Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 Next
Comments 87751 to 87800:
-
les at 06:02 AM on 21 April 2011It's aerosols
Just in case anyone's still interested in this. A new video of Hansen discussing aerosols, models, sea rise etc. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/20/hansen-sea-level-rise-faustian-aerosol-bargain/ via ClimateProgress a good watch. -
Alec Cowan at 05:59 AM on 21 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@Albatross #38 About the error bars, Bender et al showed first this graphic:
where the objections are not applicable. And then they showed their figure which BP used as the basis of his/er prêt-à-porter objections about models. In that figure values are de-seasonalized. Here the same figure with some retouches for later use:
The first time I read de-seasonalized in that paper my first instinct was thinking why is it de-seasonalized and later I saw the period (Feb 1985 - May 1989), but even then I thought why is it so much difference. The question is why is it de-seasonalized (not because "de-seasonalized is gooooood") and how is it de-seasonailized. I'll get back to this in a later post (of course BP's comments don't deserve such attention, but I have half a dozen of papers analyzed this way so I can provide fresh exercises to our students)
On the other hand, in spite of BP's forgettable answer, I think that you could be talking about that group include a few models developed during the '90s, and probably used in the Third Assessment though included again in the Fourth one to show a connexion.
I use to teach that what is absent is as important as what is in front of your eyes. Bender's uses hindcasts to that period -not including an exact number of years- but, what about the same analysis for a period closer to the time of the paper, as a hindcast or as a forecast? No mention of that in the paper.
-
L.J. Ryan at 05:07 AM on 21 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 1006 1) Assuming the constraints as outlined, the temperature for both plates is solely based on heating element. Your heating element description is a bit muddled. That is, power = current^2 x resistance...so "480 W current" is a bit confusing. Does the wire run the entire length of each plate? Or is the element the same for both, only the plate dimensions different. Going with the identical heating element scenario, and assuming plate surroundings are of lower temp then plates both plates radiate 480W/m^2...303K. 2) No violation, other then the fantastic assumptions. You said: "Specifically, you are assuming that Atmdn is not absorbed by the surface. If it were absorbed by the surface, then at equilibrium (when Atmup= S = 240 Watts/m^2), Surf = S plus Atmdn = 240 + 240 Watts/m^2 = 480 Watts/m^2." Then what would stop the surface from absorbing the next cycle of re-radiation and increase emissions further? Why does it stop at 480 and not 720 or 960 etc.? You said: "It follows that you have conservation of energy at equilibrium and, as shown a net gain in entropy. Only by ignoring Atmdn, or assuming that it is not absorbed by the surface can you escape this conclusion." But Tom, back radiation need not be absorbed for equilibrium. Nor for entropy to increase. As I demonstrated in 1004, system equilibrium is reached without back radiation. Let me try a different approach, do you agree with Idealized greenhouse model? -
grypo at 04:30 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
It's interesting to discuss, but, as RC notes, the scenario is not realistic and, as CB notes, not a choice that's on the table, nor will it be anytime soon. -
Charlie A at 04:18 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
In regards to floods,here is some interesting commentary on actual observations about floods and stream flows versus the perception. It has links to other technical presentations and peer reviewed literature. Per a recent presentation at the European Geosciences Union general assembly earlier this month, "Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis." ref: http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf Science works with observations. Politics works with perceptions. -
CBDunkerson at 04:16 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
Yes, as BBP notes there would be a relatively 'quick' (i.e. over the course of a few decades) decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels if we stopped emitting entirely. The amount of this 'draw back' is still subject to some debate, but the estimates I've seen have generally been less than 50 ppm (some much less). However, since we aren't anywhere near stopping all CO2 emissions and none of the major emitters have even begun programs which could eventually get them there... this doesn't seem likely to be relevant any time soon. Even the 'constant at 2000 levels' figure on the graph is now impossibly optimistic... we're already well past that and have no chance of returning to it soon. -
Lassesson at 04:00 AM on 21 April 2011David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
Lassesson #5, 15 Sphaerica #7 dana1981 #12, 16, 24, 36 Nick Palmer #23, 26 Surprice! The same skeptic argument that I thought Evans was making is now available with a rebuttal here at SkS - CO2 limits won’t cool the planet. Aparently, that was not what Evans was talking about (even if it can be misinterpreted that way - if that was intentional or not, I don't know). Instead he was referring to the same argument as Mr Monckton did in his myth #15 when he said that "CO2 limits will make little difference". This is often referred to as Tragedy of the commons where one individual can argue that his/her contribution will not matter, since there are too many others that will have to make the same contribution to have an effect. I propose that we continue this discussion in the blog post or the rebuttal connected to "CO2 limits won’t cool the planet", if we have anything more to say about it. -
BBP at 03:52 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
Actually, cutting all emissions would have a short term effects, see this at RealClimate Climate Change Commitment II . First, temperatures would rise as aerosols emissions would stop as well as well, then there would be a steady decline as CO2 began to get drawn out of the atmosphere. The graphic in this article assumes constant concentrations. -
Stephen Baines at 03:45 AM on 21 April 2011The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
