Recent Comments

Prev  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  Next

Comments 88401 to 88450:

88401. Albatross at 01:37 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Quick, someone please call a behavioural psychologist, I think there might just be enough information here for them to write a note on denialism ! :) And should there be interest in such a thing, "internet trolling". Alexandre @71, you make some excellent points, although I must admit i am having a little trouble hearing you ver the annoying background noise ;) Ultimately this type of exercise only reflects incredibly poorly on the "skeptics". What I find annoying though is that is detracts from the science and reasoned, rational and factual discussion. i mean how the heck does one deal with this kind of denialism and cherry-picking? "The fact is that satellites show no statistically significant warming from 1979-1997"
88402. Adam at 01:30 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Sphaerica "You've presented no evidence other than assumption (= wishful thinking) that there is some magical force which you cannot identify which is therefore responsible for all warming, despite the logic behind and evidence for GHGs." Obviously you haven't read my comments. Once again I'll refer you to Chylek's 2006 paper http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf "The sun came up this morning exactly as it did 60 years ago. This means absolutely nothing." Once again read Chylek's paper. The fact that it was just as warm 60 years ago shows that their is nothing unprecedented or unusual about Greenland's climate. "Second, the AOM can only affect regional temperatures. " And Sphaerica as you have pointed out Greenland is not the whole world, so therefore it can indeed be possible for the AMO to effect it's temperature changes. Read Chylek's 2009 paper. "Again, you are focusing on a single spot on the globe, seemingly because it lets you fabricate erroneous arguments, stomp your feet, and demand that other people meet your own requirements." The reason why I was focusing on Greenland, was because that was what the article I first commented on was about. Like I've said polar regions are different from the rest of the world. They are especially sensitive. Therefore they are the first places we need to look if we want to detect a CO influence. And basically all of Greenland's data pretty much makes us come to the conclusion that CO2 is not playing any major role. "This statement is like saying that before the theory can be accepted, we must first prove that the warming is not caused by voodoo, dreams, warmth fairies, or Eurasian leprechaun farts." See here
88403. Bob Lacatena at 01:22 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       8, Gilles,

       I'm curious to know what is your prediction on the expected temperature trend...

       That's a ridiculous question, not worth the time it's already taken to refuse to answer.
88404. Adam at 01:22 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran, I find it very interesting that the surface data you have used in your graph is the hadcrut 3 data. It has been repeatedly claimed on this website that that dataset is unreliable because it doesn't cover the Arctic, which is 'warming the fastest'. And therefore claimed that it would understimate the warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-shift-synchronized-chaos.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/1998-is-not-the-hottest-year-on-record.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Graphs-from-the-Zombie-Wars.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Temperature_Change.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ten-temperature-records-in-a-single-graphic.html Dikran why are you using a dataset, which your own website has claimed is unreliable, and underestimates the warming? Your second graph isn't very clear, and doesn't really make the trends clear. The fact is that satellites show no statistically significant warming from 1979-1997, yet the GISS data (which is used frequently on this website) does indeed show significant warming from 1970-1997. It's either one dataset or the other, which is wrong.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I did say that you should experiment with the other datasets for yourself. Did it not occur to you why I said that? It is because I knew you wouldn't accept it, whatever I plotted. If you are going to raise the arctic coverage issue, then it cuts both ways, the satelite data doesn't cover the artcic either, so there is a good reason why GISTEMP which does exhibits a higher trend. You can't have it both ways. I used the dataset that gives the most direct comparison with the satellite products. If the second plot isn't clear, follow the link to woodfortrees.org and arrange it the way you want to make your point and post the result here. It isn't rocket science.

       The point about UAH not having significant warming from 1979-1997 by GISSTEMP showing warming from 1970-1997, is as laughable bit of cherry picking as you could want to see. I wonder why the GISSTEMP trend isn't measured from 1979-1997 like the UAH one. It couldn't be because trends pass test of statistical significance more easily over longer timeframes, that would be just disingenuous (of whichever blog you borrowed it from). ROFL.

