Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 Next
Comments 88451 to 88500:
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:58 AM on 16 April 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
4, Gilles,...but I really don't understand
The first accurate thing I've seen you post all week. Seriously, though, in this case you are confusing yourself, and making things far more complicated than they need to be. Why do you say "if the variation is not due to an external cause and not the injection of CO2?" That statement makes no sense to me, because I don't see where it came from. You go on to say:...what is really measured is the sensitivity of CO2 with respect to...
What is measured is not CO2 with respect to temperature or sensitivity of temperature to CO2. What is measured is sensitivity of temperature to temperature. That is, any forcing that drives the temperature up (or down) by X will actually drive it up (or down), after all feedbacks have come into play, by a total of 3X to 4X. It doesn't matter if the initial forcing is from CO2 or something else, or if part of the positive feedback is from CO2. The takeaway from this is that if we drive CO2 to a point where we expect it to raise temperatures by 1˚C, climate sensitivity will further drive temperatures farther up by a total of 3˚C to 4˚C. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:50 AM on 16 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
@ climatewolf "as a 50/50 skeptic" and "I look to the deniers/skeptics to ask questions" With all due respect, CW, taking the position that (in climate science) both "sides" have equal weight (which you imply by your looking to the denialists for questions to ask) shows how far you truly have to go to become informed. There is no shame in being uninformed in regards to things climate. Getting an interdisciplinary background in enough depth to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the field is hard work. To be honest, it's a pain in the ass, taking dedication, sweat and perseverance beyond measure. In reality, there are 3 "sides": 1. Those who've spent a LONG time studying the field and are trying, as best as they know how, to share that hard-won knowledge. 2. The uninformed masses who are understandably preoccupied with the struggle to stay alive long enough to see another morning dawn 3. Everyone else. This includes the disinformationists, like at CA or WUWT, the Kochites, the Idso's, Moncktonites, the Heartlanders, etc. They are well-funded and they are legion. They simply do not have the facts or the science on their side. We do the best job we can to provide the most fair-balanced and objective science-based and sourced articles that we can. Period. Truth is truth. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Muller is wrong WRT the topic of this thread. Period. So, whenever possible, get to the source. Read the studies themselves, the peer-reviewed journals where possible. Exercise your skepticism of the disinformationist side: demand from them fair balanced pieces based on the science. Check their sources for proper quotation & interpretation. And check ours as well. /Rant The Yooper -
Tom Curtis at 10:43 AM on 16 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Ken Lambert @66: 1) You forgot to compensate for the lower density of ice, which is 917 kg/m^3 which reduces your figure to 1.07*10^20 Joules per year. 2) You forgot to include loss of ice from the Greenland ice shelf, which is around 250 gigatonnes per year, which requires 0.835*10^20 Joules per year to melt. 3) You forgot the annual average increase in arctic (>80 degrees North) temperatures of 2 degrees over 30 odd years. The area of the increase is 3.8*10^12 m^2, and assuming an average depth of 100 meters warmed, with a specific heat of 3.93 KJ/Kg, represents 4.3*10^20 J per annum. 4) You forgot to include melted permafrost (which I can't quantify). 5) You forgot to include increased heat taken to the ocean depths by the thermo-haline conveyor (which again I can't quantify). 6) You forgot to include reduced seasonal snow cover (which again I can't quantify). 7) You forgot to included any reduction in heat transport from the tropics due to the reduced temperature gradient between tropics and arctic (which again I can't quantify). Once you have factored in all these factors, perhaps then you can make a sensible comparison to Flanner's estimated increase in forcing due to loss of sea ice. -
