Recent Comments

Prev  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next

Comments 90451 to 90500:

90451. Berényi Péter at 22:06 PM on 30 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       
       Re: Moderator Response:

       Due to the paucity (love that word) of water vapor in the stratosphere, the radiative imbalance of the Earth allows CO₂ to freely exert it's GHG effects by cooling the stratosphere. As the clear RSS graphic I have shown twice now starkly delineates, the long-term stratospheric temperature trend is down, while the level of CO₂ in our atmosphere is up, driving up the temperature of the lower troposphere and our oceans with it.

       I don't know anything about the long-term global stratospheric temperature trend, it is not even measured properly I guess. At the same time trend for the last 32 years (the "satellite era") is down indeed, as measured by brightness temperature in channel TLS of MSU/AMSU devices. However, science is never about the big picture, in fact not about any picture at all. It is about propositions and truth-values (True/False) attached to them. Sweeping generalizations like "stratospheric temperature trend is down, while the level of CO₂ in our atmosphere is up therefore temperature changes are driven by CO₂" as suggested in your comment are only good for misleading the general public by showing them a gross picture, but unsuitable for actually understanding what's going on and deriving true and meaningful propositions about the system. ( -Off-topic dissembling snipped- ) We have reliable data for the last 32 years, that is, since the beginning of 1979 till February 2011. And yes, temperatures up there have decreased. However, they've done it in a curious manner. All the decrease happened in two distinct steps, one in 1982-85 the other in 1991-94. Otherwise the temperature curve of lower stratosphere is pretty flat with no trend at all, especially so during the second half of the entire 32 year record. These events are clearly identifiable as major volcanic eruptions (El Chichón, April, 1982 & Pinatubo, July, 1991). What happens is actually a huge initial transient increase in stratospheric temperatures that lasts for about two years followed by a decrease that is larger than the increase was. That is, the stratosphere, after a two years long transient ends up in a state with lower temperatures than the one it was assuming prior to the eruption. Of course the stratosphere can't get ever colder with each major eruption, so there must be some recovery on a multi-decadal scale, but three decades are just too short to give a good estimate of the relaxation time involved (other than a lower bound). To see this process more clearly let's have a closer look at the El Chichón event. The image below shows the CO₂/TLS phase diagram around this event with monthly resolution. The eruption itself is marked by a red dot on the trajectory, the transient is in yellow while (meta)stable states before and after the event are in different shades of blue. As you can see the before and after states occupy two markedly disjoint regions of the phase space. The projection of these regions to the CO₂ axis do overlap (between 340 and 345 ppmv), but even there, they're separated by temperature (0.4°C on average). During the 8 years following the initial transient excursion (but before Pinatubo) TLS is not decreasing further. The trajectory meanders to ever higher CO₂ concentrations, but the temperature remains stable or if anything, slowly (and hesitantly) climbs back toward the level from where it started before the eruption. It just did not have the time to accomplish this task before another eruption hit. It is an interesting scientific question what physical process mediates the multi-decadal stratospheric cooling effect of major eruptions. Unfortunately it is a question that mainstream climate science, trapped by the old CO₂ paradigm, failed to address so far.
       Moderator Response: [DB] You identify a number of different topics which are best discussed elsewhere (like volcanoes, for example). If you wish to pursue them, do them elsewhere. If you believe the satellite record is unreliable, then there's threads delving into that topic that perhaps you've missed. Otherwise, you can't use the satellite data to disprove the trend of the satellite data and expect anyone to take you seriously.
90452. damorbel at 20:03 PM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #876 Stu you wrote:- "Glass is also opaque to thermal infrared. No-one's joking, you just need to be aware that absorptivity is a function of wavelength." True, but the link doesn't say that or give any figures for different wavelengths, so I do not understand what you are driving at. In the case of water, evaporation is by far the dominant heat loss mechanism for incident radiation, even Trenberth's diagram show's this. You can easily discover the figures for yourself by checking world wide rainfall; the heat needed to evaporate water is deposited in the atmosphere when it condenses. Further "Well, can you explain measurements of downwelling clear-sky longwave radiation without it being 'back radiation'? If it's not back radiation, what is it" I have read the paper you linked plus the description of the radiometer used and it merely confirms what I wrote in #875. To summarise, the energy associated with heat is constantly being exchanged between (adjacent) molecules both mechanically by (elastic) collision and electromagnetically by absorption and emission of radiation; somewhere there is a link to a paper by Einstein in this connection. I know this sounds pedantic but it has to be said. What the radiometer used in your paper measures is the radiation from gases that emit electctromagnetic radiation because they have T>0K. What the radiometer doesn't do is measure the 'upwelling' radiation from the same gases. If you could measure the 'upwelling' radiation from the same gases then you would be able to determine how much energy was being transferred and in which direction; only then would you be able to work out what was happening to the temperatures at the various locations of interest. Measuring the 'downwelling radiation' tells you almost nothing because you are far from sure about what kind of material (pressure; density; temperature etc. - for a gas) is emitting this radiation (thus you don't know its emissivity) and where it is. The difference between 'back radiation' and the real world is that, in the real world radiation is emitted and absorbed locally, as explained by Einstein, and the world of back radiation where it comes from 'up there'!
