Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 Next
Comments 87051 to 87100:
-
kdkd at 13:14 PM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
BP #21 Nope, sorry. You can still estimate 0 from that, without having a precise measurement of 0. Your argument is invalid, as it is a variant of the old so-called-skeptic canard that inexact knowledge is equivalent to no knowledge. -
dana1981 at 13:04 PM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Well if you read the end of the rebuttal, you'll see a couple plans for producing 100% energy from renewable sources using existing technology. So I disagree with it not being ready for prime time. And you also have to add this to the list of renewable pros, or at least take it off the cons. -
scaddenp at 12:52 PM on 2 May 2011Models are unreliable
"Don't you expect some surface cooling with the fresh meltwater that won't sink? Isn't this heat redistrubution?" That would be why DO have climate effects coming out of interglacial but not now? -
RW1 at 12:50 PM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
"The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing." - Richard LindzenModerator Response: [DB] 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". -
trunkmonkey at 12:37 PM on 2 May 2011Models are unreliable
354. I was rounding up. The models are initialized at 280ppm in 1750 or whatever, but humans have been burning since fire was domesticated. How much CO2 would you figure was released by the burning of the European oak forest (much of it to slake lime)? It is believed neolithic (and probably paleolithic) hunters routinely set uncontrolled fires to promote savannah at the expense of forest and chapparal. DO/Bond Don't you expect some surface cooling with the fresh meltwater that won't sink? Isn't this heat redistrubution? Why is the Atlantic deepwater way more oxygenated than the Pacific?Moderator Response: [DB] As for your first part, if I see where you're going with that, you should look into Ruddiman's Hypothesis. Ruddiman himself has a recent (and still active) thread over at Real Climate where Ruddiman has been answering questions. -
Ian Forrester at 12:29 PM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
DLB said:Imagine a wetter world, crops like rice would boom
Unfortunately, a warmer climate will reduce rice yields. Rice is particularly susceptible to a rise in minimum temperatures, which is what happens with AGW i.e. minimum temperatures will rise faster than maximum temperatures:Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming.
This is why it is much better to actually see what the science tells us rather than making predictions based on the hope that CO2 pollution will result in positive effects. -
Dan Moutal at 11:55 AM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
I may need to clarify something here in regards to renewables and baseload power. I probably oversimplified things in the podcast, but it seems to me that most of the solution presented in the "Renewables can't provide baseload" article have yet to be tested at the required scale. Nuclear has. What I see see with renewables and baseload power is a bunch of interesting solutions to a tough problem that are almost but not quite read for prime time. I may be overly pessimistic here (actually I hope I am), but I have seen little evidence to support that yet. But arguing this point is a little besides the point. We need to look at energy generation and properly weight the pros and cons of of all available technologies. -
Bernard J. at 11:55 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
DVB. You obviously haven't comprehended the explanations of the ecophysiological responses of plants such as rice, or the implication of temperature increase in the future. The whole point of this thread is that many of the "winners" are likely not to be of human benefit, and many of the "losers" will be profound in their loss to humans. Your comment about rice explicitly demonstrates that you know not about what you speak. If you disagree with this assessment, you will of course be able to support your statement that "undoubtedly there will be more winners" with actual peer-reviewed science. Your time starts now. -
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
BTW. Science of Doom has just done interesting article question of how much absorbance is in the weak lines versus the "far wings" of individual lines. Illuminating. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:33 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Sorry... I just read what I wrote. It came off a little more gruff than I had intended. -
HumanityRules at 11:23 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
The Tendesco link seems to be broken so it's difficult to comment on that paper. The Mernild paper was accepted on 8 April 2011 while the FCM paper was accepted on 31 January 2011. The 2+ month intervening period seems sufficient for the fully QC'd data to become publically available for Mernild to be able to introduce the 2010 data. It's also notable that the FCM review process took 5 1/2 months while the Milnild took 2 1/2 months. I think FCM have responded to these allergations, it would have been useful for the sake of balance to have seen what they had to say. Knappenberger explanation of the situation is provided in the link below, it seems fairly convincing even given the fact these are the bad guys! It's telling that he thinks 2010's data would not have changed the overall conclusion. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/reviewer-outs-himself/ Rather than make allegations about the authors motives it strikes me the more scientific thing to do would be to take the authors methodlogy and data and apply the 2010 data to it. Then tell us if the 2010 data has had any impact on the FCM conclusions. It seems Jason Box would have been in a perfect position to do this rather than write a less satisfactory blog post full of difficult to prove allegations. In fact such work would surely be publishable as a comment on the FCM paper if it added anything new. An attempt at a 226 year Greenland ice melt seems like a worthy attempt at extending our knowledge of the climate system. I think it's the general conclusions of the paper that is upsetting some people not the inclusion or not of one years data.Moderator Response:[DB] The Tedesco & Fettweis paper can be found here. Dr Box is an expert on Greenland glaciology. As for Knappenberger's thoughts on 2010 not making a difference, perhaps you both should read the original post at top, where it clearly DOES make a difference, to the point of completely invalidating the FKM paper's conclusions.
