Recent Comments

Prev  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  Next

Comments 88101 to 88150:

88101. Don9000 at 03:01 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88102. dana1981 at 02:52 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88103. Albatross at 02:51 AM on 20 April 2011
       Announcing Shaping Tomorrow's World
       Nicely done John, I'll have a closer look once I have some time.
88104. dana1981 at 02:49 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88105. Berényi Péter at 02:47 AM on 20 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88106. Rob Honeycutt at 02:45 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88107. JMurphy at 02:41 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88108. Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 April 2011
       The 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.
88109. funglestrumpet at 02:24 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88110. dana1981 at 02:20 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88111. Stephen Baines at 02:12 AM on 20 April 2011
       Muller 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.
88112. Alec Cowan at 02:00 AM on 20 April 2011
       The 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?
88113. Alec Cowan at 01:36 AM on 20 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88114. Berényi Péter at 01:31 AM on 20 April 2011
       The 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.
88115. Albatross at 01:26 AM on 20 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88116. Berényi Péter at 00:32 AM on 20 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88117. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:53 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88118. Composer99 at 23:44 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       dana, thanks for the clarification.
88119. Ken Lambert at 23:34 PM on 19 April 2011
       The 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.
88120. Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 19 April 2011
       A 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.
88121. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:27 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88122. les at 23:25 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88123. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:17 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy 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.
88124. Marcus at 22:59 PM on 19 April 2011
       More 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.
88125. Ken Lambert at 22:51 PM on 19 April 2011
       A 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.
88126. KR at 22:48 PM on 19 April 2011
       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.
88127. Tom Curtis at 22:45 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       CBDunkerson @88, in fact he goes further. From his 81:

       "6. If so, then we would expect a doubling of CO2 to have a COOLING effect on the planet.

