Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 Next
Comments 86951 to 87000:
-
arch stanton at 02:13 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
What’s with AGU? Are they sacrificing JGR in the interest of a lively debate? Are certain editor(s) simply willing to sacrifice standards in order to appear sympathetic to “contrarians” and therefore refute claims of bias? Something else? -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:06 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
What concerns me is that FKM2011 actually got published without being updated per Dr Box's comments. I mean if a reviewer clearly states that the conclusion of the paper can't be supported based on up-to-date data that should be the point where the editors go back to the authors and say, "Update it, please." What's going on at JGR that this didn't happen? On Dr Box's site he notes that they are already preparing a review. I'm sure it will be scathing. You can tell Dr Box is not happy about this paper getting through. -
jorget at 01:29 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
I suspect that increased average or maximum temperatures caused by increased atmospheric CO2 content will probably negate any positive effect of CO2 discussed here. I know from experience (200km NW from Sydney, Australia) that during summer heatwaves, when maximum daily temperatures exceed 40C, my vegetables simply stop growing regardless of how much water I can supply. This year our mandarins, a winter crop, started to ripen about three weeks earlier this year. Consequently,they became attacked by Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni}, which is a major summer pest here. I can also observe changes in the local rainfall patterns during the last two decades. For example, we are no longer getting major rain events associated with southern cold fronts. Most of our rain now comes from the tropics. These effects may be far more important for plant growth then CO2. -
Albatross at 01:20 AM on 2 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Re #46, Yet another post filled with rhetoric and hyperbole, and references to religion. Enough already. I could be wrong, but i do not think that the "skeptic"/contrarian in question has actually spoken to the material contained in John's post yet. In fact, their very first post was off-topic. -
Eamon at 00:47 AM on 2 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
Another failing of that site is that it often fails to recognise that the term "Before Present", in Paeloclimatatic Science, means "Before 1950". Hence they often, either wilfully or foolishly, make very flawed comparisons. -
Bernard J. at 00:10 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
I'll put up my hand in support of Spaerica's comment at #40 and Stephen Baines' at #47, about precipitation. David B intimates that water availability is more than just precipitation, but I would note explicitly that the related aspect of evapo-transpiration is relevant in this regard too. Even with non-drought conditions, increases in evapo-transpiration rates loom as a big problem for agriculture in the future. -
Ken Lambert at 00:10 AM on 2 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Sp #144 Well tell us the area of the Earth's surface you are considering. We can go from 4.4% inside the Artic circle to 50% for the NH if you like. -
Bernard J. at 00:07 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
One of the reasons I often grew impatient with my erstwhile molecular biology (and other biomedical sciences) colleagues was that they frequently displayed a dismaying lack of understanding of ecological, evolutionary, and even thermodynamic limitations to biochemical variation in organisms. Humanityrules at #24 demonstrates exactly this sort of unsophisticated starry-eyed ignorance of the limitations imposed by broader biological issues. Fortunately, Marcus at #38 restored my faith in my molly-bolly brethren by pointing out to HR that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It would be a hijacking of the thread to detail the many ways in which tinkering with evolutionarily-refined characters faces the reality of biological, chemical, and thermodynamic feedings-back, but for folk such as HR I recommend careful consideration of a short piece by Mills and Bonne. Ian Forrester at #45 also makes a salient point by asking for evidence that humans are actually efficent at increasing the efficiency of biochemical processes by tweaking the genetic blueprints of targetted organisms. I await the answer to this with keen interest... For bonus points I would be interested in some clear consideration of how agriculture will function in a world with higher atmospheric CO2, when the oil that fuels the energetic and fertiliser-feedstock requirements for the industry becomes ever more scarce. -