Any worthy attempt at extending our knowledge of the climate system would surely have included the latest data (especially considering the record melt of the GIS was common knowledge, widely known even in the lay community by September), which was available to the authors of the FKM paper. Which they opted to not use.
Science:Fail.
-
DLB at 11:19 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple
Increasing any growth limiting factor is going to increase primary productivity and of course there are going to be resultant winners and losers. Imagine a wetter world, crops like rice would boom while dryland crops like wheat would fall prey to fungal attack. A similar scenario would happen with CO2 for other species but undoubtedly there will be more winners. Sorry, this article is grasping at straws, if you (AGW community) want to spar with the sceptics find an argument with a lot more uncertainty like CO2 and climate. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:18 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Raymond @ 22... Can you please explain what any of that has to do with the topic of this article? Please read the comments policy.Moderator Response: [DB] Raymond is a new commenter. -
GCNP58 at 11:13 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Liu, the assoc. editor for this paper, was a post-doc of Judy Curry's. The same Curry that decried "tribalism" in science. Do I need to spell this out for anyone in more detail? -
scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Are you seriously unaware of problems with the Paltridge paper? (The re-analysis is not up to doing trends - this is widely reported). -
Raymond F. Smith at 11:09 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Global Warming and Global Cooling are natural unstoppable cycles. There have been much hotter global temperatures than the present, as late as 1100 years ago when the Arctic ocean was navigable and Greenland was indeed a green temperate land. Our Western way of living is dependent on using far more energy than is our share. But everybody demands the same quality of living which they reasonably equate with the amount of energy we use. It is the available energy that we have now that provides for the energy-dependent foods we squander. By 2060, that is only fifty more years, this abundant energy will have been used up. The consequences of this is that we will be dependent on the food we grow ourselves within walking distance of where our one-room house is. Perhaps you might believe the people who constantly tell us that by then we will have found some new energy source. But consider this: in 1950 the wisest scientists predicted that fusion energy would cater for all future energy needs, and so squillions of dollars have been spent in the past 60 years trying to get it to work, without success. We are no nearer to achieving it than we were 60 years ago. That is probably because of the physical problems of containing and using the pressures and heat of fusion energy. Remember, it was less than a kilogram of hydrogen that produced the largest ever explosion. There is some questionable evidence that the temperature rise which we are experiencing now, may be faster than we might expect. However, this would more likely be due to the heat caused by our energy-dependent lifestyle, because practically all energy sources are fossil fuels which produce heat and electricity which is eventually converted to heat. So if is that extra heat you want to get rid of, you must reduce the demand for energy, and that consequently means reducing the number of people demanding energy — one of those kinds of difficult problems that politicians just don’t have the guts to tackle, so they create imaginary scapegoats like carbon dioxide. Raymond F. Smith Retired, formerly: Senior Lecturer in Communications Media at the Regional Centre for Education in Science And Mathematics, Malaysia. Area Specialist with the Australian Science Education ProjectModerator Response: [DB] Raymond, let me first say "Welcome to Skeptical Science!" However, your comment is riddled with misunderstandings and errors; it is obvious you've been misinformed. Fortunately you've come to a place where you can get the "straight story" on climate related questions and issues. There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
As a communicator, I'm sure you understand the need to be properly informed on an issue before speaking on it.
-
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Some days in winter are warmer than some days in summer - so why cant I grow tomatos in winter then? Oh and if 0.3C was nothing to get concerned about then I guess 0.4 colder (LIA) is also no problem? -
dana1981 at 10:50 AM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
By the way, I just updated that rebuttal to include the 100% renewable energy production by 2050 posts. -
dana1981 at 10:43 AM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Dan's podcast was mostly good, but John is right that he should read "Renewables can't provide baseload". -
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 2 May 2011Models are unreliable
"I care deeply about this. It may be the defining issue of our time." How about reading Ch6 (Paleoclimate) of the WG1 then? I think you will find what want in the referenced papers. Nature of DO's. Well DO events appear to only have strong climatic effect when exiting a glacial. Its not the adding of CO2 that changes things but loss of the ice sheet. Candidates for Bond/Heinrich/DO events - solar and changes to thermohaline circulation. Any of those happening to explain the current warming? Nope. -
Berényi Péter at 10:34 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
#17 kdkd at 09:00 AM on 2 May, 2011 Yes, that should probably read "Satellites have helped infer an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere". As Trenberth puts it "the satellite measurements are sufficiently stable from one year to the next, so that by measuring incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation it is possible to track changes in the net radiation". That's all. One only has to integrate net radiative imbalance (the derivative of heat content anomaly) for an extended period. It could help infer an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere if the offset is given. But it is not given. Therefore there is an unknown additive linear term in the energy content, that is, no trend can be determined this way. Which means it does not even help to infer the imbalance.Response:[DB] Anyone who wants to respond to this needs to do so on the Tracking-the-energy-from-global-warming thread, where this subject more properly belongs. Thanks!
