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:
-
Ken Lambert at 15:38 PM on 3 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
My comments are being deleted so I cannot respond to Chriscanaris and his useful opinions. Suffice to say that Chris is pretty right in his analysis.Moderator Response: [DB] You have forced the moderators to delete comments as said deleted comments contained complaints above having to comply with the Comments Policy. Compliance with, and adherence to, the Comments Policy is not optional, despite your railing against it. You are clearly able to formulate a comment that passes moderation: your not doing so & then complaining about the moderation you have then forced upon yourself is clearly a gambit meant to reframe this as bias towards yourself. Very transparent. -
Bern at 15:08 PM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
That's a very good point, Chris G. It's somewhat complicated by real world politics, though. If the US told China to apply a carbon price, or they'd tax all imports, what would China do? Considering that if they chose to play hardball, the US would almost certainly cave (given that a large portion of the US economy now depends on goods from China, and China is also the largest holder of US foreign debt, they're really over a barrel). On the other hand, if China chose to impose a carbon price, I don't think the US would have any real choice but to go along. Another complication is whether the WTO would regard a carbon tax on imports (from countries that don't have a carbon tax) as a form of protectionism. I'd hope they were smarter than that, but it's hard to say. -
RW1 at 14:51 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Marcus (RE: 186), "Yet it hasn't, RW1, so why is that?" But it has. Look at the graph. The globally averaged temperature is already back to what it was 30 years ago in 1980. Just three years ago in 2008, the temperature was lower than it was at the beginning of the satellite record.Response:[DB] Umm, no. RW, you were recommended earlier to learn a bit more about statistical trend analysis; I'd advise you do so. For your own benefit. You are not doing well, here.
-
scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
No it hasnt!! Learn some statistics. Does winter wipe out a whole summer of warming? Look at the first link in open mind which looks at trend as function of start date. When you have a lot of internal variability, then you have to distinguish trends over a long period and what he does hints at the method that you use to discover how long. That is what climate is 30 years, not what happened last year. You can only "wipe" a warming trend with enough years of cold data that long term trend is zero or less. One cold - or one hot - year does not tell you about trend. Furthermore, its not as if there is any particular mystery in whether one year is hot or cold. You can predict pretty confidently that this year will be colder than last. La nina. You can also see from trends that year will be a lot warmer than similar sized la nina year from 30 year ago which what we are talking about with AGW. -
Marcus at 14:41 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
"The problem fundamentally is the entire trend can be wiped out in just one year or so of natural variation." Yet it hasn't, RW1, so why is that? The warming trend for the past 30 years has been shown to be statistically significant-using a myriad of different tests-which disproves your entire "caused by natural variation" hypothesis. An hypothesis, I might add, which reads more like an article of faith. -
RW1 at 14:34 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
scaddenp (RE: 183), "Tamino attempts this at Open Mind and also sees what happens if you remove the known causes of variability. Can you do better than that?" The techniques he uses to try to remove known causes of variability are highly speculative at best. All he's really showing is when these are removed there is a clear warming trend of about 0.3 to 0.4 C from 1979-2010, which really isn't in dispute. The problem fundamentally is the entire trend can be wiped out in just one year or so of natural variation. This makes it very hard to distinguish whether the trend is mostly random natural variation or mostly from one particular variable, such as man's CO2 emissions.Response:[DB] Tamino is a professional time-series analyst quite versed in climate analysis. All you're really accomplishing here is demonstrating your lack of foundation in understanding statistical trend analysis.
