Recent Comments

Prev  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  Next

Comments 89801 to 89850:

89801. Albatross at 07:58 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       BP, How did this forecast made by you (here) in June 2010 pan out? "Looks like PIPS end-of-May sea ice volume is a pretty good predictor for their minimum ice volume in September. If we go with this observation, PIPS sea ice volume must exceed their figures for 1998-2000 in September, this year." Now is that the real ice volume or the ice volume in the virtual world of PIPs? Anyhow, curious to see also what you believe will happen this year and how that tallies with reality come September.
89802. Stu at 07:43 AM on 6 April 2011
       Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
       Uh, Henry, no-one says this is the only line of evidence that warming is occurring... the mean temperature has also been rising, the trend in extremes has merely been consistent with this.
89803. Albatross at 07:42 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       BP @118, Good grief, this is now getting tiresome, and we know that you can do better than this BP. You assured me quite some time ago that you were interested in the pursuit of "truth". However, your post @118 runs counter to that claim. Also, as John Cook keeps reminding us, good science requires us to look at the whole, collective picture, quite the opposite of what you have just done (and please do not rehash your PIPs maps here, you have done that elsewhere on SkS already.... No caveats, not context, no source other than two PIPs images, which seems to have become the darling of the contrarians and those in denial about Arctic sea ice loss or its ramifications. I wonder why? Your plots do not change the facts highlighted by Sphaerica @113. Perhaps you and I can agree on one point BP, namely that there will likely be a small, yet stubborn, area of sea ice north of Greenland and the Canadian archipelago in September and October in coming decades. PS: I am curious to see how well PIPS thickness data validates against the in-situ Catlin survey data and the Cryosat-2 data (now that it is freely available).
89804. KR at 07:31 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Even better to view it as a movie, as per NSIDC: Ice extent 1979-2009 (Quicktime) As a long term plot: Or to look at the multi-year ice extent: March 7 was the maximum sea ice extent this year; much more relevant is the minimum extent in about 5-6 months. Even then, it's "...tied for the lowest winter maximum extent in the satellite record", after March 2006. Somehow, Berényi, I'm not reassured by your data...
89805. Berényi Péter at 07:21 AM on 6 April 2011
       10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
       You have removed a post in response to #133. Why? If there's a reason, why have not you removed that one in the first place?
89806. Berényi Péter at 07:07 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Here is the big scary decline in 12 years.
89807. dana1981 at 06:37 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       invicta - yes, the first post in the Christy series should be published in the next couple of days, and I'll be addressing the economic claims of Montgomery this weekend. The hearing was hypothetically an opportunity to educate politicians. I'm not at all surprised they didn't take advantage of the opportunity, but it's still painful to watch them fail to do so.
89808. JMurphy at 06:35 AM on 6 April 2011
       10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
       With regard to the hope from RickyPockett that the trees will save us, a recent paper suggests things are not quite as simple as some would like to believe : Tree Growth and Fecundity Affected More by Climate Change Than Previously Thought The above link leads on to this one : Northern Forests Do Not Benefit from Lengthening Growing Season, Study Finds And there are plenty more from that link to suggest that perhaps we might be better to include tree-planting as part of an overall carbon-mitigation policy that has other plans which will be quicker and more reliable - such as shown in A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050, or Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes, or A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs, or The Prudent Path, or Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits.
89809. Henry justice at 06:33 AM on 6 April 2011
       Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
       This whole article, scientifically, is trash. There is no real quantification of cooling or warming that is occurring, just maximums or minimums. Using such data is hogwash. For instance, in the U.S. alone there has been over two dozen double record days where it was both the hottest and coldest day on record. You have to have quantification of the amount of heat vs time. This is not being done and people just don't understand how a year with everyday a broken heat record can actually be colder.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you for stating your utterly unscientific, yet fascinating, opinion.