-
Ken Lambert at 10:13 AM on 2 May 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Sphaerica The 4.14 - 5.69E20 number relates to the Arctic which is the area Tom Curtis has been calculating with the reduction in sea ice and decreased albedo. Remember the 1-2 million sq.km lost each summer? Tom then threw in Greenland ice loss - so I added that in the above number for comparison. Are you suggesting that Tom's 9.17E20 Joules applies to snow and ice for the whole northern hemisphere? -
Marcus at 10:08 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Ah, I see RW1 uses all the typical Denialist tricks-first by trying to make a trend out of a single month of data (apparently he is unfamiliar with monthly variability), ignores the fact that March still lay within a relatively strong La Nina & also relies on data that specifically excludes the polar regions-those parts of the globe that are warming the fastest. I think this guy has achieved the Denialist Trifecta. -
Marcus at 09:57 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Yes, very good point Eveningperson. After all, if 'the market' were so Omniscient, then how did they so epically fail to see the GFC before it hit? I find it interesting how people like Mozart place so much faith in "the market", yet appear totally distrustful of hard science! -
Marcus at 09:55 AM on 2 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
Yes, I've noticed that its Denialism that seems closest to a religion in its nature. How often do we see the various Contrarians blindly repeating the Mantras of their various High Priests (Monckton, Lindzen, Christy et al) even when those Mantras have no scientific evidence to back them up. Throw in their complete inability to acknowledge even the most glaring errors on the part of their High Priests, & what you've got is something that looks increasingly like a *cult*. -
Berényi Péter at 09:51 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
#162 KR at 07:06 AM on 2 May, 2011 But, quite frankly, we have plenty of data on relative and absolute humidity from other sources over the last 50-70 years Really? Other than balloon radiosonde data? Because on face value those show decreasing specific humidity above the 700 hPa level (between 1973 and 2007). If you have other data, please show us. The conclusion from all these papers? That CO2 is not saturated, and that the last quarter century of satellite data shows increasing effects at the GHG frequencies expected from GHG concentrations and the spectroscopic physics. If you look at the raw brightness temperature data, you can see that average brightness temperature change in the high frequency wing of the main CO2 emission band (wavenumber 710 - 760 cm-1) between 1970 and 1996 is negligible. You can suppose there is a large decrease masked by changes in atmospheric temperature and moisture fields and you can assume those fields behaved just like that, but that is not measurement. If average specific humidity in fact shows a decreasing trend above 700 hPa (as measured), that is inconsistent with masking. If a computational climate model like CRUTEM3 indicates otherwise, it is still not measurement, but a theoretical result contradicted by measurement. If average brightness temperature decreased by 1°C in said band, that would decrease OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) by about 0.2 W/m2. However, raw brightness temperature data show it was less than 1°C (and possibly zero). The low frequency wing was not measured, but that's already outside the main atmospheric window and overlaps with pretty strong H2O absorption lines, so its effect is probably even less pronounced. The question is not whether the CO2 effect is saturated or not, but if it is saturated enough to exclude a strong effect. The same way as in the case when one has to choose between a spherical vs. flat Earth model. Then the differences between a sphere and the geoid are surely negligible. -
werecow at 09:35 AM on 2 May 2011Rescue Climate Data
These data are neatly typed and, with a bit of preprocessing, should be conducive to using automated character recognition! Has anyone considered automating part of this? You could do an OCR scan on the images, use that to fill in the appropriate columns a priori, and then have several volunteers check the results. That should make their lives much easier. You can even make the OCR "trainable" to extend it to other type writer fonts, and possibly enhance it further by using some outlier detection. I have only limited experience with OCR myself, but it looks like this would be a pretty good option here. -
eveningperson at 09:25 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
@mozart: "It seems the market, distilling all the information available, is not particularly worried." One might think that, after the experiences of the last few years, people would realise that "the market" does not magically distil all available information. In fact the behaviour of "the market" is determined by the prejudices and misconceptions of those individuals acting in it. And, as is only too clear there are powerful, moneyed forces intervening in particular markets to create confusion and misinformation. The clearest thinking on climate change, outside the climate scientists themselves, appears to be in the insurance industry, which stands to lose badly from climate change if it gets the facts wrong. And it takes the science seriously. -
David Horton at 09:08 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
