Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 Next
Comments 88051 to 88100:
-
Icarus at 06:56 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
My understanding is that 100% of the warming since the late-19th Century is anthropogenic. There was a small natural warming influence in the first half of the 20th Century but it was offset by a natural cooling influence of approximately the same magnitude in the second half of the 20th Century, which means that all of the temperature difference between late-19th Century and today (around 0.8°C) is due to human influences. This is based on data presented in: Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate - Meehl et al http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf -
Gilles at 06:48 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
"Yes, because everything which is difficult is also impossible. Stellar logic."" No - usually what's difficult is not sure to be overcome, only. So you must also take into account this possibility. -
orchestia at 06:32 AM on 20 April 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Plant production is often limited by local exhaustion of carbon dioxide, an essential nutrient, in the immediate vicinity of photosynthesising leaves during calm periods of bright sunshine. Windy countries, such as mine, have an advantage here. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the maniac photosynthetic rate of most plants (why this is so isn't known - it is up to 10X that required) causes global depletion of carbon dioxide for no good purpose. A great number of studies have shown that increased carbon dioxide content stimulates plants. I know of no study that shows "harm" to plants from increased CO2 - there is diminution once the concentration reaches very high levels, but harm, no. I have read recent reports stating that the higher levels of CO2 at present are resulting in greater primary production - not less. As for running out of nutrients - we may be, though that is not established. At present we use extract the plant nutrients we need form concentrated sources, such as mineral rich deposits. However, as need arises we will obtain them from dispersed sources, such as the ocean. The technology already exists to do much of this. It has to be borne in mind that there is no less of any element in existence today. Each is cycled in geological time. Our technology will be able to circumvent this in the future and greatly increase the rate of recycling and reuse. The water issues are ones of misuse and misallocation, rather than overuse. If we give up scientific farming (which has increased production on most US farms by 300% in a lifetime) then people will have to starve. Between 1 B and 3 B will have insufficient food. Do the Greens want that? I don't. Let's find good scientific and technical solutions to our problems, and not rely on unsubstantiated polemic. -
Stephen Baines at 06:16 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
About Muller... My test of objectivity rests on the point that Tom made...if anyone is going to talk about uncertainty regarding the effect of humans on climate change, they have to acknowledge uncertainty at both high and low ends. To the extent that Muller emphasizes the low end and the tendency for human impacts to be exagerrated rather than underestimated, he fails to be objective. He is buying into a narrative about the intentions of scientists (they never talk about uncertainty, they are advocates etc) a priori based on hearsay rather than taking a neutral position and focusing on the data and the reported research. That's just not very skeptical, IMO. -
Kevin C at 05:49 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Which observation? Off the top of my head (I probably missed some)... Winters warming faster than summers, nights warming faster than days, poles warming faster than tropics, troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools, increase in downward long wavelength radiation from the night sky, decrease in long wavelength radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere. All of these are exactly analogous to the effect you would see if you were to increase the insulation on a house in a cool climate without adjusting the heating. Thus all of these indicate that the recent warming is due to an increase in the heat trapped below the stratosphere - which we call the greenhouse effect. -
dana1981 at 05:38 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Anyway, Gilles is taking us way off topic here once again. The point is that by making sloppy comments directly to policymakers, Muller is helping give Republicans the excuse they seek to block all efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
dana1981 at 05:36 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
"It's a nonsense to claim both that it will require a great effort and that we are sure to be able to live without them."