This is an interesting article. I am not inclined to believe that conservatives and liberals differ fundamentally (or at last not monolithically) in their ability to accept science. Conservatives were, for example, at one point very important in the US conservation movement, the EPA etc. What's clear is that climate science is currently caught in a larger political narrative at present that largely swamps the scientific narrative. That's one reason most scientists won't participate in this debate -- they don't have a clue what the script is and they're aware enough to realize it. It's like that nightmare when you find yourself on a stage acting in a play and you have no idea how to respond to the cue someone feeds you because suddenly the play has changed. It goes both ways, non-scientists exposed to the scientific narrative can't recognize the storyline and are immediately lost when confronted with the reams of literature out there. So they retreat into the narative they're comfortable with, which looks something like they see on ESPN...two teams banging it out. It does seem that the modern Republican Party (of the last couple decades) has shifted to an outright rejection of science as a mediating influence over policy. Personally, I think this shift is related to the adoption of PR mechanisms borrowed from marketing, which explicitly work on the native tendencies Chris Mooney is writing about. Such methods require messages that are simple to deliver and that target people's sense of identity. Nuance is not an advantage, so science becomes a hindrance really. Eventually, it's just been left out altogether so as to fashion efficient messages implying threat from some anonymous group or another. The circling of the wagons - the brand loyalty, if you will - that results is a real firewall against big losses politically. If those in the wagons have cash, all the better for the party in question - especially now that money is equated to speech in the US! It's a very rational to adopt such an approach from the point of view of politics. Of course, nature could care less what works in politics. I'd argue that undercutting science as the Republicans are doing is ultimately very bad for the very business interests they claim to support. -
Harry Seaward at 03:43 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Michael Sweet @ 8 You need to prove your statements. How did AGW create the climate refugees? Just sticking with New Orleans (and I assume you are talking about Katrina), that issue had nothing to do with AGW. It had everything to do with a city built below sealevel and protected by dikes and levees. The pumps and levees were not maintained properly due to a corrupt local and state government. They were also not designed to cope with a storm surge the size of what Katrina brought in. Now there is an environmental component and that is the loss of wetlands that served as a buffer and "sponge". The loss can be attributed to the creation of canals which accelerated water flow and did not allow the deposition of sediment. -
muoncounter at 03:41 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
Cadbury#3: "extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences."" What is the difference between the above quote and your rejoinder "gradually suck all of the co2 out of the atmosphere, although it took quite a long time"? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:36 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
@Albatross "for once in the atmosphere, they are extremely difficult to get out, and have long-term consequences." I submit that this is false because the oceans did gradually suck all of the co2 out of the atmosphere, although it took quite a long time. I think it is more accurate to say that it is hard to get co2 out of the atmosphere over a short period of time. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:13 AM on 21 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
72, RW1,...the climate is frequently perturbed by new 'forcings' - not all of which are due to temperature changes, yet the globally averaged temperature remains very, very stable.
Can you provide examples of specific forcings that have occurred in the last century (or millenium), to which the climate has resisted change? -
Dan Olner at 03:09 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Hmm, slight cop-out answer on my part there... I think a) measuring the number of environmental refugees is entirely feasible (with whopping error bars, but useful numbers can be arrived at) b) that's more useful than trying to work out 'climate refugee' numbers, since that would involve the double whammy of attributing climate effects to environmental problems (OK in aggregate over large timescales, much more problematic for e.g. specific droughts) and then deciding who counted as a refugee. That doesn't change the fact that in aggregate, environmental refugee numbers will massively increase due to climate change - I just can't see how you can do anything but estimate crude aggregates over time. But that's an uninformed opinion, and it'd be good to hear from people more familiar with the attribution literature. I've only read Myer's original 1995 stuff and a few follow-ups: that was mainly about giving the environmental refugee problem international attention, AFAIK. I don't know what the state of the art is in estimation... -
Dan Olner at 02:49 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Charlie A: fair enough. Handily, I actually had a go at answering that in response to Michael Sweet - comment 10. Short answer: I don't know, and it seems like a steep proposition to me, but I'd like to know what more knowledgeable people than me have to say on the matter. -