89810. invicta at 06:09 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Dana 1981 I believe you are wrong to see these hearings as a lost opportunity to educate your politicians. Very little of the basic science supporting the case for AGW would be beyond the understanding of Einsteins theoretical barmaid and I cannot believe the average congressman doesn't have at least this level of intellect. To lead your witness with carefully crafted questions you need a good basic grasp of the subject under discussion so I also believe that it is not their ignorance that needs to be addressed but as Albatross so succinctly put it their misinformation, distortion and obfuscation. I don't doubt you will do just this in the coming days. Einstein is also quoted as saying " We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them" The science won't change, the thinking has to.
89811. Phil at 06:00 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo @297 said Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith. If AGW has become a religion to some then it is taken on faith (by them), but that doesn't imply that it has to be, nor that it is by other people who accept AGW on more rational arguments. Everyone takes some aspect of the world "on trust" from others, the amount of human knowledge is too vast for any other way of living. Most people find quantum mechanics strange or counter-intuitive but all accept it on "faith" when they have an MRI scan. I wonder why you do not feel that quantum mechanics has also "become its own religion" - after all it is 30 years younger than Climate Change, and some scientists did not like it: Einstein: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. If you dislike the idea of taking AGW "on trust" but wish to delve deeper, then I would echo the others who have responded; this website is a great resource for those with an open mind and genuine skepticism to evaluate the science behind AGW
89812. logicman at 05:08 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       adelady: thanks for the link to the CT graph. I haven't been able to embed it either. :) CT ice graph Gilles: positive feedbacks to Arctic sea ice loss act in a probabilistic fashion: over any randomly chosen subset of available data it is more probable that the ice will be seen to be decreasing than seen to be increasing. It's like gambling on heads or tails with a coin which has a bias towards heads. It may land tails up a few times in a row, but if you always bet on tails, in the long run you will lose money.
89813. Magpie at 04:56 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate's changed before
       What I said in a recent conversation on this topic: "Look, even if it's true that it was just as warm in medieval times, that means we've had a thousand-odd years of climate change in just a few decades, and the rate of change only looks to be increasing. How is that supposed to be a good thing?" Seemed to have an effect. Sometimes people have all the information needed to come to a logical conclusion, they've just been using that information as sponge and padding to protect their fallacy.
89814. muoncounter at 04:50 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Albatross#115: "does not simply eyeball graphs to arrive at his/her preconceived notion." Albatross, That's not playing fair: Without the ability to say 'I can't see it, so it must not be happening,' the denier doesn't have much of a leg to stand on!
89815. angliss at 04:43 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
       This list shows clearly that the GOP has become the Ministry of Magic and climate disruption is the Death Eaters circa "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." At least Emanuel got to be Dumbledore.
       Response: BTW, Brian, enjoyed your latest Harry Potter post.
89816. DSL at 04:02 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       #287: My point was that the church had the consensus and they vigorously defended it to the detriment of science. Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith. That's the problem with your analogy, Neo: "but to some." Upon what basis do you establish the value of a statement? For scientists, it's the science. For anyone who enjoys real, direct power, it may be whatever helps maintain and enhance that power. You, apparently, do not argue from science but rather from the representation of science in popular media. In other words, you rely on others for your understanding. If this is not true, bring on the attacks against the science. They are welcome. If it is true, it seems hypocritical to come to a place like this and use the ideas of others to blindly bludgeon at what those others think is false. At the very least, you end up being a sort of puppet--a being completely in the control of someone absent. I'd rather discuss the situation with the person pulling the strings. As others have suggested, take your arguments to the appropriate threads and engage in open-minded discussion. Who won't respect that kind of move? If you're not willing--willing--to learn, then expect to be ignored or ridiculed.
89817. logicman at 03:41 AM on 6 April 2011
       Models are unreliable
       The argument against fluid dynamic modeling is essentially that no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of any man-made object moving through a fluid can accurately predict the safety and efficiency of the real thing. Models are not capable of guaranteeing that if the mass and drag can be cut by x% then it will have y degrees impact on reducing the operating costs. If the models can not provide these types of guarantees then they are not a valid basis for public policy initiatives involving spending trillions of dollars of ordinary taxpayers money on planes, ships, trains, automobiles and the like. If we destroy the wind tunnels and computers we can save the taxpayers a lot of money. It will also create jobs in the sabot sector.