Yes, because everything which is difficult is also impossible. Stellar logic. -
Stephen Baines at 05:36 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Gilles at 4:33...There are alternatives to fossil fuels, but noone believes the switch can happen immediately. Saying it will take some time is a long way from saying such a switch is impossible, or that it may even be cheaper in the long run. Simples. -
JMurphy at 05:25 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Gilles wrote : "18 : No it's not logical - If it is not easy to stop smoking, it's difficult, and success is not granted."The last off-topic comment from me - can't guarantee that this will be the case for others, of course ! It is very logical. You want to stop : you stop. I did so five years ago, after 20 years as a smoker. It was the logical thing to do, I did it. End of story.Moderator Response: [DB] Focus, people; DNFTT. -
Gilles at 05:13 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
( -Snip- ) Concerning FF, most part of the alternatives do only produce electricity, but there is no addiction to the way electricity is produced ! people just plug their devices , you know, and they don't care at all how electricity is produced - anyway in a lot of countries, it is already produced without or with very few FF and it's exactly the same. And for non electricity uses, well - convenient alternatives do simply not exist. It's a nonsense to claim both that it will require a great effort and that we are sure to be able to live without them. Sorry for the confusion insuring/assuring - that's the same word in French (assurer). and which observation rules out long term unforced variability ?Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portion snipped. DNFTT. -
dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Just because the necessary alternative technologies exist doesn't mean the transition will be easy, and nobody claimed otherwise. Please dispense with the strawman arguments, Gilles. -
JMurphy at 04:54 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Gilles wondered : "...so how can it be simultaneously easy, and very difficult, that we're extremely reliant on them, although cheap alternatives exist, and that the success is granted although it requires an enormous effort .... may be there is a logics inside but I'm currently unable to see it." That is very surprising. How about thinking about it this way : 'Cigarettes are easy to give up - just put them away; but it is very difficult to do so - due to addiction. A cheap alternative exists - don't smoke or get some alternatives sources of nicotine through the NHS. Success is granted (healthy and longer life) but it requires an enormous effort, due to the addiction and reliance on them. That sounds quite logical (in the way that you have expressed it, mind), but can you see it ? By the way, the word you were looking for was 'assuring', not 'insuring'. Perhaps that was confusing you, if you were trying to be logical using the definition for 'insuring' ? -
Gilles at 04:33 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
another surprising assertion is "The key that Muller is missing is the extreme degree of our reliance on fossil fuels and the magnitude of the effort required to change that." Well, when I argued that it may be not only very difficult, but impossible , to give up fossil fuels without a big decrease of our standard of living (which would anyway occur if this is true), I got a lot of comments insuring me that FF weren't at all necessary, that alternatives existed already, that it was even cheaper ... so how can it be simultaneously easy, and very difficult, that we're extremely reliant on them, although cheap alternatives exist, and that the success is granted although it requires an enormous effort .... may be there is a logics inside but I'm currently unable to see it. -
Gilles at 04:27 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
14 : I did it, and I even participated to the attached discussion, but I don't see any observation ruling out long term variability ? -
electroken at 04:18 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
It is totally unscientific to ignore water vapor which is by most consensus responsible for at least 90% of the green house effect according to most engineers and scientists withwhom I come into contact . How can such a major thing be continually ignored? I am not the only person who has made this accusation against those who are certain of global warming. As an engineer who was not allowed to make ANY assumptions when I did my experiments in Chemistry and Physics classes while in college, I find the lack of real scientific approach to be alarming.Moderator Response: [e] Water vapor is not ignored in the slightest. The topic is covered in the water vapor is the most powerful GHG thread. If you have further comments regarding that subject please post them there. Per this site's Comment Policy, future off-topic comments will be removed. -
dana1981 at 04:05 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Click the links provided, Gilles. -
Gilles at 03:59 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
" However, observational data has ruled out the likely culprits such as the sun and volcanoes and internal variability." which "observations" have ruled out internal variability ? -
