Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 Next
Comments 88751 to 88800:
-
Gilles at 17:05 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
"Leaving all else aside, on the "natural variability" theory, what are the chances/odds that the uptick* in temperatures of the last 3 or 4 decades, say, just happens to coincide, precisely, with the uptick in CO2 production of those same 3 or 4 decades? " David , the answer is : 100 %. Because the CO2 has increased exponentially and thus has always the same characteristic timescale - it has not increased just for 30 years but for hundred years. So *any* multidecadal oscillation will coincide , during its rising part, with a CO2 increase - and with all others anthropogenic variations, such as urban heat for instance; it is a very weak criterion. -
Gilles at 16:58 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
I'd like again stress that it is a generic feature that computer models are generally very bad and unreliable to describe properly internal variability There are numerous examples of that , and very good physical reasons to explain it . Examples include for instance the ENSO oscillation which is not predicted quantitatively by models, and neither all kinds of multidecadal oscillations. The 11 years solar cycle is *not* reproduced by solar models either. The good reason is that these kind of oscillations are not the result of variations of forcings (by definition), but are spontaneous limit -cycles which depend on very sensitive non-linear parameters and cannot be derived from simple conservation laws (that are the only thing giving "robust" results). I give you a comparison : suppose that an extra-terrestrian intelligent being catch a human being and try to "model" it physically. It would be rather easy for him to understand that it is powered by the internal combustion of food and find a rather precise estimate of how much fuel (around 2000 kcal/d) he needs. But it would be very difficult to predict the circadian cycles and why he has spontaneous cycles about 24 hours, just by a physical modeling. So the conclusion is : any argument on unforced variability based on computer simulations is generally speaking unreliable and meaningless. Of course computer models do have their own variability and non linear behaviors, and do exhibit their own internal variability - but it is not justified to use the physical characteristics of this variability as a reliable estimator of the natural ones - no computer model has ever proved to be reliable for that. Of course from time to time, by playing with parameters, you will find similar things - but this is by no ways a robust prediction and cannot be used to predict unknown behaviors. And for instance, we speak of multidecadal oscillations because they have been detected over a century time-scale - but we don't have any precise idea about possible multi-centennal oscillations - that are by no ways excluded by physical arguments. -
Gilles at 16:35 PM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Dan, your interview doesn't bring anything new , it is the conventional wisdom of economists - exactly that that failed to predict oil crisis. And of course it doesn't address at all the issue of how preventing other people , either elsewhere in the world or in the future , from using the spared FF you let at their disposal. -
Gilles at 16:27 PM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Applied on oil, the theory fails - I don't know why it would succeed with coal and natural gas, sorry. -
Gilles at 16:26 PM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I'm sorry gentlemen, but do you have already looked at how much oil do tar sands, CTL, and so on , really produce ? and their contribution to the CO2 increase ? and the planned production for the next 30 years ? before believing all the speeches you hear here and there, first, check the numbers. Marcus : there is a lot of things to answer, but i will only mention one : the fuel cell was * already* invented when the cars appeared, and furthermore first cars were *electric*. All these technologies have had plenty of time to develop and improve - darwinian selection has acted to choose the more efficient. There is absolutely no law saying that things always improve indefinitely - your comparisons are irrelevant. Some things improve more than others, (and then you select them by an a posteriori bias) , but everything we'd like to happen doesn't always happen. Usually , people start realizing that at the age of 10 or so. I know that oil isn't the only FF, but it is the first one to reach its maximal production, so it's a test of the theory "when prices increase, the amount of reserves increases and so the production doesn't decrease" . Applied on oil, the theory fails - I don't know why it would succeed with oil and natural gas. Muoncounter : "By 'the spike,' I take it that you mean 2007-2008. Yet your graph shows that production leveled off in 2005. Unless we have some kind of time-travel inverting causality here, I'm not sure how you accomplish this. " That's a very good point , but may be you could ask another question : but why did prices climb to the sky in 2007 -2008 ? I think your remark gives the answer. This is precisely because the theory fails. The beginning was : first geological constraints limiting the production , then increase of prices. At this point, things derail. Theory says : increase of prices -> more accessible resources -> more production. Why didn't it work? because first increase of oil prices increased also the prices of all commodities , that use oil to be produced , and then extraction costs increased as well ! it wasn't so profitable after all. And then came the recession - no demand anymore. You may think that the recession has nothing to do with oil, I think things are more complicated , but anyway , it gives the answer : demand will not increase because high prices provoke recessions - and if there is no demand, producers won't invest in expensive resources that nobody will buy. -
Bern at 16:05 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Humanity Rules, have a look at Figure 1 in the article above. Yes, that's right, it's the internal variability as incorporated into the climate models. The "climate science establishment" is well aware of internal variability. They account for it in their models. It doesn't change their conclusions. -
Gilles at 15:51 PM on 14 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Ken has a very good idea - if Dr Trenberth could come and make it clearer what he meant, he could also give his opinion about the different posts exchanged here. Concerning what the "lack of warming" could mean , two pieces : the graph of OHC 'Ocean heat content" as a function of time
the leveling off since 2004 and perfectly visible - and continuing.
