Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 Next
Comments 87651 to 87700:
-
funglestrumpet at 05:44 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
I am not a scientist, but I do have scientific leanings. It seems to me that I keep reading reports of scientists regurgitating previously debunked opinions/theories. This site even has special sections for the likes of Lindzen, Moncton, Christy etc. so prevalent is the practice. Surely the scientific community needs to develop some mechanism that can impose sanctions on any of their number when they can be shown to have deliberately misrepresented scientific evidence in the way described herein. The medical profession can strike people off when someone behaves in a way that falls below the required standards. Even sports people can be charged with bringing their game/sport into disrepute and the sanctions can be severe. I find it difficult to believe that a similar mechanism cannot be devised within the science profession for someone who behaves in the way Lindzen is said to have in this post. Failing that, he and those like him will continue to impress politicians all around the world with their disinformation and give those with their own agenda a credibility for their position or opinion that is ill deserved. The general public stands no chance and the scientific community must bear at least some of the responsibility. Rebuttal on a site like this, excellent as it is, doesn't have the sanction that a formal disciplinary hearing would be able to impose. It is not as though the bodies that could perform the regulatory function are not already in place, such as The Royal Society in the U.K. -
Harry Seaward at 05:35 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Sweete @ 35 In reference to the Russian heat wave, from the American Geophysical Union (3-9-11). Link here. "While a contribution to the heat wave from climate change could not be entirely ruled out, if it was present, it played a much smaller role than naturally occurring meteorological processes in explaining this heat wave's intensity. -
Harry Seaward at 05:24 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That obviously did not happen. Not even close. So, now the date is pushed out to 2050 and the number of refugees increased to 200 million. Amusing to say the least. -
michael sweet at 05:15 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
I find it interesting that Harry claims that floods 6,000 years ago during a different climate era are relevant to the discussion. In recorded human history going back over 1,000 years there is no record of any floods that compare with the Pakistan floods last year. Likewise there are no records of similar Russian heat waves for 1,000 years. You can handwave off 1 in 1000 year events as long as you like but eventually it becomes a trend. It is too early to have scientific evidence for the Texas fires, they are currently occuring, but the newspaper article I linked states they are "unprecedented". If you want to challenge that description you need to provide a link to evidence, otherwise you are just hand waving. -
dana1981 at 05:10 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
michael #11 - interesting proposal. We'll see what we can do. -
michael sweet at 05:05 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
I would like to see a comparison of Hansen 1988 and Lindzen 1989. That would show the difference between the scientific and skeptic predictions. -
muoncounter at 04:46 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Harry#32: No one denies that there were floods in the past; no one denies that climate has changed before now. What we must deal with is the question of whether there are systematic changes in the frequency and intensity of these events. As pointed out here, there was something out of the ordinary about the 2010 Indus valley flooding. Perhaps the extreme weather thread is a better place for the discussion of what has become known as 'attribution' (although 'retribution' may be appropriate). As usual, there are experts working these problems. -
CBDunkerson at 04:36 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
For purposes of the original argument it also doesn't matter whether these various extreme weather events were 'caused' by global warming or not. The actual statement was that there would be "environmental" refugees. We can quibble over whether these were climate change events, but certainly not over whether they were environmental (as opposed to political for instance) events. -
Harry Seaward at 04:35 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Muon @ 31 I did not dismiss anything. I simply asked for the data and the proof of a direct connection. Also, it is very interesting that the first article you linked to stated the following: "During a warm period ending about 6,000 years ago, the Indus was a monster river, more powerful and more prone to flooding than today. Then, 4,000 years ago, as the climate cooled, a large part of it simply dried up. Deserts appeared whether mighty torrents once flowed." So, the climate changed before just as it's doing now. I'm certain humans (and other animals) had to move in the past, and will have to move in the future. -
muoncounter at 03:45 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Harry#29: "You can't point to an extreme event and just make the claim" Nor can you necessarily dismiss the increasing probability for extreme precipitation events as due to warming simply by saying 'no, its not". Some data for anomalous conditions in the 2010 Indus floods here and in general here. Interesting that the list of dismissives: 'you can't claim heat waves of 2003 or 2010' weren't made worse by warming, then 'flooding isn't made more frequent', 'Arctic isn't melting faster', keeps getting longer. -
logicman at 03:32 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Lindzen will be quoted as an 'expert' in the media for as long as the media can make money out of a 'controversy' which the media itself has helped to create. -