88405. Albatross at 01:21 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Sphaerica @6, Great post. I agree on most counts. Yes, reading the readers' comments at the FP is truly scary-- we are in an ideological battle here, and sadly one that involves money and lifestyle changes. This is an uphill battle, but the youth are going to be critical as you say-- hopefully SkS is one way of engaging them and educating them and calling them to action. I do find us thinking about the importance of the youth rather ironic when they had very little hand in what we are facing now. I wonder how they feel about that situation?
88406. Ian Forrester at 01:20 AM on 16 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Eric, weather is what happens today or tomorrow, climate is what happens over long periods of time. The cycles which you "skeptics" like so much are just that cycles and can be ignored since they average out over sufficiently long periods of time.
88407. Alexandre at 01:17 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran inline response to my #67 Sometimes I wonder if engaging in such discussions is productive at all. The person does not understand, and it comes to a point that "not understanding" starts to be an argument in itself. And the attention received (certainly well intended and commendable) may even give the impression that it is a fair point being raised. It is not like explaining calculus to a colleague who did not understand the lecture. The "skeptic" comes with low understanding of the subject, and full of suspicion and preconceived ideas about The Great Conspiracy. There is no attention to evidence. On the contrary, evidences must be avoided at all costs, otherwise they feel they would (God forbid) be convinced and give in to The Great Conspiracy. So if someone shows some compelling evidence here, the "skeptic" feels he should quickly change to some other talking point and just press on. This is no criticism to the great moderation work all you guys do here. It's just a thought I felt was worth sharing.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, it is an interesting issue. The hope is that by presenting a brief answer in moderators comment, other posters won't need to bother.
88408. Albatross at 01:12 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Aaah, and the trolls descend to defend and detract from the exposure of deception and misinformation by yet another so-called "skeptic" (i.e., Evans). We can only assume then that said trolls fully endorse Evans' essay that was riddled with errors, hyperbole, rhetoric and conspiracy theories. When it comes to factually-based and accurate science writing Mr. Evans gets an F. He gets an A though for disinformation, distortion, rhetoric, hyperbole, entertaining conspiracy theories, and making generalizations. Let it also be known that Evans and Jo Nova are business partners (ironically in a communication firm, H/T to Glenn). Why is that relevant? Because it seems that Evans has uncritically bought Ms. Nova's misguided beliefs about the hot spot hook line and sinker. And also, Ms. Nova has been told repeatedly that her beliefs on the science pertaining to this are in error, so Evans knows that too, but insists on perpetuating myths and misinformation. Evans is thus clearly not open-minded on the science, nor willing to learn from those in the know. Perhaps Evans will surprise us and prove us wrong by acknowledging his errors and correcting the public record. That is what a reputable and credible scientist would do.
88409. daniel maris at 01:09 AM on 16 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       "Catastrophic" is a crucial word here. No one I think is denying that - since the last ice age - sea level has risen substantially, whatever has happened in the last 100 years. So, it would not be surprising if sea level has risen in the last 100 years and continues to do so for the next 100. The issue is whether the rise will be something humanity manages with ease, as it has done all the previous millennia of sea level rise or whether this is something out of the ordinary - what I would call "catastrophic". I think you can call the Japanese Tsunami "catastrophic" because human society finds it difficult to cope with its impact. I think sea level rises of 20-40cms per century - which seems to be the scientific consensus - are completely manageable for 99% of humanity.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I suggest not feeding the troll, at least not until he is willing to properly revisit the answers to the previous questions he has raised, starting with the Telegraph article.
88410. Tom Dayton at 01:03 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Regarding Dikran's moderator's comment on my previous comment: Popper gets mentioned a lot here on Skeptical Science and elsewhere. I'm not a fan of Popper. There is no such thing as absolute falsification, because you never can be absolutely sure that the falsification conditions were correct. Better to say that all decisions involve uncertainty, though sometimes the uncertainty is vanishingly small.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] IIRC, Popper's most important book spends many chapters dealing with probabilistic falsification. It generally doesn't get mentioned much because it gets rather too complicated for the needs of most discussions. The basic idea, that the more falsifiable a theory is (i.e. the more things is rules out) the better seems sound and the idea that you can't prove anything encourages us always to keep an open mind, which is no bad thing. I am a Bayesian myself, so I also take a probabilistic view, with the addition of a strong prior that the probability an hypothesis is true is never one, but it might be zero. In short, I agree!
88411. Dan Moutal at 00:56 AM on 16 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       We have been over this already. The tax doesn't start at such levels. It starts small, and ramps up over time. This sends a powerful price signal to both consumers and producers which results in lower GHG emissions. So by the time the tax reaches such high levels people are already emitting less GHG emissions. This was directly addressed in the interviews with Jaccard. His work forcasts that the tax will increase total energy costs by about 1% per year, as dirty energy is replaced by clean energy. But yes such a tax will be a hard sell, but that is always the case when you are pushing a policy that implements some short term pain, for long term gain. Can you please go back and listen to the interviews, as well as read the various links I have provided.
88412. Bob Lacatena at 00:51 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       66, Adam,

       If so, could you please point out on the graph of Greenland temperatures, when anthropogenic supposedly started having an effect.

       Silly, blatant debate tactic. Obviously there are many factors in climate, and tying any one directly to a specific location and point in time is futile. This proves nothing.

       And remember that for every year other than 2003 and 2010, Greenland temperatures did not exceed what it was 60 years ago.

       Which means absolutely nothing.

       ...forces other than greenhouse gases have played...

       Obviously.

       ...and are most likely still playing...

       Why? Yes, obviously, as already stated, there are many factors in climate. No one disputes that. But why "most likely" and "a major role" other than because you say so? You've presented no evidence other than assumption (= wishful thinking) that there is some magical force which you cannot identify which is therefore responsible for all warming, despite the logic behind and evidence for GHGs.

       The Greenland warming of the past 20 years is exactly parallel to the one 60 years ago...

       The sun came up this morning exactly as it did 60 years ago. This means absolutely nothing.

       Unless of course you can provide proper empirical evidence that...

       There is adequate evidence the GHG theory is true and is warming the globe. As already stated, your personal requirement that the theory be explicitly tied to one spot on the globe in a specific time period, just because you need to see it, isn't a requirement of science, or proving the theory. It's just you demanding that other people meet your own requirements, which you carefully select so that they can't be met... and all the while being unable to provide the slightest shred of evidence for your own belief.

       ...oceanic oscilations like the Arctic multidecadal oscilation...