Ken Lambert at 23:59 PM on 1 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Thank you JohnD - a thoughtful and telling comment. Skywatcher - A nice try but implausible. Do you seriously think that 'scientists' who have spent careers proposing the theory of AGW mainly via CO2GHG mechanisms would cheer, laud and celebrate if they were proven wrong? Your belief in the better angels of human nature is enviable but unrealistic. In my tender youth a Dr Paul Ehrlich was holding the planet in thrall to his apocalyptic predictions of mass starvation by the end of the 1980's, and a host of other Club of Rome disasters. Most of the students of the era believed his predictions and screamed for radical action. Does anybody remember him now? I saw him interviewed not long ago, and even though events proved his predictions absurd and plain wrong, he still clung to a defence - the disaster was delayed. And for JMurphy and Sphaerica: As said previously - this can go two ways. Dr Trenberth goes for 'its there but we can't adequately measure it', and I am going for the 'if it ain't measured it might not be there', if and until the measurements say more. If you go for 'its there but we can't adequately measure it', then a quantity of 'belief' is required to make up the balance. That quantity of belief is the difference between what we can measure and what we think is there. Rather than counting angels on the heads of pins, we can put some numbers of the quantity of belief. Proposed Warming imbalance : 0.9W/sq.m Measured Warming imbalance : 0.1 - 0.6W/sq.m Quantity of Belief: 0.3 - 0.8W/sq.m When there is belief required - doubt is the logical companion. -
Bernard J. at 23:58 PM on 1 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Excellent summary. Well done. Keeping in mind some of caveats raised in David B's post at #48, something that is often not touched upon in discussions of this nature is the question "so, do the plants themselves actually want all of this extra carbon dioxide?". One very neat way to answer it is demonstrated by studies that examined the responses of plant stomata density to increasing artmospheric CO2. In Ginkgo biloba*, a tree that has an almost 300 million year history on Earth, it has been demonstrated that stomatal density has decreased by almost 30% since 1924. This would seem to indicate that this species is eschewing at least a large portion of the extra CO2 in order to improve the efficiency of water regulation, and of other thermodynamic costs. It appears that for Ginkgos at least, the response to "more plant food" is to say "thanks, but I'll cash that in for something else, if you please". Ginkgos apparently know of Leibig's law of the Minimum, where global warming deniers do not. [* I mention ginkgos, because their stomatal patterns serve as another proxy for CO2 concentration over geological time...] -
Rob Painting at 23:56 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
BP @ 62 No. This tells us our climate is sensitive to the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and the associated changes in ocean circulation. No, this tells us the Earth's climate is sensitive to perturbation full stop. CO2, ocean circulation, global vegetation (talking the arrival of flowering plants here), global orography (mountain chains) all have had significant impact on the climate. And there was no ocean acidification during the Pliocene. -
muoncounter at 23:28 PM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#414: "you are unlikely to "see" waste heat with IR cameras." Except when you do. And voltage = Joules/Coulomb, energy per unit charge, which is an energy density. -
Bob Lacatena at 21:43 PM on 1 May 2011Models are unreliable
353, trunkmonkey, See here and here for info on models. In particular, last section of the first link is titled "Can I use a climate model myself?". -
Bob Lacatena at 21:39 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
62, BP, You comment seemingly came out of nowhere. Is it from another thread? What exactly is your point? -
Berényi Péter at 21:25 PM on 1 May 2011Models are unreliable
#354 CBDunkerson at 19:22 PM on 1 May, 2011 we are instead currently seeing accumulation of heat in both hemispheres No, we are currently not seeing anything like that. Rate of heat accumulation in the upper 700 m of oceans in 2003-2010 (when it is measured properly by ARGO) is 5.5±6.5×1020 J/year. That is, it's flat. Even if we go with the upper bound (12×1020 J/year), it takes 900 years to warm up this layer by 1°C, which is a warming rate of 0.11°C/century. However, it is entirely possible that the upper ocean is actually losing heat. Note that rate of change in surface temperatures in general can't be far removed from rate of upper ocean heating, as heat capacity of oceans is three orders of magnitude higher than that of the atmosphere. We also have (rather low quality) data for 1955-2010. If we take it on face value and believe the error bars provided by Levitus et al. are correct, average rate of heat accumulation in the upper ocean during this 56 year period is 25.3±0.5×1020 J/year. At this rate it takes at least 450 years to heat it up by 1°C, which is 0.22°C/century. It is much smaller than the alleged late 20th century warming rate of the surface, so that could only be a transient phenomenon mostly due to redistribution of heat in the climate system (and also failure in properly taking into account local warming close to land based measurement sites due to land use changes - a.k.a. UHI). -
