Recent Comments

Prev  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  Next

Comments 89101 to 89150:

89101. daniel maris at 00:23 AM on 14 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       I am not, in any case, entirely convinced there has been any increase in seal level. What about this article featuring the views of an eminent expert. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html Why don't Dr Morner's views count for anything?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Funny you should mention that. I'd be happy to discuss Morner if you like, but first I suggest you look into it in a bit more detail, starting with using Google scholar to look up his papers on this topic and then the responses which completely refute his accusations. Then ask yourself why Morner doesn't mention this in his Telegraph artcle.
89102. Gilles at 00:21 AM on 14 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       "About your "my guess;none", well, guess again and read carefully the same paper you quoted. You can play with words but the only "stupid"(I'm quoting you) thing here is your insistence in not providing the real A to criticize and argue departing from a bunch of imaginary As." Alec, I try to imagine what you think Trenberth has actually done to get his 0.9 W/m2 value imbalance - he certainly did NOT use any accurate value of TSI. He doesn't care about the precise value of TSI. Do you understand why ?
89103. Gilles at 00:15 AM on 14 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       "If the energy budget were well constrained by the data Trenberth would not have made the comment that is the subject of the article." Yes but sorry, the OP was about two kinds of interpretations : interpretation a) : the global value of 0.9 W/m2 imbalance has been validated by measurements (note that this COULD have been true if the TSI and TOA outgoing flux would have been measured with a good enough precision), but we have still some problems in the repartition of this energy on the ground/ocean/ice etc.... interpretation b) : we don't have any validation of this value from global incoming/outgoing fluxes, and besides, some problems in the repartition of this energy on the ground/ocean/ice etc.... the simple facts is that as I understand the OP, one could think that the right interpretation is a) (and I'm afraid that a number of readers/writers on this thread think or have thought that), whereas , actually, all the scientific literature is saying it's b). I think it is worth being stressed - that's why I do it. Alec : thanks to give this example to your students - for me, this is a good piece of real scientific dispute, with the sake of accuracy and rigor. Concerning the "flaw" in the theory, I would simply say that it is too imprecise yet to be fully tested against data - that's far from being exceptional in science, I can give you a dozen of similar examples. I'm not saying it's bad science , I'm saying it's normal scientific research on still unresolved issues - and as it, full of uncertainties. Give that to your students, please.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The usual misinterpretation of Trenberth's comment is different from both your (a) and (b) in that it is more along the lines of "we don't even know if the Earth is gaining energy". We can know that the Earth is gaining energy from indirect evidence, even if that is not "validated" by direct observations, so there is no inherent contradiction there AFACIS.
89104. RSVP at 00:14 AM on 14 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Alec Cowan 80 "If there were a flaw in the theory..." If? The study of nature has now become the study of how man is unable to adapt to it, or is destroying his environment. Believing this helps fund the promotion of flawless theories. What we can actually learn from studying nature at this point is just an added bonus, so I do believe some good is actually derived from all this.
89105. skywatcher at 00:12 AM on 14 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP #362: You have some bizarre ideas. "the idea that if you tuck away a small amount over time, after many years there will be a significant pile left over." "It is my understanding that AGW assumes "all things being equal" in terms of the natural average trend, so if all things are equal, the added heat can only be accumulating." Wrong. The added heat is a forcing (and a trivially small one at that), and the energy will only accumulate so long as the energy lost from Earth is less than the energy coming into the system. A forcing that introduces a warming does not lead to an endless runaway heating, thank goodness(!!!), but to a slight warming that soon results in the warmer Earth radiating away slightly more energy to balance the heat entering the system. The larger the forcing, the longer Earth takes to come to equilibrium, at which point heat no longer accumulates in the system. The GHG forcing is much larger, resulting in a longer time for Earth to come to equilibrium, and a much greater knock-on effect in the form of feedbacks which exaggerate the warming. Eventually, Earth will come to equilibrium, with excess heat being radiated away balancing higher temperatures, a new lower albedo, and higher GHG concentration. Where that equilibrium is, and the size of the changes that it has effected on the Earth's surface, are non-trivial questions for humanity. The waste heat forcing is tiny, and so the Earth system can relatively easily reach equilibrium with this small extra forcing, which results in a total warming that is virtually undetectable in temperature records. #366 - your comment makes little sense, but I'd be interested to know where you think the greatest temperature difference should be, at the source of waste heat, or in the Arctic, far from the sources, given that as you say, the heat spreads out through diffusion?