       First, the AOM is not a thing, it's just a collection of measurements. It's a set of observations, not a mechanism. Can you explain the physics behind the AOM? Can you predict the AOM? No. If not, then how can you predict something supposedly triggered by AOM? Second, the AOM can only affect regional temperatures. Even if there is some oscillating warming/cooling cycle in the system, it cannot account for an overall upward trend in the entire system (i.e. the globe). Again, you are focusing on a single spot on the globe, seemingly because it lets you fabricate erroneous arguments, stomp your feet, and demand that other people meet your own requirements. You prove nothing.

       ...then you need to eliminate all other possible causes...

       But you haven't provided an alternate cause. This statement is like saying that before the theory can be accepted, we must first prove that the warming is not caused by voodoo, dreams, warmth fairies, or Eurasian leprechaun farts. One must only disprove a competing theory if a reasonably valid theory is put forth, along with some evidence that it should be taken seriously. "I don't believe it" is not a theory, it's your personal position. No one needs to refute that.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Well-stated, and well-played sir. Nicely done.
88413. Albatross at 00:45 AM on 16 April 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       Nicely done John-- concise and to the point. Good idea to start of showing the rising temperatures. With that said, I'm sure that you have read Tamino's recent post on this. He demonstrated that the snow was moving northwards in the northeast USA, specifically the Mid-Atlantic states and New England. That trend shifted in the last two winters, but that is only two data points out of 30 or so that he looked at, and appears to be associated with the wild swings in AO possibly related to the loss of Arctic sea ice. What is really impressive is how quickly all that snow is melting come spring, and that the model simulations predicted this increase in boreal winter precipitation at mid and high latitudes. Anyhow, these events form part of an increasing trend in extreme rainfall events that has been emerging in recent decades as atmospheric water vapour content increases in response to the warming. And not to forget the two recent seminal nature papers .
88414. Tom Dayton at 00:43 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam wrote

       Sphaerica in science, if you are trying to prove a hypothesis, such as one of causation, then you need to eliminate all other possible causes. Anyway, as I explained all I am saying is that current Greenland climate is not unprecedented in it's history.