Berényi Péter at 20:57 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
#63 Tom Curtis at 19:39 PM on 1 May, 2011 so your theory is that the Arctic froze over because the warm current from the Gulf of Mexico to the Barents Sea was strengthened? Well it's so obvious when you think about it. It is not my theory, it is the standard one. When the Isthmus of Panama is removed, tropical high salinity surface waters can escape directly from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The remaining branch of the warm current does not have sufficient salinity to go down to the bottom before it reaches the Arctic Ocean (as it does today), so it just goes around and heats the entire region up. Also, the additional warm surface water entering the Pacific via the Panama Strait maintains near-permanent El Niño conditions there. -
Tom Curtis at 19:39 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Berényi Péter @62, so your theory is that the Arctic froze over because the warm current from the Gulf of Mexico to the Barents Sea was strengthened? Well it's so obvious when you think about it. -
CBDunkerson at 19:22 PM on 1 May 2011Models are unreliable
trunkmonkey wrote: "Surely DO didn't disappear just because we added 150ppm CO2..." We haven't added 150 ppm CO2 (yet) and 'Dansgaard-Oeschger events' haven't disappeared... read up on 'Bond events' and you'll see what I mean. Not that this is at all relevant given that DO/Bond events are redistributions of heat between the two hemispheres of the globe (i.e. one gets warmer while the other gets cooler) and we are instead currently seeing accumulation of heat in both hemispheres. -
Berényi Péter at 19:13 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
"This tells us our climate is sensitive to changes in CO2". No. This tells us our climate is sensitive to the formation of the Isthmus of Panama and the associated changes in ocean circulation.
-
Bernard J. at 18:46 PM on 1 May 2011Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
Although regional in context, Aono's data documenting the start of the Kyoto Cherry Blossom Festival also describes a hockey stick:
The Ljungqvist and the Loehle reconstructions are present on this graph because I originally collated the data in response to one of Tim Lambert's Deltoid posts.
Moderator Response: [mc] Please restrict image width to 500 or less. -
RSVP at 17:21 PM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
continuing 413 ... that is, thermal energy in the water of a swimming pool. This can be understood clearly if for instance you compare the rise in temperature of the pool vs. the skewer. Adding 1000 W for 2 minutes to the skewer may raise its temperature hundreds of degrees (depending on its size), whereas a temperature change of the pool after doing the same might not be detected at all. Both have acquired the same energy. In the same way, you are unlikely to "see" waste heat with IR cameras. -
RSVP at 15:48 PM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The IR photography proves nothing, or at best reveals lack of grounding. Temperature is not energy, just as voltage is not energy. The familiar shock from static discharge involves a very high voltage, yet is harmless (although a nuisance). And more to the point, there is way more energy contained in the water of a swimming pool at 20 C than a hot skewer at 300 C. -
trunkmonkey at 15:29 PM on 1 May 2011Models are unreliable
352. No. I know we have a problem. I just don't know how big it is, but I'm not yet convinced you do either. As Sphaerica has discerned, I care deeply about this. It may be the defining issue of our time. We paleo guys have been beating our heads against the wall forever and have a profound sense of how difficult climate is. 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. I am not surprised you find emergent phenomena in models. Surely DO didn't disappear just because we added 150ppm CO2... Where can I get my own AR4 level model? -
Marcus at 13:42 PM on 1 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