Alec Cowan at 10:41 AM on 16 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
@Gilles #119 You are just repeating the technique with some variations. You simply repeat the quote of phase 1 in shortened version ("The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming") but preceded by your "Trenberth was talking of the lack of warming of oceans and curiously, he said " what is quite a fabrication. Why don't you quote the whole e-mail? You are just playing with language: you play with "oceans" trying to suggest it was the whole oceans, you play with "the observations" trying to suggest "all observations". What tops it all is your "problematic observations" and "we need to find another explanation". The first one suggest there are observed values that are "problematic" because the observer doesn't like what she observes. That's the way you work, not the observer. The second one, instead of looking for the missed values, it suggests a theoretical substitution is needed. You simply carve each word and try to get the most of your disinformation techniques. When you start quoting the original e-mail we'll be able to start analyzing what he said. -
climatewolf at 10:29 AM on 16 April 2011Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data
Hi All, I totally agree, if Muller is referring to the Mann 1998 reconstruction then he has his facts totally and utterly wrong as the "climategate" affair is to my mind entirely proven as relating to the Briffa not Mann reconstruction and its inclusion in the WMO article. I assume therefore that from Mullers POV, ANY reconstruction that follows the Mann 1998 basic shape is fair game as being a hockey stick graph. My concern is whether by getting into this level of detail you are getting drawn into the debate over the minutia rather than the keeping the discussion where it belongs on the overall big picture. I completely get that this site is here provide good scientific evidence to refute deniers. You do an excellent job of that, but as a 50/50 skeptic I look to you to provide me with a balanced logical aproach so that I can make informed judgements and decisions. I look to the deniers/skeptics to ask questions, many of which should be asked I look to the sites such as this to provide answers. Getting drawn in on these minor issues to my mind dilutes the argument until we end up with a witch hunt on who said what when and how. Anyway, just my thoughts. Regards Wolf -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:28 AM on 16 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles... You really need to look no further than the two sentences that follow in the actual email in order to understand what Trenberth was talking about: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. 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." [My emphasis.] -
adelady at 10:25 AM on 16 April 2011Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
logicman - I think we're now into the territory best described as 'several'. -
Gilles at 10:12 AM on 16 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
sorry but why does he estimates that the tax must reach so a high value if alternatives are much cheaper ? i don't understand - as soon as the tax makes FF more expensive than alternatives, people should switch to them - so why go so high ? -
Gilles at 10:02 AM on 16 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
"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" sorry, but the words seem perfectly in the context - Trenberth was talking of the lack of warming of oceans and curiously, he said "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming" - I don't see out of which context it could be ? "; phase 2: the person behind the words make clear he/she didn't mean it that way; " he didn't say that IMHO. He said that it didn"t think that it meant that global warming has stopped - but nevertheless, he really said that there was a lack of warming in the observations - that required an explanation. I really don't see what worries you : there are obvious problematic observations (the lack of warming of the known heat sinks), and we need to find another explanation. That's a very current situation in science, so I don't see why you are so reluctant to understand thatResponse:[DB] Still oh-so-wrong. Cue Dr. Trenberth himself:
In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.
The paper on this is available here:
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001.