Harry Seaward at 03:17 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
scaddenp@16 I appreciate the challenge, but just don't have the time to research it. -
Harry Seaward at 03:12 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Sweet @ 17 You can't point to an extreme event and just make the claim that it was caused by AGW. Where is your data and your proof? The closest I could come to finding any scientific information on this are articles where various scientists said AGW "may" have caused the flooding. From "Indus Basin River System - Flooding and Flood Mitigation" by H. Rehman and A. Kamal, 1995 "The river system is mainly snow-fed but during monsoons carries major floods. The floods are a regular phenomenon with losses running into millions. Fatalities due to flooding are also common." Found here. The Indus River floods every year because of the monsoon, and has done so since before man kept records, and will continue to do so long after man is gone. If you still firmly believe that AGW contributed to this event in 2010, please show your data. -
dana1981 at 02:38 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Albatross - no, this is the first I've seen the Lindzen '89 talk. We'll have to incorporate it into some future Lindzen Illusions. -
Charlie A at 02:28 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Albatross -- thanks for the link on the Russian heatwave. There are conflicting opinions on the European heatwave of 2003. The proximate cause was an anticyclone blocking pattern that stalled over western Europe. This dramatically decreased precipitation. Also implicated were the more active than normal West African monsoon. Michael Sweet could point to hundreds of extreme weather events and claim AGW is the cause. The same region as the Texas wildfires was the source of the largest group of climate refugees I know of in the USA. The "Okies" (from Oklahoma / West Texas / Texas Panhandle region) of the great dust bowl of the 1930's. Australia has also seen massive climate changes. The drought of late '90s through '01 was truly a record breaking drought that caused immense hardship. I have no peer reviewed literature that says the cause of the Federation Drought was not anthropogenic. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:24 AM on 22 April 2011CO2 was higher in the past
Try another "back of the envelope" calculation. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know ;o), the difference in solar forcing between a glacial and an interglacial is about 7W/m^2. The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about C0 = 280ppmV. The radiative forcing for CO2 is given by DeltaF = 5.35*ln(C/C0) which implies that C = exp(DeltaF/5.35 + log(C0)) so substituting the figures, we get C = exp(7/5.35 + 5.6384) = 1000ppmv (ish) That calculation ignores any feedback etc, so if it was within a factor of two of the real answer from a climatologist (who unlike me knows what they are talking about ;o), I would be pleasantly surprised. A value of 500ppmv sounds plausible to me. -
Albatross at 02:12 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
From the same interview, (I am still shaking my head, 20 years of the same misinformation), he concluds with this: ""It seems to me," said Professor Lindzen, "that if science doesn't have integrity, it isn't of much use to people."" On that account I fully agree with Lindzen, unfortunately for him, that assessment has been demonstrated repeatedly to apply to him and his fellow contrarians and 'skeptics'. Dana did you know about the talk that Jimbo linked us to? -
Alec Cowan at 02:08 AM on 22 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
@Berényi Péter #88 @Sphaerica #92 Please, Sphaerica, don't reply to that master of word tricks, as he/she has and wield the ability to induce mistakes departing of his/her owns. @Berényi Péter #88Something does not add up here.Yes, your knowledge on the subject: You are simply playing with planetary albedo, cloud albedo and the part of planetary albedo that is provided by clouds. To explain it in a way a child of 10 could understand (change of voice) you are saying that every and all of the beams that the sun uses to give light and to warm the earth must find a cloud in their way, but all of us know that there are aplenty days the sun shines and there is no cloud in sight, isn't it truth, kids? -Yay! (back to normal voice)Solution?Thinking it better before posting with links to literature. This was just one more of "yours", like your magical UV-A beams, your dwelling in exclusively polar regions and a lot of quackery that you have been adding to a lot of posts in this site in recent days and that you don't even bother to reply, once spotted. I ask now the moderators what is the style or applicable rules to use with all this cases, that is, to deal with people that uses the disinformation technique that can be compared with a person constantly going to the woods and coming back bringing in his arms any sort of sticks and lumber, in order to put all that rubbish on different places of the tracks in an effort to derail the passing convoys, claiming in the seldom case of achieving such goal that the act is evidence of the nonexistence of a railroad system and that, in the worst scenario, a stick is better technology than a locomotive. What can we do? Tell me, please. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:06 AM on 22 April 2011CO2 was higher in the past
trunkmonkey@36 We are not in an interglacial within an overall "snowball" period. In a snowball period glaciation extends so far towards the tropics that albedo feedback means that the glaciation doesn't stop and continues to the equator and stays there (untill forcings change by 40ish W/m^2!). That hasn't happened for seveal hundreds of millions of years. If you mean the "tipping point" where glaciation would not happen at all, that is not the same "tipping point" at which a global glaciation (the whole of the Earth under ice) can no longer ocurr. The second of those "tipping points" as I said above is below 0ppmv already due to solar brightening. -