       My emphasis. So not only does he need to explain why the Earth isn't a cozy 255K, he needs to explain why it isn't 250K or less. It is however already apparent that he will not mere observation kill his beautiful theories.
88128. muoncounter at 22:39 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       novandil#318: "Fred Hoyles "Ice" ... the Svensmark hypothesis, again a cosmic origin." Not much value in either Hoyle (debunked here) or Svensmark. See Its cosmic rays
88129. Dikran Marsupial at 22:34 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       BP, the ensemble mean idea is nothing new, it is standard (subjectivist) Bayesian procedure, and is also well founded in frequentist statistical (Monte Carlo) methods.
88130. Berényi Péter at 22:31 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       The problem is different computational climate models are inconsistent with each other most of the time. Given this state of affairs it is hard to make sense of statements like "models are broadly consistent with measurements". To this end a brand new concept, "model ensemble mean" was developed. Unfortunately logic tells us if two propositions are inconsistent, at least one of them (or both) have to be false. Now, including inadequate representations into an average just makes the whole average flawed. For example consider this paper: Tellus A, 2006, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp. 320-330. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00181.x 22 views of the global albedo-comparison between 20 GCMs and two satellites Bender, F. A.-M., Rodhe, H., Charlson, R. J., Ekman, A. M. L., & Loeb, N. Their main conclusion is that all the models considered in their study gravely overestimate albedo (and neglect albedo trend), but if you pay attention to details, it turns out not even error bars for model outputs overlap. click on image for full size presentation Therefore different models yield inconsistent propositions like "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)". 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").
88131. CBDunkerson at 22:27 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       Arkadiusz writes: "Do not "humanity" but Mt. Pinatubo, in the figure above there is no trend (is zero) before and after the 1992-5 year." The Pinatubo eruption was in mid-1991... as seems fairly clear from the spike on the graph in that year. It continued to have an impact in 1992, but things were then back to 'normal' be 1993. Volcanic particulates from these large eruptions only stay in the atmosphere for about a year and a half... hence the similar spike in 1982 & 1983 from El Chichon. Thus, including 1991 in a 'pre-Pinatubo' trend and/or treating 1993-1995 values as part of the Pinatubo event would be inaccurate. Remove these two volcanic spikes and the underlying stratospheric trend is very clear.
88132. LukeW at 22:26 PM on 19 April 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Well gee Marcus - why don't you look up the photosynthetic temperature optima for many common C3 crops. Then put yourself on the US/Canadian border. It's not that hard.
88133. Alec Cowan at 22:25 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       Another post and another instance of Gilles jumping in to be the first commenter and so setting the mood and making it all as Gilles-oriented as possible by overflowing with his/her "You said... I didn't say ... Eeny, meeny, miny, moe; catch a warmer by the toe ..." and showing very little beyond a shallow understanding of what the general topic is. This character do this the same way no matter it is a post or a new version of an argument: the goal is just taking control. There are many ways to face these behaviours: 1) Many forums and/or blogs have an "Abandon all hope" section where comments or messages are sent so the debate can/cannot continue there in a public/non-public fashion. This is very important for arguments in this site, as arguments need feedback including critiques, based objections and scientific works references. The lame argument of "I don't feel comfortable with that" and taking isolated phrases to manifest it (the sorts of "You said it'd raised, then the sky is the limit, uhu!!?? yeah! you would!") or simply promoting the idea that anything is debatable in any kind of conditions and as far as a subject is debated it is controversial, all these techniques coming from dialectics and not from science must be cornered to the proper sections. 2) Even without much more workload, by using div tags and colour in a way similar to the actual fashion, and by changing the date of a comment, moderators would be able to move a comment and its replies to the last positions in the comment queue. Even by doing that once it'll promote the wrongdoers to do their best from the very beginning and those who engage in sterile debates with them to be conscious of their involuntary aid in doing it. 3) The total visits to sites in English dealing with climate change is slightly decreasing, but visits to this site keep steady and growing, so as it probably is the 3rd or 4th site in visitors on this topic, a steeper increase of any kind of attack should be expected, as we witnessed some increasing evidence of pack attack here, like this one, now closed with poptech/Adam[mhaze]/(and others) as the pack -because like bacteria, they thrive in colonies- So, keep the bleach in hand, because a website wouldn't promote the anticipating prevention of something and only take late actions on other equally preventable somethings. The fact that I and almost every author or commenter here would never go to specific sites about religion to say "That Xenu is BS and ..." doesn't mean people who would isn't operating here unleashed. So, feel free to delete this message after commenting it to the right people, if you wish.
88134. CBDunkerson at 22:16 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Actually, it isn't just anthropogenic global warming... based on his statements, novandilcosid appears to deny the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect entirely. Though how he then explains why the Earth isn't a giant ball of ice, glaciation cycles, the data measuring this 'non-existent' effect in the article above, the disagreement of thousands of scientists (including all the major AGW 'skeptics'), et cetera remains unexplained.
88135. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:09 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       I had to take a work ... ... but ... You could say that humanity has changed the structure of the Earth’s atmosphere. Do not "humanity" but Mt. Pinatubo, in the figure above there is no trend (is zero) before and after the 1992-5 year. Change is swept - Mt. Pinatubo ozone depleting ... And where they do diverge from climate models, the observations are usually even more alarming. Really? If we are in the tropics ... On this page, "like fire" avoids the topic "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change". Knutson 2011: “Vertical profile of temperature change.” “Interestingly, observed vertical profiles of air temperature changes since about 1980 using radiosondes and some satellite records actually show a relatively uniform warming with height through the troposphere.” “ Therefore I consider it more likely that data problems with the radiosonde and satellite temperature datasets have led to unreliable observed temperature trend profiles that falsely indicate a substantial destabilization of the tropical atmosphere since 1980.” “Lower stratospheric temperatures. A variant on the theme of vertical profile of temperature changes is the recent study of Emanuel10, who reports that a cooling trend in the lower stratospheric temperatures in recent decades implies an increase in potential intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.” “While the lower stratospheric temperature decrease remains a subject of further investigation as to its veracity and cause, preliminary results with another (dynamical) model from GFDL (G. Vecchi, personal communication) suggest that lower stratospheric temperatures do not affect tropical storm counts substantially in that model. [...]” “For example, one can speculate that ozone changes [I told you!] and related atmospheric effects could have affected tropical upper tropospheric temperatures enough to change tropical cyclone activity substantially.” “Those internal variability arguments typically suggest that hurricane activity will likely return toward pre-1995 levels sometime in the next few decades. In any case, the potential links between lower stratospheric and/or upper tropospheric temperatures, climate forcings, and hurricane activity mentioned here remain speculative.” “While the simulated changes in TC activity and in sea surface temperatures in their study are dramatic, the implications of their simulations for climate changes over the next century or so remain speculative.” “First, it is possible that 21st century changes in tropical cyclones will be less potentially damaging than the scenarios outlined in the projections section.” “Global climate transient sensitivity or sea level rise could be at the low end, or even lower than, the range shown in IPCC AR4.”
88136. Bob Lacatena at 21:56 PM on 19 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1,

       Very simply. The large change and increase the distribution of the Sun's energy in the northern hemisphere combined with a positive surface albedo feedback is enough to overcome the negative cloud feedback.

