Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
Comments 90001 to 90050:
-
EOttawa at 21:28 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I'm a bit of a luddite not having or wanting a cell phone so I'm not sure how the SkS app works. However comparing the review of the app to this website, I'd say their suggestions for improvement are a bit off the mark. I think Skeptical Science does a great job of showing how the pseudo-skeptics cherry pick arguments. Also, by not getting into the politics, criticizing media etc. to any great degree, Skeptical Science lives up to its name, without getting bogged down in that messiness. There are other sites that take care of those aspects. Keep up the great work, folks! -
Marcus at 21:25 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"Do you - to this - modestly selected - as above - aggressive proponents of AGW views - insulting democratically elected politicians and those who think differently - the applicants - scientists (often with considerable achievements), presented above - have any sense?" Arkadiusz-if a politician-elected or not-continues to repeat a demonstrably *false* position, then they deserve to be denigrated in the harshest way possible-if only for the benefit of those foolish enough to keep electing such imbeciles. Just because people like yourself would prefer to keep representatives in power who will advance the interests of your beloved fossil fuel industry, doesn't mean the rest of us have to stand by & let it happen without a fight. -
Marcus at 21:23 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
@ RSVP-Science & Technologists have actually done a *fantastic* job in producing alternatives to our currently wasteful use of carbon-rich fuels. The problem is that very rich & powerful lobby groups have done their level best to prevent *our* elected representatives from acting to put these alternatives in place-the same vested interests who fund the Denial Industry. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:57 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
1. For me the "scary" is how very poor and not updated in the source, reference is proposed by J.C. (What the Science Says?) ... and science is (sorry - "rush"!) to forward ... (see below). 2. ... and increasingly aggressive speeches separating researchers on "good" - who think like them - and "bad " - "miscreants" - thinking contrary. ad. 1. I am tracking many hours a day - the science of climate - still meet up with the statements: "great uncertainty", "substantial understatement". For example, the Sun and the MWP. Consider two random (not to be accused of tendentiousness) has recently published (and recently studied by me) publications. I. Medieval Climate Anomaly Vol 19 • No 1 • March 2011 Let's see how much - in principle - there are different simulation and reconstruction for the MWP - we find this (see: Fig. 1. by: Medieval Climate Anomaly to Little Ice Age transition as simulated by current climate models, González-Rouco et al.) figure in Sc.S.? II. Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the Holocene, Varma et al., 2011.: “The Southern Hemisphere Westerly Winds (SWW) constitute an important zonal circulation that influences large-scale precipitation patterns and ocean circulation. Variations in their intensity and latitudinal position have been suggested to exert a strong influence on the CO2 budget in the Southern Ocean, thus making them a potential factor affecting the global climate.” “Our choice of TSI reduction of 2Wm−2 between solar maximum and solar minimum in the model experiments is consistent with recent observation and physics-based estimates (Steinhilber et al., 2009).” “Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and additional feedbacks are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.” “Based on our model evidence, as well as the proxy indication, we propose that the role of the sun in modifying Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation patterns has probably been underestimated in model simulations of past climate change. The potential role of solar forcing, along with feedbacks involving ocean and sea-ice dynamics, may further complicate the prediction of future SWW shifts.” The “underestimation"- how much? What we do not know about solar “teleconnections”, “feedbacks” and “lags”? ad. 2. Do you - to this - modestly selected - as above - aggressive proponents of AGW views - insulting democratically elected politicians and those who think differently - the applicants - scientists (often with considerable achievements), presented above - have any sense? -
Ken Lambert at 20:54 PM on 6 April 2011Skeptical Science in other media
I vote for BP as the star sceptic and debunker. -
damorbel at 20:48 PM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The real problem in fitting Greenhouse Theory to observation is comparing a planet with an atmosphere to a planet with no atmosphere; this is not possible. A hypothetical atmosphere that contained no GHGs is still held in place by gravity and it will still have a temperature like any other gas in contact with an illuminated surface that can absorb and emit radiation from a star. When considering a planet with an atmosphere without any radiating/absorbing GHGs (or with, for that matter) it is important to remember that the rocky surface is no longer the planetary surface but it is the atmosphere; leaving the problem of deciding where the atmospheric surface is exactly located. The concept of an atmosphere without GHGs is perfectly valid; such an atmosphere would still have a temperature gradient due to the effect of gravitational compression, any satisfactory theory needs also to account for the gradient.Moderator Response:The claim that lapse rate or gravitational compression is responsible for the GHE is not directly relevant to this thread, as has already been addressed in multiple links provided. Please take this particular point of discussion elsewhere.