Albatross at 02:06 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Jimbo @2, That is quite the find! SOme nuggests from Lindzen's talk in late 1989: "I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,..." Well, it is now known that the recent warming has easily surpassed any warming that can be expected from natural variability. "Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record, he said. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example. Lindzen has also been shown to be wrong on that front here, and here. ""The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree." This paleo reconstruction from Ljungqvist clearly shows that assertion to be false, the minimum occurred around 1700, not near 1880.[Source] Lindzen also seems to be floating the myth about the climate rebounding from the LIA, well that too has been refuted. And those demonstrably false claims and predictions came from the first third of his talk! I am once again reminded the sage words of an esteemed climate scienetist Dr. Kerry Emanuel: "... [B]eware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem." -
Pete Wirfs at 02:02 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
And RealClimate reviewed James Hansen's 1988 testimony in 2007; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ -
Pete Wirfs at 01:56 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
I think I may have found James Hansen's 1988 testimony; http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf -
ScaredAmoeba at 01:53 AM on 22 April 2011Muller Misinformation #3: Al Gore and polar bears
'Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?' By M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock Bearing in mind the presence of so many of the usual suspects among the authors, who show little or no expertise in the field, it may not be surprising that there are strong reasons to believe that this paper wasn't peer reviewed and was part funded by Koch industries. BTW, it has also been criticised for not being as objective as it should be. Abstract of Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008) -
dana1981 at 01:51 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Jimbo - nice link. It's funny, just about everything Lindzen said in that 1989 talk has turned out to be wrong. Hard to believe people still listen to him with that history of errors. In your quote he claims the planet hasn't warmed. Here is the relevant quote for this post:"He said that the models showing that warming will occur with increasing CO2 predict after-the-fact (post-predict) that since the 19th century we should have seen between about one and two degrees of warming."
-
Albatross at 01:40 AM on 22 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Charlies @25, "Hansen also made the same exact claim for the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, and the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010. There is peer reviewed literature that says otherwise for at least two of these events." Re the peer-reviewed science, you are probably referring to Dole et al. (2011), and that paper speaks specifically to the Russian heat wave, and does not speak to the record high temperatures experienced in Pakistan of May 2010, nor the extreme heat observed elsewhere over central and eastern Asia during the boreal summer. Sophisticated finger printing techniques have found a link between AGW and the European heat wave of 2003, but to my knowledge they have not yet been applied to the Russian heat wave. Peer-review continues after publication, and Trenberth has been highly critical of the Dole et al. paper, and I expect that we can see a reply in the literature relatively soon, good science takes time. Either way, you are way, way too quick to dismiss the experience, insight and knowledge of an esteemed scientist like Hansen. And I'll leave you with this to ponder-- would the Russian heat wave have been as bad had it not been for the underlying anthropogenic warming trend? The answer to that is very likely no. -
michael sweet at 01:28 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Didn't Lindzen testify in front of congress with James Hansen in 1988? Can we review his predictions from that testimony and compare them to the observed changes (and also compare to Hansen). Do you have a link where that testimony can be found? -
Jim Powell at 01:26 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
Lindzen has been making this argument since 1989, at least. He said in an interview that year with MIT Tech Talk, Lindzen critical of global warming prediction "The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree." Lindzen concluded, "The greenhouse effect does not seem to be as significant as suggested." The interview ended: "It seems to me," said Professor Lindzen, "that if science doesn't have integrity, it isn't of much use to people." -
Alec Cowan at 01:25 AM on 22 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Berényi Péter #152 You can do much better than that. Instead of saying "they won the game after the public roared in their support" or "stock market felt today after a journey of profit-taking" or any other kind of mouthful where a description replaces a causation, why don't you list the exact parts of those resources that according to you are related to Trenberth's mail. Otherwise it looks even less than an induced inference, just a concoction. -
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 22 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
RyanStarr, if graphs can be self interpreting, interpret this one for me:
The chart has correct labels and axis, so (according to you) you should require no more information (such as, for example, that in the caption) to interpret it. Your failure to interpret should be treated as a de facto refutation of your claims.