89106. Dikran Marsupial at 00:08 AM on 14 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP@372 Responding in that way to a challenge to provide some verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis is a tacit admission that you know your position has no evidential foundation.
89107. RSVP at 00:02 AM on 14 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       muoncounter 370 It's not music we have to face, but waste heat.
89108. RSVP at 00:00 AM on 14 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       Bern 369 To answer the plasma question. There is no mechanism for trapping waste heat per se, and there is no distinction to be made between waste heat and heat coming from the Sun. If the quantity of heat that the Earth is able to eliminate in the course of one year is assumed to be constant, any additional energy liberated by fossil fuels or nuclear reactors is going to be with us in the form of melted glaciers, polar caps and higher ocean temperatures. Ironically, AGW has been saying two things. 1) that warming is due to humans, and 2) the ability of Earth to eliminate heat through the atmosphere is actually slower now due to anthropogenic CO2. Based on this premise, the ability of the Earth to eliminate heat has not remained constant, but has lost its efficiency to do so. So even if you dont believe waste heat is significant, you have no basis for denying that this "small" amount of energy is not accumulating, as it is in surplus to what has been reaching us from the sun over the eons. And with this, I am not endorsing AGW. I am only quoting it to say that if you believe it, you should expect heat to be accumulating whether you think its a significant amount or not. The fallacy with the qualatitive argument about waste heat being so little is that the comparison is always being made in terms of Watts per square meter, when the comparison should be for Watt-centuries etc.
89109. CBDunkerson at 23:59 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Eric wrote: "the cooling stratosphere comes from lack of large volcanoes and from lowered solar UV (and thus ozone) during the solar minimum." Volcanic effects are demonstrably short term... the signal can be easily seen to appear and then fade completely within a year or so. Thus, stratospheric cooling over the course of decades is certainly not caused by lack of volcanic activity... that would only cause a brief warming and then return to baseline. The lower UV = less ozone = stratospheric cooling claim is a new one to me, but everything I've seen shows that ozone levels have been increasing since CFCs were banned. Ergo, doesn't seem to hold up. Also: "Warming at night is partly from UHIE contamination" So why does it show up in the satellite records? Urban heat islands in space? You've thrown out some excuses... they just don't seem to make any sense. Let alone have actual scientific analysis backing them up.
89110. Alec Cowan at 23:54 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Gilles! Gilles!!! What part of "absolute terms" and "not good enough" don't you understand in the phrase? It looks like the "travesty" got offspring. I don't need to know how much above sea level I am to know my feet are 10.80m +-0.05m above the sidewalk level at the main entrance. About your "my guess;none", well, guess again and read carefully the same paper you quoted. You can play with words but the only "stupid"(I'm quoting you) thing here is your insistence in not providing the real A to criticize and argue departing from a bunch of imaginary As. Your own phrase "my guess : none" is the standalone proof you have failed linking your argument to the papers. About your "dare" (I have time, blah, blah, blah). Do you really think nobody realized you took this like a fight for power. You placed 23 comments of yours so far, most of them among the last comments, telling different things to different people. I've already taken this thread so far to develop a couple of works for my students, as told in #55, and you, Gilles, are the subject. I think it applies here what dana1981 said in this site: --It's a testament to the robustness of the AGW theory that skeptics can't seem to decide what their objection to it is. If there were a flaw in the theory, then every skeptic would pounce on it and make a consistent argument, rather than the current philosophy which seems to be "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks."--
89111. Gilles at 23:41 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       DM , it seems you're missing the point, too. The point is not if they're uncertainties. They're always uncertainties. The point is whether the total imbalance is well constrained by the observations, because it is larger than the uncertainties, or not. And the answer is definitely, (and despite one could think after reading the OP) : no. The 0.9 W/m2 value does not come from measurements, it is only the outcome of some approximate physical model and computer simulations - it has not yet been validated by global measurements, and it doesn't fit to known data. That's all.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If the energy budget were well constrained by the data Trenberth would not have made the comment that is the subject of the article. However, there are many lines of evidence that suggest that AGW is happening, so the fact that the energy budget is not well constrained by observations just means that we need to spend more on research to collect more and better observations, it does not imply the models are not useful or the theory incorrect.

       You are incorrect to say that the model do not fit known data, if the projections lie within the known uncertainty of the data, then they "fit" (statistically speaking) as accurately as is meaningfull, given the limitations of the data. AFAICS, the data do not rule out an imbalance of 0.9 W/m2, the uncertainty of the observations themselves is too great to make such as distinction.