90453. Gilles at 18:33 PM on 30 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       SNRatio : are you really stating that the climate sensitivity is a "real" random variable, comparable to the Poisson noise of a quantum detector, that is, there is absolutely no chance of determining it more precisely that the current uncertainty ? sorry but you're still confusing me even more...
90454. Stu at 18:22 PM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel: "In practical terms the propagation of light in transparent materials..." I presume this might be where you're having trouble... in the relevant part of the spectrum (thermal infrared) water is opaque, not transparent or even translucent. It absorbs all thermal infrared incident upon in within a few tens of microns of the surface (apart from the small fraction that it reflects). Glass is also opaque to thermal infrared. No-one's joking, you just need to be aware that absorptivity is a function of wavelength. I haven't been following your discussion, only jumped in here, but I see you say 'if back radiation really exists...' Well, can you explain measurements of downwelling clear-sky longwave radiation without it being 'back radiation'? If it's not back radiation, what is it? Here's a paper that quantifies downwelling clear-sky longwave radiation as measured during Antarctica's polar night: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3525.1 I do hope you don't just dismiss these two points out of hand by simply saying 'it can't be valid' or 'it's absurd'.
90455. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:56 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       @ Albatross Are skeptics comments on this site - post - are "off topic"? If we answered "yes " to this question, we would have to conclude that this post John Cook is "off topic" ... “On the occasion” of Climategate he tries to "offer" us previews of AGW supporters eg the "divergence problem" by ignoring the most recent (after 2008) work - papers on this topic. Criticizing Muller - He criticizes (again "by occasion”) opinions of skeptics on the MWA and the LIA. Similarly doing CBDunkerson "along with " disparaging opinions Lindzena and Spencer and the main arguments of skeptics (without the “right to reply” - because it is "off topic" - of course). Is this okay? You can not refuse the "right the reply" skeptics on these matters - if you do it try to "smuggle" through “the back door "... I appeal to supporters and adversaries AGW - by non-use of such "tricks ".
       Moderator Response: [DB] Please read the moderator response this comment.
90456. damorbel at 17:56 PM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #876 RW1 you wrote:- "I would but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking. How much is transferred kinetically?" That is the question I asked you. But I will accept evaporation and convection as 'kinetic'.
90457. damorbel at 17:51 PM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #877 Stu you wrote:- "Care to explain what the refractive index of a substance has to do with its reflectivity?" All materials, transparent or not have a refractive index, it is just that some are so opaque that transmission is dominated by absorption and incoherent scattering. In practical terms the propagation of light in transparent materials is governed by the Fresnel equations you will see on the link that a beam of light arriving at a 'change in refractive index' - normally one thinks of air/glass with RI for air = 1.0 and RI for glass = 1.4 - 1.7. At the surface of the glass some of the light is reflected and some passes into the bulk of the glass. In this case the RI of air is very low so the amount reflected depends on 1/the RI of the glass and 2/the angle the beam is incident on the glass. So, if back radiation really exists, it would be reflected by any surface, liquid or solid, just like the sunlight in Trenberth's diagram. Further you wrote:- " think the key quantity you should be focussing on is absorptivity, which by Kirchoff's law is always equal to emissivity at a given wavelength. In the thermal infrared (the pertinent wavelength), the emissivity of water is about 0.95" The only problem I have is the figure 0.95 you cite for water. Yes, that is what it says in your link. I have no idea how this figure was obtained, it cannot possibly be valid for water, other transparent materials in the list have similar figures. Light incident on material can either be 1/reflected; 2/absorbed; or 3/transmitted. You clearly know that absorptivity(a) = 1 - reflectivity(r), and emissivity(e) = a What is missing here is transparency(t), light can also pass through material (glass etc.) without being absorbed (much) or reflected (much). So how the compilers of the table in your link can give a figure of 0.95 as the emmisivity of pyrex glass, I do not know, it is absurd, it is higher than the figure given for carbon, is someone joking?