-
trunkmonkey at 00:39 AM on 22 April 2011CO2 was higher in the past
We are currently in an interglacial interlude within an overall "snowball" period. We are at a bit less than 400ppm. My sense is that someone thought once we pass 500ppm we would exit the snowball regime altogether. I doubt this is exactly right but it is at least reasonable. To say that the same tipping point in the Ordovician was 3000ppm is extraordinary. Eccentricity is good for a couple watts as well. -
Alexandre at 00:37 AM on 22 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
When you poke a large industry with a stick like this, it is expected to see a strong reaction. I would think that they would like to delay every precedent. This is an important moment. -
adelady at 00:16 AM on 22 April 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
new c#51. I've seen it, but it's 50+ pages of reasonably heavy going. (Though I would have said the production, rather than the use, of aerosols.) I won't pretend to understand the whole thing even when I'm done with it. But I do need to read it through a couple of times just to get the general ideas straight. (Then I'll have to decide whether I follow up any references to get the full flavour of any interesting details.) -
Alec Cowan at 00:02 AM on 22 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Berényi Péter #154 Your words in some way echoed in my mind a recent debate in my city in which some argued that people by the act of becoming police troopers and personnel they had in many ways curbed their rights to life. It is very sad that you find if fits in this venue your attitude of "I don't support any crime but since we are at it I'll take advantage of the fruit of the crime" together with a false argumentation about what rights have any person, because what you'd voluntarily do sets the frame of what people should be forced to do. And I must say that all what you do in this site boils to pretty much the same, and that has nothing to do with your right to be an absolute ... human, but with your constant fail to perceive nobody notices the way you operate and what motivates you. -
les at 23:59 PM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
144 RyanStar - no, didn't think so. Personally, I'd go further than Tom/141: Graphs are part of a narrative explaining analysis and results. They should be read in the context of what is being explained and not by them selves... labels are only relative to that explanation. Basically graphs are there to give the reader an impression of what the data or analysis is like - but graphs are neither data nor analysis, in and of themselves. There is a broad propensity to use graphs in PowerPoint, news articles, blogs etc. Often, though not always, by folks trying to appear scientific for, worse, who are being sciency - and this, IMHO, gives folks who don't actually do science the impression that the graphs are all that's involved in an analysis. The result, as we see, is that when one person interprets a graph one way and someone else interprets is another - all there is to fall back on is "bad labeling" or such. -
BillyJoe at 23:47 PM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
In case everyone thinks I did not respond to their posts, Let me just say that I have reponded but that my post was censored as probably this one will be. The irony.Moderator Response: [DB] Participating in this forum is a privilege, not a right. Compliance with the Comments Policy is not optional. Thus, non-compliance is then self-censorship. Complaining about moderation adds nothing to the dialogue, forces moderation and thus also amounts to self-censorship. -
Berényi Péter at 23:39 PM on 21 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