89112. muoncounter at 23:40 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       shawnhet#38: "sometimes the relationship btw GCR and TSI is can be represented as TSI times a constant value and sometimes it can't." No. They are inverted, which is not 'times a constant value.' As far as 'sometimes it can and sometimes it can't,' what good is that?
89113. Gilles at 23:34 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "I was referring to your [snip] pro-fossil fuel ideology." my whaat ? " Cars were a very expensive luxury item when they were first put onto the market. It took many decades for them to become affordable for *all* people. The same is true of the first TV's. So in truth, with the exception of oil, my claim holds very true." you just forget something : we already have cars. " its simply going a bit slower. " oh BTW, concerning your " Well Iceland currently has around 50 hydrogen powered buses, both at home & abroad-which isn't bad for a program only started in 2005." actually the link says :"The three original hydrogen buses did not lead to a wholesale transformation of the Reykjavik fleet. Instead, now all buses run on conventional fuels. "The bus project has now been terminated; we are waiting for the next generation to be built," Arnason said." seems they're going slower .. backwards.
89114. Gilles at 23:22 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       les : maybe you could also read that . Opening words : "The range of absolute total solar irradiance (TSI) values measured by different exo-atmospheric radio- meters is currently about 5 W/m2, which is about 0.35 % (3500 × 10–6, Fig. 1) of the exo-atmospheric absolute TSI value at a distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) from the Sun. This difference is greater than the indi- vidual standard uncertainties reported for most of these instruments, and greater than the 0.02 % per decade value typically stated as required to understand solar vs. anthropogenic forcing in climate change.The discrepancy between different instruments during the same time indicates the presence of unknown systematic bias" Do you really understand what real scientists are saying ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] From a statistical point of view, it is unsurprising that the range in TSI values is larger than all of the individual standard uncertainties, never mind most of them, for the simple reason that the range is implicitly picking out the maximal discrepancies, rather than the mean. What the scientists are saying is obvious, they are saying there are thought to be remaining "issues" with the instruments and hence the measurements have a degree of uncertainty that have yet to be corrected. The same is true of virtually every dataset used in climatology, and the journals etc are full of discussion of what to do about it and the caveats it puts on the conclusions. This is merely standard operating procedure.
89115. Gilles at 23:08 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       les : your small percentage of 0.35 % , multiplied by the average 1/4 * 1360 W/m2, gives 1.19 W/m2, which is larger than the theoretical 0.9 W/m2 imbalance. And this doesn't include the uncertainty on outgoing TOA LWR emission (I hope you know what I'm talking about). Can't you really understand that ? this thread is getting totally surrealistic - are you only understanding what we are talking about ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] See my original constructive criticism, which implied that the difference between ACRIM and PMOD is that ballpark and very much less than the discrepancy between the un-calibrated products.
89116. Gilles at 23:04 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       75 : DM : did I say anywhere that ACRIM and SORCE/TIM scientists are bad ? may I remind you that the original point was the following quote "However, our measurements of how much energy from global warming is flowing through our atmosphere, land, and melting ice, are well known." And I only say that no, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy flow through the atmosphere, land, and melting ice, isn't certainly "well known" at the accuracy needed to test the theoretical value of a 0.9 W/m2 imbalance, as everything just above demonstrates. does anybody still not understand that ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Blatant trolling, I didn't say that you said anything of the sort. I was pointing out that that the material under discussion was written in a good scientific manner rather than like an "insurance policy".

       We understood your point the first time round, my criticism was merely that your choice of data ws "over egging the pudding" and detracted from the strength of your presentation. The fact you are still blustering about it detracts from it even more.

89117. muoncounter at 22:52 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP#363: "A so called GHG "fingerprint" would show up as higher high temperatures in arid sunny climates." Nonsense. Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere. The warming is not localized. Face the music and provide some evidence that supports your waste heat notion. There is plenty that contradicts it. #367: "It doesnt matter if I am wrong, in the sense that the waste heat that is accumulating doesnt care if you are right or I am wrong." One could conclude that if you are wrong, waste heat is not accumulating. But if that's your take, then never mind.
89118. Gilles at 22:46 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       les, you could profitably also read the text around the figure on acrim home page (it's like insurance policies, you know ... read everything and particularly what is written at the bottom of the page ) "The causes of the ~ -0.35 % difference between the ACRIM3 and VIRGO results and the SORCE/TIM results are not presently understood in this context." If you need a translation : we don't have any f.... idea of which is the right one between the two.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] They don't claim they do AFAICS, and more to the point, they are completely open about the fact that the reason for the difference is not understood. That is the sort of language good scientists use.
