and sustained - cloud and water vapor (Lindzen's favorites) have quite fast responses to conditions, and do not seem capable of a sustained off-equilibrium forcing. So: if you (or Lindzen) claim it's internal variability, then show it. And in addition, demonstrate why the well understood physics of greenhouse gas behavior does not account for the warming. That's a two-fer; the physics and reality of CO2 forcing provide a clear explanation for the observed climate change - you need to show why that isn't the case. As to Lindzen's credibility - he has been shown to be wrong multiple times, in peer reviewed articles, about the iris effect (nope), tropical cloud response as a measure of global sensitivity (debunked), and speed of warming WRT sensitivity (nonsense, and debunked). The discussions here are in large part a response to Lindzen continuing to publicly state sillyness that cannot stand up to peer review. Finally, as to the discourse here: Your snappy dismissals of various measures of variability do you little credit, and prove not a thing other than an unwillingness to discuss the evidence. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, then present the data, hypotheses, and papers that support your view. -
Phil at 00:20 AM on 10 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
johnny I am perplexed by your contributions to this thread. You seem to be postulating a long term "natural variability" whereby heat is transported into the atmosphere @49. From what I understand you do not believe this heat is from the Sun (either directly by increased insolation or indirectly via increased trapping of outgoing energy) and so it is from another part of the Earth. However you have repeatedly suggested that people should not expect a cooling region of the planet to compensate for the warming atmosphere (by the statement "the Earth is not a closed system"). Where, then, is this energy coming from if not from the Sun ? -
Tom Curtis at 00:08 AM on 10 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
FK&M 2011 use a four station temperature index for their reconstruction, with the stations being (from North to South) Ilullisat, Nuuk and Qaqortoq on the west coast, and Tasiilaq on the east coast. As can be seen in the following map, this gives their temperature index a distinctly southerly bias.
This may not seem to matter much, but as seen in the following two charts, Greenland ice melt is not always confined to the southern regions of Greenland.
A possible reason for this discrepancy is not hard to find. Negative modes of the North Atlantic Oscillation result in unusual warmth over southern Greenland.
In that they only use a southern Greenland temperature index, it seems unlikely that FK&M will have captured northern Greenland ice melts with their reconstruction.
-
dorlomin at 23:56 PM on 9 May 2011What scientists are saying about Skeptical Science
"It's good that Scientists are reading SkS, but presumably they already know the Science..." Not necessarily. Someone specialising in glaciology or geology may not be to up to speed on the physics of clouds for example. -
muoncounter at 23:40 PM on 9 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
#49 Adelady: "I'm having a problem with what you're getting at." Well said. Don't you enjoy it when a new 'skeptic' breezes in and seems to know immediately that everything here is wrong and that only he or she is in possession of the whole Truth? Except: #25: "I have no idea of the natural noise of the system" Great! Let us know when that quantity is available; until then, this 'natural variability' argument is moot. #23: "variations of the heat content can occur with small imbalances due to any cause of variability (for instance oceanic circulation), without "cooling" anything anywhere." That's fun because it conflicts neatly with #43: "Some regions can cool, like the Gulf coast, but not because the conservation of anything" Of course, parts of the 'cool' Gulf Coast are now sweltering in the 90s and suffering in drought; other parts wait as the 500 year flood heads their way. #45: "I would be interested in continuing the discussion if I were sure that it could be hold in an open and peaceful way, without censorship ... so good bye. " And the inevitable cry of censorship. And like others who've said 'goodbye,' unfortunately that word doesn't mean much. Here - exactly two comments later, we get the beautifully circular #47: "All this wouldn't be contradictory with the fact that the warming is still compatible with the natural variability (which doesn't mean that it proves there is no anthropogenic component)" All I can take from that last is that it could be this or it could be that; our new expert really doesn't have anything of substance to contribute after all. That's great science.
Prev 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 Next