Charlie A at 02:42 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Dan Olner says "Charlie A: I'm sorry - have you got a link to a UNEP article saying anything about "200 million climate change migrants by 2050"? I can't find one. And did you read my comment about the difference between 'environment' and 'climate?'" I didn't say that there is a UNEP article predicting "200 million climate change migrants by 2050". As I stated in my comment above, the phrase "200 million climate change migrants by 2050" is taken from the article by David Hodgkinson to which these comments are attached. My question is an attempt to clarify the meaning of what this Skeptical Science article intends to convey. One way of clarifying what the Skeptical Science articles reports is to ask whether the 20 million persons displaced by floods in Pakistan would be counted towards the 200 million climate change migrant count, if the floods had taken place in 2050. Michael Sweet states "20 million people in Pakistan had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by AGW". So it is clear that at least for Michael Sweet, they would be counted a refugees from anthropogenic global warming. -------------------------------- Dan --- let's step back and start over. These comments are attached to a Skeptical Science article by David Hodgkinson. A key section of that article reads "The existence and scope of such displacement are often established by reference to the likely numbers of displaced people. The most cited estimate is 200 million climate change migrants by 2050 or one person in every forty-five." My question is whether the 20 million displaced by the Pakistan floods, or the 4 million still homeless would, in your understanding of the claim, be included in the definition of "climate change migrants". -
CBDunkerson at 02:34 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
There is a section about halfway through which states, "...CO2 emissions go and and on...". Presumably this was meant to be 'on and on' rather than 'and and on'.Moderator Response: [grypo] fixed, thank you! -
dana1981 at 02:29 AM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Rob #50 I think gave a good explanation of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic may be swayed in one direction or the other, but continues to try and learn about the subject with an open mind. A denier on the other hand only seeks to defend his position. A bit off topic, but I thought that was worth highlighting. It gets back to the congressional hearing Muller testified at. Most congressmen sought to defend their position rather than learning from the testimony. -
MattJ at 02:25 AM on 21 April 2011CO2 Reductions Will Not Cool the Planet? We Know
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (as shown by the small citation here) is worded accurately and faithful to the science, but in language that looks like it is designed NOT to persuade either policy makers of the public they answer to. How so? Because the language is still diffident, and relies on vocabulary the policy makers are not even likely to understand. Yes, sad to say, but I doubt the key policy makers in the US really understand what 'anthropogenic' even means. Those who understand it, continue to deny that the warming IS anthropogenic, preferring to believe what is convenient politically rather than what is true. How is it diffident? Where they would have been fully justified in using more forceful language, they did not do so. Instead of "further warming", they could have said "more, longer and worse warming", where they said "changes", they could have said "pernicious changes" or "ruinous changes", where they said "would continue", they could have said "will continue". Unfortunately, the best single words to describe what responding to climate change is all about are also words the public is not likely to understand: words like 'amelioration', 'palliation' or 'mitigation'. So whichever word we use to summarize what it is all about must be immediately followed or preceded by a vivid explanation of its meaning. Otherwise misquotes like Abbott's -- whether deliberately perverting the sense or not -- will continue to flourish. Indeed: just as climate mitigation is the only option we have left, with outright improvement out of the question, so pernicious misquote mitigation is the only option we really have, we cannot prevent it entirely. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 21 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
BillyJoe @ 47... I'm not so sure Gilles is an intentional troll as much as he is intransigent in his thinking. It gets very frustrating for people here when very clear and obvious errors are corrected but they go without being acknowledged and then get repeated over and over again. What is great about SkS is that I think most all of us come here to learn something. None of us have total knowledge of these issues and we all have the opportunity to learn from each other. I consider my positions on climate change to be very fluid as I learn more. And I think that's true of most people here. Others are here, not to learn, but to defend a position. That's where people come off as being trolls. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:20 AM on 21 April 2011The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
156, KR, Interesting. The latest issue of Scientific American (a once reasonable bridge for the scientifically-literate-but-time-limited, now dumbed down to a cursory high school level) has a similar article (an opinion piece) titled Trust Me, I'm a Scientist. I just yesterday posted a whimsical contrasting view of my own: It's Magic. -
Dan Olner at 01:59 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Michael sweet: this draws attention to a problem I have with trying to define 'climate refugees'. It's hard enough attaching climate-change fingerprints to weather events, droughts etc, without then going a stage further and identifying who is a 'climate refugee'. Would it not be better to stick to the more measureable 'environmental refugee'? Which has enough of its own legal problems, i gather, from my very brief reading on it so far. Given climate change predictions, factors causing environmental refugee movements will get worse. But knowing that at an aggregate level seems quite a different problem to trying to be so specific. I mean: if we say the Pakistan floods were made y% worse due to climate change, do we then label y% of the environmental refugees as climate refugees? Of course, I have little idea what I'm talking about! There are doubtless some theories for coming up with these numbers. It would be good to hear about them, and the problems of measurement. (Normal demographics is hard enough!) -
Dan Olner at 01:52 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Charlie A: I'm sorry - have you got a link to a UNEP article saying anything about "200 million climate change migrants by 2050"? I can't find one. And did you read my comment about the difference between 'environment' and 'climate?' Happy to stand corrected, but you need to provide us with a source. I've already spent far too many hours trying to track down sources that turned out to be non-existent. Please link. I've been through the der Speigel article you linked to: there's nothing more than there was at WUWT. Their headline is wrong. -
