Recent Comments

Prev  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  Next

Comments 88451 to 88500:

88451. muoncounter at 04:18 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.

88452. Daniel Bailey at 04:17 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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).
88453. Bob Lacatena at 04:05 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.
88454. Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 16 April 2011
       Christy 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?
88455. Rob Honeycutt at 03:53 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Albatross... The utter intransigence is eerily familiar.
88456. Albatross at 03:44 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.
88457. Rob Honeycutt at 03:31 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam... Just curious. Are you actually Andrew/Poptech?
88458. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:20 AM on 16 April 2011
       Christy 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?
88459. Rob Honeycutt at 03:09 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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!
88460. Adam at 02:56 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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
88461. dana1981 at 02:41 AM on 16 April 2011
       David 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.
88462. Rob Honeycutt at 02:41 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.
88463. Albatross at 02:39 AM on 16 April 2011
       Christy 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.

88464. Alexandre at 02:37 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.
88465. Rob Honeycutt at 02:33 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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)
88466. Alec Cowan at 02:32 AM on 16 April 2011
       It 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.
88467. muoncounter at 02:31 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam/Poptech: We get it. You disagree. However: A significant amount of your 1920s warming was the one year 1.2 degree jump in 1919. As a skeptic or denier, its understandable that once you've taken a position, you must do whatever is necessary to support it. You claim surface temperatures are unreliable, but you have based your entire story on this temperature measurement. That's a clear indication of bias or perhaps hypocrisy. The correlation you repeatedly deny was established here. Don't bother saying 'no its not' until you establish the validity of 1919 surface temperature record -- which, of course, will also establish the validity of subsequent surface temperatures.
88468. Bob Lacatena at 02:30 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       78, Adam, Typical denial debate tactic. You jump from:

       ...there is nothing unusual about Greenland's climate.

       to

       ...there is no empirical evidence for AGW.

       The two are very, very different. I read the paper. It didn't reach the same conclusion that you did. It did say there was nothing unusual about Greenland's climate. It did not say that this fact disproved AGW in any way. It said another decade of observations (at least) were needed.

       ...shows that AGW is still little more than a theory.

       This sentence alone demonstrates a total lack of comprehension of the scientific method.