Edit: "responsible for the GHE" should read "responsible for the warming attributed to the GHE"
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:37 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Giles wrote "a downward trend for some period doesn't prove there is a positive feedback". I didn't say that it was, I said that it is evidence of positive feedback (I also said that it was the accelleration of the decline rather than the trend itself). This sort of misrepresentation of points is a characteristic of trolls and denialists, not scientists. I was also clearly not talking about "an oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration" but of sea ice extent over tha past few decades, which is long enough to average over the principal sources of internal variability. -
JMurphy at 20:26 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
KR wrote : "I certainly cannot speak to individual "subscription" weather services that do not publish their methods; but I suspect that if they did indeed provide a consistently better prediction than the normal weather bureaus they could make a lot of money supplying data to them - and they don't." Very true. It would appear that such services rely on an aura of self-styled knowledge to do with the fact that they are so good that only those who pay enough can be allowed to share in the knowledge. That aura is helped by having others rave about how good private services such as these are, without ever having to reveal how those services line-up against reality - unlike the public services, which are constantly tested, accused and belittled. As you say, if those private services WERE so much better than the national forecast services, there would be no choice than to pay that money and receive that better service. The fact that this is not the case, speaks volumes...to those who are interested in the facts. -
JMurphy at 20:18 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
RickyPockett, if you click on any red text which appears underlined when you hover your mouse-point over it, you will be taken to the relevant link automatically. Well, you should be, anyway ! -
Papy at 19:38 PM on 6 April 2011Temp record is unreliable
#158 For those who would still ignore our two most famous french deniers, here is the letter, from climate scientists references to instances of the French scientific research, that details their fallacy arguments : a taste of skepticalscience method with french sauce. So here are the perfect rebuttals lists to the Allègre's book and the Courtillot's conference. -
les at 18:25 PM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
308 Daniel, 297 Neo... "AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." I do think this is a fascinating accusation and one people often use - and not just for AGW. My partner is an atheistic (normally people say non-confessional) theologian. To be clear, theology in the modern academic world is the study of religion, not the construct of dogma. I've had a chance to delve into the subject and discuss with other theologians as well; and never do they define a religion as being anything to do with taking anything of faith. Further, I have a reasonable background in philosophy and the history and philosophy of science - and it's pretty clear that there is no sharp boundary between the epistemology of science, religion or just about any realm of human knowledge. They are all social constructs of knowledge, use evidence and reason to varying degrees and in varying ways, individuals have to take some knowledge on trust or authority, other knowledge through traditional experience, other through sophisticated experimentation etc. etc. Clearly and obviously the methodologies of science can differ to those of religion, or history, or the construct of a shopping list, or deciding who to marry. No one, these days, can draw clear distinctions between realms of knowledge based on epistemology and methodology alone. Various scholars do have their favorite "essential" attribute for science/religion, but there is no consensus - theology being, in it's own way a science. I shan't go into those, suffice to say that - in the professional world - it's a brave person who points the finger and says "that is/isn't a religion" over and above those which are commonly designated as such. ... A brave person or, indeed, an foolish one. -
Chris S at 18:03 PM on 6 April 2011Soot and global warming
Thanks Peter. -
Gilles at 17:09 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DB : this is still very far from a noise measurements over a much longer period than that you're using for your signal. Again, such variations can be found in a very large variety of situations, and they don't imply any possibility of extrapolation. And again, that's VERY basic physics.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There is no statistical justification for requesting a "longer period than're using for your signal", it is perfectly reasonable to estimate the properties of the noise from the same sample as the signal. That is VERY basic statistics (it is done implicitly every time a regression analysis is performed). Also data in isolation never imply the possibility of extrapolation (that also is VERY basic statistics) - the assumption of an underlying physical mechanism is justification of extrapolation, but all extrapolation can only be performed with caveats relating to such assumptions. -
Gilles at 16:17 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
logicman : I can't see any scientific validation of what you're saying - sorry, that just hand waving for me. Do you have a mathematical model of what you're describing ?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Logicman gave a mathematical model (the biased coin), his point was clear enough for me from a brief statement of the model, if it isn't clear for you, perhaps the problem is at your end? -