89818. IanC at 03:41 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo, I should clarify that I am interpreting "accepted" as "accepted as a reasonably scientifically sound study". Not a study that is "accepted as a theory that offers an alternative explanation to the warming". Mods, sorry for the double post.
89819. CBDunkerson at 03:40 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo: "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." Sure. Angstrom 1900. Of course, it has since been proven wrong... but it was accepted at the time. You won't find any recent 'accepted studies' which contradict AGW because AGW is an observed reality. It would be like having studies showing that water always runs uphill. Even 'skeptic' scientists like Richard Muller and Roy Spencer acknowledge that AGW is happening... they just question how much the total impact will be and/or the best way to handle it. That you think AGW is somehow in question, despite the fact that even 'skeptic' scientists will no longer make that claim, shows just how little you really know about the subject.
89820. IanC at 03:34 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo, Regarding the UHI effect, it has been shown that it doesn't affect the temperature anomaly record. In fact NOAA did a study compared to the ones classified as "good" or "best" according to Anthony Watts, and showed that there is no difference at all. What that implies is that the UHI effect does not create a warm bias. For more details on UHI, I think you should read this , and I am sure people would be happy to have a discussion with you over there. Regarding data distruction, you'll have to be more specific. Regarding alternative theories, they are not dismissed simply because they are contra-AGW, but it is because either they are flawed, there are no supporting evidence, or evidence directly contradicts the theory. On skeptical science you will find a very detailed catalogue of alternative theories, and why they don't work. Most of the "evidences" touted by skeptics are often misconstrued facts, or simply irrelevant to global warming. In addition, scientist that raise scientifically sound objections are always taken seriously in the research circle. It is only when scientists who do not do research in climate brings up points that have be refuted many times that they run the risk of being ridiculed. It gets tiring afterall. "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." Off the top of my head I remember: Lindzen and Choi 2009 that challenges climate sensitivity. Henrik Svensmark is still publishing on solar cycle-cloud link. Mind you there are only very few of them, precisely because there aren't a lot of scientifically sound alternative theories left.
89821. Ggf9191 at 03:17 AM on 6 April 2011
       Models are unreliable
       I find it difficult to believe that anyone could consider the argument posed in posting 312 and endorsed in 322 as in anyway persuasive. The argument against climate modeling is essentially that no computer model of a non linear dynamic system of the complexity of the global climate can accurately predict the future. (read chaos by James Gleick) The fact that no-one has built a model that does not include co2 forcing is not relevant to the point. In particular the models are not capable of guaranteeing that if the carbon dioxide produced can be cut by x% then it will have y degrees implact on reducing the temperature at the end of the century. If the models can not provide these types of guarantees then they are not a valid basis for public policy initiatives involving spending trillions of dollars of ordinary taxpayers money on carbon taxes trading schemes and the like
       Moderator Response: [DikranMarsupial] Weather is chaotic, that does not mean that climate (long term average behaviour) is also chaotic. GEP Box said that "all models are wrong, but some are useful", whether models can "accurately" predict the future depends on how you define "accurate". Secondly, it is irrational to require a guarantee before taking action. I have car insurance, but I didn't take action to buy it because there was a guarantee that I will need it. We all make such probabilistic judgements every day, this is no different.
89822. e at 03:16 AM on 6 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Fred, You're making much of the perception that there are somehow two contradictory theories of GHE. As Tom and others have tried to explain to you, this is a false perception. The explanation relying only on backradiation is often referred to as the idealized or simple greenhouse model. It is a simplification, not a contradiction. The full explanation relies on both backradiation and the altitude of effective TOA radiation. I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty grasping this. Do you believe that atomic theory is in dispute because the Bohr model is still taught in elementary school?
89823. Rob Honeycutt at 03:10 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo Anderson @ 297... Just because you informed yourself does not mean you have informed yourself with accurate information. Thus my question. Where are you getting your information? Generally, on this site, people cite their claims with links to the information so others can review it for accuracy. Regarding your church analogy... You have to remember that this is science. Science is based on the empirical evidence that has been presented into the literature. When you go to the doctor and get an opinion about a condition you may have, you are generally getting what the "consensus" of most doctors is. You can choose to ignore that and find a minority opinion on your condition if you like. My bet would be with the consensus opinion. The fact remains, the "consensus" on climate change is there and it is robust. The available evidence is overwhelming. It could be wrong, of course. But the chances that it's wrong are vanishingly small. No faith required here. The empirical evidence is fully available.