John D. The IOD, just like the NAO, the PDO & the AO, have all existed for time immemorial, yet never before have they been shown to be able to alter climate over a period of *several* decades-& certainly not across the entire planet at the same time. Yet people such as yourself *cling* to such flotsam, with an almost religious fervor, in order to convince others (& yourselves) that these various Oscillations are to blame-as opposed to rising greenhouse gas emissions. Yet in spite of the vast amount of study of these various oscillations, Contrarians still are unable to explain a mechanism for how they can-all by themselves-change global energy balance over the course of several decades. Thats because of the fact that, unless they're capable of generating energy all by themselves, they really can't-all they can do is shift existing energy around the system. One last point, John D: "and introducing new ideas to people steeped in tradition" Judging from your comments on other blogs here, you & Ken sound like the ones who're "steeped in tradition", & in need of being "introduced to 'new' ideas" (well, new to you at any rate). John Cook & Co certainly are trying very hard to do so, but I feel that they're probably wasting their time with people like yourselves. -
scaddenp at 13:16 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Henry, I have replied on your CO2 question here as requested by moderator. -
scaddenp at 13:15 PM on 1 May 2011CO2 lags temperature
Responding to Henry Justice from another thread (and recycling comment from "models are unreliable") We know that isnt true. The isotope ratios for fossil fuel produced CO2 is different from that produced by carbon cycle feedbacks. If you look at the isotopes in CO2 from ice core bubbles, the increased CO2 during warming is from carbon cycle. If you look at isotope ratio in current atmosphere, you see increase is due to fossil fuel. At the moment, the carbon sinks are cleaning up about half our emissions. Over longer time, this will reverse. -
wili at 13:05 PM on 1 May 2011Wakening the Kraken
Please note that GW potential for methane is higher than what is generally reported. From a post of RC: " There is a paper by Shindell et al., “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions“, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716 This paper argues that methane is more potent than previously realised due to the interaction with black carbon. The paper gives a revised Global Warming Potential for methane measured over 100 years as 33. This is an increase of over 30% compared to the value of 21 given in the IPCC Second Assessment Report used for the Kyoto Protocol. Over 20 years. Shindell et al. calculate this GWP to be 105. If this measure were used the climate impact of methane (e.g. for Plan B above), it would be 5 times the value agreed at Kyoto." -
Tom Curtis at 12:21 PM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Henry Justice @56 even modern CO2 measurements show CO2 levels much higher than 390 ppm. To get those values, all you need to do is to take your samples near a local source of CO2. We know it is contamination from a local source because if you move away from it by gaining altitude (first image), or if the effect of the local source is diluted by high wind speeds (second image), the measurements converge on the values obtained for CO2 by measurement at remote locations free from contamination.
The problem with the CO2 measurements you claim to have been thrown out is that they are known to have been located near or in major sources of CO2 such as towns, industrial plants, roads and forests. Forests are interesting because during the day trees draw CO2 from the atmosphere, diluting it, while at night they add CO2 to the atmosphere. That pattern can be clearly seen in CO2 measurements from forests, although it is weaker the higher the wind speed.
Contrary to your claim, CO2 measurements from ice cores are not measurements of a proxy, but of atmospheric CO2 trapped in ice bubbles. There are no trees or factories in the antarctic, so no contamination. Hence the measurements are accurate.
So, why should we take contaminated measurements with no quality control (as Beck does) over uncontaminated measurements?
-
scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Measuring the CO2 trapped in an air bubble in the ice is a pretty direct analysis if you ask me. You dont "chuck out" analyses, you examine their error bars and sampling technique (which is a more common reason to reject a sample as being representative of atmosphere at the time). -
muoncounter at 10:28 AM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#411: "all energy associated with waste heat must vanish through radiation as soon as temperature increases. If this were true (which it is not) ... " Let us view some evidence, in the form of thermal IR photos:
Power plant from a distance of 5.2 miles: Ground in large area around plant is at same temperature. Heat from plant does not affect surroundings at this distance.
Parked Ford SUV: Hot surfaces of car, radiated IR reflecting from pavement underneath. Surrounding area cool.
Nevada casino from a distance: Building is colder than surrounding ground, which is presumably warmed by the sun.
There are 14 pages of these images. Waste heat seems to 'vanish' from the larger environment, without heating it in any perceptible way. Isn't that exactly what KR said?