This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can't fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has. A major La Niña was underway in 2008, since June 2009 we have gone into an El Niño and the highest sea surface temperatures on record have been recorded in July 2009. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Riccardo - So true, so true; in RSVP's universe that hot ball of gas doesn't emit thermal radiation... Reductio ad truly absurdum - (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") -
Gilles at 09:46 AM on 16 April 2011What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
but I really don't understand : if the variation is not due to an external cause and not the injection of CO2, what is really measured is the sensitivity of CO2 with respect to temperature , not the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 - in other term, it is the other factor of a retroaction loop B=dCO2/dT and not A = dT/dCO2 (actually the dT/dCO2 is B^-1) what is true is that the product A.B = f , the retroaction factor, giving eventually a 1/(1-f) amplification factor. But f must be <1 to avoid a catastrophic runaway, meaning B^-1 > A , so the dT/dCO2 measured is an upper bound of the sensitivity - NOT the sensitivity. Of course a large amplification factor means f close to 1, so B^-1 is close to A , giving an approximate equal value. However this assumes that f is really close to 1 ... -
logicman at 09:42 AM on 16 April 2011Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Moderator Response: [DB] "I'm not the smartest kid on the block" That makes... (counts on fingers)... two of us. :) Make that - er - well, one more than two. :) -
dana1981 at 09:19 AM on 16 April 2011Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
Very nice job John and Matthew! -
Chris Colose at 09:09 AM on 16 April 2011David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
Jay Cadbury, Richard Lindzen was correct to point out that C-C only tells us the upper bound on the amount of water vapor that can build up in the atmosphere (i.e., for any given temperature, C-C tells you how high you can make the partial pressure of water vapor before the vapor starts to condense into liquid or ice). C-C doesn't actually say anything about whether that upper bound is reached, and in fact in a global sense, the atmosphere is not at saturation. Even more to the point, there is no simple theory for how the free troposphere humidity should change in a warming world, as this involves an interplay between dynamics and fluid dynamics and cannot be reduced to the C-C relation. What's important for the water vapor feedback however is that the water vapor "concentration" goes up with temperature, and if *relative humidity* is nearly invariant over a small range of temperature changes, then that means the vapor pressure at least scales with the percent increase you'd expect from C-C, so both the saturation and specific humidities must rise proportionally. Even if relative humidity goes down by some unknown drying mechanism, it would take quite a bit for this to overwhelm the C-C equation and force the feedback to be negative, and this is not seen in any observations or models, and is completely inconsistent with the magnitude of climate changes in the past. There are conceivable ways in principle to make a negative water vapor feedback without violating any first-principle physics, and Lindzen proposed one idea for doing so back in the '90s but observations didn't support his hypothesis...that's when he gave that idea up and jumped onto a cloud thermostat instead, the so-called "IRIS hypothesis." A large number of papers by the likes of Brian Soden, Andrew Dessler and others who work at the interface of modeling, observations, and theory have shown that the water vapor feedback is unequivocally positive. -
logicman at 09:08 AM on 16 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
I have been a bit slow with my writing due to illness. Today, I finally managed to finish my April ice report. In it I show how the way that the Nares ice bridge formed led me to predict a too early breakup. http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_april_2011-78127 -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
I'm pretty convinced this is Poptech based on a Mises rant that I dragged out of him one day. -
pbjamm at 08:29 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
KR@99 While it is technically possible to change your IP, and Poptech has admitted to being a computer system administrator (or something similar)I do not think that Adam is the same person. They employ alot of the same arguments and technique but the tone is different. I have encountered these same arguments and methods from people I know are not Poptech. Adam != Poptech in my opinion, but they are are equally wrong. -
ahaynes at 08:00 AM on 16 April 2011Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
I haven't watched the video, text being faster, but - I hope it notes that (& distinguishes between) a) getting more snow with *local* warming, if winters were cold enough already; and b) getting more snow due to global warming that causes local cooling, if the Arctic "freezer door" gets stuck open. Where I live, this winter we've been getting lots of Arctic-air storms, so many more snowfalls than usual. -