89824. JMurphy at 02:47 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       No, Neo Anderson : the church backed a Ptolemaic Model which, although not universally accepted was mathematically provable, and that took the work of several geniuses (including Galileo) to finally discard. Where are those geniuses against AGW ? And where is faith involved, apart from the faith involved in believing that the problem is anything but AGW ? How much proof do you need before someone like you will accept it ? What videos are you referring to ? Where is the documentation you refer to ? Where is the "contra-evidence" ? Which scientists are you referring to ? What "contrary information" do you have ? Who called you a "heretic" ? Did you go to, and read, any of the links you were provided with ? As for your question : "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." That is strange logic. Let me put this question to you : ""Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts Evolution." If you can't, does that mean that Evolution studies are biased against the Creationists and therefore a sham ?
89825. les at 02:39 AM on 6 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Certainly it's settled science. No need to post from another blog to show that there are folks who misunderstand part or,indeed, all of it; just read the posts here! Mind you, if you want to understand the science your self you'll need to read one of those book things, possibly with the support of a physics (or physical science) degree. If you haven't done that, probably tre next best thing is to pist rubbish on a blog... ... Oh!
89826. Dikran Marsupial at 02:37 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo@297 A point to ponder, if reading information contrary to the "concensus" makes someone a heretic, surely that means all the RealClimate chaps, every contributor to SkepticalScience, Tamino etc. are all "heretics" - there is plenty of evidence that they have read papers by contrarians - how else could they debunk them. This also ought to be awarded a prize for illogical challenge of the week "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW."; if you can't see the logical flaw there, there is a certain irony in your choice of nom de guerre! ;o)
89827. Peter Bellin at 02:37 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Paul Krugman had an excellent editorial on the sham Congressional hearings have become. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html
89828. Fred Staples at 02:30 AM on 6 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       What others (explanations of AGW) someone may ask. I collected the following explanations from one thread at RC: Ekholm in his 1901 paper: . . . radiation from the earth into space does not go directly from the ground, but on the average from a layer of the atmosphere having a considerable height above sea-level. . . The greater is the absorbing power of the air for heat rays emitted from the ground, the higher will that layer be. But the higher the layer, the lower is its temperature relatively to the ground; and as the radiation from the layer into space is the less the lower its temperature is, it follows that the ground will be hotter the higher the radiating layer is. Chris Colose This is one of the problems I have with the simple layer model as it is introduced in some textbooks, such as Dennis Hartmann’s or David Archer’s “Understanding the Forecast.” This is where you simply add up the influence from successive blackbody “layers” with a final result of something that usually ends up looking like T_s=T_eff*(N+1)^0.25, where N is the number of layers, and T_s and T_eff are the surface and effective temperatures, respectively. Archer discusses some of the incompleteness of this model in his class lectures (lack of convection, layers are not fully transparent in the shortwave nor fully opaque in the longwave) but I think the whole presentation misses the point completely Barton Paul Levenson Your CO2 absorbs an infrared photon, one of its electrons jumps a level, and it either radiates another photon of the same level, or more likely, crashes into a nearby nitrogen or oxygen molecule and transfers some of the new stuff as kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy at the molecular level; the faster the molecules jiggle, the hotter the object. Thus the atmosphere warms up. Those collisions transfer energy *back* to the CO2, which radiates by the (wavelength-specific) Stefan-Boltzmann law. Some of the energy goes back down to the surface and heats it above what it would be from sunlight alone. Eli Rabett The short answer to the question of where the energy comes to warm the surface is from energy that left the surface but was turned around by backradiation. Without the greenhouse gases it would just keep going And RayPierre “The way the greenhouse effect really works is that adding CO2 reduces the infrared out the top of the atmosphere, which means the planet receives more solar energy than it is getting rid of as infrared out the top. The only way to bring the system back into balance is for the whole troposphere to warm up. It is the corresponding warming of the low level air that drags the surface temperature along with it” Settled Science?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Some of those explanations are completely consistent with the "Top of the atmosphere" explanation, particularly that of Ekholm, Rabbet and RayPierre. Colose seems to be merely arguing a point on the details and Levinson is discussing part (anl only a part) of the same mechansim.