-
johnd at 09:03 AM on 1 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Stephen Baines at 05:05 AM, unlike you, I am not "not sure", nor having to "guess" about the reasons people hold doggedly to certain positions. In Ken's case, even though I haven't a clue who he is, I have been able to pick up that he has been around a long time, as I have, and accumulated a width and depth of experience from operating in different environments which resonates with me. In my case, with a technical background, going into places foreign, and introducing new ideas to people steeped in tradition, required people who are prepared to slug it out, unfortunately they are all too few on the ground, but I see Ken as being one of those who would most likely succeed where many fail. It is one thing to hold the evidence, it is quite a different matter to make it penetrate the mindset of the masses. To put things into a climate perspective, think of the various ocean basin oscillations that have so far been identified. It typically started out with one man, or small group of people identifying a pattern that no-one else could see. Having identified it and presenting the evidence, it then becomes a slog to get those whose mindset has them only seeing the rungs when looking a ladder, to actually recognise the holes. One such instance is the IOD, here we are more than a decade on from it being identified, and having followed the progress of the research for much of that time, have seen how from a small group of people who both recognised the evidence and it's relevance, it has been a hard slog to gradually get wider acceptance from experts to adjust their established mindsets and preconceived notions. Here we are in Australia, according to the official weather services, still several years away from having reliable seasonal forecasts, still recovering from the latest floods, still being attributed by most to a strong La Nina, when perhaps the most relevant factor was the coinciding again of phases from the Indian and Pacific Oceans that caused a repeat of previous such coincidences. How much longer is it going to take for those following the evidence to converge on the answer? -
muoncounter at 08:43 AM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
henryj#56: "Yet, the leaf stomata proxy, ... is also unacceptable. Why is this?" Because the leaf stomata data are terrible: The error bars around stomata reconstructed CO2 values tend to be +/-50ppm. See the plant stomata thread for a reference and further comments. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 1 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
28, scaddenp, I don't know how much time I could commit, but I don't think it would take that long to go through things, so I'd give it a shot. If you leave a comment on my occassional-blog with your e-mail address, I can reply by e-mail, and we can set something up whereby I tell you which papers I can't get, and you can try to e-mail them to me. -
Henry justice at 08:20 AM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
If the CO2 levels rise following a warm period, could today's rising levels of CO2 be the result of a warming period 800-1000 years ago? Tree rings evidence do show a warming period at this time in the past. So, today's rising CO2, if this is true, could be the delayed response from centuries before.Moderator Response: Post your comment on the thread CO2 lags temperature. -
Henry justice at 08:15 AM on 1 May 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Let me get this straight, the preindustrial levels of CO2 are determined by ice core and other proxies, not by direct chemical analysis. The 90,000 preindustrial chemical analysis were thrown out as unreliable. The ice core proxies, and others, were then accepted at about 280 ppm. Yet, the leaf stomata proxy, a study that did show the CO2 levels were about the same as today, is also unacceptable. Why is this? Could it be that the CO2 levels were, in fact, nearly the same as today? How is global warming real if the preindustrial levels of CO2 are the same as today? -
scaddenp at 06:40 AM on 1 May 2011Models are unreliable
So truckmonkey, you think it is rational policy to continue adding CO2 in the face of all known physics in the hope that somehow there is unknown laws of nature at work? You are aware that emergent phenomena occur in models? And that life and other emergent phenomena do not break the laws of thermodynamics - only some people's misinterpretation of them? Of course paleo matters - a theory of climate must account for the past. However, there are many puzzles there that cant be solved because of lack on constraining data not because of a problem with the theory. However, if it is difficult to distinguish between solar forcing, ocean forcing and ice melt dynamics in sorting out DO, it doesnt mean that is an issue with climate for next 100 years, because none of those causes are in effect now. -
scaddenp at 06:29 AM on 1 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
Spaerica - much of the data should be in these places While Mann 2010 might indeed do the job, it isnt really a counter to CO2"science" PR. If you wanted to pursue, I could probably get all the papers. -
RW1 at 06:13 AM on 1 May 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
DB, Which specific questions have I been 'dodging'?Moderator Response: [DB] Start with Sphaerica's. -
RW1 at 05:21 AM on 1 May 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
Sphaerica (RE: 161), "So, for the sixth time you've dodged the question, as well as my other points." That's what you think. "You made the following statement: 'I do not see where the issues I've raised has been addressed or answered.' I pointed out: That's because you ignore the statements that do address them. I then proceeded to itemize where and how the issues you've raised have been addressed and answered, and I took you to task to yourself address the discrepancies. And you ignored them." No, I've largely ignored your declarations that the issues I've raised are incorrect. Declarations are not scientific discussion.Moderator Response: [DB] Actually, hand-waving aside, it is indeed pretty clear you've been dodging questions. And not just Sphaerica's. -