       This is not true. Citation, please.
88137. Bob Lacatena at 21:54 PM on 19 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1,

       A very large amount (if not most) of the enhanced warming from the climate models comes from positive cloud feedback.

       This is not true. Citation, please.
88138. Bob Lacatena at 21:54 PM on 19 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1, From an earlier post:

       The AGW theory seems to require an awful lot of coincidences.

       This is a foolish and disingenuous thing to say. It's an appeal rather than a fact, and has no substance whatsoever. To me, your theories are the ones that require an awful lot of coincidences. So avoid sweeping, casual and incorrect statements like this. Appeals to emotion are debate tactics, not science, and if the conversation goes there, I leave. You should also avoid referring to "AGW theory." There is no such thing. There is a GHG theory, which is a proven fraction of climate science. There is all of climate science, which is advancing and changing every day. There is no single "AGW theory," and attempts to cast it as such are merely backhanded attempts to imply that there's something simple there that can easily be ignored or dismissed. It doesn't work that way. The volume of information behind current climate science is enormous, and it's not going to be easily overturned by someone on a blog who has his own ideas about how things work.
88139. Bob Lacatena at 21:48 PM on 19 April 2011
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       RW1, You keep creating your own conditions.

       What's the mechanism driving the 'extremely powerful negative feedback'???