89119. Harry Seaward at 22:39 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan @ 199 How was more than 100% returned? Where did the "extra" come from?
89120. mspelto at 22:39 PM on 13 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       If we are worried about the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic Sea Ice the spectacular and significant changes in both have all occurred in the last decade, that is why the last decade is the key. It is the outlier and that is why the last decade has seen these historic responses in both sea ice cover and ice sheet behavior. If this decade was similar to others those large cryospheric indicators would have responded in kind.
89121. Harry Seaward at 22:27 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Marcus @ 209 Impediments galore exist in the legal world. Most of the alternative energy projects in the US are caught up in permitting red tape and lawsuits. Most of the opposition comes from "green" groups and their illogical not in my backyard attitude.
89122. Marcus at 22:22 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "I'm curious to know which "ideology" I'm supposed to have" I was referring to your [snip] pro-fossil fuel ideology. "I concentrate on Iceland because it is a perfect benchmark for me, since everything converges to make it an ideal case. If it has *not* been achieved there, where the hell do you think it will be ?" As I've said, Iceland is still on track to achieve a fossil free future by 2050. If they can achieve it, with such a small population & specialized economy, then larger more diversified economies should be able to achieve that goal *even quicker*. Unfortunately we're still being impeded by vested interests. "Actually, the reality is just the opposite, but you may need to refresh some historical facts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller" You are *aware* that oil prices in the US were strictly controlled in the US, by government policies, right up until the end of WWII? By contrast, coal-fired electricity cost more than $2 per kw-h to generate (in today's money) back at the end of the 19th century. It took close to 50 years to get the prices closer to those we enjoy today. Cars were a very expensive luxury item when they were first put onto the market. It took many decades for them to become affordable for *all* people. The same is true of the first TV's. So in truth, with the exception of oil, my claim holds very true. "No - it is simply a proof that a rich country can make some advertising on "green technologies" on a very small scale, but quickly stops spending useless money when they're in deep economic trouble, and cannot afford anyway these expensive "danseuses", as we say in French." Did you even *read* the article you linked to? They haven't ditched the scheme at all, its simply going a bit slower. The point is that it *proves*, in spite of your hand-waving, that it *is* possible to replace hydrocarbons with hydrogen for such things as fishing boats & buses & other heavy vehicles. That remains the case in *spite* of the financial crisis.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] inflamatory adjective snipped
89123. les at 22:15 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       72 Gilles "so which cross calibration do you propose now ?" Why not ask the satellite science team? They have some superb material explaining cross calibration. http://www.acrim.com/ e.g. Hint: real scientists let the team managing the devices / experiments provide the results 'cos they understand the data.
89124. Marcus at 22:08 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       OK Gilles, I'm going to explain things s-l-o-w-l-y, so that even *you* can understand. I made it abundantly clear, time & again, that I was *not* talking about what is *currently* being done, but what can *potentially* be done-here & now. From my extensive reading on the subject, there are a number of inescapable facts: 1) There is *currently* no technical or economic impediment to making a transition to a 100% renewable energy electricity grid (& yes that includes hydro). The only impediments or political inertia & the overwhelming power of the fossil fuel lobby. 2) There is *currently* no technical or economic impediment to making a transition of our transport network to a mixture of hydrogen, electric & bio-diesel. 3) There is currently no technical or economic impediment to making our industrial sector 100% *Carbon Neutral* Now this conclusion is based, not just on reading material from Green Groups, but from reading Science & Technology magazines & the reports of hard-nosed energy & economic organizations (like the EIA). The transition won't happen overnight but, as long as vested interests don't get in the way, it is entirely possible to achieve these goals in about 20 years-probably less time in developing nations where a pre-existing energy network doesn't already exist. Now, unless you can provide *evidence* to prove my above claims wrong, then I'm probably just going to ignore any of your future hand-waving rants.
89125. Alec Cowan at 22:02 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @#73 Cross calibration! Good joke! To oversimplify it (but nothing essential is lost) A - B = C You say "look A, there are different As, so C must be wrong -especially because I don't like C-" The right way to make a critical analysis: "What 'A' Trenberth et al used? How are the error margins dealt in the whole equation?" Your way "Why don't you lose your time replying about technical details related to the inkblot image unrelated to the topic that I placed?" You're pretty transparent, pal!