Gilles at 16:14 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Muoncounter : there is no notion of "long" or "short" in physics - it's only a question of characteristic time scale. There is a trend when the variation is computed over an interval shorter than half a period. Just looking at data such as in CT or PIOMAS data doesn't say anything about a possible noise at this relevant time period (30 yrs), so you can't say anything on its significance, unless you have a proper measurement of this noise in a former, independent, and much longer, time interval. Again, basic physics.Moderator Response: [DB] More hand-waving by you, I see. If 30 years isn't enough, try this:
Basic physics: More warming = greater ice loss. Based on the information at hand:
-
RickyPockett at 15:51 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
FYI scaddenp I am not repeating/rewriting someone else's opinion and I have never been to the website you mention nor any like it before today beside this one. I found a link to this article on twitter minutes before posting my article here as it seemed like a well known place of like minded people who may actually want to hear what I had to say.Given the fact that I come from the engineering community. My article is posted on my blog which is MY OWN OPINION and is only referenced with links to wikipedia because I wanted an unbiased reference list and I did not want to associate with any green groups for fear of political backlash. For the third time my blog can be found at http://rickypockett.blogspot.com/ Though given the attitude of the responses I have found here I doubt that any of you have even been there, much less have checked the references I have quoted on the said article. To the nameless Moderator. I find it amazing that you asked me to take my comments to another part of your website (which I must admit I couldn't find a reference to - Quote "You were pointed to a relevant thread, so please continue the conversation about that topic on that thread.") and then attack my comment because you obviously failed to understand the point I made (quote "Another example is your contention that the Sun's high radiance for the past 50 years supports the influence of the Sun on current warming. There is a post and a comment thread for that, so please use them: "Climate Time Lag.") regarding the suns influence on a graph from THIS website. You have a gutless attitude to tell me to take this elsewhere(without a link) while simultaneously attacking a point I made in my post that I am obviously only going to be reprimanded further if I try to respond. WOW Feel free to remove my posts from this site. I will never return. GoodbyeModerator Response:[Daniel Bailey] Actually, JMurphy already had given you a TON of quality threads that completely rebut & overturn every point you were making, starting here.
And gutless (your term) is not sticking around to defend your not-so-strongly-held positions on a topic (climate change) that so many here know far more about, and want to help you learn, than do you.
And I have been to your site.
If it's an honest, open dialogue you seek, and you honestly wish to learn more about this topic without accusations and recriminations, then I will dialogue with you. Anything else, it's your loss.
-
scaddenp at 15:07 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
CO2science.org is disinformation site, good at claiming papers say things that they dont. -
Stevo at 14:57 PM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
I orderred my copy of the book yesterday. Now I can hardly wait for it to arrive. A big thankyou to Haydn and John. As a former Aurtralian book retailer I can tell you that the cost of books here is the result of a series of bad taxation decisions that have never been rectified. (I could explain further but that would be both political and off topic). -
RickyPockett at 14:55 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Scaddenp @142 I'm sorry I don't understand the reference to Co2"science". Can you please clarify?Moderator Response: Also see my moderator's response on your previous comment. -
scaddenp at 14:50 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
And Ricky, if you have trouble distinguishing between valid arguments and disinformation, stick to arguments that are supported by peer-reviewed research (and if getting your arguments from likes of Co2"science", check that the peer-reviewed research says what the arguer implies). -
Albatross at 14:47 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
I thought this cartoon is relevant to this discussion-- H/T to Desmogblog: The 'skeptic' mantra: [The associated article is also worth a read]
-
trunkmonkey at 14:44 PM on 6 April 2011It's the sun
Whew! I have just finished reading this entire thread. The reason the stratosphere is stratified as opposed to the convective trophosphere below is that the lapse rate is "inverted" and begins warming, forming a stable lid just like the adiabatic inversion that traps smog in the LA basin. The stratospheric inversion is probably not adiabadic, but is thought to result from the absorbtion of UV photons by oxygen, forming ozone. The top of the stratosphere where the oxygen becomes "saturated" with photons approaches the temperature of the earth's surface during solar maxima. Above the top of the stratosphere the lapse rate becomes normal again but there is another or two poorly understood (at least by me) inversions before the TOA. Question: what does a satellite measuring the temperature of the earth from space (255K?) really see? Can it distinguish between the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion at the top of the troposphere and the spectrum of ozone absorbtion (approximately half of which should be radiated back to space), or does it see just the triple net of all the refracted, reradiated, conducted, convected energy from the earth atmosphere system? -