#153 Sphaerica at 22:50 PM on 21 April, 2011 Being an employee of the government does not turn one into a state-and-people-owned slave-robot It is politics, so it will probably get deleted along with your comment, but anyway. I am a great fan of freedom & privacy. However, I do have two separate email addresses, one for business and one for private matters. I'd be certainly upset if someone published my private emails or used it in any other improper manner (including government interference with no lawful court order). On the other hand I'd happily show my business mails to anyone provided the company I am working for is not worried about trade secrets. I know no private company that would encourage employees to do their own business during office hours using their company email address. Does it make employees company-owned slave-robots? I do not think so. Why should it be otherwise with state employees? Just because in a sense "owners" of this particular business happen to be taxpayers? Mind you, all government money rightfully belongs to taxpayers, not bureaucrats employed by elected officials. They are responsible to the general public for their conduct and get adequate compensation for it, based on a free job contract. In a free society there is no law that would coerce you to become a government employee, so if this burden is too much, you can do something else. -
RyanStarr at 23:37 PM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Les @ 140. I'm not a teacher but if I were and thought it necessary I would advise my students to provide correct labeling on any charts they create. In most cases that wouldn't be necessary as it would be a natural assumption. -
RyanStarr at 23:26 PM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom @ 141, no you're wrong Tom, many, many charts are self interpreting. In fact any chart with correct labels and axis will be self interpreting. You label the chart and the reader knows what's on the chart. Ipso facto. Jones applied Mike's "nature trick" to create new spliced versions of existing series. So the data shown is his data, his new spliced versions of the old series, and yet he labels them as though they are the old versions. He mislabeled them hence a reader is mislead. Again, very simple, your convolutions don't change any of that. -
Clouds provide negative feedback
RW1 Sphaerica - "Again, you are ignoring wavelengths," RW1 - "I don't see how. A watt is watt, regardless of whether it's SW or LW." What!?! You feel that somehow the wavelength dependent behavior of clouds is irrelevant? I hate to put this so strongly, but you've just skipped one of the most important points about cloud feedback. Abandon all science here! You have also made an unsupported statement that scientists stating minimal cloud feedback depend on high uncertainties, while those stating strongly negative don't. Please present some citations on that, as that does not match anything I have seen in the literature. I would also encourage you to look at (and perhaps post upon) the How sensitive is our climate thread - the 3C figure for doubling CO2 is strongly supported, with a distribution tail much larger on the high side. Sensitivity cannot be much lower given historic and paleo data (which incorporate all feedbacks including clouds), but it could be considerably higher, and personally I don't consider depending on the low sensitivity to be a good bet. Really, RW1, you're pushing an idea not supported by the data - it's really sounding like wishful thinking. -
mspelto at 22:53 PM on 21 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Of course there is no direct measurement of basal melt, however given the flotation relationship. If you know the change in surface elevation of a point over time that is on top of floating ice, and you know the surface melt rate, than any other change in surface height has to come from bottom melt, for areas with low velocity during a specific melt season. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:50 PM on 21 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
BP,I do not think "private email" is a proper characterization of correspondence...