89126. Bern at 21:54 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       I'm puzzled, RSVP. What mechanism do you propose that: a) captures waste heat from human activities, allowing it to accumulate over centuries, while allowing 'waste heat' from solar heating (which is about 10,000 times greater) to escape to space; and b) prevents the warmed air in that bottom 1000 feet of atmosphere from rising & mixing with the colder air above, as hot air tends to do? (ever see a thunderstorm?) Here's an important question for you. If there is some mechanism that traps waste heat over long periods of time, and it only takes 10 days' worth of solar input to provide enough heat to raise air temperatures by 30ºC - why is the bottom 1000 feet of the Earth's atmosphere not a plasma at millions of degrees? After all, the sun has been pumping that heat into the atmosphere for literally hundreds of billions of days. Unless the waste heat from human activity is some new kind of heat that behaves in a completely different fashion from the heat resulting from solar input, then you have to contend with that four orders of magnitude difference thing.
89127. Gilles at 21:47 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Alec, you're right, that's the last version including most recent SORCE data (in red) so which cross calibration do you propose now ?
89128. Eric (skeptic) at 21:46 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       #42, CBDunkerson, aside from GHG, the cooling stratosphere comes from lack of large volcanoes and from lowered solar UV (and thus ozone) during the solar minimum. Warming at night is partly from UHIE contamination, although some is GHG warming and some is weather. As for the rest of this thread, it is the rather typical divide and conquer approach: no correlation to cosmic rays over on one thread, no correlation to TSI on another thread, volcanoes on yet another thread. There are many examples here, e.g., /global-warming-early-20th-century.htm that simply use TSI for the complete depiction of solar activity in the late 20th century. Likewise this paper: http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/10S1_LGray_SolarInfluencesCLimate.pdf which concludes that GHG forcing is primarily responsible for late 20th century warming. The paper is interesting though in that it explains (and then ignores) many effects of solar activity on weather (the weather that causes part of the increase in nighttime warming, affects stratospheric temperatures, etc).
89129. Alec Cowan at 21:40 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Why Gilles provides a lot of heterogeneous raw data from assorted dated technologies and a 1978-2001 period in #61? Is is to contrast Trenberth's 0.9W/m² for a 2000-2004 period? Placing a figure out of context and conducting a sort of guided Rorschach Inkblot text with the height of the figure playing the role of "error margins" and the proposed reality check being the same units are used, isn't it sort of talking of ectoplasmic bodies in this photos?
89130. Ken Lambert at 21:35 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Gilles #68 Interestingly enough, the SORCE people (check their website) also produced their version of the famous Trenberth energy flow diagram which is quite different to Dr Trenberth's. If the TSI of 1361 W/sq.m at TOA was right then incoming Solar radiation would drop by the difference of 4.5W/sq.m divided by 4 at TOA = 1.13W/sq.m and taking an overall albedo of 0.7 would see a reduction of incoming solar radiation of about 0.8W/sq.m. This is significant in comparison with the claimed 0.9W/sq.m imbalance.
89131. CBDunkerson at 21:09 PM on 13 April 2011
       More wind, bigger waves, changing marine ecosystems
       Interesting article all around. If the trends shown and correlation to global warming continue to prove out with further analysis then these changes will have dozens of obvious impacts (e.g. need for higher sea walls, stronger waves breaking up sea ice more, more wind and wave power, increased sea sickness, changes to migration patterns, et cetera) and likely hundreds of others we haven't begun to think of yet.
89132. les at 20:59 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       It is extraordinarily how these allegations of corruption get made despite the evidence to the contrary. The Cuccinelli witch hunt went no where - despite having huge financial and legal resources at their disposal. Not only that, be even Steve McIntyre said that corruption was not the issue (not that his allegations of misconduct where upheld either). The fact is, when there is a perfectly good paper-trail (as all public funding bodies maintain) available and when nothing is found despite huge investigative effort... one has to conclude that there is neither smoke nor fire.
89133. CBDunkerson at 20:50 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       shawnhet: "IMO, there are way too many correlations btw solar proxies and climate" How do you square that opinion with the dis-correlation cited in the article? That is, "...TSI has not increased over the past 50+ years. During this time the surface temperature has increased approximately 0.6°C." IF solar effects and global climate were as tightly bound as you claim this discrepancy should be impossible. Further, if the Sun were responsible for recent warming there would be different 'fingerprints'. Neither a direct increase in TSI nor any of the 'cosmic ray' theories would cause more pronounced warming at night or stratospheric cooling. Yet those effects have been observed. Indeed, I've never seen a single skeptic even try to challenge (or address) those observations. How do you explain the fact that the pattern of the observed warming directly contradicts what you claim to be its cause?