       There is none. There doesn't have to be. Insolation is 290W/m². The planet radiates 290W/m². Everything (normally) stays in pretty good balance as easily as that. We as humans experience weather, which include daily, seasonal, annual and decadal fluctuations. These are caused by a variety of factors. But the bottom line is 290 in, 290 out. If the temperature of the planet appears to cool, then there is less out for a while. This can only go on for only so long before it catches up and the balance is restored. No clouds or other moderator are needed. The system does not need to behave like a human designed EE system, or contain the same components (i.e. a primary "control"). You're basically making it way more complicated than it needs to be -- or is.
88140. CBDunkerson at 21:29 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       I gave up on Gilles when he swapped in a new graph to 'contradict' my reading of the one he had originally posted. However, if that hadn't been enough, the bit in response #1 above about stratospheric cooling models being wrong because they didn't predict volcanic eruptions certainly would have done the trick. Christy isn't the only one who produces crocks... Muller is not alone in his misinformation... et cetera. The same problems are observable with 'skeptics' right here. We should point out the fallacies once and move on... rather than allowing them to drag things out ad infinitum.
88141. Dikran Marsupial at 18:29 PM on 19 April 2011
       Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models?
       rhjames@12 wrote: "I have to agree with Gilles - even if the temperature had trended strongly downward over the past 15 years, it would still be within the grey area." The important thing to realise here is the ensemble mean (the black line on the figure) is not intended to be a projection of the observed surface temperature. It is only an estimate of the forced component of climate change, i.e. the effect of our CO2 emissions (and changes on other forcings) on temperatures. However the actual observed temperature will be a combination of this forced component plus a component due to the unforced variability of the climate (stuff like ENSO that the models can simulate, but not predict). The closest we can reasonably expect the ensemble mean to be to the observations depends on the magnitude of the unforced variability of the climate. The best way to compute the strength of the unforced variability it to perform lots of model runs, with slightly different initialisation and look at the spread of the results around the ensemble mean. The reason that the error bars on the ensemble mean are as wide as they are is (given out best understanding of climate physics) that is how wide they need to be to accurately reflect what we can't predict due to unforced climate variability. Over as short a timespan as 15 years, this variability is comparatively large, because the effects of ENSO are very substantial on that sort of timeframe (which is why the "no warming since 1998" type canards are canards. Trends measured over such a short timespan are essentially meaningless as you are primarily measuring the effects of unforced variability (ENSO), not climatic trends. The reason Gilles thinks the error bars are too wide is because he doesn't understand the models or climate variability nearly as well as he thinks he does. The error bars are about as wide as you would expect them to be if you understood the point of a model ensemble and were familiar with the effects of ENSO etc.
88142. Chris S at 18:23 PM on 19 April 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       A couple more references germane to the debate: Impact of Elevated Levels of Atmospheric CO2 and Herbivory on Flavonoids of Soybean (Glycine max Linnaeus) O'Neill et al. (2010) Journal of Chemical Ecology 36 pp 35-45 Abstract: "Plants grown under elevated CO2 conditions experience physiological changes, particularly in phytochemical content, that can influence their suitability as food for insects. Flavonoids are important plant defense compounds and antioxidants that can have a large effect on leaf palatability and herbivore longevity ... Insects feeding on G. max foliage growing under elevated levels of CO2 may derive additional antioxidant benefits from their host plants as a consequence of the change in ratios of flavonoid classes. This nutritional benefit could lead to increased herbivore longevity and increased damage to soybean (and perhaps other crop plants) in the future." Elevated CO2 lessens predation of Chrysopa sinica on Aphis gossypii. Gao et al. (2010) Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 135 pp 135-140 Abstract: "... The predatory ability of larvae in the third instar and the total larval stage of C. sinica that fed on A. gossypii were significantly lower in elevated CO2 environments. The number of aphids consumed by first-generation lacewing population did not change significantly with different CO2 treatments; however, significantly fewer aphids were consumed by the second generation of the lacewing population with elevated CO2. We speculate that A. gossypii may become a more serious pest under an environment with elevated CO2 concentrations because of the reduced predatory ability of C. sinica on A. gossypii."
88143. Chris S at 18:12 PM on 19 April 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Interesting that BP & johnd both seized on one paper I linked to in my earlier post (the FACE trial paper) yet apparently failed to take the rest of my advice (" In fact, that issue has several (free access) review papers on climate effects on agriculture that several commentators here would benefit from reading...") For example: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2827.abstract Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. Gregory et al. (2009) Abstract: "...Globally atmospheric [CO2] has increased, and in northern latitudes mean temperature at many locations has increased by about 1.0–1.4 °C with accompanying changes in pest and pathogen incidence and to farming practices. Many pests and pathogens exhibit considerable capacity for generating, recombining, and selecting fit combinations of variants in key pathogenicity, fitness, and aggressiveness traits that there is little doubt that any new opportunities resulting from climate change will be exploited by them..." johnd says: "Apparently apart from myself and BP few others have bothered to read any of those recommended..." I think that should read "Apparently including myself and BP few others have bothered to read..."
88144. scaddenp at 18:03 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       " If CO2 drives temperature we sgould see a corresponding droop on the low temp but we don't." Sorry, but solar IS what is drives temperature here. CO2 and albedo just amplify. Together these have no problem driving the ice age cycle using standard physics. An alternative theory has to explain a vast amount of observations including isotope signatures for methane and CO2 in ice core, spatial distribution of cooling etc etc which current climate theory does quite well. I frankly find it unbelievable that anyone can look at even the original, pre-ice core data and seriously doubt that Milankovich cycles are not involved. I suspect a few seconds on google will find you the problems with Hoyle's theory. The lack of oomph is only a problem if you are determined that GHG changes cannot affect the temperature of the planet. Does your alternative model no-GHG effect correctly predict the surface temperature of venus, earth and mars?
88145. johnd at 17:48 PM on 19 April 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Marcus at 11:19 AM, I have a better suggestion, instead of you claiming that I have misrepresented you, why don't we all go back and examine word for word what I wrote and compare it to what you claim that I wrote and see just who is misrepresenting who. There is little humour to be had when a reader misrepresents what someone else has written, but it becomes a big joke when that reader fails to understand just what they have written and so misrepresent themselves, but worse then that, go on to attack those who faithfully quoted what was actually said.