       Adam, your view of science is overly simplistic--the sort of view people acquire in grade school, introductory high school science classes, and unfortunately even in some introductory college classes. Just like all other decision making, it's done based on weight of evidence. You can never, ever, eliminate all other possible causes, in any field of inquiry.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Indeed, as I have explained to Gilles at some length it is fundamentally impossible to prove a causal hypothesis anyway; they can only be falsified or at best corroborated - but never proven (see the work of Karl Popper).
88415. Alexandre at 00:34 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam says Anyway, it is pretty well established that the satellite data is different from the surface data, since it shows virtually no warming from 1979-1997. Pay attention to the scale used. Reading the axis is a very basic skill to analyse this. And don't rely so heavily in eyeballing a graph. To determine a trend you'd better use at least a linear regression.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I have provided him with plots of the data on a common axis - with linear regression of the trends; however as he doesn't accept information from blogs, I don't suppose he will accept that either. I have said enough, I only commented to give him a helpful pointer to other comments on the Klotzbach paper, I dind't expect the Spanish inquisition!
88416. Adam at 00:25 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Sphaerica "We have an established, explicable mechanism (GHG theory), supported by empirical evidence, which explains the recent warming in Greenland." If so, could you please point out on the graph of Greenland temperatures, when anthropogenic supposedly started having an effect. And remember that for every year other than 2003 and 2010, Greenland temperatures did not exceed what it was 60 years ago. "We do not have the same for the warming 60 years ago (partly because there is no way to go back in time and get measurements that weren't taken), but we know that it could not have been greenhouse gases. That's all fine. Nothing in proving GHG theory requires us to explain all climate events prior to the current period." Sphaerica what it shows is that forces other than greenhouse gases have played and are most likely still playing, a major role in Greenland's climate. The Greenland warming of the past 20 years is exactly parallel to the one 60 years ago. ONce again, I don't think this is just a simple coincidence. If other forces caused a Greenland warming very similar to the current warming, then there is no reason to belive why it shouldn't be those forcings, which are causing the current warming. Unless of course you can provide proper empirical evidence that post 1980 Greenland warming is caused by humans and not simply a natural cyclic phenomenon. "If you wish to argue that whatever caused the warming in Greenland 60 years ago is also the current cause, then it falls to you to first develop a hypothesis, then test it and find evidence to support it, and then to put forth that hypothesis for current warming, and then further test that, and find evidence to support that." Sphaerica, I have provided evidence that oceanic oscilations like the Arctic multidecadal oscilation is the major cause of Greenland warming. I provided a paper for this. I do not find Tamino's argument against it very convincing. Anyway, you believe that the Greenland warming of the past 20 years, so it is up to you to prove that hypothesis as well. So Sphaerica could you please provide proper empirical evidence that post 1980 Greenland warming is due to humans? "The argument that it must be proven that the cause of prior recent warming events is not the cause of current warming is like arguing that before anyone can be accused of a recent murder, the DA must first prove that all previous convicted murderers were not guilty of the latest crime. " Sphaerica in science, if you are trying to prove a hypothesis, such as one of causation, then you need to eliminate all other possible causes. Anyway, as I explained all I am saying is that current Greenland climate is not unprecedented in it's history.
88417. Ken Lambert at 00:25 AM on 16 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       In the absence of Tom's workings - I did a quick calculation of heat absorbed in the Arctic each year as follows: The decline in ice volume since 1979 is dramatically illustrated by this PIOMAS graph here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Chatter_box_March_26_2011.html The trend loss is -3.5E3 km3/decade Which is 3.5E11 m3/year = 3.5E14 kG/year. Latent heat of ice melt is 334kJ/kG, therefore 3.5E14 x 334000 = 1.17E20 Joules/year. This compares with 1E20 Joules/year for the period 2004-08 in Dr Trenberth's energy budget attributable to arctic ice loss.
88418. Alec Cowan at 00:24 AM on 16 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @Ken #116 (This is a partial reply. I'll follow it later)
       Do I detect the curled lip of the academic who is laughing on the other side of his face Alec?? ... When I have worked out how to tap into the rivers of gold flowing into paid research on climate science - I will do my own Argo analyses.
       Your detector is broken: I meant and still mean it. Many people, including I, have downloaded it and used it -in my case, in a third-wordly five years old computer- and nobody is getting paid for it. In fact, it takes much less time to scout the databases and learn a lot than commenting repetedly and fruitlessly in blogs. I have to practise my English and the heat of the debate promotes me thinking in English, what's your excuse?
       My simple calculation of the S-B relation with an OLR of about 240 W/sq.m and final emitting temperature of 255degK is like this: (255/254.25)^4 x 240 = 242.84. Increase in OLR = 2.84W/sq.m. for an increase in overall emitting temp of 0.75 degC. This is remarkably close to Dr Trenberth's 2.8W/sq.m increase in longwave radiation which suggests that the surface temp increase since pre-industrial times of 0.75 degC (at around 288 degK) is very close the the increased emitting temperature of the planet at around 255 degK.
       We're still talking about Earth, aren't we? Please, confirm that and your 255°K. Imagine the surprise of 15 degrees Celsius plus 240 watts per sq. meter becoming 255 degrees Kelvin and then being "remarkably close" to something slightly pertinent to the subject.
88419. Alec Cowan at 00:06 AM on 16 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @Gilles #115
       I thought the thread was about the interpretation of Dr Trenberth's quote, I think I have already answered : In my opinion, he just meant what he said: there is a lack of warming and it's a travesty we can't explain it.
       You do know he didn't (by the way, I call your technique "back to square one"): 1st)Your interpretation coincides with that of the "climategate mysticism", that is, phase 1: some words out of context are taken away and presented as a conspiratorial theory; phase 2: the person behind the words make clear he/she didn't mean it that way; phase 3: the people behind phase 1 try to cast shadows on 2, insist on 1, and suggest that 1+2 is like O.J. saying "I didn't do it", trying to promote the public associating the target with something reported at 6PM News. There are many techniques that are useful with ignorant folks in a laundrymat context ("If the dude didn't mean it, why didn't he sue the people pointing a finger to him? Eh!?) --- Iterate. In case the debate goes badly for your position, return to the last place you feel in control and on solid ground, that is, phase 1 (...back to square one...). 2nd) Why did you put almost a third of this thread's comments? Can you summarize the main points of what you have said so far?
       The blackbody at which temperature ?
       Really!? That is pretty obvious, there is a range of pertinent ones and the implications will not change. But I proposed that to Ken Lambert who appears to be knowledgeable. But I can make it easier for you: If some year's imbalance is, say, 0.9W/m²and the planet warms, will be next year the imbalance the same ceteris paribus.
88420. Adam at 00:01 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran the paper I gave you was published 17 months ago. That is plenty of time for a comment to have been submitted to the Journal and published. Yet there have been none. Dikran there has been no published critsicm of Klotzbach et al, and the points raised in the real climate article you gave me were, as shown by the authors, either erroneous or irrelevant. Dikran once again, in his graph Tamino used more surface data than satellite data. The use of those datasets would have obscured the trends in the satellite data. Anyway, it is pretty well established that the satellite data is different from the surface data, since it shows virtually no warming from 1979-1997. And compare it with the graph presented in this article There is a very clear warm bias in the surface temperature record. Once again I suggest you actually read Klotzbach's paper.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I am writing a reply to a paper at the moment, the original paper was published in 2009, mine isn't even submitted yet. The paper refuting Morners assertions about the satellite sea level data wasn't published until a couple of years later. So your initial comment is at variance with my personal experience. Your second comment is merely restating the comment I had addressed. That is a very weak rebuttal indeed. BTW, I only pointed you at the RealClimate page FYI, I didn't claim Klotzbach was wrong, and if you read the blog articles, they seem to view the paper as a bit of a curates egg and most of the problem is in the reporting of the paper in skeptical blogs. The silly ad-hominem (the source of an argument is irrelevant, correct science ocurs on blogs, incorrect science sometimes makes it through peer-review, rejecting information from a blog because it is from a blog is denialism) and demonstration of ignorance of scientific publishing hasn't done you any favours.

       If you want to compare the satelite and surface data, then try using plots for the same period on the same axes, woodfortrees is an excellent resource for that. Here is a comparison of UAH and HADCRUT datasets:

       

       Click the image for the source. Looks pretty similar to me. The slight displacement of one relative to the other is small, and due to (i) they use different baseline periods and (ii) they don't actually measure quite the same thing, so some difference is to be expected. The trends for this period are very similar 0.14 per decade for UAH and 0.15 per decade for HADCRUT. Play with the other dataset on woodfortrees for yourself - it is an excellent resource for checking up on claims about trends etc.