RSVP at 05:08 AM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
mclamb 406 "What areas are experiencing a long term cooling trend? It's certainly not Phoenix. " With a PC turned on, the CPU can be "cooling constantly" while at the same time maintaining operation at a constant temperature. Heat is being drawn away. This is called cooling, even if its temperature is not dropping. Likewise, according to KR, all energy associated with waste heat must vanish through radiation as soon as temperature increases. If this were true (which it is not) temperatures would never increase, since all energy would radiate the moment something got warm, which it wouldnt, since all warmth would radiate before it could get warm (following KRs "logic").Moderator Response: [DB] Again, as has been pointed out to you several times, you are conflating temperatures and forcings. Forcings due to temperature increases go away as soon as the TOA reaches radiative equilibrium. And you would do well to unlock that mindset you have and learn some of KR's "logic". -
Stephen Baines at 05:05 AM on 1 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
KL @ 26 "I am not made of sugar candy - and will slug it out with the best of them if I think the point is important enough..." To me this quote epitomizes the problem people have. It implies that for you it is not about following the evidence but rather about doggedly holding a position whose "importance" is set by...well, I'm not sure. Something besides the evidence, I guess, because following the evidence should otherwise lead everyone to converge on the same answer, rather that simply slugging it out. -
muoncounter at 03:59 AM on 1 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#408: "This is dictated by heat transfer fundamentals." Of course. To solve a complex problem, you pick out a single concept and develop a simple explanation. Without benefit of any actual evidence. Despite hundreds of posts with evidence to the contrary. "industry in the northern hemisphere acts like a thermal noose around the Artic." It's been demonstrated to you that the total industrial energy is insufficient. It's been demonstrated to you that industrial energy radiates to the environment, where it behaves just like all other energy; much of it escaping to space, unless, of course, it is constrained by GHGs. Industrial energy does not have a preferential path to the Arctic. North is not up. "the air conditioners running in Phoenix" If you are truly concerned about this, you should be campaigning actively to eliminate them (good luck with that). How do the air conditioners of Phoenix not warm the nearby desert, which cools rapidly at night? Are you aware that Phoenix has a well-documented 'CO2 dome' due to its peculiar topography, winds and locally high emissions rate? "GHG should affect the entire planet equally refers to the assumption that CO2 is in general evenly distributed throughtout" It's actually not that evenly distributed; the concentration has much greater variation as a function of in latitude than your 'assume' (see NOAA's Carbontracker). What about solar input? Unevenly applied at TOA due to time of year and latitude; unevenly reflected at surface due to locally differing albedo. This uneven heating alters temperature due to locally varying thermal properties of earth, air and water. In the short term, the result of those discrepancies is what we call 'weather.' If industrial energy is such a huge input, why do your industries not create their own weather patterns? Why did the planet warm in the late '30s, when industrial output was low due to the depression? Why did the planet then cool during the post-war industrial expansion?
No, 'heat transfer fundamentals' are not enough to explain this behavior.
-
dhogaza at 03:50 AM on 1 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
GP mentioned Mann, so it seems more toward that particular individual,
Mann doesn't generate his own dendro proxy series. Yes, Mann's McI's favorite target, but Briffa (the leading paleo climatology dendro guy) isn't far behind. Hoskibui:wether or not it works I think is irrelevent of this post - but by the way, with or without the dendrocronology the new hockey stick works (I can make a post about that if you want :)
True, letting GP derail the thread through a one sentence cherry pick of a quote from a single paper distracts from your post, and of course you're right that there are more hockey sticks than we know what to do with ... -
muoncounter at 03:48 AM on 1 May 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
Eric#53: "the earth's magnetic field has slight seasonality" No. That seasonal variation in your reference is the external magnetic field (solar or IMF), not the earth's field. The entire GCR/clouds idea is about IMF variations. -
Hoskibui at 02:23 AM on 1 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
Hi, thank you all for your responses. I think that most questions have been dealt with - questions of dendrocronology and wether or not it works I think is irrelevent of this post - but by the way, with or without the dendrocronology the new hockey stick works (I can make a post about that if you want :) With the help of google translator and many good people of the Skeptical Science I think the point of the post comes a cross - thank you. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:12 AM on 1 May 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
106, RW1,I addressed this already HERE.