What kind of "scientists", having written a paper on what they believed was a trend (or lack of trend) to the year 2009, would, on discovering that the year 2010 totally reversed their conclusions, go ahead and publish their original hypothesis anyway? Is there a word for the complete opposite of normal scientific process? -
kdkd at 09:00 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
BP #16 Yes, that should probably read "Satellites have helped infer an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere". There are many things in the science of measurement that we can not observe directly for a variety of reasons. I assume that you're not suggesting that none of these things exist. -
Berényi Péter at 08:02 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
"Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere". This proposition is not true. See e.g. Trenberth 2009: "There is a TOA imbalance of 6.4 W m-2 from CERES data and this is outside of the realm of current estimates of global imbalances that are expected from observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Or Trenberh 2010: "The difference between the incoming and outgoing energy -- the planetary energy imbalance -- at the top of the atmosphere is too small to be measured directly from satellites".Moderator Response: [DB] Your criticism more properly belongs on the thread you reference: Tracking-the-energy-from-global-warming (you will find several of your comments there already). This thread is about FKM's publishing of an obsolete paper. -
Albatross at 07:57 AM on 2 May 2011How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
John C., I very much look forward to reading your book. The psychology of those who deny the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences for humanity is fascinating. I will be placing a request for the city's main library to buy a few copies of your book-- close to a million people have access to the library :) -
Albatross at 07:53 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
RW1, Please stop trolling. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:53 AM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Careful, Peter, of the little "yippers" or their leader, the "Grand Poohbah Yipper" might send you a terse email. It IS their MO...anyway, loved the vid & the not-pulling-of-punches. The denialarati won't like it, of course; most are unlikely to even click on the link, however. I'll listen to Dan's piece tonight. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 07:33 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
d82 #45: "trend is up, and natural variability is out." It's also relevant that the temperature anomaly curve is strongly concave up. That behavior is impossible to duplicate with low sensitivity to CO2, as some claim, usually without benefit of any evidence such as these graphs. -
dana1981 at 07:27 AM on 2 May 2011Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
Great job by Peter Sinclair. A very thorough and clear summation of the 'hide the decline' confusion. No sleight meant to Dan, I haven't listened to his show yet :-) -
KR at 07:06 AM on 2 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Berényi - Thank you, that does clarify matters. - You were not insinuating data manipulation by Anderson, but rather accusing Harries of overprocessing their data and reaching unwarranted conclusions. Which by implication is also an accusation against Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007, as their results agree with Harries. - Secondly, the Anderson data was indeed inappropriate to compare directly to Harries, as you did earlier. Finally, I will note that Anderson has stated that he cannot make conclusions about moisture from the data points. I don't have a copy of Harries readily available, I don't know what they wrote on that subject. But, quite frankly, we have plenty of data on relative and absolute humidity from other sources over the last 50-70 years, and adjust accordingly. The conclusion from all these papers? That CO2 is not saturated, and that the last quarter century of satellite data shows increasing effects at the GHG frequencies expected from GHG concentrations and the spectroscopic physics. -
d82 at 06:33 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
RW1@42, There is more than UAH data to look at. See the NOAA webpage of the tropospheric data up to 2010. Taking the decadal averages of these data since 1958 (including the balloon data) and comparing them with the decadal averages of the combined Land-Ocean data and the predictions of the NASA/GISS group of Hansen et al. in 1981, 1988 (solution B) and the 2007 update (red square for the 2010's) gives the following picture:
The trend is up, and natural variability is out. For more details click here.
-
RW1 at 06:28 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
The point is the amount global average temperature can fluctuate from year to year is greater than the whole of the 30 year trend. This means the trend is well within the range of natural variability and not statistically significant. Furthermore, the 0.3 to 0.4 trend is barely even outside the margin of error. Talk about trying to make Mt. Everest out of a mole hill. No wonder Lindzen has trouble taking any of this kind of stuff seriously.Moderator Response:No, you are incorrect. You need to learn the basics of statistical trend analysis.
[dana1981] Indeed, it's hard to take you seriously when you can't seem to learn the difference between signal and noise.