89829. muoncounter at 02:28 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo#297: "My point was that the church had the consensus" Consensus of what? Consensus of 'this is the way we say it is'; that;s not scientific argument. So that's a nonsensical start. "AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." And now a descent into the ridiculous; this is called science, not faith. It is far more of an act of faith to blindly accept that AGW is not happening. Go to WUWT and proclaim otherwise; you will be quickly persecuted. Tackle any anti-AGW argument with scientific argument; you will find 'No, its not' is all that's left. So stop the bogus, self-defeating arguments. You'll have to do lots better here.
89830. Albatross at 02:25 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Neo @297, "Because I dare read information contrary to the “consensus” I am a heretic" No, your posts here do bear remarkable resemblance and have the hallmarks of a troll, and probably violate the house rules Might I suggest you please go back to WUWT or wherever else you have been obtaining your misinformation and anti-science snippets. And for the record, this is my first and last post to you.
89831. Fred Staples at 02:23 AM on 6 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Gosh . I dislike quoting the luminaries directly, but here are quotes from RC and Open Mind: RayPierre Humbert In a nutshell, then, here is how the greenhouse effect works: From the requirement of energy balance, the absorbed solar radiation determines the effective blackbody radiating temperature Trad. This is not the surface temperature; it is instead the temperature encountered at some pressure level in the atmosphere prad, which characterizes the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, specifically the typical altitude from which infrared photons escape to space. The pressure prad is determined by the greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere. The surface temperature is determined by starting at the fixed temperature Trad and extrapolating from prad to the surface pressure ps using the atmosphere’s lapse rate, which is approximately governed by the appropriate adiabat. Since temperature decreases with altitude over much of the depth of a typical atmosphere, the surface temperature so obtained is typically greater than Trad, as illustrated in Figure 3.6. Increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas decreases prad, and therefore increases the surface temperature because temperature is extrapolated from Trad over a greater pressure range. It is very important to recognize that greenhouse warming relies on the decrease of atmospheric temperature with height, which is generally due to the adiabatic profile established by convection. The greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, but for this to be possible, there must be some cold air aloft for the greenhouse gas to work with. Tamino “If a parcel of air rises, because of the reduced pressure the parcel will expand. It generally takes much longer for a parcel of air to absorb/emit heat from/to its surroundings than to expand/contract, so during its expansion it will, for all practical purposes, exchange no heat with its surroundings; in other words, the expansion of the parcel of air will be adiabatic” For a text book derivation I quoted page 45 of Elementary Climate Physics by FWTaylor (mentioned in the far distant introduction). The lapse rate is a function of gravity and specific heat and is about 6K per kilometre of altitude. If we cannot accept this very basic Physics, we are entitled to ask who are the denialists in this debate. Anyone can see the compression/decompression effect for themselves by inflating a bicycle tyre or releasing the pressure in a gas cylinder. The question of the transparent atmosphere is frequently raised. An atmosphere which was totally transparent to radiant energy, unable to absorb or emit, would still have a lapse rate. Its low pressure at altitude would be colder than its high pressure at the surface. However, it would be a very strange gas indeed. Unlike everything else in nature with a temperature, it would not radiate. It would allow the surface to be in radiative equilibrium at 255 K, and would not affect this temperature by thermal insulation, convection, conduction, or evaporation. Not worth debating, I think. As I said in a previous response "The explanation you offer, Very Tall Guy, is the only plausible explanation of the AGW effect. It is the preferred explanation of the founding fathers over at RC, and you can find it in the Rabbet rebuttal of the G and T paper, (immediately following their absurd multi-layer, back-radiation explanation). It begins with the lapse rate, a function of gravity and specific heat, which has nothing to do with radiative effects. Without this lapse rate there would be no possibility of AGW. The argument is that increasing CO2 in the cold, dry, upper atmosphere, impedes outgoing radiation, and moves the effective radiation point to higher (and therefore) colder temperatures. Outgoing radiation is reduced, incoming radiation remains the same, and the whole atmosphere and surface warms up to restore the balance. As your drawing demonstrates, the lapse rate moves to the right". The dominance of water vapour in the AGW stakes (often quoted by the sceptics)is not a factor because, at this altitude, the air is dry. This is a plausible explanation, unlike all the others. It implies that AGW is a top of the atmosphere effect, and that the temperature increase (right shift of the lapse rate) should be greater at altitude than at the surface. More subtly, it suggests that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the stratosphere will absorb and emit energy more efficiently, and thus cool the stratosphere.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not quote long passages from other blogs; we are fully capable of following links to them. And to avoid the possibility that you might be quoting selectively or out of context, you must provide those links anyway.