90458. TonyM at 17:41 PM on 30 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Consensus – it would never be considered part of modern science and the scientific method. To me, going back to first principles always tends to shed some enlightenment. Science is most fundamentally about observation, hypothesising and experimentation of a controlled and repeatable nature. Without the latter it certainly is not science – at least not my understanding of it. Many fields of study call themselves a Science (like Social sciences etc) from the Latin “scire” to know but that has a very different meaning to orthodox science. One can have scientists working in many fields including management but that does not make those fields science. As an illustration of consensus the aether “theory” was “well founded.” Michelson and Morely carried out some brilliant experiments in the late nineteenth century to prove its existence. Their experiments proved otherwise but, it still took years for the consensus to dissolve and abandon the aether. As a novice surely no one can dispute that we must contribute to carbon based emissions – intuitively it seems so (deforestation, industrialisation, population etc) but more importantly the data confirms it through C isotope measures. But that is a different question to AGW of an extreme type. Consensus is not the answer (that doesn't mean scientists don't talk about it but consensus measures seem quite silly). One question puzzles me about the CO2/temp hypothesis. Given that there has been an increase of over 100ppm of CO2 in the last 200 years and the current level is about 30% higher than at any time in the last 500K years why is our current temperature not the highest temperature of that period.
90459. nigelj at 17:31 PM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       What do you do when you are a third rate scientist, who has published a failed paper based on a failed ludicrous idea you know was failed before you published? Or I hope he knew otherwise Im mystified how he ever graduated. You talk nonsense to get attention and get a buzz. Afterall its either more of the same, plunge on regardless, or an embarrasing admission of error. ( -Snip- ).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Please take the high road on this. Thanks!
90460. adelady at 17:23 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles acceleration of temperature increases? I'll go with the IPCC until about 2040. I will die during the 40s (if I've made it that far) so I won't see it, but I expect a fair bit of methane /clathrate release starting in the 30s. (Presuming we haven't got our CO2 release and sequestration act together by that point.) All bets about temperature are off for me at that point.
90461. Marcus at 17:15 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       "Can you provide some figures as it surprises me given our commitment to free trade." The commitment of Western nations to "free trade" is not as great as some would make out. If we were committed to free trade, then we wouldn't be so heavily subsidizing the cost of mining & transporting coal-by, amongst other things, giving the miners massive rebates on diesel fuel. Bern is correct that the domestic coal-fired electricity industry in Australia has greatly benefited from its 100% State Ownership & its virtual monopoly in the electricity market-which is why I find protests about subsidies for the renewable energy industry so hypocritical.
90462. Gilles at 16:58 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       scaddenbp : I will readily answer your question, but you said "half the coal" , but this is very vague : half of which coal ?
90463. Albatross at 16:34 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawn @76, "Does this discussion go anywhere or do we just all agree that all "skeptics" are evil and pat ourselves on the back?" No, not at all. I for one certainly do not hold that opinion that you tried to attribute to people here about all "skeptics" being "evil". You strike me as a fairly reasonable person-- I am trying to encourage you to apply your skepticism equally...to be a true skeptic. Muller has also made similarly inaccurate statements about Gore and other scientists in recent weeks....I sense a pattern of sloppiness on Muller's part, and perhaps even an eagerness to bring his political views into play in a discussion of the science. Remember, Muller is one of the science leads in the much touted BEST project. Ideally, this independent study of global temperature records will avoid being used as a political tool and avoid becoming mired in rhetoric and opinion. So Muller's recent misguided public musings on the climate file are very worrying and far from trivial, and does not given people much hope that BEST will value the science above all else. I do remain hopeful that science will prevail though, and that the "skeptics" will unequivocally accept their findings. Anyway, time to sign off, have a good night Shawn. PS: You can respond to dhogaza, but probably on the appropriate thread. I provided a link to one such thread @68. Just leave a note here directing those interested in discussing the "divergence problem" to the relevant thread.