Personally, I'm very, very glad that my society values personal privacy more than you do, and I do not think that one checks personal privacy at the door merely by working in a position that receives funding from the government. Being an employee of the government does not turn one into a state-and-people-owned slave-robot. To me, the real travesty here is that some people will quickly abandon rights and freedoms (such as privacy) just to latch onto some pitiful and evil effort to fracture the public's trust in climate scientists. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:37 PM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
RW1, Let me summarize my understanding of your logic. 1. Your personal calculations about clouds, based purely on Trenberth's "Global Energy Flows" diagram, "suggest that in aggregate the net effect of clouds is to cool rather than warm." (you haven't actually made this case, but it's your main premise). 2. The scientists behind the models admit that the cloud feedbacks are uncertain, vary between models, and provide an important positive feedback (no need to exaggerate this further... leave it at "important"). 3. Your assumption is that since you've "proven" that clouds cool rather than warm, a positive feedback is impossible (despite your lack of understanding of the physics behind how the clouds work on atmospheric temperatures, how they form, and how their formation will be affected by rising temperatures, and the fact that not all clouds are created equal). 4. Completely eliminating all positive feedback from clouds reduces estimated sensitivity from 3.1 to 1.9. 5. You think the reduction is so great that 1.9 isn't a problem -- it's not a dangerously high amount of warming. 6. You discount the fact that the lapse rate feedback might not be as great as estimated, or that CO2 and albedo feedbacks might be greater or kick in sooner than estimated, or that anthropogenic CO2 additions could actually increase with human population growth and expanding industrialization. 7. You discount the fact that other studies point to a climate sensitivity of 3+, which imply that that the cloud feedback estimates are either correct, or that any error is offset by underestimations of other positive feedbacks (or over-estimation of the lapse rate negative feedback). 8. You discount the fact that we've already seen the climate warm by 0.8˚C this century without a noticeable negative cloud feedback, i.e. that the climate is obviously sensitive enough to swing 0.8˚C in a mere 100 years (0.6˚C of that in only the last 30 years) despite your proposed fast acting negative cloud feedback. -
Berényi Péter at 22:24 PM on 21 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
I'm terribly sorry for the misinformation. A closer examination reveals that Dr. Schneider has in fact forwarded his student's mail at 10:32 UTC on 12 October 2009 (and not at 22:32 UTC). Otherwise Dr. Trenberth could not reply at 14:57:37 UTC on the same day. BTW someone (conceivably among the recipients) has forwarded the mail to Paul Hudson as well. We do not know which comments were included in that version. Trenberth's message probably not, because Hudson published a few points on his blog at 13:52 UTC, possibly triggered by the incoming mail. However, that mail may have included Michael Mann's comment at 13:00:44 UTC, because both that comment and Hudson's reply refers to Richard Black. -
Alec Cowan at 22:13 PM on 21 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Berényi Péter #149 Thank you for being so throughly and pretty transparent on the subject. Regarding the second part, we have the actual on-topic in the link to Trenberth's statement -one click ahead from the last link your provided- and his "It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often.". The rest is only linked by your racconto of the supposed chronology, what takes us back again to the question, are the e-mails real? haven't them being doctored or snipped to suit specific advocacies? It is the kind of situation people says "only God knows". If the hacker stepped out and passed a polygraphy, and forensics experts swore they didn't find evidence of doctoring or any change of content, I would start to believe they are real -not that the planet is in a trend of cooling and there's a conspiracy to hide it-. This takes us to the next point: Regarding the first part, I read your words a few minutes after reading this article (in Spanish) in the newspaper. It can be summarized as an appeal court setting that violation of emails are a federal crime and emails are completely equivalent to a epistolary letter, not only in a general quality of them being "private" but specifically protected by the constitution as being "inviolable" what is much more. That is in my country but the countries where the communication took place are not much different about what is legal. The hacker has the constitutional right to not self-incriminate and Trenberth et al had at least the constitutional right to privacy, if not inviolability of any epistorar communication. This bring us at you cloning in #149 the "climategate mistique" of, in your own words, «I do not think "private email" is a proper characterization of correspondence between government employees (or scholars working on government grants) during office hours using their work email addresses,...». A lot can be commented about: if the person hasn't that right, the company or the agency has the right (the "mistique" followed it with "the agencies refuse to show it because they are part of the conspiracy"); what about the parts of messages quoted in other messages coming from private individuals; what if one employee using his own account plot with another employee to burn Mona Lisa, have the agency to pay a milliard dollars to the Louvre because it was "agency time"? This can be going on for ages, but basically the arguments about why the e-mails are not private are like those of ambulance chasing lawyers, the kind of argument with the arguer being immediately benefited by the new rules his argument creates, that is a 30% of Mona Lisa's compensatory damages. -
les at 22:09 PM on 21 April 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
51. I linked to a video of a talk around the new paper and more on RC where you can find a link to the paper here... -
newcrusader at 22:03 PM on 21 April 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
Dr. Hansen has a new paper out discussing the use of Aerosols, and how they seem to be reflecting a good deal of the light and warming- thus far. Anybody have more to add regarding this? -
Bob Lacatena at 21:57 PM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
88, BP,Trenberth's 79 W/m2 implies an average cloud albedo smaller than 0.39.