-
Dan Moutal at 14:13 PM on 3 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Like I said, perhaps (hopefully) I am overly pessimistic. And there are a lot of promising solutions to the baseload issue. I just think getting off Fossil Fuels will be more difficult without nukes. As for the need for the need for baseload power, I had not heard this argument before, so I will need time to digest it. -
Marcus at 13:54 PM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
You see, this is the one thing that keeps being ignored-even if the total glacial melt between 1923 & 1961 could be shown to be equal or greater to the melt we've seen between 1995 & 2010, there'd still be the fact that we *know* what caused the former glacial melt (rising temperatures due to increasing solar irradiance), but *cannot* explain the current glacial melt with any known natural causes. So that *really* leaves only rising CO2 emissions as the culprit. If so, then unlike the 1923-1961 melt, there'll be no end to the current melt *unless* we stop pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. -
Marcus at 13:49 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
What's all this +0.3 degrees over the last 30 years nonsense anyway? Last I checked, the planet was warming at between +0.16 & +0.17 degrees per decade, which puts total warming at closer to +0.5 degrees over the past 30 years-& +0.6 degrees over the last 50 years. Given that this 30 year period has been dominated by a general *decline* in incoming solar irradiance, I really don't see how even the most committed denialist can claim that this is all part of some mystical "natural variation". After all, we didn't get that much warming even when solar irradiance was climbing during the first half of the 20th century. -
KR at 13:20 PM on 3 May 2011An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
RW1 - Looks like both SW and LW; see the bottom of column 1, page 1524, where Dessler 2010 discusses combining the uncertainties of SW and LW measurements to determine total uncertainties. -
scaddenp at 13:20 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
RW1 - I think that is voodoo statistics here. Perhaps you might like to explain in detail how you would do that calculation? Tamino attempts this at Open Mind and also sees what happens if you remove the known causes of variability. Can you do better than that? and of course the way to account for it with physics is compare model outputs with only natural forcing compared to models with all forcings. -
RW1 at 13:09 PM on 3 May 2011An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
Can someone help me out here? In figure 1 A and 1 B of Dessler's paper, are the y-axis fluxes LW or SW? Thank You. -
Michael.M at 13:03 PM on 3 May 2011Medieval project gone wrong
Great post Hoskibui, shouldn't it be added to the arguments? e.g "Disproves global MWP the recent warming?" -
RW1 at 12:57 PM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
muoncounter (RE: 61) "That works both ways. Please tell us exactly the range of natural variability and how you obtain that figure." Answered here -
RW1 at 12:54 PM on 3 May 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
muoncounter, "RW1#59: "unless the amount of warming is outside the range of natural variability" That works both ways. Please tell us exactly the range of natural variability and how you obtain that figure." Good question. In general, if the trend amount is less than the amount of observed variation over the trend, it's not outside the range of natural variability. -
Tom Curtis at 12:18 PM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chris @50, it is rather awkward for you that you agree with me, for I was disagreeing with you. In particular, I was indicating that "‘Greenland climate has not changed significantly’" seems like a very reasonable summary of the author's intended take home message. That take home message, according to Knappenburger is:"Our general conclusions were: • several recent years (in particular 2007 and from preliminary observations 2010) likely had a historically high degree of surface ice melt across the Greenland ice sheet, • on a decadal scale, there were several 10-yr periods during the 1930s through the early 1960s during which the average annual ice melt extent across Greenland was likely greater than the most recent 10 years of available data in our study (2000-2009), • that the ice melt across Greenland was particularly low at the start of the era of satellite observations (which began in 1979), such that a sizeable portion of increasing ice melt observed by satellite-borne instruments since then could potentially be part of the natural variability about the mean state, • that, for the next several decades at least, Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise was likely to be modest."