pbjamm at 14:35 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
RickyPocket (incredibly long post) @139 "I think that discrediting someone because their opinion as they may or may not be accepted by the general consensus (and this applies to this column as well as the world outside of it) is a step in the wrong direction." Indeed. Which is why regulars here are forever insisting on data and peer reviewed literature to back up opinion. Without evidence opinion is without value. "My intentions were not to divide us in the debate on 'Climate Change'. It is time that we stopped saying that 'I’m right' & 'you are wrong' for the sake of our ego’s and start accepting that there are many views on 'Climate Change' there are many possible answers that can be given as to its cause." Ego does not enter into it, facts are what matter. There can be many views on climate change but only those that are backup up with evidence have any scientific value. Lacking that they are worse than worthless. They add nothing to the discussion and serve only to distract from the science. -
RSVP at 14:32 PM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
"if we were in the US to bring our carbon emissions down to zero within 20 years, and invest all of this even though countries such as China and India and EU do not..." What "Science Says" matters little as compared to what it needs to do, which is come up with alternatives that attract politicians and their constituents. After that, the rest of the planet will follow suit. -
Ken Lambert at 14:15 PM on 6 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #40 "I should first note that I originally identified the figure I calculated as the change in incoming flux only. I said, "Of course, not all the ice is melted because much of the energy escapes to space rather than being used to melt ice." (emphasis added) In a following post I said, " I am going to conclude that the "discreprancy" is simply a consequence of your mistaking different figures as representing the same estimate." What is your point in calculating the incoming and ignoring the outgoing? Surely the whole discussion of AGW is about the *net* warming effects. One might as well suggest that we only look at possible changes incoming flux on *any* part of the Earth, while ignoring the changes in outgoing flux. A 0.75 degC increase in the surface temperature which is reflected in a similar emitting temperature will increase S-B outgoing radiation in proportion to (T1/T2)^4. That is the major cooling response. -
RickyPockett at 13:27 PM on 6 April 201110 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
In response to negative feedback from some of the people that have obviously taken offence at my article. I offer this reply and encourage criticism; 134. CBDunkerson. Firstly, I think that the first point I would like to make is that the keyword here is “doubt”. As a definition this is not an affirmation or a declination. As this 'possibility' is overwhelmingly disproven by evidence supplied in the, It's the Sun, argument response at the very top of the 'skeptic' arguments list it is clear … For the record, the Fig.1 on the graph from the link you have provided actually shows us that the ‘Solar Maxima’ in the late 1800’s is still below the ‘Solar Minima’ from the 1950’s to date. Hence (from this graph) in the last 100+ years we can ascertain that the sun actually has increased WRT (with respect to) Solar Irradiance. In the last 50 years the Sun has decreased WRT Solar Irradiance but the levels are still higher than they were in the late 1800’s. I am not stating that the sun is to blame in my reply but, I certainly not stating that it isn’t. If we knew exactly how the sun worked there would be uproar in the scientific community every time NASA sent a satellite in to space to study ‘Solar activity’. The short of it is, we still do not know exactly how the Sun influences our planet and stating that; “… overwhelmingly disproven by evidence supplied…” only discredits any arguments that you have because it labels you as being biased. Thus I would hope that the moderators remove your copy/pasted manifesto (and this reply) as pure spam. It contains nothing more than a laundry list of the usual provably false 'skeptic' claims already addressed on this site. Expressing an opinion is now spam? I hate to break it to you but I do not get paid for writing a blog. I have even foregone putting advertising on my page at http://rickypockett.blogspot.com for that exact reason. Kudos to you, for proving my actions to be justifiable. 136. JMurphy I’m very sorry but I can’t seem to get the links to work. If it is not too much trouble I would appreciate it if you could please repost the links. 137. JMurphy Surprisingly enough, I was having a debate/argument with my own father last night on the lack of evidence supporting the benefits of planting trees and the “Parity Effect” of trees only recirculating carbon in the environment and to this I countered – If trees were only absorbing carbon to be later released in the decomposition stage after the tree has died, there would be no coal. To try and clarify this, a good friend of mine from my engineering class when I was studying at uni, worked in the coal industry and pointed out to me that underneath the Hunter Region (near Newcastle, NSW, Australia) is a coal field. He stated to me that you can dig down a metre in any residential area that had been built above felled forests and find coal deep and thick. I inquired as to why that was and was given the reply that as trees shed their leaves, sticks & branches, the forest floor ends up as a natural compost sealant, slowly suffocating the previous layers and compressing them, until ultimately leaving a pure layer of carbon. Carbon that is not bound to Oxygen as one would find with CO or CO2 but