89832. dana1981 at 02:18 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Albatross #5 - I believe John has had some discussions with the Union of Concerned Scientists regarding distributing our politician quotes/myths from the hearing (and 'what the science says') to some congressmen. Hopefully they can make it happen.
89833. Neo Anderson at 02:17 AM on 6 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       #287: My point was that the church had the consensus and they vigorously defended it to the detriment of science. Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith. Also #287, you can watch videos on YouTube of AGW scientists such as Mann, Hansen, etc… getting in arguments over exactly what the consensus is. #289: It is documented that weather recording sites were moved from the open country to city parking lots. There was apparently much frustration at the lack of temperature increase in much of the southwestern United States. I guess it has now proven that parking lots and rooftops are much warmer than the countryside. Years of potential valuable data was destroyed. A few of these sites can be viewed at norcalblogs. Also #289, I agree that the “objections” were looked at some point in the past. However since they were contra-AGW, they were dismissed. After awhile there is so much contra-evidence that I don’t feel it can be ignored. Scientists who consider all of the evidence are labeled as deniers and ridiculed. Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW. #290: This is a typical example of what I am talking about. Because I dare read information contrary to the “consensus” I am a heretic. I am not informed. I am now ‘informed.’ #292: Same thing as #290. Once again, the fact I read both sides of the issue implies that I have read the wrong stuff. If I read only the pro-AGW literature, then I would be informed. (And thanks for listing just a few of the sites I have spent much time reading and studying.)
       Moderator Response: Please note this site's Comment Policy before posting. Comments are expected to stick to the science and remain on topic. This ensures that the debate remains civil and scientific. The topic here is the scientific consensus regarding AGW. If you wish to discuss the reliability of the temperature record, you can do so in the Temp record is unreliable thread. Future comments in violation of the policy will be edited or deleted.
89834. Albatross at 02:11 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Dana, I bet. Good that the misinformation, distortion and obfuscation of the Republicans and their witnesses is going on the public record Do you know if anyone has plans to send the copies of this series to senators in the USA?
89835. dana1981 at 02:06 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Albatross - thanks, many more "punches" to come. Watching the hearing made us fighting mad!
89836. dana1981 at 02:02 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       clonmac - several of the Democrats made the point that we need to continue funding climate science research to address the "ignorance" the Republicans were harping on. Hopefully they were listening. You're right, you really can't argue that we don't know enough to act, and simultaneously defund research on the subject.
89837. Albatross at 02:01 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       Good gracious, a one-two "punch" from SkepticalScience! An intriguing, insightful, but depressing read.....