       ...if CO2 was having an effect, there would have been a correlation

       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. ( - Inflammatory portion snipped - ) [It's] Anthropogenic Global Warming. ( - Snip - ) 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. I would point out, however, that Greenland is warming. The fact that there have been two previous periods of natural warming is totally irrelevant. It means nothing. It's only meaningful to you because you want it to be, because you want global warming to be a non-issue. Come back with some science, and some reasonable logic. Whining that no one will show you a correlation between Greenland temperatures and AGW is just that... whining.
       Moderator Response: Let's try and keep things civil please.
88469. Lassesson at 02:24 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       dana1981 #12 Okey, then I see why you referred to it as "tragedy of the commons". But I must say that Evans was quite unclear about it, since he was talking about "to curb emissions on a world scale" and a "world government" just before he said "Even if we stopped emitting...". That made me believe that "we" included me and everyone else in the world.
88470. Chris G at 02:21 AM on 16 April 2011
       What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
       There is also good discussion about climate sensitivity and how it is not really a constant, in the above article. Not always, but I have seen it treated that way. An easy way to think about non-constant sensitivity is to think of some feedback in particular, for instance, ice sheets. On an ice-free planet, a little more warmth produces no ice->ocean feedback, and on a ice-ball earth, a little less warmth does not change the albedo. In between, I suspect it has a lot to do with the layout of the continents and how that interacts with Milankovitch cycles.
88471. Albatross at 02:21 AM on 16 April 2011
       Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
       Arkadiusz @79 and 80, "Christy is an eminent scientist - to discredit him, have done better." That is your opinion. I for one am not trying to discredit Christy (he is doing a fine job of that by his own actions), I am taking issue with him making misleading and factually incorrect statements. "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.." This is not about "what ifs" or wishful thinking (i.e., some mystical natural negative feedback or non-transient internal climate mode is going to offset the strong radiative forcing from doubling or trebling GHGs) Arkadiusz, it is about facts and a very clear statement made by Christy. "The changes described in the cited papers that I was rapidly and quickly - today are identical.", The changes may or may not be very similar, but were the forcing mechanisms the same? But this is all besides the point. Again, let me remind you what we took issue with here, because you seem to be having issues comprehending what this at issue-- the fact that Christy stated as fact that the recent warming could be explained by natural variability alone. Unlike we have done here, he did not support his assertion with science. Moreover, the science and observations does not support his position. You showing that natural variability produced similar excursions in the past is a red herring and strawman and not relevant to the current situation, and I suspect that you fully know that. One does not need to invoke natural variability to explain all the recent warming, but one does need to invoke it to explain the inter-annual and inter-deccadal variability (i.e., the noise) in the global surface air temperature record. Christy's statement is simply false, unless he (or you) can present a model which has been published in the literature (and stood the test of time) that includes only natural unforced variability (and a physical mechanism) to account for all the observed recent warming, while at the same time accounting for the many fingerprints being attributed to anthropogenic warming. You are making strawman arguments Arkadiusz. I do not disagree with Timmerman that you linked us to at Colose's web site, and I am sure neither does, for example, James Hansen who has spent much time looking at mechanisms of previous climate change. PS: I am not going to debate the merits (or not) of the NIPCC or play tit for tat with you-- perhaps the "credibility" of the NIPPC can be the topic of a future post here.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Tags (hopefully) fixed
88472. newcrusader at 02:14 AM on 16 April 2011
       What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
       Actually CO2 levels have not been this high since about 15-20 million years ago, when the planet saw falling CO2 levels from the PETM. C02 levels even at this level (393ppm) sustained will mean severe problems for us- past 400ppm this increases exponentially- at 450ppm, 2-3 degrees C is a certainty- with all the complications associated with it- and they will be very harsh.
88473. Alexandre at 02:13 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam at 01:39 AM on 16 April, 2011 Fair point. I would add that there's no published paper connecting temperatures in Sicily between 1983-1998 and the GHE either. I withdraw my claims, therefore. Forget IR trapping, climate sensitivity and such deceiving stuff.
88474. Adam at 02:13 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Sphaerica, so are you admitting that there is no empirical evidence for AGW and that you're never ever going to be able to provide it? But you're saying that that doesn't matter. In science you use facts to come to a conclusion (right?). The paper I provided you used facts and came to the conclusion that there is nothing unusual about Greenland's climate. "Which says absolutely nothing. There is no photographic evidence of John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln, but that doesn't make him innocent." So are you saying that the fact that there is no empirical evidence for AGW, doesn't make the theory wrong. But you're still admitting there's no empirical evidence for it. Which shows that AGW is still little more than a theory. "Care to provide any argument for this, other than your own personal insight that if CO2 were the cause there must be some sort of direct correlation (for totally unstated and unfounded reasons)." Sphaerica if CO2 was having an effect, then there would have been a correlation. Correlation does not prove causation, but no correlation proves no causation (or at least no significant causation.) "Even your cherished paper wasn't so foolish as to draw this conclusion. They said this: The temperature trend during the next ten years may be a decisive factor in a possible detection of an anthropogenic part of climate signal over area of the Greenland ice sheet." Sphaerica what they are saying is that they can detect no anthropogenic signal in Greenland's climate and that they're not sure when they will be able to.
       Moderator Response: [DB] "But you're still admitting there's no empirical evidence for it. False; use the search function to find many threads on the topic here. Which shows that AGW is still little more than a theory." Which shows the world how little you understand the difference between theories (which are robust), hypothesis (some evidence for, enough to make testable generalizations) and simple hand-waving & dismissing of all evidence which contravenes ones position. Which is what you are doing.
88475. Chris G at 02:13 AM on 16 April 2011
       What was it like the last time CO2 levels were this high?
       This appears to be in close agreement with Hansen's 2008, Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?. In that paper, there is much discussion about the differences between fast and slow feedback processes.
88476. muoncounter at 02:12 AM on 16 April 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Yooper#8: "Betcha that streak continues for some time." Climate central has a graphic about the heat wave last summer showing a probability distribution of temperature. Recent years are most of the outliers high side. It's a cool plot, but it does take a basic understanding of probability to get the message.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Yeah, that's a "cool one"; succinct, yet effective.
88477. Adam at 02:04 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Dikran, satellites do indeed cover the whole planet, they can focus on focus on separate area's, work out the temperature trends of that area, and then put it all together to create a global temperature dataset. Working out temperature trends based on thermometers, can never be very reliable, since they do not uniformly cover the whole globe, and can be placed in areas, which cause them to have a warm bias. See Why satellites are better at measuring global temperature Dikran I am not cherry picking. I acknowledge that the long term trend in the temperature datasets is indeed a warming trend, but the fact is computer models predicted that from 1979-1997 the temperature would rise due to co2, but it didn't. That is not cherry picking.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You are shifting the goal posts from satellite-surface station comparison to model-observation comparison. Don't think I didn't notice the disingenuous evasion.
88478. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 02:01 AM on 16 April 2011
       Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
       @Albatross I stand by Christy's statement because he used the word "possibility". I think it is possible that natural, internal variations could have caused the rise in temperature. So it may not be likely but not impossible.
88479. Bob Lacatena at 01:56 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       75, Adam,

       I have repeatedly asked for empirical evidence that Greenland temperature variations are caused by humans. So far nobody on this website has provided.