Stephen Baines at 03:59 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
To counter my doubt about Mullers intentions, I will add that if he finds repeatedly -- as he has with the temp record -- that the other scientists have had it right all along, then the contrast of those findings with his current tone could actually play a signficant role in finally putting this "debate" to bed and moving the discussion firmly on to the needed solutions. We will have a public display in microcosm of how the consensus has slowly emerged over the last three decades, scientist by scientist. We'll have to wait and see I guess. -
Alec Cowan at 03:52 AM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@BP #35It should be clear from the context that it is not a quote from the text of the paper. Bender at al. do not even elaborate much on the obvious inconsistency between various model outputs, they are concerned with the inconsistency between models and measurements.It shouldn't at all, you know it. You are probably just quoting yourself. Let's see:But in a sense it is a quote indeed. I've already emphasized several times science is not about pictures, it is about...Yep. Besides, no proposition follows a "therefore" between quotation marks AND rendered in italics at the same time if not a quotation. So the text must be somewhere in this web page and as it isn't, it have to be a quotation of Bender's. You use to play with many ambiguities, but here you've overplayed.My point is that it does not make sense to compare models to reality until the problem of considerable differences between models in vital quantities like albedo are resolved. A 0.01 difference in albedo translates to a difference in ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) of 3.4 W/m2. That's huge.So, your approach admits1) Gilles, RSVP, Ken Lambert or yourself developing models now, in 2015, in 2025, or in 2040 which will predict an albedo of 0.5 for 1985-89 so it will always be impossible to use a model in any sense as a considerable difference will subsist. 2) I have a model: [Beginning of model] Do predict a constant albedo of 0.2825 for 2000-2003. [End of model] So, this model increases the list of good models.C'mon! The rest of you message is just the usual primer on epistemology for science with your usual carving and rubbing of words and concepts until words get dizzy and confess what you want, with a never absent touch of narcissism because only great people say great things -so lady Di was murdered, as no important person can die by means of a cause of less importance-. The whole setting has the appearance of things not said to me in reply to my words, but things said just for the public to see. Would you have said the same if the difference from 3 to 4W/m2 would have been in excess and no by deficiency as it is. I imagine you shouting about the GW invented by those infamous models. As it is a deficiency, so, just the models are wrong and don't speak of any what may be really behind. But I have to come back to 1) 2) 3) in my previous comment, so I have to momentarily ignore your replies until that ends. -
Stephen Baines at 03:30 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
I don't know dana. I think you're being a little too kind. As Rob says, he's a bull in a China shop, but I think he's clumsy like a fox. He bends over backward to acknowledge some things we do know and to distance himself from the denialists (he knows his audience on NPR), but then he couples it with statements like... "How much is due to varying solar activity and how much due to humans is a scientific issue that we're trying to address." When he knows (or should know) full well that that issue has been done to death already. It feels like a bait and switch... And that quote is not the only example. He touches repeatedly on the uncertainty of the human contribution and the exagerrations of those contributions relative to natural forcing, as if those topics have not been an intense subject of research for the last 20 years. As Tom Curtis points out, it's really hard given all that research to see how he can deemphasize the human impact as much as he does without a predisposed bias to do so. And he has to know what the effects of his ambivalence, given the PR echo chamber that's in place out there. Every scientist I know is aware of the distortions it produces...acutely so. I'm still waiting for some signs that Muller will be balanced. -
Tom Curtis at 03:12 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Taking a short road to the conclusion, I notice that the 95% confidence intervals for natural warming is 0.06 to 0.3 W/m^2; while that for anthropogenic forcings is 0.6 t0 2.4 W/m^2. The best case scenario for all concerned is if natural forcings are at the upper extreme of the range, ie, 0.3 W/m^2 and the anthropogenic forcings are at the lower end of the range, ie, 0.6 W/m^2. Given that situation, then intuitively natural forcings have been responsible for 1/3rd of warming todate, or 0.27 degrees C, while Anthropogenic forcings have been responsible for 0.53 degrees C of the temperature increase. So, even in this 1 in four hundred chance, Muller is underestimating anthropogenic forcings. Perhaps we can do better. It is noteworthy that solar natural forcings rose more sharply in the early half of the century, while anthropogenic