michael sweet at 01:33 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Charlie, 20 million people in Pakistan had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by AGW. If your home was destroyed and you had to move to a new city to live with relatives would you be a refugee? Perhaps you could not count people who moved back to their former homes. I would count all 20 million of them. We need to count the refugees from New Orleans also. Adelady lists several more groups. It adds up pretty quickly once you start to list all the climate related events. I would be suprised if it is not 50 million. -
Charlie A at 01:19 AM on 21 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
adelady says "I'm not so sure they're all that wrong. Pakistan has 4 million people still homeless - officially - since the floods displaced 20 million." And the head article says "The existence and scope of such displacement are often established by reference to the likely numbers of displaced people. The most cited estimate is 200 million climate change migrants by 2050 or one person in every forty-five." Would the 20 million displaced by the recent flood in Pakistan count toward the 200 million number of the head article? Just 4 million? Or none at all? People are saying that the UNEP/UNU article of 6 years ago is being misinterpreted. Let's see if we can make more clear what the "200 million climate change migrants by 2050" is intended to convey. -
Tom Curtis at 01:12 AM on 21 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Ken Lambert @89: First, the energy required for Arctic sea ice melt is not the only form in which energy has accumulated in the Arctic. Your persistence in treating it as though it were only underlines how desperate you are to deflate the figures beyond all reason. Second, the appropriate comparison for determining the significance of arctic sea ice melt as a forcing mechanism is between Flanner's calculated forcing which, adjusted for the relevant temperature increase, is NH forcing * temperature increase since 1979-1983 *0.5 (to average globally, or 0.63*0.43*0.5 = 0.135 W/m^2. Of that, just over half is due to snow melt, and just under half, say 0.06 W/m^2 is due to sea ice melt, or 6.7% of the total globally averaged forcing. Note, that is not the total arctic forcing, but only that due to sea ice melt. This comparison is particularly appropriate as both studies consider the same time frame. Third, even more informative is if you consider the rate at which the sea ice albedo is increasing. Over the 30 years from 1979 to 2008, the increase in incoming flux absorbed by the Arctic ocean due to additional sea melt has been increasing by 15% per year. If this continues, as seems likely, in ten years the arctic ice albedo feedback will add an additional 0.18 Watts/meter^2 or 20% to globally averaged energy imbalance. It is not likely to get much larger than that because it will run out of pole to melt. (Snow albedo will continue to drive increases in feedbacks for sometime, however.) However, that is a substantial effect and represents a substantial increase in warming rates above model predictions. -
The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I'm not entirely certain where to post this, but this thread seems like a reasonable spot. There's a very interesting article in Mother Jones, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, by Chris Mooney. This discusses studies on confirmation bias, differing evaluations of legitimate authorities to listen to, etc. Based upon world view and personal orientations: "... people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario." This holds for both left and right wing politics, individualists and hierarchical thinkers. World views are akin to religions - they form a framework into which people cast their self-image. Anything perceived as an attack on that world view is emotionally interpreted as a personal attack; only later do rationalizations and (possibly) reason enter into the picture once that's begun. One of the take home items from this article is: "If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction. ... You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance." Something to think about... -
JMurphy at 00:37 AM on 21 April 2011Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
Just been reading a piece from Tenney Naumer about a new paper (A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1784–2009) which was out of date (and therefore wrong) as soon as it was published. However, when you see the names involved (especially Knappenburger and Michaels), I suppose it isn't surprising but this is a disgraceful example of cherry-picking disinformation. Is it all a political game to these people, where reality doesn't count unless they can create it themselves ? Shameful. -
Clouds provide negative feedback
RW1 - Let's stay with the standard definitions, OK? Variation: Periodic (seasons) or aperiodic (ENSO) internal variations in climate that when averaged do not demonstrate a trend. Forcing: Factor that change from causes external to the climate system, causing trends in temperature. This includes Milankovich orbital changes, insolation, volcanic aerosols, land usage, and anthropogenic CO2. Feedback: Amplifying or dampening response to climate changes, reactions to long term temperature trends, for example clouds, water vapor, ice coverage/albedo, and long term CO2/ocean/weathering interactions. --- Back to the thread topic, clouds. Both direct evidence and paleo records indicate that the climate sensitivity is around 3C for a CO2 doubling, and that the cloud feedback is most likely somewhat positive. Slightly negative has not been ruled out, but it's not the mean estimate, either. Strongly negative cloud feedback is extremely unlikely based upon the 3C sensitivity estimate. Several people (Lindzen, Spencer) have postulated that clouds might change independently from temperature, and can thus be considered a forcing - none of them have presented any physical mechanism whereby this might happen. Lacking that, clouds must be considered a feedback only, not a forcing. -