and a paper showing that the oceans may indeed have cooled since this time
as in all research papers, the results are certainly disputable, but Dr Trenberth is a real scientist, and facing these facts , he could have only mean what he said : there is a lack of warming, and we have a problem to explain it, because it doesn't match the theory. I don't see why it is complicated, and I wonder why we write pages and pages about it .
-
David Horton at 15:33 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Leaving all else aside, on the "natural variability" theory, what are the chances/odds that the uptick* in temperatures of the last 3 or 4 decades, say, just happens to coincide, precisely, with the uptick in CO2 production of those same 3 or 4 decades? And what are the chances that the combined uptick of the two just happens to coincide with an uptick in denier frenzy on blogs and in the media generally, supported, in large measure, by the corporations responsible for the uptick in CO2 production? *uptick isn't quite right, I seek another metaphor. What is it they play ice hockey with in the northern hemisphere? -
HumanityRules at 15:05 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
I found this quote from Tsonis, it sounds a little more skeptical or at least lukewarmish "a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles....I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount." -
logicman at 15:04 PM on 14 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Thanks again for the continued comments. I was wrong. (How many times have you heard a denier say that?) My ice bridge breakup forecast was wrong. Ah well, we learn from our mistakes - hopefully. I hope to publish a new article tomorrow on my blog, giving details of why the ice bridge isn't breaking up as fast as I had expected. Naturally, I shall need to revise my other predictions. I am sorry to be so slow with this. Firstly, I had to investigate to see what factors I had missed. Secondly, I have other articles in my worklist. Thirdly, little things keep getting in the way of my writing: things like life, illness, etc. :) -
HumanityRules at 14:07 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
The point would be that internal variability doesn't have to account for all the recent warming just some of it in some of the recent phases to start to upset the understanding. dana has recently done several post attributing different aspects of 20th century warming to different forcings. I don't remember there being any scope for internal variability to contribute to any of these espisodes of warming or 'cooling' by upto 0.3oC. In fact these would seem like an anathema to both dana and the IPCC's approach which seems to only recognize forcings as drivers of the climate. For example the mid-20th century 'cooling' phase is generally put down to aerosols. This paper suggests natural variability might have played a role in that, that could be as high as 50%. The most recent warming episode (post 1970) might have internal variability contributing 30-40%. Where does the IPCC (or dana) take this into account? The simple fact is if you allow natural variability to add to or subtract from global temperatures then you change the calculations. The convenient just so story has to be rewritten. I don't see that being acknowledged either on this website or within the climate science establishment. -
Bernard J. at 14:04 PM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Heh, DM found Dr Inferno's ground-breaking technique before I could refer to it. Of course, in spite of such genius he, and the rest of you, are all wrong. Sea level has always been, and always will be, 0 mm/ft above sea level. -
dana1981 at 12:28 PM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Albatross - John's got a good 'if it walks like a duck' analogy. Even better than what I said :-) -
Ken Lambert at 12:16 PM on 14 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Gilles, Sphaerica, AC et al Gentlemen, why don't we ask Dr Trenberth to come on to SKS as I suggested in a prior thread. John Cook and others thought it a great idea. I have some questions, Gilles has some questions and I am sure that BP could chime in with his questions. As mentioned earlier, I conducted a private correspondence with Dr Trenberth in early 2010, and he was a 'class act' -very generous with his time. Without his permission, I am not at liberty to quote some of his answers here. Come on John Cook and Moderators - lets do it and try to settle some of these very big questions for the world to see. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:06 PM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel @ 37... Have you tried reading the relevant science on this topic rather that just reading WUWT? Just a thought. -
Albatross at 12:03 PM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
daniel @37, Who are you addressing? And Watts has a sturdy reputation for misrepresenting facts and the sicence, anyone paying close attention and being truly critical would know that is a fact. For the life of me I cannot believe how anyone having an iota of credibility and scruples (and who has been paying attention to the solid refutations of Monckton) could defend the shenanigans of Monckton and Morner. -
daniel maris at 11:56 AM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
So you're saying the photographic evidence is falsified? Or misrepresented? And you're saying those tidal gauges can measure increases measured in millimetres? C'm on! -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:47 AM on 14 April 2011There is no consensus