forcings rose more sharply in the second half. Suppose then that the full effect of natural forcings have been felt, but only half the effect of anthropogenic forcings have been felt due to thermal lag. Well then the effect on the current temperature increase would be 50-50, and both natural and anthropogenic forcings would be responsible for 0.4 degrees C of the current increase, though once equilibrium is reached, anthropogenic forcings would be responsible for twice the temperature increase of natural forcings. But in this scenario, each 1 Watt of forcing is responsible for 1.33 degrees of temperature increase. That compares to the IPCC standard of each Watt of forcing resulting in 0.8 degrees temperature increase. In the long term, that is hardly reason for complacency. And of course, this assumes the 1 in 400 chance of the most favourable outcome. There is an equal probability that natural forcings are only responsible for 0.06/2.4 or 2.5% of the 0.8 degrees warming. Overwhelmingly more probably, the ration is 0.12/1.6 or 7.5%, in which case anthropogenic forcings are responsible for 0.75 degrees of the warming todate (or 0.68 if the natural forcings have fully worked into the system) (This paragraph essentially recaps Dana's paragraph about temperature attribution). I know this analysis is rough and ready, but it shows prima facie that Muller's implicit probability function is wildly optimistic; and that he seriously underestimates the IPCC attribution of temperature increase over the 20th century. -
CO2 effect is saturated
novan >Surface Heat Absorbed into the Atmosphere = Surface radiation - the portion escaping through the Window - Back Radiation + Conduction + Evaporated water "Portion escaping through the window" should not be part of the equation. It is an output from the surface and so must be included in any energy balance equation for the surface. It's quite simple: take all the inputs on one side and all the outputs on the other. So the real total energy balance equation from the surface would be: Absorbed Solar + Back Radiation = Surface radiation + Convection + Evaporated water (latent heat). If we take your assumption that convection and absorbed solar didn't change, then that gives us: Back Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporation. or Evaporation = Back Radiation - Surface Radiation So an increase in evaporation may be balanced out by either decrease in surface radiation or an increase in back radiation. It does not hold (even with your assumptions) that increased evaporation must be balanced by decreased surface radiation. Also note that evaporation and surface radiation are tightly related to temperature. It would not make physical sense to have increased evaporation with less surface radiation, as that would imply increased evaporation with lower temperatures. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
agreed Rob. Muller has made comments that he thinks other climate scientists are acting too much as "advocates", or something like that. I think he may be trying to counteract that with his statements, but the problem is he's not making sure they're accurate first. Bull in a china shop is a good description. Very careless and potentially damaging. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:02 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Dana... My concerns are that, even if he's not commenting on policy his high profile affects policy, which is what I hear you saying as well. To date Muller has been a bit of a bull in the china shop. -
Don9000 at 03:01 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
I have carefully composed a thoughtful post on the subject of Muller's misstatements and the way in which we are reacting to them, but recognize I cannot post it due to the Comments Policy, so I will try to restrain myself here by keeping my criticisms as general as I can. First, let me note that characterizing Muller's behavior as being "habitual" or "unfortunate" is itself a political characterization that, in an effort to promote comity, obfuscates the possibility that Muller's behavior is much more nefarious. Second, since wherever congressional testimony of this kind is concerned we are inevitably discussing a topic that involves political stances, I feel certain that any useful analysis of Muller's behavior must include a consideration of his personal motivations, political or otherwise. By the time the nuclear scientists involved in the Manhattan Project finally decided to talk about what we may as well label "politics" with those who were directing their research efforts, the bombs had been built and the politicians and generals had made up their minds to use them. As it happens, I feel they made the right decision, but for the scientists' personal consciences it might have been more morally comforting if they had spoken up sooner rather than later. -
dana1981 at 02:52 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Rob #5 - again to be fair, I don't think Muller commented on appropriate policy or risk management. But he did make this sort of comment in his testimony to policymakers, so the real danger is that they use his comments to justify inadvisable actions (like blocking emissions reduction efforts). That's why I said people have to be more careful about their statements than Muller was. -