Alec Cowan at 00:05 AM on 21 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Ken #144 "You don't even need..." Are you changing course yet again? So you are abandoning your previous mishapped argumentation (look #138 and previous posts from Ken Lambert) and now you have decided to play with Ocean Heat Content as if it is Total Ocean Heat Content and not 0-700m's. That is back to square one on your part because that was what you were saying on the very beginning -though you fully understand it just now-. So it takes us back to what "the travesty" in Trenberth's meaning might really be: aerial and spatial measurements with some error margins give us an accumulation of heat that we can partially account in different places with not discordant error margins. We have an important difference and some equally important parts of the system that can contain that difference have wider error margins or are monitored in a more sporadic or uncertain fashion. We can't account by the moment for the planetary energy budget in the way we should -nearly real time, coherent error margin-. That is a travesty. I'm going to translate it for you in an everyday's fashion: Johnny: I though I had 1,000$ in different places and I only found $600 and I can't find the key to access the place where I know there's more money Pseudo-skeptic: Johnny is lying, he has no money and they told me that in fact he has gambling debts. So the current post -and its comments- is all about what Johnny said. All your toing and froing is to prove that he has no money or he has gambling debts as a part of a wide group that behaves that way. You've failed so far in doing so. -
adelady at 23:49 PM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
funglestrumpet, thank you. My view summarised quite neatly. It doesn't matter to me whether we are or aren't the cause of the warming we see. If warming were the result of a war between leprechauns and the fairies at the bottom of the garden, reducing CO2 output is the _only_ means we have available of influencing global temperature. And we should do it anyway because the alternatives in terms of energy use and production are more beneficial to our health and our pockets. (And this _is_ strictly a personal view, it's a move away from crude stone-age or Victorian or otherwise clumsy and primitive burn-any-flammable-stuff-you-can-find approach to heat and power. I have a strong bias towards elegance and simplicity in engineering to support a civilised civilisation.) -
Alec Cowan at 23:34 PM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Berényi Péter #140 So we are sure now, because of your intervention, that the supposed Trenberth's mail that you posted -now deleted- was false in one content at the very least. Sure, the famous e-mail starts with "Hi all" in your version, "Hi (say Johny)" in Gilles' and so on. In your version Trenberth announces a paper of his and provide a link -with the absurd text I already commented- instead of doing what any of us do regarding a pdf, that is to attach it to the e-mail which is the educated way to do it. Also in your version he makes a specif reflexion and points to the actual version of a ppt made for the public without even bothering in pointing which slide contains the information he's commenting, as if he has no access to graphics and information -neither his addressees- in a way he should rely in the time and availability of figures in the web -yet without bothering to point to the proper content-. Also your version doesn't contain the same as Gilles' does neither both contains the words quoted by Rob Honeycutt. So which one is The Email? We are to trust the (thief/terrorist/hacker/pranker/superhero choose your word and it'd probably change the trustworthiness of his or her, wouldn't it?) who got it and the gentlemanly conduct of everyone in the chain that ends with you or Gilles? Why doesn't coincide the content is both are equally gentlemanly? Must it be "the other one"? Or are we to trust what Trenberth says the email is. Oh, yeah! the superhero got it right and now Trenberth continue to be to part of some kind of cover-up. Is that your theory? -
Ken Lambert at 23:29 PM on 20 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
You are getting closer to the Trenberth ice melt figure Tom, so that is a result of sorts. Good to see you multiplying yearly numbers by 30 to get a cumulative result. Trenberth's ice melt figure is 28E20 Joules of accumulated heat in the Arctic in 31 years. This gets somewhere near your number of ""cumulative additional energy flux for the 2004-2008 mean compared to 1979: 6.97*10^21 Joules."" ie 69.7E20 Joules. Let's average the two numbers to get some mean figure halfway between your and Trenberth's number ie: (28 + 70)/2 = 49E20 Joules in 31 years. The rough estimate of extra heat energy the Earth would have accumulated in 31 years of purported AGW is 31 x 112 = 3472E20 Joules. Therefore 49/3472 = 0.014 or 1.4% of the total warming from the Arctic which is 3% to 4.4% of the Earth's surface (depending on which latitude circle you wish - 75 deg or 66 deg). Even if you **double** the number to about 100E20 Joules for inside the Arctic circle at 66 degrees N, the proportion is still only 2.8% of accumulated heat from 4.4% of the Earths surface area. Seems like the warming problem is somewhere else. -
Utahn at 23:21 PM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
BillyJoe: "Perhaps, I've not read enough of Gilles to pick him as an intentional troll. " I rarely comment here but follow most threads pretty closely, and I've never seen anyone called out as a troll by the mods before Gilles. All I would suggest is that if you had read more of Gilles, you would probably be amazed at the patient attention he was given, for countless posts, before any DNFTT came out. I had come to feel that he was singlehandedly making meaningless most threads, long before the "T word" was ever uttered. As for allowing discussions to meander, I'd rather discuss issues other than nuclear power, at least occasionally. -
muoncounter at 23:00 PM on 20 April 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Gilles#18: "That's the real world. " Here's the rest of the so-called real world, in which the so-called free market is left to itself: Crude Oil Advances as Speculation on ECB Rate Increase Weakens Dollar Oil increased for the fourth time in five days as speculation that the European Central Bank will further raise interest rates strengthened the euro against the dollar, boosting commodities’ appeal as an alternate investment. -