89134. Gilles at 20:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       actually DM, it is unclear for me what you call "very much lower true uncertainty" : what is your claim about the absolute uncertainty due to systematics in the plot I've showed ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Sorry, that is just trolling. My point has been made perfectly clearly, the difference between ACRIM and PMOD composites is a good indication of the residual uncertainty. I made that point in response to your initial use of the plot here.
89135. Bruce Frykman at 20:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       [complaint about moderation snipped]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please read the comments policy, posts that contravene the comments policy are likely to be deleted. Of course moderators being only human sometimes miss comments that should be moderated (although the one you point out is not acturally an ad-hominem). This is more likely to happen if we have to spend all our time deleting repeated complaints about the moderation here. Keep on-topic and observe the comments policy and your comments won't be deleted. It isn't as if you have not been warned more than once before.
89136. Gilles at 20:11 PM on 13 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       nobody interested in the Nares strait and Lincoln sea anymore? looking for another more interesting "place of the month" ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Whatever happened to "wait and see". When there is news, if it is not posted here by others, there is no reason why you shouldn't post it yourself. If there is no news available, it is hardly surprising there is no discussion. Just for the record, I am interested, but have no news.
89137. Gilles at 20:01 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       I wasn't arguing specifically that the real uncertainty was that of the plot, it was just on purpose of illustrating how difficult it was to get absolute values.But again, cross calibration can be used to measure accurately * relative* variations but not absolute ones unless you have clearly identified the origin of systematics. So I think the plot is really illustrative of the order of magnitude of systematic uncertainties, they aren't much lower, and the story is far from being settled : see e.g. Kopp and Lean 2010, GRL 38 where the SORCE team claims a TSI around 1360.8 ± 0.5 W /m2, yet another 4.5 W/m2 lower ! and that's only the first part of the budget, as Ken Lambert reminded us : the outgoing LWR flux isn't better known.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I didn't say that you were making that argument specifically, the data from the satelites in many places overlap, which means that the true uncertainty is very much lower. The fact that you are still blustering suggests a poor attitude to science. The reason we have peer-review in the journals is to moderate arguments to the point where they are properly robust. Some authors tend to ignore comments made in peer review, or pay lip-service to them or bluster. They generally write poor papers that get poorly cited as a result. Bluster in response to constructive criticism rings alarm bells when I am a reviewer, and isn't encouraging here either. I have made my point, if you don't want to improve the robustness of your argument that is your decision.
89138. Adam at 19:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Muoncounter, "than what? There are ample threads here, all with pointers to the relevant literature, explaining this process in detail." It should have warmed faster than the previous period of warming. Look, the fact that the 1920-1940 warming occurred at a faster rate, shows that other forces can also significantly effect Greenland's climate. It was obviously not CO2 that caused the previous period of warming. Yet it is supposedly co2, which is causing the current warming. Like I said, polar regions are especially sensitive. The increase in temperature should have occurred faster, if CO2 was the dominant driver of our climate. Could you please point out that papers you are referring to, which explains why Greenland warmed faster 60 years ago? Rob Honeycutt, "Really? Is that what we say? I would modify that to say "if there were no other forcings on the climate system..." then yes, you'd be right. But no one claims that CO2 is the only mechanism that affect climate. We only say that CO2 is the biggest control knob. " If so, could you please tell me what forcing caused the previous Greenland warming of 1920-1940? And could you also please explain why you don't think it could be that, which is causing the current Greenland warming? Dana, "Adam, I'm looking at my calendar right now, and it tells me the year is 2011. So I'm having a hard time understanding why you're unwilling to consider Greenland temperatures after 2000." You just don't get what I am trying to say. Yes I do accept that the years 2003 and 2010 were especially warm for Greenland's climate, hence causing the total temps to slightly exceed the 1930's, but it was for those two years only. Once again Dana, did you actually read the papers I provided? Now anthropogenic greenhouse gases supposedly started warming the global climate at around 1970 (right?) And Greenland is part of the global climate. Therefore, according to AGW the warming that occurred on Greenland must have been man made. (unless you accept that it could have been natural) Therefore, it means that for the 30 years, greenhouse gases were supposedly warming our climate, Greenland temperatures did not exceed what they were 60 years ago. Polar regions are especially sensitive, so therefore this data would contradict AGW. I really do suggest you read those papers. "There's a word for that, we don't like to use it here, but it starts with the letter "d" and sounds like a river in Egypt." Dana I've not insulted you, so I can't see why you are trying to insult me. Dana and scaddenp, I will repeat my challenge to Rob, to both of you. mspelto "So the key climate data is that of the last decade. " No it's not. You have to look back at the decadal trends of the past century. What you need to do is look at previous periods of warming, and see whether the current one is similar to them, which as shown by the papers I provided and Dana's own graph, it is.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portions struck out. For someone who claims to know how SkS works, insistence upon staying off-topic testifies to the opposite.