in a captured state. By this fact alone, we can come to the conclusion that trees are not in fact in a state or parity, as some would have us think but, in fact do actually remove Carbon from the Environment. Albeit a slow process that can take many (many) years, it is in fact the leaves of the tree that are our friend in this case - remembering that it is in the leaves that the process of chlorophyll happens. I have a screaming urge to point out at this point that, there was an article about five years ago in ‘New Scientist Magazine’ that trees will in fact contribute to the CO2 (amongst other things, most notably nitrites) in the atmosphere until they reach maturity. This – I hope – will make us all (humankind) come to the realisation that carbon is in fact an inherent part of our planets ecosystem and follows the laws of thermodynamics as such that we cannot destroy or remove carbon. The carbon will always be there and can only be “moved around” except, – of course - in the case of nuclear reactions. For the record, I am NOT a “Climatologist” nor am I a “Chemical Engineer” I am a lowly music teacher who decided to trade a good income working as a Mechanical Engineering in return for spending more time with my four children as the grow. In essence, I do have a vested interest in the subject of “Climate change” and “Global Warming” as I wish for future generations of this planet (our children) to have a chance to grow up in a world that has a sustainable source of power, shelter & food. I think that discrediting someone because their opinion as they may or may not be accepted by the general consensus (and this applies to this column as well as the world outside of it) is a step in the wrong direction. I can also accept that my article only brushes on one aspect of the causes of “Global Warming” and as such will be viewed by extremists from both sides of the debate as being wrong. My intentions were not to divide us in the debate on “Climate Change”. It is time that we stopped saying that “I’m right” & “you are wrong” for the sake of our ego’s and start accepting that there are many views on “Climate Change” there are many possible answers that can be given as to its cause. My intentions were solely to point out that putting a tax on “carbon emissions” so that corporate industry can be the ones responsible for finding a solution to the damage that we have incurred to our planet as a whole is not (in my honest opinion) the way to solve this problem. No doubt I will have pissed off more than a few of you in my statements, but, I encourage you to have an open mind and to debate this problem with well thought out responses. Kudos to all of you for caring about this subject with the passion you have already shown. With my deepest regards Ricky PockettModerator Response: One of the (few) rules here is to stay on topic. You were pointed to a relevant thread, so please continue the conversation about that topic on that thread. You can post a pointer to that thread, here. Another example is your contention that the Sun's high radiance for the past 50 years supports the influence of the Sun on current warming. There is a post and a comment thread for that, so please use them: "Climate Time Lag." -
scaddenp at 13:14 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
I'm across the ditch. What's missing in US is any party promoting right-wing economic policy - eg balanced budget, no subsidies, free market. The closest you seem to get appears to be the democrats which are liberals (by US standards anyway). -
Glenn Tamblyn at 12:55 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
scaddenp @16 True. For someone from outside the USA, politics there usually lookd like the Far Right (Rep) vs the Centre Right (Dem). It always amuses me somewhat to hear Right-Wing Americans going on about 'Liberals' - Shock and Horror!! Here in Australia our major Right-Wing Conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Although they are full of lots of 'Climate-Denial-as-a-Sales-Pitch-to-the-Right' types. Morally bankrupt really. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 6 April 2011There is no consensus
A general response to Neo Anderson @ 297, if you're still reading this thread: I'll forgo adding to what the others have ably dealt with and focus on this: "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." Science is the focus on what is seen, measurable and testable. Climate Science, using the Scientific Method, looks at weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Faith, on the other hand, looks beyond the seen to the unseen, past the measurable to the immeasurable and puts the untestable to the test. So, given that climate change is an accepted fact, where does that leave those who would have us debate even the existence of gravity? For it is those in Denial that are most in demonstration of faith when it comes to matters of climate science, climate change and its human attribution. For they deny what is seen, measured and tested. Subtle, I am not. But undeniably faithful, The Yooper -
Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken Lambert @122, following the suggestion of Albatross, I have responded on the Flanner thread. One part of that response is relevant, I believe, to this topic:"Based on the calculation of the amount of energy needed to increase melting of sea ice, that means the energy gain over the summer months as a result of melting of the sea ice is enough to melt 2.2*10^6 km^2 of sea ice, or 30 times the average additional annual melt at September over the last 30 years. This strongly suggests both that large portions of the additional energy being absorbed is being taken up not by melting ice, but by some other means, probably by heating the deep ocean due to the thermo-haline conveyor. It also strongly suggests that absent this feed back, arctic sea ice would currently be increasing, and at a significant rate. Note that these consequences follow not just from my back of the envelope calculations, but from Flanner's detailed anlysis. In fact, taking Flanner's analysis, which we should, and even assuming only 1/6th of the total additional forcing comes from absorption due to additional exposed ocean surface, then 0.06 w/m^2 globally averaged is due to that effect. That amounts to 9.65*10^20 Joules annually, or 10 times the amount of energy needed to explain the continuing reduction in arctic sea ice, as calculated by Trenberth."