90464. shawnhet at 15:47 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       I can't really express myself here so I think there is not much point continuing. At best, the whole issue here is pretty trivial IMO. I think that, at no point was Muller attempting to claim that the two techniques were identical and he may've simply got confused about who was "hiding the decline". But, nevertheless, let's say I drink the Coolade and go for the position that he was [--snip--] about something that was pretty easy to check - What now? Does this discussion go anywhere or do we just all agree that all "skeptics" are evil and pat ourselves on the back? Dhogaza, I *literally* cannot respond to you, I will simply say that the post that you quote was written quickly and should be judged accordingly.
90465. Albatross at 15:15 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawn @73, Perhaps some simple and direct questions are in order. 1) Did Muller accurately and correctly reflect the content and true meaning of the emails to which John is referring? Yes or no. 2) Do you agree with John Cook's assessment of Muller's errors? Yes or no. 3) Do you agree with this statement by Cook concerning Muller's misguided understanding of events: "To conflate two separate techniques via the phrase "Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline" is adding to the glut of 'Climategate' misinformation." Muller could have easily avoided making the mistakes and perpetuating yet more Climategate/SwiftHack myths had he actually practiced due diligence, done some research, and read the reports on the Climategate/SwiftHack. Instead, it seems that Muller elected to source his "information" from notorious "skeptic" blogs. That is not acceptable on an issue this important, especially by someone of Muller's standing. And John has not even covered the myriad of other misleading statements made by Muller in his talk.
90466. johnd at 15:14 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Bern at 15:00 PM, excuse me for butting in, I just had a spare moment, and something jumped out of your post, so I hope it hasn't been addressed earlier. In what way do you mean "Given that coal for generation in Australia is "sold" to the generators for about a third of the going market rate,". Can you provide some figures as it surprises me given our commitment to free trade.
90467. dhogaza at 15:12 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       

       Sure, tree rings correlate well with temperature except when they don't. It is the parts where they don't correlate that causes problems for the idea that tree rings are good proxies. If you found a group of perfectly preserved tree rings from a time period where you didn't have independent means of assessing the temperature, could you use their widths to determine the temperature?

       Naked tree ring widths aren't the proxy ...

       Come on, Albatross, I am familiar with the issues relating to the divergence problem, which as I said previously, was what I was focusing on.

       Making this a false statement.
90468. Ken Lambert at 15:12 PM on 30 March 2011
       A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions
       Ken Lambert #10, #11 dana1981 and CBD: Any futher comment or am I to assume that my points are accepted as correct?
90469. Ken Lambert at 15:11 PM on 30 March 2011
       A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions
       Well that's settled then Thanks DB. Glad we agree on something at last.
90470. Bern at 15:00 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Ken Lambert: er, no, I never suggested you need $150/t carbon pricing to make solar competitive. I was saying if you factored in the externalities of carbon dioxide pollution, then you'd be looking at a $150/t carbon price, and if this was in place, all other generation technologies would be cheaper than fossil fuels. I'm not sure what carbon price is required to make current Solar PV cost-competitive with baseload coal generation. It may indeed be $150/t, it may be less. Given that coal for generation in Australia is "sold" to the generators for about a third of the going market rate, it's a complex question. In any event, more knowledgeable people than I are predicting that it will be cost-competitive without a carbon price within 10 years. If you then consider that Solar PV is one of the most expensive renewable energy sources out there, I think the argument for supporting expansion of coal-fired generation is kind of weak, to say the least. I do agree with what you say about the "privatisation" of the electricity infrastructure, though - if there was ever such a thing as a 'natural monopoly', then electricity distribution networks are it! K T: indefinite exponential economic growth is going to come to an end soon anyway, and the sooner the 'head honchos' realise that, the better... To conduct a ludicrous thought experiment: exponential growth being what it is, if current population growth rates continued, for example, we'd be down to 100m2 of land per person globally somewhere around the year 2500, down to 10m2 per person a bit after 2700, and down to 1m2 of land each by 2930 or so. By 2980, you'd need to share your 1m2 with another person. And that's not counting the loss of land area due to sea level rise. ;-) Given we are starting to have trouble feeding everyone with the 20,000m2 each we have now, that's obviously not going to happen without some amazing new food production technologies.
90471. shawnhet at 14:37 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Albatross, if talking about the HS is OT, how is the first sentence of #70 not also OT? How can I answer that without going OT? If the point of the OP is that two alterations to the data are exactly the same, then clearly they are not. OTOH, if the point of the OP is that there is no connection btw what was done in both cases, then that is not the case IMO. ( - Off-topic opinion details snipped - ). Now, I've likely gone OT here, but this is my honest opinion.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please re-read the OP again, including the first section and the closing paragraph of the OP. The post is not about debating the two techniques used; it's about Muller's repetition of falsehoods about what happened, and what actually happened in real life.