(My emphasis) That's two out of three authors now publicly running the line that its all just natural variation, and that that was the conclusion of their paper. If you agree that that line is an over interpretation of the data to 2009, then including 2010 would have underscored that point and the omission of detailed discussion (if not a full analysis) becomes unwarranted. -
Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
skywatcher @64, I am also interested in that question. In particular, I am wondering about the idea of testing statistical significance against the subset of the 20 highest melt years. why not test for statistical significance against all years? -
scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
If you google "comparison NCEP ERA-40", I think it gives you a good reason to be extremely cautious of conclusions based on NCEP reanalysis without support from other data. -
muoncounter at 11:02 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
RW1#59: "unless the amount of warming is outside the range of natural variability" That works both ways. Please tell us exactly the range of natural variability and how you obtain that figure. Responses belong on the Natural cycles thread.Moderator Response: Indeed, responses here will be promptly deleted without warning. -
scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Well I disagree with "no way to quantify", but for outside natural cycles, the calculation has been done and a convenient graphic is here Oh, and first principle physics, how about the quantum basis for radiative adsorption by GHGs? -
muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 3 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#418: "In order for anything to have a "large mass", there is a need to consider just a little more than surface area." So you contend that the area shown in the power plant photo or the ground shown in the third photo do not represent large thermal mass? The power plant, a poster child for your waste heat, has not changed the temperature of the larger surrounding area. The waste heat is irrelevant. No, sir, continuing to cling to this thread, without showing a shred of evidence for your thesis; that's pure garbage. -
skywatcher at 10:45 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
One last question from me - their last statement about statistical similarity depends entirely on their calculation of 95% confidence limits (2x RMSEv, according to their methods). For the statisticians here - is this error calculation reasonable? -
RW1 at 09:37 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
dana1981 (RE: 57), "Sure, the warming could be natural variation, if you completely ignore all physics and climate science. Just like if I start a forest fire, it could have been started by a lightning strike! Aren't hypotheticals fun?" The point is unless the amount of warming is outside the range of natural variability over a given period of time, there is no way to accurately quantify how much of it is due to man. Also, the only genuine first principle derived physics are that of the radiative forcing of CO2 (3.7 W/m^2 per doubling), the measured response of system to incident energy at the surface (about 1.6), and the constraints COE puts on the system. -
skywatcher at 09:33 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
(correction to my last comment: I've just mixed my reading of Mauri's mention of PDDs with the paper's use of average summer temperatures, but you can swap 'degree days' for summer melt in my comment anyway.) -
skywatcher at 09:29 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
I think an additional point to make, and one that the paper deals with very poorly in its conclusions, is that melt is not the only component of mass loss, and therefore sea level rise, from Greenland. Much mass is lost through calving, and termini such as Ilulissat (Jakobshavn Isbrae) have been observed to accelerate substantially between the middle and the end of the 20th Century. I would guess that the total volume of ice discharged by this prodigious glacier also increased substantially during that time (the glacier has since slowed, but also has a much wider calving front these days). So while surface melt values may be arguably statistically close to values in the mid-20th Century (notwithstanding Mauri Pelto's pertinent comment at #59), it is reasonable to think that total mass loss values, and sea level contribution are notably higher now than in the mid-20th Century due to extra calving? The relationship between degree-day melt and mass loss necessarily assumes a consistent relationship between PDDs and calving rate across many decades, ignoring that surface melt is immediate, but the calving mass loss has a time-dependent dynamical component. I may be wrong in this assumption, but it would partially explain how they got away with publishing their dubious statement on sea level. A strange paper - if you didn't know the subtext you'd say it looks OK for much of the way through, but then raises a whole bunch of red flags for the conclusions and especially the last sentence comparing past decades to the last few years.Moderator Response: [DB] Consider also the millennia-old ice shelves, widespread in the early-to-mid 20th Century, now gone. -
Albatross at 09:10 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Re #57, "Even if we assumed man's CO2 caused 100% of the 32 year trend of 0.3 C, that amounts to only about 1 C of warming over a hundred years." The warming is closer to +0.5 C in 32 years (as per RSS trend of 0.163 C/decade). So 0.163 C/decade translates into another 1.6 C of warming over the next 100 years should the current 32-yr trend continue. Regardless, the observed warming of almost 0.9 C since 1880, and most of that is in response to "only" a 40% increase in CO2 levels. There is just so much wrong with the numbers and logic in the above quote from #57 that it beggars belief.....it also goes to show, you can take people to the science, the data, but you cannot necessarily penetrate ideological barriers. -