In other words, tracking the energy strongly suggests a very strong positive feedback on ice melt is operating in the arctic. -
KR at 12:34 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
Upon consideration, any discussion of chaos and climate should really be directed to the Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted thread. -
scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Well, American politics seems to lack both a right and a left in the way I am used to thinking of the terms. However, both extreme socialist and right-wing states seem to invariably at odds with an open education. -
KR at 12:27 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
johnd - And here I was, thinking that "weather is chaotic" meant "highly dependent upon initial conditions", and that better data, better sensor coverage, more accurate measures, and faster computation led to better weather predictions by taking more data, more initial conditions into account. Silly me. Weather is the very definition of chaos, johnd. That's been rigorously determined mathematically. Many non-linear systems are; weather absolutely is. Any error in initial state will lead to divergent predictions down the line at some point. I certainly cannot speak to individual "subscription" weather services that do not publish their methods; but I suspect that if they did indeed provide a consistently better prediction than the normal weather bureaus they could make a lot of money supplying data to them - and they don't. So - back to the "climate models" thread? Where we're discussing systems limited by boundary conditions, not initial states? -
Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 6 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Carrying over from a discussion with Ken Lambert on the Arctic Ice March 2011 thread. The preceding discussion can be found, starting with Ken Lambert's original comment, my response, and various exchanges which end here. Ken Lambert, thank you for the url. I should first note that I originally identified the figure I calculated as the change in incoming flux only. I said, "Of course, not all the ice is melted because much of the energy escapes to space rather than being used to melt ice." (emphasis added) In a following post I said, " 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."(emphasis added) So, rather than my figures being mistaken, you are mistaken about what I was calculating. Flanner, above, calculates an increase in global forcing due to cyrosphere effects of about 0.63 w/m^2 per degree K, globally averaged. With a 0.6 degree increase in global temperatures since about 1980, that represents about 0.36 w/m^2 increase over the last thirty years, of which just under half comes from the melting of ice. For comparison, the increase in energy absorbed in the arctic ocean due to melting sea ice over that period amounts, by my calculation, to 0.39 w/m^2. That suggests two thirds of it is dissipated through increased OLR. Based on the calculation of the amount of energy needed to increase melting of sea ice, that means the energy gain over the summer months as a result of melting of the sea ice is enough to melt 2.2*10^6 km^2 of sea ice, or 30 times the average additional annual melt at September over the last 30 years. This strongly suggests both that large portions of the additional energy being absorbed is being taken up not by melting ice, but by some other means, probably by heating the deep ocean due to the thermo-haline conveyor. It also strongly suggests that absent this feed back, arctic sea ice would currently be increasing, and at a significant rate. Note that these consequences follow not just from my back of the envelope calculations, but from Flanner's detailed anlysis. In fact, taking Flanner's analysis, which we should, and even assuming only 1/6th of the total additional forcing comes from absorption due to additional exposed ocean surface, then 0.06 w/m^2 globally averaged is due to that effect. That amounts to 9.65*10^20 Joules annually, or 10 times the amount of energy needed to explain the continuing reduction in arctic sea ice, as calculated by Trenberth.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed open link tag -
scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
Formal "chaos" is a descriptor of a mathematical system not a physical system. Weather is described as chaotic because the mathematical system used to model it has this character. What it tells you is that even the model perfectly captures the physical system, small errors in describing the initial state (and in weather you can only sample the initial state and all measurements have error) will eventually propagate to the point where predictability is lost. The better you can quantify the initial state, then the longer the forecast will accurate and I understand the improvements in grid resolution are also helping to make better predictions of the regional expression of weather systems. However, there is no escaping that the underlying mathematics used for modelling in weather are chaotic. Weather in a climate model is chaotic, but climate isnt. I recommend the realclimate FAQ for more on the subject. -
muoncounter at 12:04 PM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