       If you wish to discuss the HS or dendro, fine. But not here; there are other threads specifically devoted to them.

90472. Bern at 14:24 PM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Ah, I see where I misinterpreted that part of the article... thanks for pointing that out. Such poor ice condition would tend to lead to rapid break-up of the ice pack, you would think. Will be interesting to see how the extent tracks this year.
90473. muoncounter at 14:23 PM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Yooper, Yep, the usual response. But here are some things a 'skeptic' could say when caught in such a flub: D'Oh! Never mind! Well, excuse me! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into We're so sorry Nah, not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
90474. Albatross at 14:02 PM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Come on Shawn @71, you can do better than that :) My comment @70 was not OT, I asked you a relevant question about John Cook's assessment (which you ignored), and made an observation about your commentary on this thread. Cheers, :)
90475. Daniel Bailey at 13:48 PM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       @ Djon & Bern Logicman means the melt season of 2011 will have a month's head-start on that of 2010 due to the much poorer state of the ice currently. Which is why veteran ice watchers such as Logicman feel Maslowski's predictions may now be dated and conservative as the ice conditions seen are much inferior to those present when those predictions were made. And I find myself in agreement with him (L-man). The Yooper
90476. Djon at 13:34 PM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Bern, I don't think he means by "I suggest that by mid-April the sea ice will be in a similar condition to that of late August 2010." that the extent will be about the same by mid April as it was in late August 2010. It reads to me as though he was thinking in more qualitative terms when he wrote that. After all, a drop in extent by that much would make the part of his forecast saying "By April 30th, ice extent graphs will show a strong downward trend similar to that of May - June 2010." an incredible understatement.
90477. muoncounter at 13:31 PM on 30 March 2011
       Temp record is unreliable
       Update to the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature study 'controversy': Watt$ made it up. Anyone surprised?
90478. johnd at 13:23 PM on 30 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Alexandre at 22:43 PM, I think the JAMSTEC paper is attempting to address most of the difficulties the Rahmstorf paper notes, in being able to produce reliable, and thus useful climate projections. One aspect this introduction of the Rahmstorf study reveals, is the necessity to consider the difference between data sets used by different researchers. Rahmstorf used a rise of 0.33°C in the global mean surface temperature over the 16 years whereas JAMSTEC using NCEP would have used 0.22°C based on a trend of 0.14°C per decade determined over the period 1982 to 2008. This is a huge difference, particularly when being used to project trends. If the NCEP data was used instead in the Rahmstorf study it would appear that the lower temperature trend would have required the study to focus on the lower areas of uncertainty within the IPCC projections rather than the upper areas as it has done. What differences do you see the use of the NCEP data would have made to the study? It would be interesting to see if the error bands of the different trends overlap, if they did, one would be left wondering of their usefulness, if not, the possibility that either one of the two is not a valid representation, or maybe even both. JAMSTEC are not seeking to overturn any accepted basic principles, they acknowledge all known contributing factors. I interpret this paper as not attempting to eliminate any of the factors that combine to produce a changing climate, but rather identify which of those play key roles and in what order of importance under varying circumstances. This thread is about the prediction of weather as compared to the prediction of climate. I feel the JAMSTEC paper ties the two together. It is all very well to make projections about what the average global climate may be at some distant time, but what is most important is to know how it is going to manifest itself specifically in different regions. As is hardly necessary to do, the JAMSTEC paper shows that there is still a lot of uncertainty of what are all the contributing factors that causes our existing climate to manifest itself in the ways it does in the here and now. To alleviate your apparent stress, I guess these are the questions you are referring to. What ocean oscillation became suddenly warmer now then on the last millennium or two? - Why did the outgoing longwave radiation diminish on the last decades? - Why did backradiation become more intense? - Why did IR radiation trapped by GHG have no effect on temperature this time? ...... I'm not certain that anyone can adequately answer such questions. The current understanding is that there is an energy imbalance at the TOA, and the surplus is , well, missing. Until such time the understanding of the processes involved are such that the energy budget can be balanced, then we can only speculate. What I am more interested in is that other threshold that energy has to cross at the surface. Of one thing I am certain, any solar energy that may be sunk by the oceans is firstly subject to the conditions that control that surface threshold, before it can even expect to cross the threshold at the TOA.