       I've just noticed that Woodfortrees already has a pre-prepared plot where they have adjusted for the difference in baseline periods used to define the anomalies for each products, there is no clear difference between the satellite products and the surface station data. The satellite products do have slightly lower trends, but that isn't unduly surprising, they are not measuring surface temperature, but a weighted average temperature of a thick slab of the lower troposphere.

       

       p.s. please use width=400 when posting images so they don't mess up the formatting on the site. I have inserted them for you on this occasion.

88421. Ken Lambert at 23:58 PM on 15 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Alec Cowan #114 "I suppose, as your appear to be commenting this in a knowledgeable manner, that you have downloaded and installed the interface to Argos data to do your own checks." Do I detect the curled lip of the academic who is laughing on the other side of his face Alec?? The Knox and Douglas paper is here: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Knox_Douglass_KD_IJG_InPress.pdf When I have worked out how to tap into the rivers of gold flowing into paid research on climate science - I will do my own Argo analyses. And by the way, Dr Trenberth calculated the increase in radiative feedback in Fig 4 of his famous paper here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf His number is -2.8W/sq.m. He explains this on page 23 thus: Dr Trenberth: "However, the observed surface warming [2] of 0.75 degC if added to the radiative equilibrium temperature of the planet would result in a compensating increase in longwave radiation of 2.8 W m2 (Figure 4) (although this does not translate into OLR)" My simple calculation of the S-B relation with an OLR of about 240 W/sq.m and final emitting temperature of 255degK is like this: (255/254.25)^4 x 240 = 242.84. Increase in OLR = 2.84W/sq.m. for an increase in overall emitting temp of 0.75 degC. This is remarkably close to Dr Trenberth's 2.8W/sq.m increase in longwave radiation which suggests that the surface temp increase since pre-industrial times of 0.75 degC (at around 288 degK) is very close the the increased emitting temperature of the planet at around 255 degK. The doubling of CO2 theory requires an approx 3 degC rise at the surface for a 1 degC rise in emitting temperature which equates to a 3.7W/sq.m increase in OLR. One wonders why the current emitting temp increase is not significantly less than 0.75 deg surface increase if the enhanced CO2GHG effect is already causing an extra insulating effect in the atmosphere. This is a good question for Dr Trenberth, unless you have an answer to share with us.
88422. José M. Sousa at 23:36 PM on 15 April 2011
       Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
       Done!
88423. KR at 23:03 PM on 15 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP - "Stephan Boltzmann's Law ... contains the letter A. A is for area. What is the surface area when you are talking about energy delivered in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, or ocean water cooling a nuclear power plant? " (emphasis added) Are you arguing, then, that our energy use fails to radiate because it's more concentrated? Well, at least that's a fairly new one... But that's a complete 'fail' as an argument - Trenberth pointed out that his initial energy budget underestimated surface radiation (390 W/m^2 vs 396 W/m^2 in the 2009 update), due to the T^4 relationship and temperature variances. Variances from an even temperature increase outgoing IR (cooling the planet more) because an upwards variance puts out much more energy than a downward variance inhibits. So to the extent that our energy use is concentrated it's warming effects will be minimized - you argue against yourself. Secondly, you've argued that waste heat is causing the warming we attribute to GHG's - but warming increases radiation to space, so again there's no "accumulation". In fact, if waste heat was the cause of warming, we would see an increase in outward IR due to the planet being over equilibrium temperature, rather than the observed decrease as the climate catches up to the GHG forcing. ----- New readers: All of this is covered in the previous months of discussion on this thread. "Waste heat" as a cause of global warming is two orders of magnitude too small to be the issue despite RSVP's fixation on it, and I would encourage anyone interested in the issue to just read the post at the top and follow the thread if you have more questions. DNFTT.
88424. Gilles at 22:54 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       7 : Sphaerica : translated into temperature, and barring any romantic hyperbole, I'm curious to know what is your prediction on the expected temperature trend for the next 50 years, as a function of the carbon emissions we could reach ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Trollometer reading: |========--|

       Why not construct some emissions scenarios that cover what you think might happen over the next 50 (or 100) years, and then run those scenarios through a range of leading climate models, performing multiple runs for each model to capture both the uncertainty in the model physics and internal variability. Then put the results into a publically available archive so that the results can be analysed by anyone who chose to do so. Oh yeah, I forgot, the IPCC have already done that haven't they? The predictions of just that from the leading experts in the field are available in the WG1 report, why troll for predictions on blogs?

       

       Click image for details. I suggest not indulging Gilles' trolling (unless of course Sphaerica disagrees with the IPCC projections).

88425. Bob Lacatena at 22:31 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       60, Adam,

       ...could you please state what forcing caused the previous Greenland warming of 60 years ago, and why you don't believe it is causing the current one?