Albatross at 08:52 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip, With respect,I agree with Rob's assessment that you are being disingenuous and not making a compelling argument. You claimed in your response that: "We would like to note that waiting for one more year of data is not going to materially affect our analysis or conclusions." We know that claim in demonstrably false, because the melt data for 2010 surpassed those for 2007, which renders the following from your abstract obsolete (i.e., including those 2010 would have very much have affected your conclusions): "The melt extent observed in 2007 in particular was the greatest on record according to several satellite-derived records of total Greenland melt extent." Including those 2010 data also renders the first part of this conclusion in your abstract obsolete, while also calling into question the validity of the second part of the following: "The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961" So contrary to your claims made here and elsewhere, the 2010 do very much affect your conclusions and desired narrative. Regardless, the "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW now have a (obsolete) paper to point to which enforces their delusion and to demand delay in taking action. Congratulations. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:44 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Dr. Pelto, Thanks for your comment. If PDDs are a good predictor of melt extent across the Greenland ice sheet, then their use as a proxy for a longer–term reconstruction should most definitely be explored. However, that was not the method that we used (which combined summer temperature and winter NAO). Perhaps our results could be furthered by examining the potential of incorporating PPDs. As far as “How are those [20] years found to not be statistically different?” we mean that the observed melt extent for 2007 lies within the 95% confidence bounds we determined for 20 of our reconstructed ice melt values. In our paper, we describe how we established those 95% confidence bounds. -Chip -
KR at 08:33 AM on 3 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - "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")." Totally, completely incorrect. Given 0.028 W/m^2 forcing from AHF, and a warming of ~3/4°C per watt of forcing, AHF's contribution drives the climate warmer by an extra ~0.021°C. With that change the extra IR emitted from the top of the atmosphere will balance the AHF input. And if that was the only forcing on climate change, we likely wouldn't even notice. AHF forcings are trivial in comparison to greenhouse gases. You need to consider relative energies. -
RW1 at 08:27 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
DB (RE: 50), "RW, it is simply unacceptable here to post a quotation without providing both context for the quote and a linked source for the quote. That part of Skeptical Science ain't a-changin', despite the clamor of "skeptics"." The quote is from a recent piece of his entitled "A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action" You can google it if you want to read the whole thing. The quote aside, there is very little going on here with temperature record. The 0.3 C or so upward trend over the last 30 years could easily happen by dumb luck alone. I certainly don't dispute the upward trend or that man's CO2 may have contributed to it at some level, but it isn't very much. Even if we assumed man's CO2 caused 100% of the 32 year trend of 0.3 C, that amounts to only about 1 C of warming over a hundred years.Response:[dana1981] Sure, the warming could be natural variation, if you completely ignore all physics and climate science. Just like if I start a forest fire, it could have been started by a lightning strike! Aren't hypotheticals fun?
For your 1°C warming over 100 years claim, I refer you to Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming.
-
mspelto at 08:17 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
There is considerable research that indicates positive degree days are a reasonable first approach to glacier melt. Figure 3 above indicates that 3 of the 5 highest PDD days for Greenland have occurred in the last decade. Further given this graph of PDD where are the 20 years in the 1923-1961 period that FKM maintain, without providing any actual annual values, are statistically not different from 2007. Given the extraordinary melt season of that year and 2003 it is hard to see how there could be more than four years that would even be in the consideration. What was the actual difference between 2007 and those other 20 years? How are those years found to not be statistically different? That is the science question that FKM did not delve into as the results will highlight the unusual nature of recent melt. It is not just the 2010 data that is glossed over. Petermann Glacier is just one example of the canary that indicates the reality. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:16 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Rob, We stated clearly in our response to the reviewer’s (Box’s) comments why we thought it unnecessary to delay our paper until we were able to obtain the melt data for the summer of 2010:“We would like to note that waiting for one more year of data is not going to materially affect our analysis or conclusions. While the melt across Greenland has been elevated for the past 10 to 15 years (and continues in 2010), this period of time is still only about half as long in duration as the elevated (reconstructed) melt across Greenland from the 1920s through the early 1960s. So the addition of one more year of melt data (i.e., 2010), will not impact this comparison.”
Prior to that comment, we explained why there would be a delay in updating our paper to include data for the melt season of 2010:“We don’t collect any data ourselves, but instead, obtain the processed melt data from various research groups, each operating on their own time schedule. The final/official release of the SSM/I brightness temperatures also takes about 6 months before it is available to centers like NSIDC. The updates in past years were therefore usually not made available to us until 6 to 9 months after the end of the melt season. In fact, the timing (August) of our original submission coincided with us finally obtaining the 2009 updates. Thus, waiting for the 2010 melt data would push the submission of our revised paper back until late spring or summer of 2011, at which point we may find ourselves again experiencing an interesting melt season which reviewers might feel important to include.”