90479. K T at 12:44 PM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       The plan spelt out in the article above sounds good, but in case I missed out on something, does it (this plan) allow for indefinite exponential economic GROWTH? GROWTH is the holy cow of modern industrial civilzation, never mind its inherent mathematical absurdity, to which all industrialists are effectively blind. If this plan DOESN'T allow for growth (and I don't see how ANY energy plan can), but assumes that our collective energy needs will instead 'flatten out' into a steady state by 2050, then how much appeal will it have for the head honchos around today? Also, to change to all that new technology, you'll still need oil to start with. Have we still enough left to make this change? On such a massive scale?
90480. Daniel Bailey at 12:24 PM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       @ muoncounter (57) Nice! Cue the usual response from the "skeptics"... The Yooper
90481. muoncounter at 12:16 PM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       wingding#50: "None of this happened." That makes 3 strikes (missed solar min, peak neutron and 'peak cooling'). Every picture tells a story, don't it? -- NOAA solar cycle --Oulu neutron monitor --NOAA annual
90482. Stu at 11:54 AM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel (@872) "Fred, what I like about 'Back Radiation' is that it goes straight into the surface, nothing is reflected, even though most of the surface is water with a refractive index of 1,33; I'm sure Fresnel is weeping in his grave!" Care to explain what the refractive index of a substance has to do with its reflectivity? I think the key quantity you should be focussing on is absorptivity, which by Kirchoff's law is always equal to emissivity at a given wavelength. In the thermal infrared (the pertinent wavelength), the emissivity of water is about 0.95. Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
90483. Bern at 11:53 AM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Craig, you'd certainly think that increasing wind & wave heights would put more stress on the margins of the sea ice... particularly if the wind was blowing away from the main pack, then the combination would tend to lead to rapid break-up. Whether it has actually *been* a factor, that's an interesting question. Reading the article, I was rather surprised to see a prediction that August 2010 extents may be reached by the end of April. If that happens, then it'll be hard to ignore by the 'skeptic' blogs. It reminds me of the Larsen B ice shelf break-up a few years ago. Scientists knew it was weakening, but were astounded when the entire 200m-thick ice shelf broke up in little more than a month. Could we be seeing the beginnings of a rapid collapse of the Arctic ice pack? Might the Arctic be largely ice-free in summer in only a few years? Interesting times indeed!
90484. muoncounter at 11:46 AM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles#119: "you predict an acceleration, It would be interesting to see how soon it will be measurable." Already happening. Maybe you're not paying close enough attention. The red dots are the global LOTI temperature anomaly, shifted to 0 in 1880. The curves are deltaT = lambda dF, for 3 values of sensitivity. The small number below each curve is the equivalent sensitivity = deg C/double CO2; although these curves are a bit dated.
90485. GFW at 11:37 AM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Someone asked: "Is it because, conveniently for him, satellite data responds more dramatically to ENSO than ground-based measurements?" Yes. This has been another installment of short answers to short questions. Given the guy's name, why haven't there been any Die Hard jokes on this thread? (Yeah, it's spelled differently...)
       Moderator Response: [DB] We're waiting for more FBI guys...
90486. Stu at 11:10 AM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Well, I was unaware of Archibald's incorrect prediction on the previous page, which was pretty comical, but McLean's is going to tank in a whole 'nother way. I wonder if Josh will make a cartoon about it? By the way, I'd like to pick up more on the fact that he's using satellite temperatures to make a comparison to a year in which temperatures were not measured by satellite... oopsie! Not that it gives him any wiggle room anyway, 2011 will not be the coldest in the satellite record either, barring a massive volcanic eruption.
90487. shawnhet at 10:56 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Come on, Albatross, I am familiar with the issues relating to the divergence problem, which as I said previously, was what I was focusing on. My defending myself here on this issue has been ruled OT which is fine with me, but don't complain about what I am saying being OT, then try and needle me with OT comments after the fact, please.
90488. Craig Allen at 10:34 AM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       I wonder if the recently published finding by Young, Zieger, and Babanin of Swinburn University that wind and wave heights have been increasing over the last 23 years worldwide includes the Arctic and could be brought to bear in understanding what is going on. If so then the trends will need to be included in models that address ice decline. See the press release and the journal article in Science magazine.