Albatross at 02:51 AM on 20 April 2011Announcing Shaping Tomorrow's World
Nicely done John, I'll have a closer look once I have some time. -
dana1981 at 02:49 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
funglestrumpet #3 - if global warming is being driven by natural factors and if those factors switch direction, as many "skeptics" assure us they will, then it's true that we don't need to be terribly worried. Unfortunately, those claims are not reality. JMurphy #4 - my feeling is that if someone continues making the same simplistic assertions, the best response may be to just ignore them. If they become too trollish, they may be banned from the site. But I don't want to get off topic discussing moderation and general commenting. -
Berényi Péter at 02:47 AM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
#34 Alec Cowan at 01:36 AM on 20 April, 2011 Doing it again? Yes. but you also quote It should be clear from the context that it is not a quote from the text of the paper. Bender at al. do not even elaborate much on the obvious inconsistency between various model outputs, they are concerned with the inconsistency between models and measurements. But in a sense it is a quote indeed. I've already emphasized several times science is not about pictures, it is about propositions and their truth-value. However, sometimes there is a straightforward way to translate pictures in scientific papers (like Fig. 2. Lower panel, Bender 2006) into propositions. Individual statements encoded into the figure are connected by the logical operation conjunction if not indicated otherwise (because of the simultaneous visual presentation). Now, non-overlapping error bars of the same quantity arrived at by different methods clearly translate into a contradictory proposition. That's all. My point is that it does not make sense to compare models to reality until the problem of considerable differences between models in vital quantities like albedo are resolved. A 0.01 difference in albedo translates to a difference in ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) of 3.4 W/m2. That's huge. And averaging model outputs ("ensemble mean") does not help here. Models are not created equal. True ones should live, false ones die. If they are inconsistent with each other, then some (or all) of them are false. Including dead models in a mean is a necrophilic attitude. If we know for sure some models are flawed but don't know which ones, it should be a top priority to decide which ones are in error (by comparing their output to measurements) before any of them could be used to draw further conclusions. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:45 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Dana @ 2... And I think what Muller is missing is, in such a situation with inherent uncertainties, you definitely do not plan based on the best case. You plan for the worst case. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst. -
JMurphy at 02:41 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Many of our policymakers are looking for any excuse not to take action to slow climate change, and making careless statements which can provide them with those excuses is a mistake. One sees a lot of those same excuses (especially recently) trotted out by the same so-called skeptics who post most regularly on here. However, can any of them be called "careless statements" ? I'm not so sure, especially from the ones who continually post the same self-regarding, snide, self-important, repetitive beliefs about themselves, their abilities and their 'arguments'. And most especially from those who cherry-pick data, trim graphs and assert what cannot be deduced from any sources they actually give - well, those who can produce any sources that can back them up in any way. Ultimately, it is good that you are rebutting those who are more in the public eye and who have their opinions more widely broadcast. But it has to be asked whether (as Alec Cowan has suggested elsewhere) it is worth the disruption constantly answering the same simplistic assertions from the same people on this site, just so you can say that anything can be posted unless it goes against certain minimum standards. Surely those who have to constantly reply, to make sure that the denial/disinformation/propaganda is not left unanswered, could use their time more productively on posts like this ? Anyway, sorry for going on (and please delete if it is too far off-topic), but I feel this needs to be discussed somewhere - before people are driven away by having to read the same people repeating the same hand-waves time after time after time. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
BP... I just don't see how you guys can continually read that email and miss the two lines that follow it: " The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." Trenberth's papers say the same thing. Our observing systems are inadequate. They're not picking up all the warming. Trenberth has repeatedly stated that this is what he was talking about. -
funglestrumpet at 02:24 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