BillyJoe at 22:50 PM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Albatross, Perhaps, I've not read enough of Gilles to pick him as an intentional troll. However, I've experienced for myself repeating an argument because I've felt it hasn't been properly addressed and then being called a troll when all I was doing was looking for a response that convinced me that what I was saying was wrong. Sometimes it takes a while for the penny to drop. Also, I think trying to keep the topics all nice and clean and ordered sounds sort of control freakish. In my opinion, the meanderings and diversions are often as interesting, sometimes even more so, than the on-topic discussion. And the article I was talking about is that one where the author voiced his religious beliefs. How off-topic was that in a science blog? So let's not get too precious. ----------------------- KR asks what the moderators should do? Let the discussion flow where it will. If you think a particluar poster has nothing to offer you are free to start ignoring his posts. Others may think they are worth responding to as an object lesson on how climate sceptics misdirect, misquote, and misunderstand. This is informative for those who are just setting out to understand the issues. Perhaps I will feel diferently when I have a greater grasp of the issues. -
Ken Lambert at 22:32 PM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Alec Cowan #142 Your { - snip -} I have not. You don't even need K & D to show that nothing much in the way of OHC increase has been measured since the full deployment of Argo circa 2003-4. Lyman's 2010 chart "Robust Warming of the Upper Oceans" is pretty flat without the step jump of 2001-03 - so the +0.64W/sq,m trend is illusory. Robust it is not. Prior to that, XBT and other methods were woefully inadequate - so much so as to be pretty useless. With heat moving about in the oceans, to get a measure of increase, a snapshot of the whole ocean at time T1 must be compared with a similar snapshot at time T2. The gold standard in my opinion would be a tethered buoy system which measures the same 'tile ' of ocean as every other tile at the same instant in time, with wide coverage. The roughly 3500 Argo buoys move about, and no doubt coagulate with currents, so one could see that the same buoy might not measure the same tile, and indeed the same tile might not be measured at all if a buoy moves out and another does not replace it. Even with 3500 buoys, I calculated roughly 1 buoy for every 100,000 sq.km of ocean which is a 320 x 320km box of ocean for 1 temperature measurement traverse. For sure the greater deployment of numbers would improve the accuracy of Argo measurement, however I have not seen how well it approaches the 'gold standard'. Some food for thought Alec - please feel free to offer some actual numbers sometime rather than your souffle of hyperbolic cant.Moderator Response: [mc] less invective, more science. -
SRJ at 22:31 PM on 20 April 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
I am not sure if this is mentioned in the comments for this or some or they other Crux of a core posts, but I see another problem in comparing ice cores with instrumental records. Ice cores have another sample rate than instrumental records. Instrumental records have a temporal resolution of 1 month or year while ice cores have measurements seperated in time in the magnitude of decades. For GISP2 the shortest interval between to measurements is 2.7 years and the largest is 79.67 years. This especially a problem when one looks at warming rates, as it is done in this blog post. I am interested if you guys here agree on my point? -
Berényi Péter at 22:30 PM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
#140 Alec Cowan at 02:00 AM on 20 April, 2011 And finally he shows he bought the car in Back to the Future by linking in October 12 2009 some ppt made in April 7 2011. Not really. Just does not know how to use proper revision control (which is a general problem with climate data maintenance). Some older versions are available here. -
Alec Cowan at 22:08 PM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
Again: Can anyone comment on Johnston (substantiating it by citing Bender et al 2006, one of only 3)GCMs may be biased towards more warming by overestimating the Earth's albedo[from: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gw.html ---not linked intentionally] Don't forget he is a PhD in Physics claiming to be "a research physicist in the field of space physics" Feel free to compare that phrase with Bender 2010 "Planetary albedo in strongly forced climate, as simulated by the CMIP3 models", who says in the abstract:In an ensemble of general circulation models, the global mean albedo significantly decreases in response to strong CO2 forcing. In some of the models, the magnitude of this positive feedback is as large as the CO2 forcing itself.C'mon! Don't be shy! Don't you feel there's a lot of quacks out there? I also want to thank Berényi Péter for promoting one change in me and a tiny little bit of epiphany. First, owing to the analysis that his/her words incited me to do, I have now a much higher respect for models and modeling. If one of those 20 models can use the following grid:and yet obtain values that resemble the real ones, I only can say "Chapeau!". The image is taken of some internal paper dealing with the the details of their model, publicly available in their website. I'm telling which one by saying it was made in the terre des nos aïeux. The little bit of epiphany is that Bender et al 2006, precisely by means of the implications of the image dropped here by Berényi Péter and by settling the question above in this message, it all provided me with a very real case of what James Wight says in this post, that is, "And where they do diverge from climate models, the observations are usually even more alarming." -