If Jason Box knew that we had erred in assessing the availability of the melt data we required, and that in actuality it was available at the time, he should/could have pointed this out in response to our justification to the editor—and the paper perhaps could have been updated accordingly. However, as far as I can tell, Jason did not see our response to his comments (at his own instruction—although the editor may have thought it unnecessary to send it to him in any case, I don’t know for sure), and so such a clarification was never made. -Chip -
KR at 08:09 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp - Thanks, the Dessler and Davis 2010 is very interesting. Paltridge appears to be analyzing a serious outlier (NCEP/NCAR) in the various analyses, and their finding that long term feedback has a different sign (negative) than short term feedback (positive) without an accompanying model for how that could happen seems to indicate that Paltridge is in error. -
Chris G at 08:02 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
The tragedy of the commons certainly applies, but what I think a lot of people who argue that any individual country derives no benefit from reducing its own emissions neglect is the fact that world powers do not exist in a vacuum. If you are a small player, you would derive no benefit, but if, say, China and the US cooperated in reductions, they could exert enormous influence on other countries to follow suit. For example, they could say, "If you want to trade with us, either follow our lead on CO2 reductions, or we'll tax your imports." Either country might suffice to get the ball rolling, but if the EU, China, and the US forged an agreement, the rest of the world would have little choice but to follow suit. -
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 3 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
KR, Dessler and Davis 2010 for starters looks closely at it, but also Sherwood et al notes "However, this result had already been reported by Chen et al.[2008], who also noted nearly opposite results in the ERA‐40 reanalysis. Numerous studies have concluded that reanalysis data are easily corrupted by time‐varying biases and are therefore not useful for trend analysis [see U.S. ClimateChange Science Program, 2006]." Not to mention blog commentaries. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip... That is exactly where I read the comment. Can you tell me honestly, if this were any other topic of research, if a reviewer had notified you of additional information that would change the conclusion of your research would you only "note" the additional information? From reading both sides I get the sense that the issue is how the additional information is treated. Your group chose to note the additional information. Dr Box is saying that's not enough because the additional information fundamentally changes the conclusion of the paper. I'm I accurate? -
Chip Knappenberger at 07:25 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Rob, I appreciate your concern. Our work that was published in JGR grew out of a presentation that Oliver Frauenfeld gave to the Association of American Geographers Meeting in April of 2010 (abstract here) and an earlier presentation at the AGU’s in December 2008 (abstract here). At the time, our analysis only went through 2007. Following the AAG presentation, we decided to submit our research to JGR, and before doing so we gathered the latest data available and were able to update the analysis through melt season 2009 and submitted the paper to JGR in late summer 2010. We did not re-do the analysis between submission and final acceptance of our JGR paper for the reasons given in our response to (Box’s) comments which, as I stated earlier, can be found here. I hope that helps clear things up. -Chip Knappenberger -
Albatross at 07:06 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip, Thanks fro dropping in. I'm afraid you are making an incredibly weak case here and elsewhere on 'skeptic' and 'lukewarmer' blogs. And what is not helping your already weak case is that at least one of your co-authors (Michaels) is actively using your obsolete findings to mischaracterize the events unfolding in Greenland, and indeed globally. In fact, we have seen this very trick used before by "skeptics". It is now quite obvious why this paper was published in the first place, and why you were so reticent to include the 2010 melt data. Further, Tedesco and Fettweiss (2011) and Mernild et al (2011) managed to include those 2010 data, so you have no excuse. The narrative your paper is designed so as to play down the current events, and plays to the myth that "it has happened before", which is part of the "skeptical" memes that "it is not us" and "it won't be bad". Also, by you trying to keep people focussed on the past they are less inclined to think about where we are heading, and that is very much about what this is about, and you know that. Also, that spell of warmer temperatures between 1925 and 1960 and associated increased melt was regional and transient in nature. That is not what we are facing now or in the future. Down the road the warming will only increase as the radiative forcing from anthro GHGs increases (in addition to the natural release of GHGs as the permafrost continues to thaw, for example). I'll let you ponder this Figure:
[Source]