I have to wonder what on earth drives the logic behind Dr Muller's statements. The earth is warming and sea-levels are rising as a result. Do we only move to higher ground if the cause is due to human production of CO2? Dr Muller and a great many others seem to be saying that if global warming is due natural causes we should stay and wait for the sea to destroy lives and livelihoods. I do not care what causes global warming; I want action now. Let's get the patient to the hospital. We can assertain who is responsible for causing the injuries later. -
dana1981 at 02:20 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Thanks Stephen. To be fair, Muller isn't saying he's confident the human contribution to warming is small, he's saying we're not certain it's large, and if it's not large, that we have plenty of time to act. I think he's wrong on both counts, but at least he's not expressing confidence that the warming isn't anthropogenic. In fact he explicitly says it might be, and we might be "in a big rush" to reduce emissions. I think he's just inflating uncertainty in the style of Judith Curry. -
Stephen Baines at 02:12 AM on 20 April 2011Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
Excellent post dana! At least from the point of scientific content. I guess we'll see how it plays in terms of impact. To my mind the critcicism boils down to a serious logical inconsistency in his argument...he has great confidence in the impact of some countering natural force we have not detected and do not understand, and at the same time a lack of confidence in climate sensitivity to CO2 that is physically well understood and that scientists have taken great pains to measure forward, backward and sideways for the better part of 40 years. It's hard to understand how a scientist can honestly take that position. There also seems to be the same implicit contradiction we see so often regarding low climate sensitivity to human influences and high sensitivity to natural influences. Basically, have your cake and eat it too. Both seem to me be betray wishful thinking at best. -
Alec Cowan at 02:00 AM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Berényi Péter #139 (although it'll probably be deleted and this one will become #139 because it "supposedly" ""publishes"" or """reveals""" stolen material -don't worry, there's some kind of crime there anyway-) Really BP? Let me see: Trenberth becomes chatty with a bunch of colleagues and comment why a swallow does make a summer in a laundrymat chatterbox style, then provides a link to a published paper as if it is a novelty and add "(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)" provided the link do give us a pdf. Then he said his famous mouthful. Later he involves in some speculations about PDO. 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. What else? -
Alec Cowan at 01:36 AM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@Berényi Péter #25 Doing it again? Besides opening that with the narrowest notion of "broader" and the broadest reach of "inconsistent", and presenting a couple of non sequiturs as if it is a reasoning and not an attempt to induce a false inference in mind of the readers ('To this end a brand new concept, "model ensemble mean" was developed NON SEQUITUR Unfortunately logic tells us if two propositions are inconsistent, at least one of them (or both) have to be false NON SEQUITUR Now, including inadequate representations into an average just makes the whole average flawed.'), you also do your job with Bender et al. Let's go step by step because you "excel" yourself day after day. You take Bender et al (2006) and you trim and varnish their conclusions to adapt your intentions: Not only you edit deeply to add your "gravely overestimate" and "neglect(albedo trend)" but you also quote"between Feb 1985 & May 1989 de-seasonalized albedo is greater than 0.31 (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) and it's less than 0.3 (UKMO-HadGEM1)"from somewhere outside Bender's -but no problem if everyone thinks that Bender et al said it, because it adds to your advocacy. (I suppose you provided the image-based version of that paper to prevent the use of internal search, being the paper available in PDF format) [Google doesn't retrieve the origin of the quote, even for partial searches. Maybe it is from the same site of the image. Use Google cache and enjoy the critics to this site there, including the reductio ad hitlerum] Having reached this point and given the twisted labyrinth in Berényi Péter's argumentation in relation to that paper and this post, it remains to do: 1) Stating in a clear fashion if there is a relation between Bender's and this post. 2) Independently of what found in 1, explaining what Bender's says and the scope of its analysis, besides who quoted it in other papers and why. 3) What parts have been used to fuel the inference Berényi Péter meant to promote his ideas and weather they have been distorted or not, intentionally or not. Depending on the conclusions -but just see his/her latest posts and persistent approach- how to deal with people like Berényi Péter. I'll be developing these three points in different comments during the next 24 hours or so. Please, collaborate in clearing this up and don't follow the path proposed by this person. -