Really? You call that "addressed?" This was what you said:Look, I can only deal with one thing at a time.
So, for the sixth time you've dodged the question, as well as my other points. You made the following statement:I do not see where the issues I've raised has been addressed or answered.
I pointed out:That's because you ignore the statements that do address them.
I then proceeded to itemize where and how the issues you've raised have been addressed and answered, and I took you to task to yourself address the discrepancies. And you ignored them. Instead your response now is basically that you already have addressed them (you haven't), and that you don't have to... because justifying your personal theories about net cloud feedbacks would be off topic on a thread about cloud feedbacks (although that didn't stop 50 meandering posts about Trenberth's energy budget diagram when you thought that in some way buttressed your personal theories). -
Albatross at 02:03 AM on 1 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Mdenison @39, Please read my post @40. There is a very easy way for Lindzen to clarify this and settle this matter-- and that is for him to actually step up to the plate and produce an AOGCM of his own, and generate his own global temperature chronology. He has not and will not. Instead he chooses to play this game of nit picking, being ambiguous, and obfuscating. How people can defend that is completely beyond me. It is very clear, his estimates of a climate sensitivity of <1 K for doubling CO2 is horribly wrong, that much has been obvious for decades now, and is only going to continue to diverge further from reality. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:59 AM on 1 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
I think you're pushing it Dhogaza. GP mentioned Mann, so it seems more toward that particular individual, who has gathered the irk of so-called skeptics, thanks to Steve McIntyre. It seem that McIntyre has somehow made things more personal with Mann than anybody else, as if he was the only one doing reconstructions. Then, in true Rush Limbaugh or Beck fashion, he has managed to instill anger agaiinst Mann's person among crowds who barely understand the subject. As to what McIntyre is ready to do to try to discredit Mann, this gives a notion. It is painfully obvious to anyone really paying attention that Mann is far more trustworthy than the charlatans (Trenberth' word) attacking his work and his person. -
Albatross at 01:58 AM on 1 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
This post clearly illustrates that global surface air temperature (SAT) chronology (as predicted using a climate sensitivity of + 3 K and the observed CO2) forcing is tracking very well with observations. In contrast, we have Lindzen, a complete outlier, with estimates of global surface air temperatures based on his arguments shown to, even now, be in negative territory (and would not even feature in the graph shown @35. I find it incredibly telling that Lindzen and his fellow contrarians have not ventured to produce long-term temperature predictions of global SATs in the reputable peer-reviewed scientific literature, but instead rather choose to adopt the rather cowardly and wholly unproductive tact of nit-picking others hard work and sincere efforts to advance the science. I'm seriously beginning to think that Lindzen is not a self-styled maverick or contrarian or "skeptic", but at this point is in fact in deep denial about what is unfolding before his very eyes. His reticence to concede error, to change his position is the very antithesis of good science, and for this reason the annals of scientific history will not paint a flattering picture of him, despite all his accolades. d82, neat graphs! -
mdenison at 01:37 AM on 1 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana @22 I think you misinterpret Lindzen because the model you use to produce a Lindzen prediction is based on random noise and a small bias of 0.1C per century to allow for greenhouse gas warming. Lindzen's 1989 comments suggest he believes that there is a heat source (the ocean) that allows for more warming than just 0.1C and that this produces the long term temperature changes observed. You could possibly model this with low frequency noise. Not to model a heat source (or sink) it is to misrepresent Lindzen's position. So far as I can tell in 1989 Lindzen could mainly see noise. He did not have a model that could explain past events nor make predictions; so he made none. The main difference between Lindzen and Hansen is that Hansen had a model with cause and effect that could be tested and make predictions, Lindzen had none.Response:[dana1981] No, I strongly disagree. Lindzen clearly said the surface warming was only 0.1 +/- 0.3°C. Noise does not cause long-term trends, and I represented the effects of the oceans in the random noise.
Prev 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 Next