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:41 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Chip... In your linked article you state: "Response: While we sympathize with the reviewer and would love to have our paper as updated as possible, practical issues get in the way." That's as disingenuous a statement as I think I've ever read. How can "practical issues" get in the way of publishing a paper whose conclusions would immediately become obsolete when published? That doesn't seem at all "practical." It seems "convenient" for the Cato Institute. -
RSVP at 06:34 AM on 3 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
muoncounter 417 Somewhere around posts 389 or so, there was denial about the need to consider the heat that goes beyond skin depth. In order for anything to have a "large mass", there is a need to consider just a little more than surface area. One must multiply volume by density. ... and the following sentence... "Your exercise in high school algebra proves your thesis incorrect" is pure garbage. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:30 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Sure Daniel. I added a link to your post as the third "here" in that section of our text. -ChipModerator Response: [DB] Thanks again, Chip! -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:15 AM on 3 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Guys, Since Jason Box posted his inital review of our paper (that he submitted to JGR), we have now gone ahead and posted our response to that review (that we submitted to JGR). It is available at: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/attempts-to-box-us-out/ Perhaps the information therein will serve to provide more insight into the review process of our paper. -Chip KnappenbergerModerator Response:[DB] In the interests of full disclosure, since you've already linked therein to Judith's and Lucia's blog posts on the subject, I'm sure you will be also linking to this post expeditiously. Thanks, Chip!
-
dana1981 at 06:12 AM on 3 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
I have the same thoughts about Curry's blog as comments #54 and 55. In my short time there (about a week), I was treated quite rudely by other commenters. The majority of the comments were either off-topic, insulting, or both. Most would have not made it through the SkS moderation process because they would violate the site comments policy. There is clearly no moderation at Curry's. You can't blame her, since the volume of comments is so high and she has better things to do. But to compare the commenting and moderation at Curry's favorably to that at SkS is just bizarre. There's really no contest in terms of quality of both comments and moderation (or quality of the blog posts, for that matter). Like I said, I left Curry's after less than a week and haven't been back since, that's how bad I found it (mainly due to the rude comments). -
JMurphy at 05:45 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher, how about you work out the difference between the most recent trend you have given and, say, the trend for the 32 years previous to that - from 1949 to 1981. What do you find ? -
KR at 05:38 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher - My apologies - reading that over, my last post was unnecessarily harsh. However: we're at 390 ppm, pre-industrial levels were 280, and we won't have doubled CO2 until we reach 560 ppm. At that time the best estimates are of a 3C temperature increase for short term, rather more for long term as ice and CO2 feedbacks kick in. Hence a 1.5-1.7K per century, rate increasing, (~0.8C so far) for the GHG increase we have induced so far is just about right for the various IPCC estimates. -
muoncounter at 05:35 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
CW#8: "I'm having a hard time justifying the 3 spot from there. " Why? Just because? Or do you have some inside information that you'd care to share? The current trend of 0.15C per decade is consistent with 2-3deg/doubling of CO2. Considering the NH warming rates are more than twice the global and the global temperature graph is concave up, worse is yet to come. -
KR at 05:30 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
ClimateWatcher - I hope you will note that we haven't doubled CO2 yet, and that in addition there hasn't been enough time for a full response to the forcings we have induced. 3K seems about right. Your comments are rather hard to justify, though. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:20 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
2. & 3. The trends since 1979 indicate a rate of warming at 1.5 K per century (1.7 for GISS, 1.3 for CRU). I'm having a hard time justifying the 3 spot from there. -
dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
CBD - I agree, Lindzen's position is likely based on a presumed low climate sensitivity. As I noted, we'll be addressing that Lindzen Illusion next. There really is no reason whatsoever to believe Lindzen is correct on low sensitivity, other than perhaps misguided wishful thinking. -
CBDunkerson at 04:48 AM on 3 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #3 and Christy Crock #5: Opposing Climate Solutions
Presumably Lindzen's belief that global emissions cuts would have negligible impact is founded upon his belief that doubling CO2 would cause at most 1 C of warming... which doesn't appear to be founded on anything, and indeed directly contradicts observed reality.
Prev 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 Next