He took his numbers primarily (not completely) from the ERBE and CERES satellites, so they are unlikely to be wrong. I'd suggest that of that 341, since 78 is absorbed by the atmosphere, only 263 is available to be reflected (although this is a gross estimate, since it's more complex than that). If one assumes a cloud cover of .66 then 174 of that 263 is subject to cloud cover. 79 reflected from 174 gives .45, which is well within the ranges given by Hansen 1998 -- even at the upper end. -
Bob Lacatena at 21:42 PM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
82, RW1,...so the 79 W/m^2 reflected back out is SW radiation.
But you appear later to use this result to compute reflectivity for LW radiation from the ground up. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but as I've said repeatedly... sorting through your swarm of calculations is a nightmare. -
Bob Lacatena at 21:39 PM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
82, RW1,I don't see how. A watt is watt, regardless of whether it's SW or LW.
!?!?!?!?!????? If you don't get this, you have a huge, huge hole in your understanding. You need to know this. It's critical to everything. As I have said repeatedly, you have a lot of studying to do. One can't even discuss this with you if you don't know why that statement demonstrates a horrible lack of understanding of the system.I'm well aware of all these things.
But you choose to simply ignore them, and focus on the behavior of clouds on a sunny day, as if that is the only way that they operate....they do suggest that in aggregate the net effect of clouds is to cool rather than warm...
You say this, but you have not actually demonstrated it, both because your numbers are unclear, and they contain at least one critical flaw (SW vs. LW distinction), and probably many others.But you are correct in that the issue is more complicated than this, which is why it has to be carefully weighed will all the other evidence.
And yet twice you have ignored my demonstration of the long list of other evidence which points to climate sensitivity being at lease 3˚C, and therefore supports the contention that the models have the cloud feedback right, or at least that the net effect of all feedbacks points to 3˚C, even if the cloud feedback is lower than expected (or negative!). -
Bob Lacatena at 21:30 PM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
82, RW1,And you're accuse me of exaggerating things.
But my hyperbole is intended to poke fun at your hypoerbole. You've arbitrarily focused on the cloud feedback as uncertain, which is true, but it's not that uncertain, and very, very few people are arguing that it will be negative. The negative lapse rate feedback is also uncertain. What if that turns out to be wrong? The pace and extent of positive CO2 feedbacks are uncertain. What if they're faster, and greater? The pace of future anthropogenic CO2 generation is also uncertain, and with people like you trying to influence the debate, it's unlikely to go down, but very likely to go up. The rate of Arctic ice melt is exceeding predictions and increasing that positive feedback. There are lots of uncertainties. Picking just one from the bunch, and then exaggerating the chance that the error is in the direction that you'd like it to be, is not logical, especially when the aggregate of all uncertainties has more chance of being net positive than negative....a significant area of uncertainty...
Exaggeration, in particular in the wrong direction... it is uncertain both ways, and unlikely to deviate so far from expectations as to make a that large of a difference. I would point out that your cherished 1.9˚C sensitivity, the lowest you claim one could reasonably get, is still dangerously high....on a critical examination of the evidence, data and logic - much of which I've presented here...
To me you've completely failed to present your case, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and think that the failing lies only in your presentation and not your numbers, because as I've already said, trying to sort through your steps is like trying to read a Chinese assembly manual for a nuclear reactor, translated by a Swede into Slavic using a base 9 number system. I hate to suggest it, but perhaps if you went through the numbers again, but in less of a jumble, one could sort out what you are doing, and where you are going. It is almost impossible to see where you have made inappropriate assumptions (such as assuming the cloud reflectivity for SW radiation is the same as for LW radiation) with the way you've written it up. When you introduce a new number, be clear about where you've gotten it. When you come up with a result, be clear about what it represents. Most importantly, when you come up with something that somehow supports your assertions, point it out. Before you even start, state what you are trying to derive. I still cannot figure out which numbers support your position, or how and why, and which ones are just intermediate steps.Is it just a coincidence that...
Is it also it yet another coincidence that...
And what is this supposed to be implying?
Prev 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 Next