       Um, actually, this isn't how science works. We have an established, explicable mechanism (GHG theory), supported by empirical evidence, which explains the recent warming in Greenland. We do not have the same for the warming 60 years ago (partly because there is no way to go back in time and get measurements that weren't taken), but we know that it could not have been greenhouse gases. That's all fine. Nothing in proving GHG theory requires us to explain all climate events prior to the current period. If you wish to argue that whatever caused the warming in Greenland 60 years ago is also the current cause, then it falls to you to first develop a hypothesis, then test it and find evidence to support it, and then to put forth that hypothesis for current warming, and then further test that, and find evidence to support that. The argument that it must be proven that the cause of prior recent warming events is not the cause of current warming is like arguing that before anyone can be accused of a recent murder, the DA must first prove that all previous convicted murderers were not guilty of the latest crime.
88426. Eric (skeptic) at 22:27 PM on 15 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Ian, "sensitivity" is sometimes given a very narrow definition, especially here. That definition is the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm. Some people extend that definition further to say any doubling. I have never seen that backed up with models (e.g. showing a 3C rise or even 2-5C range when going from 50 to 100 ppm of CO2 or any other doubling). Sometimes, sensitivity is given a broader definition as it was in this thread #46, in Dana1981's response to me. That definition is "the observed GAT response to known CO2 forving over a substantial interval of time (e.g. since the industrial revolution)". The problem with using that definition is that part of the rise in GAT since the industrial revolution is natural and that the amplification of CO2 warming by increases in water vapor is highly variable due to weather even on decadal timescales. In one specific case, the dominance of El Nino (a weather phenomenon) in the 1990's created a situation in which CO2 warming was more amplified by water vapor since El Nino creates more water vapor even without CO2 warming. In the looser definition of sensitivity, the response to CO2 forcing is variable and based on weather.
88427. Bob Lacatena at 22:19 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       5, Lassesson,

       I'm just qurious about Evan's argument...