Berényi Péter at 01:31 AM on 20 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"Trenberth's statement was used completely out of context by those behind the fake 'Climategate' scandal". Here is the full context of Trenberth's statement, just for reference. [private email snipped - if you really want to read them, they are easily available elsewhere]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please do not post other peoples stolen private emails. The text of the email does not provide full context, the full context would include all of the conversations between all parties that meant Trenberth would be understood by his friends and colleagues without having to spell it out in formal scientific terms. Emails are often written in a hurry, rely on the reader's existing knowledge and often contain humour (yes scientists often have a sense of humour). The use of hyperbole and irony as humour is quite common for example. Stick to published comments please. -
Albatross at 01:26 AM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
Note how not one single "skeptic" here can bring themselves to be skeptical enough to call out Christy. SkS must be doing a good job the 'skeptics'' and contrarians are getting anxious by the repeated barrage of missteps by the likes of Monckton, Christy, Lindzen, Spencer and other contrarians. Christy was actually correct in a sense-- the coupled AOGCMs sometimes do not match the real world, but what he hid from Congress is: a) no model is perfect; b) that (a) doesn't render them useless, and c) uncertainty cuts both ways. Christy cleverly crafts his words to create the impression that the models are wrong in only one direction (the "alarmist" direction of course), and as has been illustrated here, they have been too optimistic in some rather worrying areas such as Arctic ice loss and sea level rise. That is not a reason for a glib attitude, nor is it reason to claim that there is not a problem to address...we could in fact be facing an even bigger problem than we originally thought. I encourage people here to consider the very early modelling work of Manabe et al. (1992), truly amazing. -
Berényi Péter at 00:32 AM on 20 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
Daniel, why don't you allow me to comment on #26? It does not bode well to leave that point as it is, but thwart challenges.Moderator Response: [DB] Apologies, BP, but the subject of this thread and post is Christy's misrepresentation of modeled trends vs real-life trend observations. If you wish to discuss the merits of Bayesian versus other statistical methodologies, feel free on a more appropriate thread. Perhaps Dikran would be kind enough to suggest one. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:53 PM on 19 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@Moderator Do not change the fact that Knutson wrote this “what he wrote” ... - I'm just cites him - not forcing anyone to draw conclusions like I want. A propos "trend" the temperature in the lower stratosphere - and volcanoes - a possible impact on ozone - I'll add this image.Moderator Response: [DB] Yes, Knutson wrote what he wrote (indeed, he makes clear that much of what he writes is his personal opinion), and also writes that more studies are needed. And that he's referring to projected future trends. And that is where the reference does not help you. Again, the topic of the post is past observational trends vs modeled trends - and Christy's misrepresentation of them. Not future trends. -
Composer99 at 23:44 PM on 19 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
dana, thanks for the clarification. -
Ken Lambert at 23:34 PM on 19 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Alec Cowan #137 Spamming? What a bizzare allegation. "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? The K&D paper summarises research by major major OHC content researchers including Willis, Lyman, von Schukmann, Wijffels, Purkey & Johnson et al....not just K&D. It quotes a positive warming in the deep oceans from a paper by Purkey & Johnson which can be found here: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf Relevant quote from the abstract of the P&J paper: **The three southernmost basins show a strong statistically significant abyssal warming trend, with that warming signal weakening to the north in the central Pacific, western Atlantic, and eastern Indian Oceans. Eastern Atlantic and western Indian Ocean basins show statistically insignificant abyssal cooling trends. Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas, the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (+/-.009) W m-2 applied over the entire surface of the earth. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Subantarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0.068 (+/-.062) W m-2.** 0.027 + 0.068 = 0.095W/sq.m (my addition). So the overall conclusion of cooling or flat in the top 700m and slight warming in the deep oceans - none of it anywhere near the postulated 0.9W/sq.m global imbalance by the likes of Hansen is only contradicted by the von Schukmann 0-2000m result of +0.77W/sq.m which is the outlier in the group. The steep bumps in the von Schukmann chart indicate impossible rates of heat transfer over time as pointed out by BP in an earlier thread and the step jump in the 1993-2008 Lyman result of +0.64W/sq.m is also impossible if satellite precision (not absolute accuracy) is to be believed. Month to month and year on year TOA satellite data show that the step jump in OHC of 2001-2003 did not happen, which makes a linear trend fit of +0.64W/sq.m also impossible for 1993-2008 Lyman chart. So for now, K & D is out there to be refuted by later or more extensive OHC analyses, not rants and name calling from the bleachers. -
Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 19 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
KL @85, plainly we are at an impasse. I have answered all your objections, and it would pay you to reread attentively what I have written in 77 above (which deals completely with all that is valid in your current objection). Failing that, I have nothing more to say to you. I will no longer feed the troll. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:27 PM on 19 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@CBDunkerson ”... trend is very clear ...” Even if it's true - it is the sentence: “While the lower stratospheric temperature decrease remains a subject of further investigation as to its veracity and cause ...Moderator Response: [DB] Knutson is speculating on future hurricane trends based on model simulations. This is yet another instance of your furnished source not saying what you think it is saying. This thread is about past observational trends matching (or not) modeled trends. Please read the totality of a source for appropriate context before quote-mining. -
les at 23:25 PM on 19 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
25 His Holiness the BP "This statement is obviously false and as we know, from a false proposition anything follows including both "it's warming" or "it's cooling" (along with "I am the Pope")." To be precise, as you think you know. What the rest if us know is the principle of explosion, that anything can follow from a contradiction. Given your posts, I do understand why you think you're the pope.Moderator Response: [DB] Please, let us focus on the topic of this post and not on yet another transparent attempt to derail yet another thread. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:17 PM on 19 April 2011Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
@CBDunkerson Why 1992 and not 1991? Please refer to the "old" paper Tabazadeh (1998. Stratospheric cooling and Arctic ozone recovery.) - as spreading sulfur and destroys ozone - a greenhouse gas stratosphere. -
Marcus at 22:59 PM on 19 April 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
John D-here are my exact words, quoted verbatim: "These facts are backed up even by the results of the FACE trials in which they place so much faith-even though said trials do little to simulate expected changes in temperature & hydrology." Notice that I don't actually mention the Horsham trial specifically John? So indeed, you've misrepresented my position even more grossly than even I realized. I will admit that the Horsham trial goes further than any other FACE trial to try & simulate conditions of a warmer world but, seriously, no current field conditions can properly compare with the conditions being predicted for 20-50 years from now-& I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the investigators would agree with me. None of which changes the fact that (a) none of the other FACE trials I've read about simulate conditions of a warmer world-only eCO2 vs aCO2; (b) the yield increases you cited previously, from the Horsham Trial, were those from the irrigated, early sowing crops, not the rain-fed crops sown later in the year; (c) that several FACE trials-including the Horsham trial-have highlighted issues of increased pests, increased soil-borne diseases & reduced nutritional values in an eCO2 world. The fact that you would rather engage in a pedantic attack on my words rather than address the points that I-& many others here-have raised about the extremely simplistic "CO2 is plant food" meme says a great deal to me about your agenda. It also highlights the fact that, until you address the *real* issues, we'd all be better off just ignoring you. -
Ken Lambert at 22:51 PM on 19 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #84 "I perfectly understand that you are getting desperate, defending as you are, the in defensible. But resorting to such ridiculous tactics as pretending to the confusion you apparently espouse only succeeds in making you look the complete fool." and "Should you persist in this ( -snip- ) strategy, I will request that the moderators take notice of your obvious trolling." ( -Snip- ) If Moderator DM knows anything about the subject - he will no doubt inform you of that - I simply can't get through to you.Moderator Response: [DB] Personal remarks snipped. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - If your energy was buried, as you hypothesize, it won't affect the climate until it surfaces. If it surfaces, it warms the climate, and as climate temperature is subject to the same mechanisms (thermal IR, convection, evaporation) as sunlight inputs. Hence - no go, RSVP. Even if waste heat was somehow buried (and you have provided no references, citations, or other evidence thereof, so it's firmly at the "what if" level), there's no effect on climate until it surfaces, at which point it's part of the process, subject to the same energy equilibrium with sunlight. Which is 2 orders of magnitude larger. Your attempts to rescue a dead skeptic argument are impressive in their energy, but there's really no resuscitation possible here.
Prev 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 Next