DNFTT is in order indeed. -
muoncounter at 11:37 AM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles#217: "high extractions costs have reduced emissions ! It's very clear that the production of FF has leveled off during the spike of barrel price" By 'the spike,' I take it that you mean 2007-2008. Yet your graph shows that production leveled off in 2005. Unless we have some kind of time-travel inverting causality here, I'm not sure how you accomplish this. How do you translate the spike, a short-term event (by the definition of the word 'spike') to a reduction in emissions, which did show a measurable decrease until the recession of 2008-2009 flatlined economic activity? And what, exactly, does increased price paid to a producer per barrel of oil have to do with extraction cost? Friendly word of advice: Until you have some legitimate understanding of the oil business, you really should stop believing everything you read on the peak oil blogs. Or at the least, apply some of the finely honed skepticism that you've displayed here. -
scaddenp at 11:35 AM on 14 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Those are all good points Vladimer. I'd watch watch the Thorium designs in India and China with great interest. -
Vladimer K at 11:16 AM on 14 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Daniel Maris- Certainly, the UK and other countries should exploit renewables to the best of their abilities. However, this 100% renewables goal simply won't materialize, and even if it does, the timeframe would've been so large that it would've been an idealogical reject-everything-that-isn't-renewable campaign that turns down other solutions (like nuclear), which would most likely take longer and cost more than using renewables and other solutions (like nuclear) combined. Let's examine the three worst commercial nuclear accidents: Tsjernobyl is what happens when you try to outcompete and outproduce a wealthier neighbor, and then shut down the cooling system in a testosterone moment. The United Nations Scientific Commitee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation places the death count (including cancer deaths) at 62 as of 2008 http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf Three-Mile Island resulted in zero deaths and was blown vastly out of proportion. Fukishima is what happens when you hit an old reactor with a level 9.0 earthquake and a 17-meter tsunami. The plant should've been decommissioned a decade ago, and none of Japan's 54 other nuclear plants had similar problems. And nobody died. Many reactors that are built today utilize what's known as passive-safety, in which the reactor can cool without mechanical failsafes. Several reactor types that use this include Integral Fast Reactors, pebble-bed reactors, pool-type reactors like TRIGA, certain breeder reactors, etc. Interestingly, India and China are doing much of the research for us; we'll see in 2030 whether their nuclear economies are superior to renewable economies. -
Albatross at 11:13 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
John C. and Dana, "As John sometimes says, they have to explain why the increased greenhouse effect isn't warming the planet significantly, and why their alternative is warming the planet exactly how we expect GHGs to warm it. " That quote is a great assessment. A keeper for sure. -
scaddenp at 10:47 AM on 14 April 2011There is no consensus
Bruce, I would characterize science is learning to use data to overcome our biases. Some non-scientists learn this; some scientists dont. Overturning AGW is straightforward at one level. Current climate theory (from which AGW is a consequence) makes a huge no. of predictions. If reality turns out different using both the margins of errors in data and margins of error in the prediction, then the theory must be modified. Of course, even more convincing would a different better theory that explained all current observations and had stronger predictive power. Nothing doing so far on either front, but who knows? Convince me. So, care to tell us what data would it take to change your mind? What's the point at which you decide that you are wrong? -
Dan Moutal at 10:42 AM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles " And tar sands production hasn't risen - for the good reason that nobody wanted to buy more." I couldn't let this slide by. It is absolutely false. The Tar sands are still booming. In fact The US just opened up its first tar sand operation. People are still addicted to oil. Demand is as high as it ever was. -
Bern at 10:41 AM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
WSteven: I know education standards are often considered to be slipping, but I'd hope that anyone who tried that trick even in junior high would be slapped down with a big fat 'F'... It puts me in mind of that famous quote popularised by Adam Savage from Mythbusters: "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."Moderator Response: [DB] Then you'll like this reality. -