scaddenp#14: Beg to differ, Democratic governors are fighting to keep education spending; Republican governors are cutting budgets and demonizing teachers in the process. -
muoncounter at 11:53 AM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
Bern#12: "focus on the idea that "you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years" That's in reference to an EPA document pertaining to emissions standards for cars and light trucks (including SUVs). Although the alternatives have the potential to decrease GHG emissions substantially compared to the adopted standards, they do not prevent climate change. They do, however, result in reductions in the anticipated increases in CO2 concentrations, temperature, precipitation, and sea level that are otherwise projected to occur. Estimated CO2 concentrations for 2100 range from 778.4 ppm under the most stringent alternative to 783.0 ppm under the No Action Alternative. For 2100, the reduction in temperature increase, in relation to the No Action Alternative, ranges from 0.007 °C to 0.018 °C. Those figures were, of course, misinterpreted to smear all EPA standards as ineffective. Of course, there's no value assigned to the purpose of the standards: Increasing mpg for new cars, thereby reducing consumer demand for that increasingly expensive gasoline. Why would we want to do that? -
johnd at 11:47 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
scaddenp at 10:20 AM, I notice your using of the "weather is chaotic" meme and am wondering if enough thought is given to whether or not it's regular use as a catch-phrase is indeed still valid or justified. I believe the basis of the term lies not within the nature of weather itself, but with man's ability to understand the combination of factors that create seemingly complex processes. There is no doubt that to some of those who undertake predicting the weather, their results would appear to indicate that weather is indeed chaotic, and as such provides an excuse for the failure of their predictions, so maintaining the meme is extremely useful for them. However as most of us know, the reliability of weather predictions is constantly improving, the full extent at any point in time perhaps not realised by those who rely on the many free services available rather than the specialised professional services. It is not in the interests of such professional services to describe weather to their clients as chaotic. In fact it is the opposite they must emphasise, that being that weather is in fact quite predictable, and that the advantage that they are able to provide is that they have introduced more relevant data into their modeling to achieve that higher degree of predictability. So maybe the time has come for the term to be retired and a more appropriate catch-phrase developed, for those who rely on such things that is. -
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Ideology-driven reformers, whether left or right, always have problem with education. Good education might have people thinking, or finding out the wrong facts. And of course a politician's dream, is an education system that would turn out voters that will vote for them. Don't blame the right - the left are just as bad. They just want education to deliver different brands of droids. -
Bern at 11:38 AM on 6 April 2011Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
It seems to me that many of the 'sceptics' focus on the idea that "you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]" (as per the Christy quote above). The real question: How much additional warming will be avoided by those CO2 emission reductions? I.e. what will the temperature be if emissions are not reduced? Given the long residence time for CO2, it's possible that there may not be much actual cooling in a century if even aggressive action is taken. But there'll certainly be a heck of a lot of avoided warming! The 'sceptic' approach to that point is kind of like saying if we stop dumping mercury into a landfill, there's not going to be much of a reduction in mercury concentrations there over the next century, so there's no reason we should stop dumping mercury in the landfill... -
Bern at 11:23 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
h pierce @ 31: Ah, SASOL... a quick google reveals that that one plant, by itself, accounts for 60% of all of South Africa's CO2 emissions. Technically possible, yes. Desirable? Hardly. Now, this is firmly off-topic, but in response to your comment at #28 about iron smelting, here's a quote from the Zero Carbon Australia report (page 19, right column): The Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) process, coupled with Electric Arc Furnace steel smelting, provides an alternative to this. DRI is already used to produce a significant quantity of the world’s smelted iron, and is inherently more efficient. Syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), sourced from waste-to-energy or biomass, can be used as a reducing agent in place of coal. Oh, and BTW: many books are printed in Singapore & other S.E. Asian countries, so we're actually closer to the printing presses than the US or Europe... I know of one example, though, where a book is printed in Australia, but I can get it airmailed from the UK for less than half the price it's sold here. -
muoncounter at 11:23 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
RickG#12: Hold on there pard, those are the folks who are busy laying off teachers, guaranteeing that future generations of Americans won't be thinking much either. -
muoncounter at 11:16 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#123: "any oscillating function as a temperature curve during a few days or across seasons will show periods of acceleration." Two problems with your fact-free analysis: a. 'during a few days or across seasons' does not a long term trend make. b. The long term trend doesn't oscillate, as you can see if you bothered to look at actual data.