       Because it's a meaningless and unfulfillable request (and you know it). I'm reading your paper, but so far it's position is as meaningless as yours. From the introduction:

       We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records...

       Which is fine, but pointless. Saying that temperature has changed in the past, for other reasons, says nothing one way or the other about current warming. It proves nothing. It disproves nothing. It just points out an interesting (actually, less than interesting) fact. From the conclusion:

       ...we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

       Which says absolutely nothing. There is no photographic evidence of John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln, but that doesn't make him innocent. This is a pointless discussion.

       ...why don't you provide empirical evidence that post 1980 Greenland warming is down to human emissions of greenhouse gases?

       Because it's not possible, and it doesn't matter. Your complaint proves nothing. Your demands prove nothing. Your angry bluster about not having your personal demands met means nothing. The fact that Greenland warmed in the past, either more or less than during the current warming period, is meaningless.

       ...basically all of Greenland's data pretty much makes us come to the conclusion that CO2 is not playing any major role.

       Care to provide any argument for this, other than your own personal insight that if CO₂ were the cause there must be some sort of direct correlation (for totally unstated and unfounded reasons). Even your cherished paper wasn't so foolish as to draw this conclusion. They said this:

       The temperature trend during the next ten years may be a decisive factor in a possible detection of an anthropogenic part of climate signal over area of the Greenland ice sheet.

88480. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:47 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       @Albatross It is my understanding though that the Clausius–Clapeyron relation only applies to a saturated atmosphere. Is the Clausius–Clapeyron relation applied here because there is no better explanation?
88481. Adam at 01:39 AM on 16 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Alexandre "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." I have repeatedly asked for empirical evidence that Greenland temperature variations are caused by humans. So far nobody on this website has provided. Alexandre could you please point out where anybody on this website has provided actual proper evidence in response to my comments. Since I have been here, most of the time people are repeating the same arguments again and again, which still doesn't answer my points. ALexandre, once again I'll ask you, if you think that I am in denial (which is pretty much what you're comment is saying, right?) then why don't you provide empirical evidence that post 1980 Greenland warming is down to human emissions of greenhouse gases? It shouldn't be a hard challenge since you have claimed that there is lots of evidence.
88482. Bob Lacatena at 01:38 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       10, Albatross, If I remember those years properly (it's been a while), the way they feel about it is to pretty much not think about it. There's a nagging fear in the back of their minds, but one that is quickly pushed aside by the next attractive member of the opposite sex that walks by, or planned party, or stress about finals, or what not. If they're out of school, they're more worried about getting a job, and maybe moving into their own (or a better) apartment. The future and "real life stuff" isn't on their radar. They are, foolishly, trusting those who are older and have more power to take care of things, because they're busy just trying to get their lives started. This was less of an issue with Vietnam, because they were the ones being directly affected (drafted and sent to war). Their lives faced imminent derailment by the war. Climate change, by it's very nature, is a distant threat, exactly the kind of thing that they can take a pass on for now. It's really a perfect storm. The people who can affect things don't care (enough, or properly), while the people who should care, the youth, are too distracted. I think a big, big thing that climate scientists at universities could and should do is to organize their grad students to organize awareness seminars. Make sure that college students today know that it's their future with which everyone else is playing a game of poker-dice-russian-roulette.
88483. dana1981 at 01:38 AM on 16 April 2011
       David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
       Lassesson #5, Evans is comparing the temp change to business-as-usual for Australian emissions, which are just 1.5% of global emissions.
88484. 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"
88485. 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
88486. 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.
88487. 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.

88488. 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?
88489. 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.
88490. 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.
88491. 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.
88492. 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.
88493. 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!
88494. 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.
88495. 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.
88496. 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 .
88497. 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).
88498. 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!
88499. 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.
88500. 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.

Prev  1762  1763  1764  1765  1766  1767  1768  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  Next