88146. novandilcosid at 17:45 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Tom Curtis @ #85 has fallen into a trap. His claims are all correct. So are mine. It will be noted that I prefaced my analysis with the following words: "For a system in equilibrium (ie for the planet integrated over the surface and over a year)" Essentially this is what is claimed when the IPCC states there is 3.7W/m^2 of Radiative Forcing if CO2 is doubled. Or when a 3 DegC temperature rise is claimed. It is not for a specific location but is an average for the whole planet integrated over a year. Consider a planet 3 degrees hotter (in the above sense). The likelihood is that the relationship between the Surface and Air is the same (this is implicit in the claim of a constant lapse rate) ie the average temperature difference between the air and surface is THE SAME. So the Conductive term, which is solely driven by temperature difference will be the same. We know that a doubling of CO2 has little DIRECT effect on the absorption of surface heat - maybe about 0.5W/m^2 of increase. ie the Window to space only closes fractionally. So both these terms are nearly zero change. The equation for surface heat absorbed into the atmosphere is: Surface Heat Absorbed into the Atmosphere = Surface radiation - the portion escaping through the Window - Back Radiation + Conduction + Evaporated water We also know from the surface energy balance that, providing Conduction and absorbed solar don't change, Change in Back Radiation = Change in Surface radiation + Change in Evaporation, or Change in surface radiation - change in backe radiation = -change in Evaporation or, if radiation through the window is cobstant, Change in NET radiation from the surface into the atmosphere = - Change in Evaporation Putting this in words, any increase in evaporation is balanced by an equal and opposite reduction in Net radiation from the surface. Hope this helps.
88147. Tom Curtis at 17:11 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       novandilcosid @84 as the situation stands, a large number of scientists using different programs on different computers have calculated the absorption, emission and transmittance for each wave number across the entire IR spectrum for the surface, plus each of 33 or more layers of atmosphere using observationally based information on temperature levels, and trace gas concentrations. In doing so they have produced spectra that almost exactly match those actually observed from space. Using these diverse models, if they increase the amount of CO2 by a factor of two, they reduce the outgoing IR radiation by approximately 3.7 Watts/meter squared. Those scientists and others, using still other computers have used equivalent techniques, but in which they allow the temperature and humidity at each layer to be set by the program based on energy balance equations and produced almost identical results. Deniers almost always ridicule these results as being "only based on models". But you want me to believe your claims about the effects of increasing CO2 based on the fact that you have calculated for just two wave numbers and just two poorly defined levels of the atmosphere. How about you program your line by line model and see if your results actually hold when you consider the whole atmosphere and all of the radiation. In the mean time, if you click on the picture below, you might get a clue: (Atmospheric absorption for 280 and 560 ppm CO2 as calculated by DeWitt Payne using Spectralcalc; difference between values shown in 82 above.)
88148. novandilcosid at 16:59 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       KR @ 314 "The Milankovitch cycles driving the repeated glaciation of the Earth only supply a very small forcing (both up and down), not enough to change temperatures very much by themselves." That's the problem with Milankovitch - not enough oomph. All should note that Milankovitch is not the only shot in the locker. I think those who are not aware of the cosmic theory of Ice Ages should take a dekko at Fred Hoyles "Ice". This seems to me to be a more coherent and less ambiguously weak possible cause of Ice Ages. Hoyle correctly points out that these typically happen very fast - on the order of 20 years. A second alternative is the Svensmark hypothesis, again a cosmic origin.
88149. novandilcosid at 16:53 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Scaddenp @ 316 : "Do I understand you correctly in that you are expecting co2 to drop as soon as the solar forcing drops the temperature, but that you don't see that?" No I expect to see elevated CO2 affecting the rate of Tdrop, and also drooping CO2 to affect the low temperature base. I see neither of these effects in the graphs and they should be there. Basically once temperature has fallen it generally remains flat, even though CO2 concentration is falling. If CO2 drives temperature we sgould see a corresponding droop on the low temp but we don't.
88150. Tom Curtis at 16:44 PM on 19 April 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       novandilcosid @83 (A) claims the surface energy balance is given by: Absorbed Sunlight + Back-Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporated water + Conduction Clearly in doing so he is talking about the actual surface - ie the top 1 mm of dirt of water that covers the planets surface. Oddly enough, there are very few thermometers stuck into that top 2 mm, with most thermometers being stuck in the atmosphere 2 meters above that surface. The "Global Mean Surface Temperature" is actually the temperature of the lowest surface layer of the atmosphere, so the proper energy balance equation is: Absorbed Sunlight + Back-Radiation = Surface Radiation + Evaporated water (including water from transpiration in plants) + Convection Although nonstandard, we can still work with novan's actual surface. (B) Novan also claims the only way the temperature can change is if the Left Hand Side of the surface balance equation changes. This is patently false, and refuted by everyday experience. It is standard procedure in cooking to alter the heat flow or temperature of water on the stove by adjusting evaporative heat loss rather than the heating element or flame. I come from Mount Isa where it is standard practice to cool homes by using evaporative air conditioners. Further, in Australia drinking water in the outback is typically stored in canvas bags rather than Jerry Cans so that evaporation will cool the water. If, at the surface, conductive heat flow was restricted, say, by raising the temperature of the layer immediately above the surface, and the inputs were left unchanged, the surface temperature would increase. The surface air layer could be warmed by a reduction in convection (and hence also latent heat transfer) by the warming of the air layer above that, and so on till you reach the upper troposphere where the air will be warmed by a reduction in the net outgoing IR radiation from that level by an increase in CO2 levels. C) Novan purports to have proved from first principles or empirical research or to just know a priori (I'm not sure which) that conduction between the surface and atmosphere is near constant, which is false. He also claims that the change of evaporative heat loss from a surface will automatically match in magnitude, but with opposite sign the change in radiative loss of heat to the atmosphere. This principle apparently holds true whether the surface in question is rocky desert or ocean, and also to hold independently of wind speed over the surface. That is an astonishing result, and I cannot wait to see the proof. I expect to be disappointed, however, for it sounds more like magical thinking than science.

Prev  1755  1756  1757  1758  1759  1760  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  Next