89838. Albatross at 01:56 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Wow, the contrarians and those in denial about AGW sure are in a tizzy now that the Arctic ice loss is ramping up. Really, contrarians are just resorting to trolling this thread now to fabricate debate, what is sad is how transparent it is; observant readers here will not fall for that ploy. They are simply not "seeing" the loss of multi-year ice (green shading) because they do not wish to let their mind comprehend it. There is clearly a mental block there. Arctic sea ice volume is decreasing, and at an accelerating rate (see PIOMAS data and NSIDC data). The issue of feedbacks feedbacks is also discussed here at the NSIDC site in a report titled "Weather and feedbacks lead to third-lowest extent". "Since the "pronounced minimum" in 2007 the extents in 2008, 2009, and 2010 were all higher... yet multi-year ice and total ice volume continued to decline" From NSIDC: "At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s)." So CBDunkerson and the NSIDC are in agreement. No surprises there, b/c unlike the contrarians, CB seems to actually consult the appropriate authorities and literature, and does not simply eyeball graphs to arrive at his/her preconceived notion. Sphaerica sums it up nicely @113, as does this figure from NSIDC:
89839. Alexandre at 01:46 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
       michael sweet at 01:17 AM on 6 April, 2011 The SkS list has a lonely Democrat there: Collin Peterson
89840. clonmac at 01:41 AM on 6 April 2011
       Learning from the Climate Hearing
       This is one of the most discouraging reads. It disgusts any time I hear about politics muddling up climate science. Republicans can only ignore science for so long before it comes back and bites them. Unfortunately, in the case of climate science, we don't have the luxury of time. It just irks me when I hear Republicans say that more research needs to be done on climate change, yet then they turn around and attempt to defund NASA's climate research programs. That's the epitome of denial.
89841. Dikran Marsupial at 01:33 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Giles@111 Why would you expect to see evidence of positive feedback from just one week's observations. While you clearly know there is natural variability, you obviously don't understand that the shorter the period of observation, the more the results are dominated by natural variability (i.e. weather). That is pretty much weather-v-climate 101! If you want to see evidence of positive feedback, then the accelleration in ice loss over the last couple of decades is far better evidence (the thermal inertia of the oceans means that any immediate effect is going to be miniscule - but that doesn't mean that it stays miniscule if continued for a decade or two, rather than just for one whole week).
89842. Albatross at 01:20 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
       Great effort John and Dana, very well done. Not to mention less than a week following the testimony-- so great turnaround. I hope that this gets a lot of coverage in the media (assuming that they have woken up from their prolonged nap on failing to expose the inaneness and logical fallacies of the "skeptics'), as it should, because it demonstrates the incredibly sad state of affairs in American politics, and that of 'skeptics" and deniers of AGW in general. Either these Republican politicians and their witnesses (likes of Christy) are incredibly ignorant, or they are knowingly deceiving and distorting and even lying at times. People speaking at these hearing should be required to testify under oath that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As a scientist, I long ago gave up paying any attention to Curry. Here is hoping that this story gets legs....people need to know that the Republicans and their cohorts (e.g., Christy) are deceiving, distorting and being anti-science and obstructionist in their behaviour.
89843. michael sweet at 01:17 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
       Alexandre: "Nearly". Who was not Republican? It is interesting that Watts is now criticizing Muller for doing the same thing watts is doing with his site survey. whjat would Watts have said if the conclusion was different? You would think that Muller would learn from his past mistakes and stop his unsupported comments. Where will they publish their study: "We have done this study over and found out that Hansen was right all along".
89844. jmsglr at 00:49 AM on 6 April 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 10: David Suzuki and the sun
       The link is broken.
89845. Bob Lacatena at 00:44 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       111, Gilles,

       ...there is no obvious self-sustained acceleration through positive feedbacks

       And who ever said there was? You're creating a strawmen. obvious? self-sustained? acceleration? through positive feedbacks? Why the need to qualify things into such a bizarrely worded and so heavily qualified box? Why does it need to be obvious? Why does it need to be self-sustained (as opposed to caused by, and then contributing to, GHG induced global warming in a global, not regional, feedback loop)? Why does it need to be accelerating (it is, as clearly evidenced by the 30 year trend, but that's not the point)? Why is it only relevant if it is occurring through direct positive feedbacks (as opposed to CO₂ alone, or through indirect feedbacks, that contribute to the overall rise in global temperature)? If you want to say "there is no obvious self-sustained acceleration through positive feedbacks" go right ahead. But taken individually: Summer Arctic ice extent is obviously decreasing. The trend is accelerating. The cause is CO₂ induced global warming. One effect is an increased positive feedback due to decreased albedo over a large area of ocean during a time of year when insolation in that region is very high. So while your carefully constructed and obfuscating statement may be arguable, the component facts are not. When considered intelligently, rather than in a confused and confusing jumble of misrepresentations, the situation is nothing short of alarming.