89139. les at 19:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       (mods, I'd suggest deleting my 329 now as it really makes no sense as you deleted my re-response to 327!) my re-response only said - in short - I don't see how 327 substantiates the claims in 316 as it contains no evidence of corrupt public grant allocation or corrupt recruitment to publicly funded research positions...
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers, that re-statement simplifies matters considerably! Any responses please note the first item of the comments policy. Unsubstantiated accusations of corruption are not acceptable.
89140. Gilles at 19:16 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       well I don't see your point. I used own Trenberth's quotes to remind that the energy budget wasn't well known and constrained by measurements, because it seemed to me that some people here overlooked that and misunderstood what Trenberth really meant - he really meant that that the sum of variations of energy content he could measure didn't match the theoretical expectations. And again , concluding that theory is right and that measurements miss one of the heat sinks is obviously only *one* possibility - the other obvious one being that theory is incomplete ! And I used the plot to illustrate how it is difficult to get an absolute value of the incoming TSI - obviously the relevant point is to compare the discrepancies between instruments to the required accuracy to test the imbalance - around 1W/m2. Things would have been quite different if it would have been a matter of several dozens of W/m2 for instance , but it is not. You can recalibrate each instrument on the other, but always with an overall systematic uncertainty on the absolute value - because you don't know of course which one is *really* right.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The point is that the important uncertainty is the residual uncertainty after eliminating the uncertainties that can be properly eliminated by cross-calibration. Hence the plot you used overstated the uncertainties involved. I don't understand your reluctance just to accept that point and sharpen the presentation of your argument.
89141. Icarus at 19:11 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       All the skeptical arguments which attempt to get CO2 'off the hook' share the same problem - i.e. if there was another factor causing a large positive forcing then we would be seeing much more warming than we actually do. Disputes about TSI or cosmic rays aren't going to change the radiative properties of CO2. My understanding is that we know the climate forcing from CO2 to an accuracy of less than 1%, and nothing we discover about other natural factors is going to change that. The expected warming resulting from that forcing is less certain, because it is a function of climate sensitivity, but that applies equally to other forcings such as TSI. It's not possible to argue that the sun is causing the current warming without also denying the radiative properties of CO2, which would be absurd.
89142. Gilles at 19:04 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "There already exists perfectly feasible substitutes for oil, but its going to take time to make the switch-the fact that you continue to choose *not* to accept that such a switch is possible only speaks to your ideological-based blindness on this matter." I'm curious to know which "ideology" I'm supposed to have - it's just a matter of productivity of liquids hydrocarbons, you know. You can check that it has been used by *every* ideology, religion, or culture. Just take the list of main oil producers in the world, this is enough to see that oil is used by all industrial societies, totally irrespective of any ideological or cultural origin: Saudi Arabia Russia (former Soviet union) USA Mexico Iran Canada Nigeria Brazil "A) it is possible when non-intermittent and steerable hydro and geothermal power is available - otherwise, it's just wishful thinking up to now." Well, so you keep on claiming, but you've not exactly been too upfront with too much *evidence* to prove your point"" Marcus I am not *claiming* anything, I'm *asking* you if there is a country whose electrical grid is mainly power by non-hydro , renewable sources. It is not a *claim*, it is a *question*. Do you understand your own language ? I'm really curious to know which ideological common feature you can find between all these countries ... B) "....and, yet again, you've provided *no proof* that they aren't economically feasible. " Again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking you to explain why, if you think it is possible, it has never been achieved anywhere, even in the most favorable cases. I concentrate on Iceland because it is a perfect benchmark for me, since everything converges to make it an ideal case. If it has *not* been achieved there, where the hell do you think it will be ? "The reality is that *no* source of energy was, at its outset, economically feasible-but that didn't stop them being adopted." Actually, the reality is just the opposite, but you may need to refresh some historical facts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller For electric furnaces , i repeat : we don't know how to reduce economically iron oxide without carbon - and that's true even in electric furnaces. If you want to produce the current steel production with charcoal - do it. Good luck. "C) "well, not bad ... what do you think is the growth rate ?" Totally irrelevant. Those numbers were from 2 years back, & are simply *proof* that it *is* possible to substitute oil for our transportation needs & that, as the infrastructure is put in place, that substitution will continue apace. " No - it is simply a proof that a rich country can make some advertising on "green technologies" on a very small scale, but quickly stops spending useless money when they're in deep economic trouble, and cannot afford anyway these expensive "danseuses", as we say in French. http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/07/01/1
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can both sides steer clear of discussion of ideology. Many thanks in advance.