Dan Moutal at 10:36 AM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ Gilles The mods are right of course, but are still only looking at part of the puzzle. Oil isn't the only FF. Coal is also an issue, arguably an even bigger one than oil. And as oil prices have risen more than a few people have contemplated coal liquefaction, which absent a price on carbon would release even more GHG emissions. And we are still only looking at the liquid fuels part of the problem. High fossil fuel prices mean that more unconventional fossil fuels become economically viable, and in many cases (like the examples above) they are dirtier than the conventional fuels they replace. Hence why a price on carbon emissions is essential to lowering GHG emissions. Otherwise one can have both rising FF costs AND rising emissions. All of this was explained in the interviews I posted. Please listen to them, you can learn a lot from someone who has spent a great deal of time thinking about the issue. -
Marcus at 10:28 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
"There was never any reason to think that it would increase temperatures." Not only that, but volcanoes also put up far, far more aerosols-into the stratosphere-than they do CO2, so leading to an overall *cooling* effect in the troposphere (but a warming of the stratosphere). -
dana1981 at 10:25 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Alexandre - those are all valid questions. It gets to the point we made in the post that there are a number of 'fingerprints' which AGW can explain but which internal variability cannot. As John sometimes says, they have to explain why the increased greenhouse effect isn't warming the planet significantly, and why their alternative is warming the planet exactly how we expect GHGs to warm it. cloa 513 - please see "it's cosmic rays" and "climate sensitivity is low" where we show both your comments are incorrect.Response: [John] Actually I haven't published that article yet, it's due out on April 28 :-) -
shawnhet at 10:19 AM on 14 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Albatross:"Re credibility seppuku-- that is not a comment or opinion, it is an empirical observation based on your posts here. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not expect to overturn credible science or make compelling arguments by talking through your hat." What are you talking about? If I am objectively trying to overturn science, what science am I trying to overturn? Please be *specific* because I *don't know* what you mean. Is there a reference which says that we can represent all indirect solar forcings as multiples of TSI? I am unaware of such, and, frankly, if there is such a reference you would be better off just providing it rather than continuing to make unsupported claims. -
Robert Murphy at 10:18 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
"There is low CO2 temperature climate sensitivity- the reaction of the temperatures to major volcanic eruptions shows that." Major volcanic eruptions have a tiny impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Pinatubo for instance released about 1/30 as much CO2 as we did that year. There was never any reason to think that it would increase temperatures. There was plenty of reason to think it would temporarily lower temps because of the ejection of aerosols into the stratosphere; this was predicted before hand and the models showed excellent agreement with the subsequent cooling. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:10 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
cloa513... Citations please. Posting wishful thinking is not good science. -
Marcus at 09:58 AM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"you just forget something : we already have cars." Wow, is that the *best* you can do? Hilarious. In the 19th century, we already had a number of relatively cheap modes of transportation (horses, horse-drawn carriages, bikes, our own two feet). Yet that didn't stop the public & private sectors from collectively investing in the construction & sale of very expensive motor cars-or the construction of an entire fuel infrastructure. Similarly, when TV's first came out, we already had access to a number of relatively cheap entertainments (the radio, the theater, the movies). Yet, again, that didn't stop the manufacture & sale of relatively expensive TV sets-or the construction of an entire infrastructure to make us of the new medium. Now of course most renewable energy sources aren't starting off nearly as expensive-relative to existing energy options-as cars & TV's were relative to their pre-existing "competition". The *real* point of my analogy, though, was that once economies of scale got going, both cars & TV's (& coal-fired electricity for that matter) all came down in price until they were affordable to the masses. In the same vein, the life-cycle costs of renewable energy technologies will continue to improve as economies of scale (& improved manufacturing technologies) kick in. Meanwhile, increasing scarcity of fossil fuel resources will make the life-cycle cost of coal-fired electricity even more expensive. So much so that I feel confident in making the following prediction-the nations which have failed to make a switch towards a *mostly* renewable energy fueled economy, by around the middle of this century, are setting themselves up to the Third World Countries of both the latter half of the 21st century & the 22nd century. -
cloa513 at 09:46 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Both wrong- its external variability- cosmic rays (and the sun) explain the cloud cover. There is low CO2 temperature climate sensitivity- the reaction of the temperatures to major volcanic eruptions shows that.Response: Problem with the "cosmic rays are driving global warming by changing cloud cover" argument is cosmic radiation and climate went in opposite directions in the latter 20th Century - if anything cosmic rays and the sun should be having a cooling effect.