funglestrumpet at 21:06 PM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Bern @ 42 No, the cause of global warming does not matter in the short-term. Simple question: Do greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the atmosphere? Answer: Yes. If by the most remote of chances the current warming were due to some hitherto unknown cause rather than us humans, would reducing greenhouse gas production help reduce the amount of warming taking place? If the answer is yes, and I rather think that it is, then we should reduce greenhouse gas production, period. Put it another way, if your cellar is filling with water, would you switch on the pumps immediately, or would you wait until after you were sure of the cause? Much more important is the fact that the politicians will in the main react to public opinion. The public sees both sides arguing about the cause of the warming and thus forms the opinion that the cause is far more important than it really is. In the long-term it is very important, because it is going to cost a lot and any nation seen to have contributed more than most will be expected to pay more than most. I will bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that that is what really motivates most of those politicians currently arguing about the cause of climate change. Unfortunately, all this 'It is us. No it isn't us.' palaver is stopping a sizeable chunk of the public from demanding action because they think we have to resolve the issue of the cause before we can act. Meanwhile, the politicians wring their hands and demand a clearer mandate. We should call a truce in the argument about the cause and agree on the need for action. If the sceptics can prove that it is all going to subside, then we can all breath a sigh of relief. I very much doubt that such proof exists, and if it doesn't, then the need for action becomes overwhelmingly obvious. That is the debate the public should be having a grandstand view of, not the tired old 'We are to blame. No we aren't.' one. Small wonder the pubic is switching off. The argument keeps going round in circles. There will be ample time to aportion blame later, when we have a clearer view of the size of the problem and even more proof of the cause (if that is possible). -
Berényi Péter at 20:39 PM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
#38 Albatross at 07:46 AM on 20 April, 2011 In the meantime, Re the claim, "Basically the same set the IPPCC AR4", IIRC that is not true. Albatross, you are getting desperate. In the good old days your claims used to have some root in reality, not anymore, it seems (don't tell me you're confused by typos). Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi and K.E. Taylor, 2007 Cilmate Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Look up Table 8.1 in page 597. The full set of climate models used in the report is given there, twenty three of them. These include all the twenty models Bender 2006 used and three more: BCC-CM1, CGCM3.1(T63) & GISS-AOM. It is basically the same set indeed. Before you mention it I do know the title of the document should have been "Climate Models and Their Evaluation" and not "Cilmate Models and Their Evaluation" (as there's no such a word as "cilmate" except in the EU), but they say on the first page of the document that it has to be done like this (under "This chapter should be cited as:") and who am I to ignore their request? Also, don't even think about using the webalized version of the document, they simply left out the last four rows of Table 8.1 there. Shows how carefully crafted it is. -
Dan Olner at 20:34 PM on 20 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Oops, apologies - wasn't UNEP getting it wrong, it was the UN news centre. -
Alec Cowan at 20:33 PM on 20 April 2011Clouds provide negative feedback
RW1 wrote: "I think the confusion here lies somewhere in between the definition of 'forcing' and that there are many other things in the climate system, other than anthropogenic CO2 (and GHGs), that are changing and subsequently inducing new 'forcings' independent of temperature. As just one example, take the fluctuations of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents, which we know are largely driven by factors other than temperature (wind patterns, ocean currents, etc,)."What boils to: - I know it is a system - I know CO2 is a factor - But the cause must be elsewhere, darn. - Let me uncouple the system and I'll tell why. Let also that the uncoupling makes Temperature an irrelevant variable to the climate system. "Why would you stop when you can rev up?" (signed: Thelma & Louise) -
Dan Olner at 20:32 PM on 20 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
GregS: the only line I managed to find that UNEP got wrong (and this was, interestingly, a link via the first ever constructive discussion I've had on WUWT!) at this press release from 2008: "In a related development, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said in a statement today that a new kind of casualty was being created by climate change: the environmental refugee." ... where the writer misinterprets this article. Clearly, the 'environmental refugee' concept is not new, and isn't solely climate-change related. And incidentally, the original map doesn't have any dates on: it just shows potential vulnerabilities. It's irrelevant. It's hard to know how to react: like so many other memes like this, it's hurtled round the interwebs. The story should be the initial confusion of 'climate' and 'environment', and that some guy thinking tropical island census data falsifies anything can somehow lead to so many other venues uncritically buying into it. -
explorer40503 at 20:10 PM on 20 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Dan @3...I had the same "discussion" over at Judith Curry's Place. Judith herself said, 'The unfounded and senseless predictions of the UNEP could very well “backfire and result in policies that marginalise the poorest and vulnerable groups. ”' The willingness of people of even her stature to accept something as fact without actually looking into the sources is scary. The sources the folks there were pointing me to prove UNEP's duplicity and ignorance, included a UNEP press releases, Natural Disasters Contribute to Rise in Population Displacement. The closest it came to climate change refugees was a blurb in there saying the Red Cross had said "climate change disasters are currently a bigger cause of population displacement than war and persecution." Yet they just kept repeating their idea that UNEP had made this wild prediction that is not true based on the map in the Aisian Correspondent piece you mention. I walked away from that discussion thinking a lot of people are just looking for witches to burn. GregS -