89143. Bruce Frykman at 18:56 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       This is index number 329
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There has been some deleting of posts that contravene the comments policy, but some replies to those comments may still be present. Please can we all re-start the discussion in a more moderate impersonal tone, and try to keep on-topic.
89144. Dikran Marsupial at 18:44 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP@366 Sorry RSVP, you can't ignore observations that refute your theory by saying there are "just a bump in the road". If the warming is due to waste heat, the warming would be highest were it is generated and would be less the further away from where it is generated as the heat diffuses out. The faster rate of warming in the Arctic than elsewhere directly refutes that theory. [incorrect P.S. snipped]
89145. RSVP at 18:32 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       Bibliovermis 365 "You are still wrong and no amount of repetition of your misconceptions will make them correct" It doesnt matter if I am wrong, in the sense that the waste heat that is accumulating doesnt care if you are right or I am wrong. No amount of beautiful theories about GHG is going to stop it. Anyone really paying attention will start looking for a good place to live. In the end, (as as always) its going to be every man for himself.
89146. Gilles at 18:29 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       [snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Gilles, Marcus made many substantive points in his post that you could usefully address, notably provision of evidence, rather than concentrating on a (now moderated) inflamatory throw-away line at the end. Please do so, so that I don't need to waste any more of my time moderating your inflamatory responses.
89147. RSVP at 18:26 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       DM 364 You might want to browse here: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ ...where it says, "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)." Are you telling me that temperatures are over 12°C in the Artic? I doubt it. Heat can only transfer from something warmer to something cooler, and will always tend to spread as well. So while you may have a local change, the net energy flow will always be towards the Artic, not from the Artic (assuming the Artic is an overall cooler place). On the otherhand, I will not deny an acute non linearity affecting temperature in polar region's if there is now water where before there was ice. This situation however is just a bump in the road as we are talking about "global" warming.
89148. Bruce Frykman at 18:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: les - 323 "Ammeter time in argumentation, I see. Make a vague statement that something ill defined doesn't exist and ask for it to be refuted? You will really have to raise your game if you want to engage here." Let us see if this one meets your profile: If "we" [excludes the power elite].... don't break "our" [your] "addiction to fossil fuels" [access to free energy markets], then "n years from now" [after we are all dead] the earth will experience a "feverish" temperature rise that "may" [or equally may not] be .6 C above "natural variability" [that we cannot hope to quantify]. Now "deniers" have never been able to disprove this wonderful scientific theory. Therefore AGW science is "settled" Help, the coulombs are melting my computer.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Still have yet to see any actual evidence on any of these points. Forget the ammeter, worry about the credibility meter.
89149. Gilles at 18:15 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       DM : "evidence" of what ? I'm just reminding that the 0.9 W/m2 value is by no means the outcome of measurements - there is no "evidence" to justify or deny, it just that it hasn't been computed from experimental values, but from computer modeling, which has never been considered as experimental evidence in any field of science I know.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You know perfectly well that the plot you gave was intended as evidence of the uncertainty in the energy budget. However, you were overstating your case by using raw measurements rather than cross-calibrated ones. The fact that you haven't simply admitted that and are still blustering speaks volumes. In science, the best approach is to present the strongest argument that the opposition cannot pick holes in, not just the strongest argument you can present. Why do you think Trenberth (and indeed the majority of climatologists) openly discusses the weak points in the science?
89150. Ken Lambert at 18:06 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Gilles #63 Quite right. The CERES imbalnce is actually +6.4W/sq.m which is 'corrected' down to +0.9W/sq.m. There have been several threads on this site which discuss this 'imbalance' problem and the circular argument which rationalizes it to a 'measured +0.9W/sq.m. The 0.9W/sq.m comes from maths and modelling (Hansen 2005) and is reported in IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 (+1.6W/sq.m) *plus* Dr Trenberth's estimate of climate responses which sum to a total of (-0.7W/sq.m). +1.6 - 0.7 = 0.9W/sq.m

Prev  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  Next