-
muoncounter at 06:15 AM on 2 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP#416: "the equation you provide for voltage " I did not provide; that is the definition of electrical potential. The difference in potential between two points is what is commonly referred to as 'voltage.' "a large temperature change can be relatively meaningless if it has to do with heating of small masses." Your exercise in high school algebra proves your thesis incorrect. There is no visible deltaT due to waste heat, for large mass: In case you did not read the caption, the first IR photo was taken 5.2 miles away from the power plant. The mass of the ground in that image is not small. Low deltaT with large mass requires q to be small: waste heat is insignificant. On the other hand, there is a very visible deltaT over a small patch of ground (low mass) under the car. But the small amount of heat energy does not warm a large mass. Once again, proving KR's point. -
JMurphy at 05:59 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Good to see the so-called skeptics content to rely on out-of-date data (and happy to confirm each other or, at least, not criticise each other, in that reliance), just so they can prove a point to each other, congratulate each other, have another paper they can wilfully misuse and, generally, continue on their pseudo-scientific path. Plus ça change... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
johnd... Don't you think that just one reviewer, especially one for whom Greenland temperature records is his area of expertise, saying that the entire conclusion of the paper would have to be changed based on the latest data would be cause for any rational editor to request a rewrite of the paper? This sounds suspiciously like another breakdown in the editorial process, a la Soon and Baliunas style. -
JMurphy at 05:53 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
UAH trend is 0.14C per decade, and yet someone can claim that the trend has been "wiped out in one year" ! Does that mean that a cold week in mid-Summer means that Summer is then over ? Or is it better to look at long-term trends rather than rely on two cherry-picked data points ? It is easy to see the difference between those who want to know the true picture and those who don't. -
RSVP at 05:31 AM on 2 May 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
muoncounter 415 Interestingly, the equation you provide for voltage resembles the heat formula q = mC deltaT, which when turned around demonstrates how voltage can be likened to temperature such that deltaT = q/mC. As you can see, for a given energy q, the change in temperature is directly related to specific heat and mass. So the detection of a large temperature change can be relatively meaningless if it has to do with heating of small masses. -
mspelto at 05:07 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
Tenney it worked yesterday, but no luck now. The paper is also at Tedesco et al (2011). Of interest is also the increased intensity of melt, which goes beyond mere extent. A paper in review van den Broeke et al (2011) on "The seasonal cycle and interannual variability of surface energy balance and melt in the ablation zone of the west Greenland ice sheet", focuses on this in Figure 4. Note the exceptional 10 day periods of melt that the authors are concerned will become more widespread. This paper also highlights the extent of the ongoing fieldwork that is shedding light on Greenland melt that the paper in question here does not, there is no new data or insights offered. Also note the draft paper by Mernild et al (2011) , scroll down to Feb. 4, referenced herein responded to 4 separate reviews (including mine), in 15 comments before publication. -
RW1 at 05:00 AM on 2 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
The global temperature is already back to what it was over 30 years ago in 1980. Virtually the entire trend was wiped out in one year. This is fundamentally the problem with this. Without the two large El Ninos, there wouldn't even be a much of warming trend at all. Even a 0.3 C warming is ant crumbs - you couldn't even feel that on your skin.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. BTW, the Lower troposphere isn't necessarily the best temp record (or even UAH among satellite records, either); GISS LOTI probably is best overall. Anyway, UAH LT since 1979:
GISS LOTI:
Yup, no problem. -
johnd at 04:10 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
johnd at 04:06 AM, to clarify, the "he" in "that he would then be unaware" is of course Dr.Box. -
johnd at 04:06 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
How many people were asked to review the paper and what were the considerations of the other reviewers? This should be known before passing judgment. I take it that by declining the invitation to re-review the paper, that he would then be unaware of any changes the authors may have made, creating a situation that his initial review may not be still relevant, thus excluding himself from the process. The publishers generally would be the only ones able to evaluate and balance the worth of each reviewer, obviously having to risk someone getting their nose out of joint if there happened to be divergent views. -
Tenney Naumer at 03:42 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
WheelsOC, those faux "think" tanks have no credibility at all. -
WheelsOC at 03:35 AM on 2 May 2011Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
About halfway through the explanation of the paper, I wondered if "Michaels" wasn't in fact Pat Michaels. Clicking the link to read the abstract confirmed it. For what it's worth, Knappenberger also collaborates with Michaels on their think-tank's climate contrarian blog, World Climate Report. Both of them also find their way into the "experts" listings of other right-wing think-tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute (along with Frauenfeld). Writing a paper like this and refusing to update it in the face of timely and relevant data at the behest of reviewers should remind us to question the credibility of such organizations, who rely so heavily on experts like these to sway public policy.
Prev 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 Next