89846. Tom Curtis at 00:32 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Ken Lambert @103, thank you. I did in fact make an error in my spreadsheet, and thanks to your prompting I have corrected it. The correct values are: Additional energy absorbed due to melted sea ice in the Northern Summer: 6.2*10^21 Joules Tonnes of Ice melted if all that energy was used to melt ice: 1.8 * 10^13 tonnes Area of 3 meters thick ice melted if all the energy was used to melt ice: 6.7 x 10^6 km^2 Percentage of surviving ice cap melted if it was all applied to melt ice: 90% I believe these figures are more than sufficiently large enough to rebut any "its to small an effect to matter" style arguments. I have been through the figures again, and I do not think I have made any further errors. Indeed, I am making conservative assumptions in ignoring additional energy captured in the spring and autumn; and by neglecting the large portion of the ice that lies below 74 degrees latitude and which therefore would have a higher insolation (which would more than counterbalance the ice melt above that latitude). I have also treated the additional melt back over the 30 years as being 2 degrees latitude, whereas from the chart it is closer to 3. So, all in all, I am out by a factor of approx 2. I have searched through the only paper of Trenberth's published in August 2009 that I know of. It does not contain, that I can find, any figure for additional energy absorbed due to ice melt. Nor, indeed, would such a figure be relevant to the paper, so far as I can tell. It does mention that, annually, approximately 1*10^13 Joules of energy is consumed melting ice. That means the additional energy gained through melting of sea ice compared to the ice extents 30 years ago is approx 600 million times more than is needed to drive additional melting of ice that occurs each year (on average). So, until you can produce an exact quote from Trenberth, including a citation that quotes the title of the paper, I am going to conclude that the "discreprancy" is simply a consequence of your mistaking different figures as representing the same estimate. Specifically, I will assume that you have mistaken an estimate of total additional energy absorbed (what I calculated) for the net additional amount of energy absorbed, ie, the total additional amount absorbed minus the total additional increase in outgoing energy. Finally, as a reality check, according to Trenberth and Fasullo, "Changes in the flow of energy through the Earth's climate systems", 3.85 * 10^24 Joules flows through the Earth's system each year. The additional net energy absorbed due to water vapour and ice albedo feebacks is 3*10^22 joules. The net energy absorbed each year amounts to 1.5*10^22 joules. (Figures from the introduction to the article. Figures originally give as Petawatts, but converted to Joules by multiplying by (60*60*24*365.25). These figures are very hard to reconcile with your claims about Trenberth's results.
89847. Alexandre at 00:19 AM on 6 April 2011
       Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
       Nearly an all-republican list...
89848. Gilles at 00:13 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       105, 108 : again I wasn't arguing that the decrease has stopped. I was arguing that I couldn't see any evidence for a significative positive feedback. I know there are natural variability, weather, atmospheric patterns, call them like you want. I just say there is no obvious self-sustained acceleration through positive feedbacks.
89849. Gilles at 00:09 AM on 6 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       #101Since the "pronounced minimum" in 2007 the extents in 2008, 2009, and 2010 were all higher... yet multi-year ice and total ice volume continued to decline." well that's not what i'm seeing here the 2007 minimum is logically followed by a minimum in 1-year old ice the year after, and by a minimum of 2-years old ice two years after ...there is no sign of non-linear feedback increasing the slope after these minima.
89850. JMurphy at 23:49 PM on 5 April 2011
       It's cooling
       We seem to have a new so-called skeptic argument : "Don't trust any of those elitist scientists and their modern, new-fangled, hoity-toity instruments and measurements - nature knows the truth and we will trust them to reveal their secret knowledge to those who we want to believe can understand what they are trying to say to us. Until anyone can actually speak to nature and interpret it, we can never be disproved and can believe what our internet gurus and blog scientists tell us !"

Prev  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  1801  1802  1803  1804  Next