robert test at 07:56 AM on 16 April 2011Last day to vote for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Done. I'm not the smartest kid on the block and as soon as math beyond simple algebra gets into the picture I tend to lose the ability to follow the argument. But this site doesn't overwhelm me too often and its usually the first place I go each day when I get home from work in hopes that a new article has been posted. In communicating the essential ideas behind the science of climate change to the general public Skeptical Science is at the top.Moderator Response: [DB] "I'm not the smartest kid on the block" That makes... (counts on fingers)... two of us. :) -
chudiburg at 07:39 AM on 16 April 2011It's cooling
Johnd #151...So should I use a crystal ball or tea leaves? What do you recommend? We are talking about science here man. Can you propose a mechanism by which these sensory-special organisms actually predict changes in climate? Weather maybe, and of course seasonal changes, but climate? -
dana1981 at 07:03 AM on 16 April 2011David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
Jay, I recommend this document from Pierrehumbert et al. -
Riccardo at 06:59 AM on 16 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Following RSVP, the sun doesn't shine. Don't believe your lying eyes! -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:44 AM on 16 April 2011David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
Can anyone comment on the Clausius–Clapeyron equation? This is interesting to me as Ralph Cicerone made a similar argument in congress but Richard Lindzen rebutted him and said that the Clausius-Clapeyron equation tells us nothing about our atmosphere(paraphrasing).Moderator Response: [DB] Jay, I believe Chris Colosse covered that in this post: What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?, in which he deals with the specific testimony you mention. -
Alec Cowan at 06:39 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
@KR #99 I see what you mean, but he only had to answer directly "I'm not that Poptech person you insist I am, and I've never used that name nor I know a person who uses that name nor I am related to such person in any way, so cut the manure and reply my arguments". I acted on the assumption these kind of persons think they are crystal honest so they can avoid giving an answer but they don't lie in a way they know they are lying -they lie and manipulate all the time, but they believe that they're honest and have a fair cause-. Then I asked the question and no answer was given; we got just another turn of the screw following the previous behavioural pattern. Even more, if I remember well, the last post included something about temperature records being unreliable from 1985 on, because thousands of US weather stations were removed from the datasets. Add some background music like "God bless America" and you'll have an argument that is trademarked by Poptech across the web. -
Composer99 at 06:32 AM on 16 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Apologies for the slight OT comment: Might I suggest that the graph in Figure 1 and perhaps also the graph in the moderator reply to daniel maris be added to to the Climate Graphics resource page here at SkS?Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks, but John's time is needed to create the HQ versions placed there; I can mention it to him, but in the meantime feel free to bookmark those graphics (I provided placeholders to the SkS locations of the files). -
daniel maris at 06:25 AM on 16 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Dikran - You and others here have a very odd view of science. ( -Snip- ). Perfectly reasonable questions about the impact of the sea level rise are dismissed as unscientific, when they patently are not. I suggest people take a look at this page from the UK's National Oceanography Centre - http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/q_and_a/#5 ( -Snip- ). ( -Snip- ). ( -Snip- ).Moderator Response: [DB] More trolling (snipped); DNFTT. [Dikran Marsupial] Do follow the link to the U.K.'s National Oceanography Centre. -
It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
DM, Alec, others - I quite frankly doubt that Adam==Poptech; the word choices appear different, and there's a level of snarkiness Poptech displays that I haven't seen with Adam. Keep in mind - there is (sadly) no limit on the number of people who's opinions, discussion tactics, logical fallacies, and approach we might find distasteful. -
Albatross at 06:01 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Dikran, Thanks. Bear with me here. Do they weight the stations' mean monthly temperatures or the monthly anomalies? Regardless, as you probably know CCC and Tamino have addresses the 1990s station dropout issue and found it makes little, if any, difference.Moderator Response: [DB] User caerbannog posted a comment on that issue here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=80&&n=504#36422 with a full guest post here:A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - "In the case of heat convecting directly into fluids such as air and water, A (the area) equals zero since there are no solid objects radiating anything. ... If A is zero, J is zero, which means energy radiated is zero." Horribly, horribly wrong, RSVP. Water radiates from its surface, gases radiate as well, with the W/m^2 being the flux that gas will radiate through a 1 m^2 area - scaled from your detector aperture. Solid, liquid, gas, plasma - all matter above absolute zero radiates some thermal energy. Here's a hint - a non-zero emissivity means thermal radiation. Water, for example, has an IR emissivity of 0.98, almost black body levels. Your post is complete nonsense. You've been a participant here for quite some time, RSVP - why are you grasping at what aren't even straws in this case? You should know better by now! -