-- surface air temperature, 65-85N latitude, April to September seasonal average
If you're curious, that's an increase of more than 0.4C per decade since 1960.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:00 AM on 6 April 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples @967 & 968, you quote a number of well informed people expounding the theory of the GHE which I expounded @944, and which is the only theory of the GHE expounded by regular defenders of climate science on this site. You also quote three people who may be considered to be defending a grey slab model (which is physically false), if that quote was all you knew of there opinions. However, Ray Pierre fully and explicitly defends the lapse rate theory in your first quote, and Tamino quotes Eli Rabbett as defedning it in your second; so we know that your selected quote does not represent their whole opinion, which is in agreement with Ray Pierre's first exposition. So, on the evidence you present, there is a consistently accepted theory of the GHE which has been expounded since at least 1901 - as shown by earliest quote. So yes, that part of the theory is settled science. And while even settled science is always up for grabs if a better theory comes along, given that this settled science rests on such fundamental theories as quantum mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics, and literally millions of observations including some on systems as diverse as Venus, Earth, and Mars, if any better theory every comes along, it will be a close observational approximation of the current theory. So what is your point? (Please find a thread relevant to this discussion to answer this question, for it is plainly not relevant here.) -
muoncounter at 10:48 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
hpierce#31: "an estimated 10-15 trillion barrels of unconventual oil" Sure would be nice to see a source for those spectacular numbers, especially in terms of recoverable oil, rather than oil in place. Here's one that puts recoverable volume a wee bit smaller: Of the 35 billion barrels of heavy oil estimated to be technically recoverable in North America, But that's off topic. The 100 percent renewables thread might be a more appropriate to argue about oil; we have a self-appointed expert in fossil fuels who lives there. -
scaddenp at 10:20 AM on 6 April 2011Models are unreliable
"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 argument you refer to is one against the assertion that models are "tuned" through parameterization to reflect the biases of the modeller. Your argument is different. Weather is chaotic but that doesn't imply climate is chaotic. It remains an open question but the mathematical systems used in climate modelling are not chaotic in the formal sense. For more on this, see this argument It might also be good John included the climate model FAQ from realclimate (here and here) in the "Further reading" part of this article.Moderator Response: [DB] Added the RC climate model FAQ links per your suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to make them! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:29 AM on 6 April 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
Henry @58 "You have to have quantification of the amount of heat vs time. This is not being done" Yes it is! You might like to look at this Empirical Evidence of Warming Scroll down to the section on Total Heat Content and the study by Murphy et al. -
h pierce at 09:09 AM on 6 April 2011Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
CDB at 30 There is no shortage of fossil fuels until ca 2100. FYI there is an estimated 10-15 trillion barrels of unconventual oil such as heavy crude oil, eztra heavy crude oil, oil shale and tar sand. Shell R and D has several pilot projects in north western Colorado that uses in-situ resistive heating to recover oil from oil shale formations. When these process are perfected oil will flow like water from these formations. Google SASOL to learn about S Africa's coal-to-liquid hydrocarbon processes. -
RickG at 09:04 AM on 6 April 2011Learning from the Climate Hearing
Funny how the Republicans take every opportunity to talk up the need for better education, but when its time for them to sit in the classroom...... -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 6 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Ken and Tom and others, Could we please move the energy budget discussion to the more appropriate Flanner thread? Thanks.Moderator Response: (DB) Agreed.
Prev 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 Next