       Yes, I saw that, too. I was very impressed with what a clever bit of trickery that was. "Why should we bother to change? It will barely reverse things." It's sort of like telling a cancer patient "why bother with chemotherapy, it will only shrink your tumors by 5%" when without chemotherapy the tumors will grow so fast that the patient will be dead within a week.
88428. Gilles at 22:18 PM on 15 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       "Most of published works go that way, but I'm waiting for Gilles to completely explain/expose himself on this subject prior to provide the links and comment the conclusions." I thought the thread was about the interpretation of Dr Trenberth's quote, I think I have already answered : In my opinion, he just meant what he said: there is a lack of warming and it's a travesty we can't explain it. "Also, when you checked Hansen's 0.9W/m2 against the black body, what ΔT did you get?" The blackbody at which temperature ?
88429. Bob Lacatena at 22:15 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       What is every bit as frightening is the list of comments on Evan's post. Admittedly, modern publications tend very much to write for their readers, so one should expect that the readership there will be primarily, rabidly, anti-science. But it's still alarming. Sadly, at this point in time, I see two ways to get policy and understanding on track. Both are inevitable, but both will take time... at least another five years, maybe ten or fifteen. The first way is that as temperatures continue to rise, the denial engine will have a tougher and tougher time. As soon as a single year passes 1998 (and at least one in the next five will do so, if not more), the "it's cooling" argument will go away, and it's going to shock a lot of people into rethinking things. The Arctic, glaciers, extreme weather (much of which actually won't be properly attributable to climate change), and other sign posts will contribute. The second is that, quite simply, the old, tired, arrogant crowd of retired-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands deniers needs to fade away. This is going to insult a lot of people, but I'm sorry, it's true, and it needs to be said. The young need to wake up and take responsibility for and control of the future of this planet. It's far too easy for a bunch of grumpy old retired engineers who think they know it all to spend all day posting comments on blogs, dismissing the science and spewing reams of information supporting their crackpot theories. I will bet that if you conducted a poll, you'd find that 90% of the people posting the hateful, ignorant and obnoxious comments on climate change are 50+ years old, and at least 75% are 60+. The people with the least to lose by letting the planet burn to a cinder, and the most to gain by making sure things continue with business as usual, are, I am sure, that loud, vocal, aging minority whose vociferousness give the illusion that denialism is a populist movement. So as time goes on, those people will fade. Eventually, the truth will be quite undeniable, and the people who need to worry about the future (the young) will finally get motivated to wake up, learn, speak up, and take action. The "speak up" part is big. Very big. The young people of the world need to do what the youth of the 60s did in America with the Vietnam war. It needs to be important, and they need to be vocal, and they need to remind everyone that it is their lives and misfortunes that are being put on the line for other people's gain and fortunes. The young bear all of the risk, while the older one gets, the more one directly benefits from ignoring the problem. Really, this is a call to arms. A grass roots campaign of both education and, more importantly, voice needs to start in the universities of the West.
88430. Alec Cowan at 21:23 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       @Adam Why did you change from "Poptech" to "Adam"?
88431. Adam at 21:17 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran Tamino used several datasets in his graph, using more more surface station data than satellite data. The fact that his graph used mainly surface data (which showed higher warming trends), would cover up the smaller trends shown in the satellite data. Once again, I suggest you read the paper I gave you.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If the satellite trends lie within the spread of the surface station data, that means the satellite and surface station trends are statistically similar (within their respective uncertainties). If there was a meaningful difference between the surface station trends and the satellite trends, the satellite trends would not be covered up by the surface station trends.
88432. Adam at 21:14 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran once again, blog posts (real climate) are not published and do not warrant a reply. Only published criticism counts. Anyway, the real climate article in question has indeed been refuted. See here and here.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Very few papers that are incorrect are ever the subject published comments, generally the just get ignored and end up with few citations. It is also too early to be sure that any comments papers have appeared yet, they take time to write and to get through peer review. If you are only going to accept published refutations then it is obviously disingenuous to raise a paper for discussion before there has been a proper chance for those refutations to have appeared. Besides that, if blog posts don't count, that means you will not accept any refutation given here anyway, so what is the point in anyone discussing it with you?
88433. Alec Cowan at 21:11 PM on 15 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @Ken Lambert #113 Be so gracious of providing the links. About Purkey & Johnson, do they (and you) mean this? [Which is one of many works showing warming in abyssal waters and in southernmost basins]. Most of published works go that way, but I'm waiting for Gilles to completely explain/expose himself on this subject prior to provide the links and comment the conclusions. I suppose, as your appear to be commenting this in a knowledgeable manner, that you have downloaded and installed the interface to Argos data to do your own checks. How did it go? Also, when you checked Hansen's 0.9W/m² against the black body, what ΔT did you get? What conclusions did you reach? And the supposedly cooling oceans and sea level variation, what conclusion did you get from your reality check? It speaks volumes about a person whether he or she did that or didn't. This kind of forums or comment sections are plenty of polemicists amateurs, would-be dialecticians and assorted dilettanti. One would better think it twice before asserting that salmons disprove that rivers flow from mountains to seas.
88434. Adam at 20:51 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Daniel Bailey Tamino's graph was indeed a mixture of all the datasets, but the satellite trends were mostly covered up by the surface temp trends. I am not 'goal shifting'. I was focusing on Greenland temps, but Albatross was the one who made the claim that the sun could not have caused post 1970 climate change. I was simply answering, and providing a paper counter to his opinion, which simply involved tropospheric data. KR if CO2 was having at least some effect, then you would expect there to be a correlation. You're argument that there is no correlation because co2 is not the only driver of climate, pretty much shows that natural forces will always overwhelm the effect caused by CO2. The Greenland warming of 60 years ago was just the same as the current warming. They were exactly parallel to each other. I don't believe that it just a simple coincidence. Once again could you please state what forcing caused the previous Greenland warming of 60 years ago, and why you don't believe it is causing the current one?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If the satelite trends were mostly covered up by the surface trends, does that not imply that the satelite tends are essentially the same as the surface trends? You might want to clarify that.
88435. Adam at 20:40 PM on 15 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Daniel Bailey and Albatross, if there is no warm bias in the surface temperature record could you please explain why there is such a huge difference between satellite data and thermometer readings? Read the following paper: 'An alternative explanation for differential trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere' by Klotzbach et published in the 'Journal of Geophysical Research (2009)
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This has been discussed elsewhere, see e.g. this RealClimate article and links therein.
88436. Lassesson at 20:06 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       I'm just qurious about Evan's argument saying "Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide [...] it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees." Compared to what? Compared to today? But how much warmer will it be if we do nothing?
88437. David Horton at 19:54 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       It is every piece of nonsense from every thread on every blog, all combined into one. I don't know what kind of mental process allows someone to keep copying and repeating these mistakes, without also reading the answers to them. And just on one old familiar line "evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming" - perhaps he should be asked to explain, in that case, how the climate has changed so radically in the past? Or does the "dampening" only happen when humans insist on burning all the stored carbon?
88438. Gilles at 19:53 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       "As these figures show, estimates from both models and observational data consistently find that the most likely climate sensitivity value is approximately 3°C for a doubling of CO2. " Sorry again, but the concept of "likelihood" is totally irrelevant when aggregating a number of heterogeneous measurements and computations, none of which being really strictly speaking validated. Basing a theory of the motion of planets on the number of proposals and texts and giving a "likelihood" to the geocentric hypothesis on this criterion would have been utterly wrong - they all have been ruined by some minutes of observations of the phases of Venus by Galileo. What is worth is irrefutable scientific facts - not the number of erroneous proposals that have been made here and there. Because if the climate sensitivity has really a meaningful physical value (which is not granted) , the vast majority of all values is wrong, and if it hasn't, they're all wrong.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Trollometer reading; |=========_|

       The use of "likelihood" and "likely" in either the subjectivist or objectivist Bayesian sense is perfectly reasonable. The theory of AGW is based on well understood physics: Gilles, please go and read this book to get an idea of the historical development of the theory (it is a collection of the foundational papers with commentary) and then this book to get an overview of the basic concepts. Climate sensitivity is a well-defined physical concept, whether you grant that or not, see the IPCC WG1 report. I suggest otherwise DNFTT is the correct approach here.

88439. David K at 19:45 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Credibility or accuracy seems to not be of importance to climate deniers - they know that people will continue to cite their posts long after they get debunked. Exposing Climate Denialism
88440. José M. Sousa at 19:21 PM on 15 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Maybe it is worth saying that he is not a climate modeler nor has he published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change according to desmogblog: http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
88441. Gilles at 18:13 PM on 15 April 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       so as DM reminded us several times, a scientific theory cannot be proved, but it can be disproved-actually it *is* scientific only if it *can* be disproved. So in your opinion, what could disprove AGW theory ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Trollometer reading: |========--|

       The IPCC WG1 report is full of falsifiable predictions, pick one. Additional hint, a theory about climate is unlikely to be falsified by an observation of weather; they are not the same thing. I'm glad to see you have got the idea of falsificationism at last though, and are talking about disproving rather proving theories. That at least is some progress.