90489. Albatross at 10:05 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawn @69, "Honestly, Albatross, I don't know Muller from Adam" And you do not know Mann et al. from Adam either, but that has not stopped you from opining about the HS now has it? Anyhow, do you agree with John Cook's assessment of Muller's errors? There is no need to go into the details of the divergence problem to do that.
90490. RW1 at 09:49 AM on 30 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel (RE: 869), "Now be so good as to answer my question:- What % of the heat tranferred to the atmosphere from the ground by radiation:- 14%?......40%?.......90%?" I would but I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking. How much is transferred kinetically?
90491. shawnhet at 09:00 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Honestly, Albatross, I don't know Muller from Adam, I have never been interested in him. I think a fair reading of the above is that a substantial part of the opening post is, in fact, about the divergence problem. Since this is not, apparently, the subject of this thread, I will stop commenting on it. I don't know how to address whether someone's statements are factually accurate without talking about the subject of those statements.
90492. Albatross at 08:55 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawnhet @67, Funny how both you and Cadbury suddenly become uninterested in Muller when you are required to actually consider his errors.....that is not being a true skeptic. A true skeptic would be very troubled by his mangling of the science. You and fellow "skeptics" on this thread are very nicely demonstrating CBDunkerson's astute and insightful observations. The "divergence problem" has its own thread, please go here if you wish to discuss it further.
90493. shawnhet at 08:40 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Albatross @66, I will admit that I am not particularly interested in Muller ;), but the only time he is mentioned above is to mention his interpretation of an email quote. The rest is about the divergence problem which I am interested in. Is the topic of this thread only the first section of the OP ;) ? Bibliovermis:"Popular and unpopular research should receive the same level of scrutiny ("policing"). The benefit of consensus is to summarize the results." I think you are being unrealistic here. Some papers may be read thousands of times and some only dozens. Can we really expect them to get the same level of scrutiny? Cheers, :)
       Moderator Response: (DB) This thread is indeed as Albatross describes it in 66 above; you have been pointed to other discussions here for the dendro issues.
90494. Albatross at 08:23 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawnhet @65, You seem intent on derailing this thread. Do you have anything of substance and relevance to say about Muller's butchering of the science? You know, the actual topic of this thread :)
90495. scaddenp at 08:15 AM on 30 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       "what's your guess for the average slope of the temperature increase in the 4 next decades? I you predict an acceleration, " I predict that temperature curve will follow closely the model ensemble trend calculated for the scenario of CO2 emissions that we actually get. I dont predict what the emissions will be because that means guessing to what extent governments will move to limit them, as well as society response to resource constraint when they appear. I also find the risks associated with BAU and high emission scenarios unacceptable. Are you going to answer my question or just try another debating gambit?
90496. shawnhet at 08:11 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       dhogaza:"Shawnet: if trees near their latitudinal or altitudinal limits aren't good temperature proxies in many cases, you wouldn't find such broad correlation with the dendro series and other proxies and much of the instrumental record. And, if you're right, you'll have to throw out much of what's known about the physiology of plant growth, not just climate science. Ain't likely, dude." Sure, tree rings correlate well with temperature except when they don't. It is the parts where they don't correlate that causes problems for the idea that tree rings are good proxies. If you found a group of perfectly preserved tree rings from a time period where you didn't have independent means of assessing the temperature, could you use their widths to determine the temperature? Of course not. Current history shows more than adequately that the relationship btw tree rings and temperature is much more complex than a straightforward prozy one. Cheers, :)
90497. Albatross at 08:10 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shawnhet @61, "if they were, in fact, a good proxy we would not be having these sorts of discussions at all. Dendrochronology is good science, it is dendroclimatology that is suspect." Interesting then that multiple temperature reconstructions that do not rely exclusively on dendrochronologies produce very similar results. Here is another one, and yet another for good measure. And what the heck, some more. I would argue that you are trying to deflect uncomfortable attention to Muller's manglings of the science by floating all these red herrings and arguing strawmen.
90498. Gareth at 08:09 AM on 30 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       No worries. Your graph is more striking!
90499. Bibliovermis at 08:00 AM on 30 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       shawnhet, Popular and unpopular research should receive the same level of scrutiny ("policing"). The benefit of consensus is to summarize the results.
90500. adelady at 07:58 AM on 30 March 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Yes Chris. " exacerbate the warming by shifting ice fragments towards warmer latitudes." No need to shift to a warmer latitude if that warmer water has already come to you.

Prev  1802  1803  1804  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  Next