Alec Cowan at 05:57 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Thank you, Daniel. I tried to get the antipodal location but I missed by some 700km, I think. Anyway, it took me less than five minutes and it cost me nothing. I have to change my password now because I had to login from the fake address, so Uncle Chang knows it (anyway, I don't think geopolitical balance is going to change because of that piece of information) -
RSVP at 05:29 AM on 16 April 2011Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR 385 Going here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law it happens to say... "To find the total absolute power of energy radiated for an object we have to take into account the surface area, A(in m2)" In the case of heat convecting directly into fluids such as air and water, A (the area) equals zero since there are no solid objects radiating anything. We are talking about air and water. The SB law refers to solid black and grey bodies. Conclusion. If A is zero, J is zero, which means energy radiated is zero. -
muoncounter at 05:19 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
DM, Adam rests his argument on the fiction that modern surface temperatures are not reliable because there are too few stations. I don't care whether he thinks that's true or not; it is, however, a sword that cuts both ways. He cannot have too few stations now = bad and too few stations in the early part of the century = good. If he insists on that, then he is clearly a lost cause. If he continues to insist on that, then he's clearly another Poptech.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I fully agree, he tried the same trick with GISTEMP, HADCRUT, re. effect of Arctic coverage on computation of trends. In both cases, he can't have it both ways! -
Albatross at 04:43 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Dikran @93, Isn't the other reason that the station dropout is a null issue, because if anything removing those northern stations should have reduced the global SAT anomaly, because those northern stations are warming fastest? That is, those northern stations have the greatest positive anomalies.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I'm not sure that is the case as the area-based averaging would then be giving higher weight to the remaining stations in that region (which are also warming faster). Essentially the reason for the area weighted averaging is to compensate for the differences in the density of stations across the globe, so altering the local density shouldn't change anything significantly. I'd have to investigate the exact algorithms in more detail to be more confident.N.B. note that I have just argued against a point that would have strengthened my argument (had I though it was correct). When did you last see that from the "skeptics" here. ;o)
-
Alec Cowan at 04:33 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Please, Daniel Bailey, check my IP for this message and my previous message.Response:[DB] Nice teaching moment. Since this is clearly a demonstration, Alec has changed his IP address from his home country in South America to this:
IP Address Location
IP Address 122.85.40.120
City Beijing
State or Region Beijing
Country China
ISP China Tietong Telecommunications Corporation.
Latitude & Longitude 39.900000 116.413000 MapG MapV
Domain CHINATIETONG.COMSo the moral is this: If it acts like, Poptech, sounds like Poptech and argues like Poptech, it could be Poptech. I will confer with John on this.
-
muoncounter at 04:18 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam#88: Sorry, gentlemen, but I can't let this slip. Promise, it's my last shot at this particular troll. "the surface temperature record was fine until about 1985, when there was a huge decline in the number of temperature stations used." So you state that fewer stations means less accurate surface temperatures. "saying that post 1919 surface temp record is fine means that the current surface temp record is just fine, is just wrong." Nonsense. You can't have it both ways. How many surface stations were there in Greenland in 1919? How many surface stations are there now? More is better according to you; if there are more surface stations now, the modern temperature record is more accurate. You cannot argue 'Greenland disproves AGW' without violating this basic tenet of denialism. If you cannot accept the basic demands of logic, you have no argument. Give it up. "co2 was much higher 60 years ago" That's just plain wrong. Enough said.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] IIRC, the old canard about there being a problem because of a drop out in the number of stations seems to go back to this image produced by Ross McKittrick,
Which shows a discontinuity in the temperatures that coincides with the scrapping of a number of stations, most of which were apparently in Northerly locations. Looks convincing doesn't it, until you plot the actual annual surface temperature record for the same period
Hey, what happened to the huge leap in 1990? The answer is simple, the temperature plot used by McKitterick is merely an unweighted average of all of the station data, whereas climatologists use an area weighted average in order to avoid the bias that would otherwise be caused by the fact that there are many more stations in the industrialised north than elsewhere. So although the number of northerly stations was cut in the 80s/90s, it doesn't introduce a warm bias, because of the way the averaging of stations is done by the climatologists who do actually know about these things.