Reconstructed cosmic radiation (solid line before 1952) and directly observed cosmic radiation (solid line after 1952) compared to global temperature (dotted line). (Krivova 2003) -
Alexandre at 09:44 AM on 14 April 2011Christy Crock #3: Internal Variability
Christy dismisses all the evidence supporting AGW as insufficient, perhaps. I would guess that his own theory has a much more compelling set of evidences. But it fails to answer a lot of questions: - Why did DLR increase and OLR decrease over the last decades? - Why did this measured trapped IR energy NOT increase the temperature? What has happened to it? - Where’s the very compelling evidence that global temperatures vary as wildly as the last decades (some 0.6ºC in 40 years). Why did all those clouds decide to warm the planet now, if they don’t usually do it? - Where’s the evidence that cloud cover has varied as much as to justify the observed warming over these decades? I’m a layman, so I’d be pleased if someone more knowledgeble explained to me why my questions are for some reason irrelevant. Or not? -
Bob Lacatena at 09:44 AM on 14 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
42, Rob, Wow. Okay, so this guy has a really, really deep bag of scientific "tricks." And the deniers are all up in arms about "hide the decline?" Sheesh. Adam, Sorry, but as a source, that one is downright pathetic. Please check your sources more carefully in the future. If you don't mind taking a bit of advice, usually I find it helpful to be skeptical about these sorts of things, read them carefully, and look into them in some detail. Otherwise you could find yourself falling for some very alarming scientific hoaxes. -
WSteven at 09:34 AM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
I love the tilted graph. I'd expect that kind of nonsense from someone in junior high or _maybe_ senior high school. How can anybody who does this be considered a credible source of information? Good article, Dana. -
Albatross at 09:33 AM on 14 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
All, Re the dubious TSI data from Soon. Here is a graph by Kopp and lean (2011; both (eminent scientists in this field) that shows a distinct downward trend between 1979 and 2010:
Caption: Contributions to the empirical model of temperature shown in Figure 1 are broken down here: El Niño Southern Oscillation (purple), volcanic eruptions (blue), anthropogenic effects (red), and solar irradiance (green).
[Source]
and compare those data with the SAT data:
Caption: Global surface temperature from 1980 to 2010 has risen by 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) according to Climate Research Unit measurements (black) and an empirical model (orange). (Courtesy Kopp and Lean), same source as above.
Not surprisingly, Kopp and Lean conclude that:
"Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1°C global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades."
-
Dikran Marsupial at 09:13 AM on 14 April 2011Weather vs Climate
Bruce@124 If you think there is anything interesting in that, you have just demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. A warming climate does not imply there will not be bad weather, there isn't anything ironic about it. Dellingpole shows rather poor taste in his sarcastic gloating about it IMHO, I don't know why anyone would want to share in that. -
Bruce Frykman at 09:00 AM on 14 April 2011Weather vs Climate
Climate vs weather. A group of activists headed up to the arctic circle in May 2009 to "raise awareness" that the "warmer climate" was creating mild snow, ice, and temperature conditions there, thus driving polar bears to extinction. They were driven back by ferocious snow, ice, and temperature conditions that nearly killed them; they needed to be rescued lest they die under the horrific cold conditions they found on the way. The number of polar bears they encountered was posing yet more deadly risk to the party. It incident was all due to colder "weather" and not the warmer "climate" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/9802307/Global_warming_explorers_in_Arctic_get_nasty_shock_polar_ice_caps_blooming_freezing/Moderator Response: Yes exactly, as you pointed out this is an example of weather not climate. If your argument is that the arctic is not warming, please take it to one of the related Arctic threads posted here. -
Gilles at 08:37 AM on 14 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
"The reason why high extractions costs wont reduce emissions has already been answered. (hint tar sands)" The issue is that high extractions costs have reduced emissions ! It's very clear that the production of FF has leveled off during the spike of barrel price,
and will do it again with the current new spike. And tar sands production hasn't risen - for the good reason that nobody wanted to buy more. Personally I'm not fond of "reasons" explaining non-existing facts ...
Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] ISTR having pointed this out before, but extracting FF from tar sands takes up a great deal of energy. You can't measure total emissions by counting barrels of oil shipped, because that ignores the carbon emissions from energy expended in extracting it. For tar sands, that is very far from negligible. There is also the issue that oil sales are not necessarily driven purely by demand. Oil is not in plentiful or unlimited supply, and it is not necessarily to the economic advantage of those that hold the reserves to sell in such quantities as to satisfy demand. Thus the levelling off of sales does not necessarily imply that the cost of extraction is the cause of the levelling off, or that total carbon emissions are also levelling off. The Earth doesn't care if the carbon emissions are from tar sands oil or from energy expended in extracting the oil from the tar sands. The CO2 is a greenhouse gas either way. Also oil is not the only FF. IIRC also a major justification for tar sands is security of supply rather than cost. Apart from that the comment is fine. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:35 AM on 14 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Sphaerica... You also have to look at Fig 3 in Adam's Svensmark/Friis-Christensen PDF and then compare it to the same data at Wood For Trees. -
les at 08:34 AM on 14 April 2011There is no consensus
347 pbjamm Indeed. But he posts a lot of hot air... ... Gilles' be along in a moment to claim that that's the reason the arctic is melting.Moderator Response: [DB] DNFTT. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:33 AM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel Maris@30 Would you accept then that the Telegraph article that you raised on another thread has been refuted by the evidence I have presented in this thread, which show the allegations made by Morner are completely without foundation? I ask because a common trait of deniers is to avoid explicitly acknowledging when one line of argument is refuted (so they can return to it later or elsewhere) and simply pick a new line of evidence? What you have just done looks very much like exactly that, so maybe you would like to dispel that impression. Secondly, have you investigated the WUWT story to find out whether it checks out, or whether like the Telegraph article it is full of bogus claims? -
pbjamm at 08:29 AM on 14 April 2011There is no consensus
Bruce@345 "So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone." Then you should be doing more reading and less typing. This site is chock full of links to scientific studies and data that support the the premise that the earth is warming and that human activity is driving the change in temperature. Not many people here are practicing climate scientists so not much original work is generated, thus the links to others work. If you have a published paper of your own or links to studies that you think are relevant to the discussion then please post them in the appropriate thread. As for this thread, you have not provided anything constructive to the discussion (not debate! not argument!) of the original post. Your first comment @311 was an accusation that Climate Science is driven by politics rather than data with no supporting evidence. That is not how this site works. If you are going to take a position you need to support it somehow. -
les at 08:29 AM on 14 April 2011There is no consensus
Hummm two more looong post by Mr. Frykman and still no evidence to back up his earlier claims. Clearly not here to present nor discuss facts. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:25 AM on 14 April 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
Adam... "I have explained why Greenland and Arctic temperature variations are not man made." No, you have explained why you believe there is an inconsistency between the warming period in the early 20th century and the warming in the latter 20th century, making the wrong assumption that both had to be directly correlated with the increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:24 AM on 14 April 2011Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
Rovinpiper@1 Practically all modern models include ocean effects and are known as coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). Practically all modern models incorporate aerosols as well (you can't adequately model 20th century climate without them c.f. "ice age predicted in 70s" canard). -
Gilles at 08:23 AM on 14 April 2011The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
Sphaerica : "express exactly where he stands on the topic of this post (i.e. how a statement by an important and respected climate scientist was clearly and manipulatively taken out of context by people who simply don't like what the facts and science have to say). " Frankly ? i don't care much about what people think of what other people say. You may be right , but it's not a question of physics - may be of psychology, politics, sociology. Billions of people think stupid things anyway, so I can't waste my time in looking at them all. So I posted here to correct what I thought being incorrect : no we don't have a precise measurement of fluxes, yes the Earth doesn't seem to have gained energy these last years - whatever the reason is. Read the thread again - I didn't try to "manipulate" anybody - I just explained why some sentences appeared erroneous to me. Alec Cowan : I don't really get what you're trying to argue - yes multiplying 1 W/m2 by the surface of the Earth and the number of seconds in one year gives something like 10^20 J/year - and so? what does it change ? -
Albatross at 08:21 AM on 14 April 2011Solar Hockey Stick
Shawn @58, "Just throwing an offhand comment that I am committing seppukku is not helpful. " Re credibility seppuku-- that is not a comment or opinion, it is an empirical observation based on your posts here. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not expect to overturn credible science or make compelling arguments by talking through your hat. Re "That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much?" OK, I think that we finally agree on something--I am referring to the observed warming since the early sixties, when TSI and global SATs traces diverged. -
Albatross at 08:14 AM on 14 April 2011Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
Daniel, Be a true skeptic please--do not believe everything you read and see at WUWT, or take it at face value. There is much fiction touted as fact on that pseudo science blog. Are you now too denying that global sea levels have risen?
Prev 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 Next