88442. Gilles at 18:07 PM on 15 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       so 1t C producing 3t CO2, what Jaccard proposes is about 600 $/t C China currently burns about 3 Gt C/yr. What you propose is to tax them up to 1800 G$/yr The average income of chinese people is about 3000 $/yr/cap, giving about 4000 G$/yr what you propose means taxing half of the income of people much poorer than western ones. I'm sure this will impact their consumption - I'm not sure they will accept it.
88443. Dikran Marsupial at 18:07 PM on 15 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       Denial Maris is still just trolling, however it is good to see he has looked at a scientific paper, if not actually read it, at least he has scanned it for comments he can use out of context. This does show one of the difficulties scientists will face communicating with the general public, namely the issue of statistical significance. Very few in the general public really understand it, Daniel certainly doesn't. The increase in the rate of sea level rise that you might get from a model based calculation is going to be very small, compared with the uncertainty in the observations (see the figure). At this point, even if you were exactly correct, you would not expect the increase in rate to be statistically significant. The scientists will almost always test for statistical significance anyway and honesty report the outcome. This makes it very easy for denialists to make a hyperbolic claim as Daniel just did, that ignores that point. For another example, see the dishonest reporting of Prof. Jones' comment about statistical significance, he was honest and straightforward, and completely misrepresented by the skeptic blogs and media. I suggest we just ignore him, at least until he can demonstrate that he is not simply a denialist troll, but going back and acknowledging (including a clear statement of his position) the answers given you the previous questions he has posed.
88444. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:56 PM on 15 April 2011
       Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
       Let me add a quote from this website: “Ultimately, breakthroughs in our understanding of Earth's climate evolution will come from close interactions between paleoproxy experts, paleoclimate modelers, and climate dynamicists. It is time to train a new generation of scientists familiar with all these fields.”
88445. Dikran Marsupial at 17:49 PM on 15 April 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Rovinpiper I expect you are referring to the old "no warming since 1998" canard and its variants. Yes, the models do predict there will be occasional periods of a decade or two with little or no warming (or even slight cooling), even in the presence of a long term warming due to e.g. CO2 radiative forcing (i.e. AGW). See the paper by Easterling and Wehner. The models can't predict when this will happen (as it is "weather" rather than "climate") but they clearly do predict that it will happen. Yes, this does get pointed out on a regular basis, but skeptic blogs have a tendency to keep trotting out the same tired canards again and again, even though they have been debunked on a regular basis.
88446. RSVP at 17:37 PM on 15 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       MichaelM 382 "Why do you stop at 200 years? " I said "generally approaches zero" just for the reason, otherwise I would have said "reaches" zero. As long as it has been growing, you are right. And the issue (I believe) is not overall climate change, but that part which is due to humans.
88447. RSVP at 17:29 PM on 15 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       KR 379 "You're still claiming that energy use is somehow qualitatively different from greenhouse gas entrapment, that the heat from energy use doesn't radiate IR like the heat from the sun " Remember the form of the Stephan Boltzmann's Law that relates to what you are talking about contains the letter A. A is for area. What is the surface area when you are talking about energy delivered in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, or ocean water cooling a nuclear power plant?
88448. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:15 PM on 15 April 2011
       Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
       @Albatross “So I am afraid that your papers are irrelevant to this discussion.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The changes described in the cited papers that I was rapidly and quickly - today are identical. External factors described for the past - are discussed, eg a direct effect of the TSI and volcanoes - not to prove. If past IMP was able to cause rapidly and quickly changes, perhaps eg as stochastic remainder D.-O. ... Abrupt glacial climate changes due to stochastic resonance, Ganopolski and Rahmstorf 2002., Centennial-to-millennial-scale Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region induced by noise, Prange, Jongma and Schulz, 2010., Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity, Loehle &Singer, 2010. Sure you can say that so much the worse for current warming - a small impulse - RF CO2 - a powerful change ... Therefore, you can also say, however, and that a further increase p.CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant when all process of feedback has been running ... “The NIPCC is not a credible source of scientific information. It is propaganda and nothing more than a elaborate misinformation document.” 1. Please prove it on the example cited by me - instead of using "ad hominem” and invective. 2. NIPCC says the same about the IPCC. Christy is an eminent scientist - to discredit him, have done better. @Stephen Baines “... paleo climate changes and are consistent with GHE and AGW ...” - with very, very large range of possible error - yes. I think we detailed "to discuss” the Holocene Optimum and its abrupt end - in a separate post.
88449. MichaelM at 17:11 PM on 15 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP 381 Why do you stop at 200 years? Prior to that the energy released must have been smaller but had been accumulating for 1000's of years surely? Why is visible light not accumulating also?
88450. RSVP at 16:48 PM on 15 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       pbjamm 377 "How much energy are we talking about here? " If the value 0.028 W/m2 is correct, simply multiply this by the surface area of the Earth and then multiply by the years for which this value is the case. The total time is around 200 years, while the value 0.028 generally approaches zero as you go backwards.

Prev  1761  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  Next