McKitterick's plot is a good indication that most of the stations that were dropped were in colder locations and that is about it. But we knew that anyway as we knew where they were already!
This was one of the things that tripped my trollometer, this particular canard was was flambéd long ago.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:17 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam is using 2 different IP addresses (account created March 14, 2011); from England. Poptech had two accounts here, one under Poptech (created April 25, 2008; 3 different New Jersey IP addresses) and one under poptech (created March 7, 2010; Western Australia IP Address - no comments ever posted here). -
Bob Lacatena at 04:05 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
86, Adam,...you're the one that claimed that providing empirical evidence that Greenland warming was caused by humans was 'unfullfillable'. All I was doing was repeating what you claimed.
No, you were repeating my claim (about Greenland) and then extending it in a single leap to apply to the whole of GHG climate science....it has been repeatadly claimed by the mass media...
And this has what to do with the science? We're done here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 16 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Jay... I think the variation is actually quite easy to measure (if I get your meaning). The challenge is to extract the various signals from the noise. When people like Christy say it's natural variability they are having to turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room, which they all tacitly admit is real. The radiative forcing of CO2. We've clearly added a significant forcing to the climate system. If what we are experiencing is natural variability then where is the radiative forcing from CO2 going? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:53 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Albatross... The utter intransigence is eerily familiar. -
Albatross at 03:44 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Rob @89, They have checked, but then again, there is software out there that will bounce your IP around if you want to remain untraceable. FWIW, we'll see what "Adam" says. Sure are many similarities though hey? But perhaps that is not altogether surprising. I was actually half serious about a behavioural psychologist analyzing this thread. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:31 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam... Just curious. Are you actually Andrew/Poptech? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:20 AM on 16 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
@Albatross Well would you agree that it is harder to measure natural variations in the environment as compared to measuring co2 emissions and therefore it is harder to distinguish between a natural forcing and a manmade one? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:09 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Mods... Sorry, I had to look up DNFTT.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem, need to remember it more often myself! -
Adam at 02:56 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Dikran I am not 'shifting goal posts'. It was claimed that the fact I pointed out that the satellites showed no warming from 1979-1997 was 'cherry picking' because it was ignoring the long term trend. All I was doing was pointing out that I was not cherrypciking because the models clearly predicted that for that period temperature would rise due to co2 yet it didn't. Daniel Bailey I have indeed seen all of the 'emprical evidence' sections of this website, and once again I can indeed answer all of them. "Typical denial debate tactic. You jump from: ...there is nothing unusual about Greenland's climate. to ...there is no empirical evidence for AGW." Sphaerica you're the one that claimed that providing empirical evidence that Greenland warming was caused by humans was 'unfullfillable'. All I was doing was repeating what you claimed. "Specifically in Greenland? Why? There is a correlation, when looking at the entire globe. ...no correlation proves no causation... Yes, but the requested correlation must be relevant. The fact that the population of purple turtles on the planet does not correlate to lung cancer deaths does not prove that smoking does not cause cancer." Sphaerica once again you keep avoiding what I am pointing out. If I chose an area of the globe like the US or Canada and said that the fact it didn't correlate to co2 is evidence to AGW, then yes I admit that would be cherry picking. But as I have pointed out polar areas are different from the rest of the world. If greenhouse gases were warming our planet, polar areas are the first places we should see some effect. Yet the fact there is no correlation shows that co2 levels are not effecting Greenland temperature. "The fact that Greenland, which is near the poles, surrounded by many different bodies of water, near the gulf stream and the Arctic (possibly the most volatile seasonal climate on the planet), does not mean that it needs to demonstrate a perfect correlation with AGW, and if not the theory can be dismissed." Sphaerica it has been repeatadly claimed by the mass media and numerous pro-AGW websites that the Greenland warming is due to humans. This website has written numerous articles about Greenland's 'unprecedented melting' and it is clearly implied that is due to humans. All I am asking is that when claims are made, warmists should provide evidence to back it up. It is perfectly possible that Greenland temperature variations are natural as shown by the paper I gave you. "Whining that no one will show you a correlation between Greenland temperatures and AGW is just that... whining. " Sphaerica what would it take to convince you that Greenland climate changes are not man made? Just name it.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] DNFTT -