Alec Cowan at 20:05 PM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Ken #138 I love when they play bonneteau -follow the bee, follow the lady, three-card trick, whatever it is called in your turf-. So let me summarize your post: 1)You cannnot present any evidence that Knox & Douglass' (double s) figures are any deeper than 0-700m because, in your own words,"Why would K&D need to quote only their 'own' figures for ocean depths other than 0-700m?", followed by a change of subject. Let's see it again in the way you wrote it:"You simply cannot find K&D saying their own figures are for any deeper than 0-700m." Why would K&D need to quote only their 'own' figures for ocean depths other than 0-700m?Your change of subject includes assorted content that is a hint that indeed you browsed the paper once more and tried to find what I asked but you couldn't. Regarding the part of your message I quoted, we say "y mi tía tenía una bicicleta" ("and my aunt used to have a bicycle"), the popular render of a non sequitur combined with the obvious { - snip -} evasion in the answer. 2)You played "where's the queen?" or "where's the little ball" with a couple of papers and by adding many many words like a snowstorm -or a snow job- you pretend there's something there that has indicial value What you said boils to 0-700m layer from Knox & Douglass for 2003-2008 (when the bottom is warming) and your appreciation of it cooling, plus some data from +4000m for 1990-2000 (when the surface is warming) from another paper, plus another chunk of data for 1000-4000m around the Pole with -no period declared, why you'd bother to-, and with this half cooked Frankenstein's monster you pretend to get some kind of a trend that, wait!, it confirm what you have been saying so far. Here your { - snip - } technique of chatting and chatting and chatting couldn't hide that the time span doesn't match, the sources are cherry picked and 700-1000m layer is set aside and 1000-4000m is set aside for 90-95% of the oceans. { - snip - } You may call yourself to silence now or you may use the technique of the manipulator and select isolated phrases of my message to try to make some fuzz of it and attempt to dilute the consequences of your blunder.Moderator Response: [mc] Less invective, more science. -
Bart Verheggen at 19:30 PM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
The two requirements for Muller's supposition to be true are at odds with each other (at least according to other skeptics such as Lindzen): With currently known forcings, a low climate climate sensitivity (req. 1) would imply a small aerosol forcing (the opposite of req. 2) in order to be compatible with the observed warming (as was discussed on this site by Dana and myself recently). -
Dan Olner at 18:31 PM on 20 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Charlie A: I responded to that meme just the other day: it's not true. The subject was *environmental* refugees. That's a much larger category: I quote extensively from the original research in that link. Factors affecting environmental refugees from the original 1995 report: food and agriculture; water shortages; deforestation; desertification; population pressure; urbanization and mega-cities; unemployment; poverty; extreme weather events. Global warming is mentioned as a multiplier that will make the issue worse, but the subject was never "climate refugees." What's more bizarre to me: this all seems to have started from that Asian Correspondent piece, where they attempt to show the predictions were wrong by citing census data from four tropical islands. Does that strike you as a good way to assess the environmental refugee problem? (Or indeed the "climate refugee" problem they thought they were attacking?) I haven't dug much deeper, but there does appear to be some confusion among people writing the UNEP press releases as well, which hasn't helped. However, you need to go back to Prof Norman Myers' original research. In 1995, there were already, by some estimates, 25 million environmental refugees. He was estimating (not even really forecasting) another 25 million in the following 15 years - though if you read the research, these numbers are surrounded with caveats. For some reason, critics seem to ignore all the caveats. As far as I know - and I'd love to hear from others here - there has been no systematic attempt to define and measure the problem since then. Perhaps for good reason: as a migration issue, it's very complex - again, something Myers argued in his original piece. Here's Myers: "These estimates constitute no more and no less than a first cut assessment. They are advanced with the sole purpose of enabling those to ‘get a handle’, however preliminary and exploratory, on an emergent problem of exceptional significance." He's right of course: it is a massively important issue. That people should dismiss it so lightly, based on someone checking four island's census numbers, hardly suggests to me they have any interest in actually trying to understand the problem. Anyone unable to see the difference between "climate" and "environment" refugees, and the relations betwen the two, is going to have problems contributing to this discussion seriously. -
Tom Curtis at 17:39 PM on 20 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan @1005: you are now circling back over ground we have already covered. Specifically, you are assuming that Atmdn is not absorbed by the surface. If it were absorbed by the surface, then at equilibrium (when Atmup= S = 240 Watts/m^2), Surf = S plus Atmdn = 240 + 240 Watts/m^2 = 480 Watts/m^2. It follows that you have conservation of energy at equilibrium and, as shown a net gain in entropy. Only by ignoring Atmdn, or assuming that it is not absorbed by the surface can you escape this conclusion. However, rather than fruitlessly attack this point directly, and just rehashing old ground, I ask that you answer the following questions (and some follow ons) and we'll see if we cannot get a better understanding obliquely: Imagine you have to plates, both having an emissivity of 0 on the backside, and on the edges, but having an emissivity of 1 on the front side. The first plate (plate A) has a surface area with emissivity 1 of 1 square meter, while the second plate has a surface area with emissivity 1 of 2 square meters. Both plates are perfectly conductive, except for a high resistance wire (heating element) embedded in the plate. A 480 Watt current is fed through the heating element. Assuming no losses due to resistance outside of the heating element: 1) What will be the temperature of the two plates? 2) Is there any contradiction of the laws of thermodynamics in this arrangement?
Prev 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 Next