dana1981 at 02:41 AM on 16 April 2011David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
Lassesson #15 - to be fair, the article was originally a speech given at an anti-carbon tax rally in Australia. In that context it's a bit clearer. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:41 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam... This entire discussion goes back exactly to where it started. You're trying to infer a global response from a single location. You can't do it. You're walking out onto your back porch, looking at the thermometer and telling us that is the temperature of North America. It's wrong, and wrong-headed. Just because we have global data that tells us that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for warming since the 1970's, it does not follow that every location on the planet should then have a warming signal beginning in the 1970's. This should be blatantly obvious. -
Albatross at 02:39 AM on 16 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Jay @81, Christy said "When you look at the possibility of natural unforced variability, you see that can cause excursions that we've seen recently, you see that can cause excursions that we've seen recently". That second part of the sentence is pretty definitive. And as I and others have pointed out, Occam's razor applies here-- there is no need to do mental gymnastics to try and invent hypotheticals as Spencer is trying to do to explain the recent warming. Christy is apparently telling you what you want to hear, and you are uncritically buying into it-- people are also very good at rationalizinfg their poor decisions (i.e., but he said "possibly"). I would like nothing more than the theory of AGW to be untrue, but alas, I'm afraid that the physics and science say otherwise, and I cannot deny that, no matter how inconvenient. PS: Thanks Dikran! Feel free to delete my post #83.Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] No problem, it is probably the most useful thing I've done today!
[DB] Albatross, check your email for a message from me.
-
Alexandre at 02:37 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Albatross at 01:37 AM on 16 April, 2011 I think the AGW basics is not any more difficult to understand than many other difficult, yet manageable, technical issues. Any engineer or doctor can give plenty of these examples. The problem is the D-K effect caused by the denialist blogosphere. It seems to make a difference wether someone learns this issue through atmospheric physics textbooks or through, say, the Heartland Institute. So getting there first helps. That's the importance of websites like this. But engaging in "debates" with people that seem to have already made up their minds, regardless the evidence, seems too unfruitful to me. Maybe even counter-productive. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:33 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam... You should actually read the links you provide. Satellites, in fact, do NOT cover the entire planet. According to John Kehr, whom you linked to, "[Satellite] coverage is from 85N to 85S." Most but not all. On top of that, if the surface station data sets are all in agreement... and all the surface station data is in agreement with both groups publishing satellite data... why is there a question? All methods are pointing to the same answer.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There is also the point that if the satellite data is so accurate, why is it that the UAH and RSS products don't agree (to an extent comparable to the difference between satellite and surface station trends), both being different ways of processing the same raw data from the same satellites. Funny skeptics never seem to want to use RSS... ;o) -
Alec Cowan at 02:32 AM on 16 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
@Albatross #74 You know Poptech, and you know how he applies the technique: first, some "absolute" assertion, then trying to balance around all the evidence showed to him, and when some time passes, he says "nobody has provided any evidence that (absolute) is false", "nobody has provided any real evidence about (something against "absolute")". Sometimes, if he see it fits, adding "convincing" or the like just to look a little less harsh. And it's pretty much the same old story (which could be automatized by a 2k script in JavaScript). What is not so easy to script -and I must admit there's some wicked talent behind- is to select the time to do it. I mean, it's easy to start a thread in a web forum or post comment #1 saying (absolute), but what is not so easy is reading all the messages and select the moment when the renewal of (absolute) will make it look like a settled question. There are a few that make a living of it in the 'denialist' arena. It seems a few practise here abusing of the good faith of many that make this a great website.
Prev 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 Next
