Recent Comments

Prev  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  Next

Comments 90601 to 90650:

90601. Bern at 14:57 PM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Sean A: if you think that nuclear is going to stand up & be counted in the current political environment in most western countries, then you're sadly mistaken. If I recall correctly, the major reason that Hansen & Lovelock thought nuclear should be part of the mix is that there were no other sources of large-scale baseload power that they could see in the short term, both of them being convinced that we need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday. Personally, I think that Gen IV reactors (like the IFR - Integral Fast Reactor, the LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, and others) have the potential to supply enormous amounts of carbon-free electricity with very low risk (and certainly lower environmental & health impacts than coal!). But you need to convince a few hundred million others of that, and, as the latest election results from Germany show, the emotive anti-nuclear argument is winning the day right now, by a clear majority. Unless & until more dispassionate analysis by the voting public of the events at Fukushima Daiichi occurs, it's extremely unlikely that new nuclear plants will even be on the table for discussion, let alone actually built. Given the propensity of the mass media for hyping the doomsday scenarios that might eventuate, then dropping the story altogether when things get "boring" (i.e. not at all apocalyptic), I'm not holding my breath for that. So, given the #1 priority is to get rid of fossil fuels, then we need to put serious effort into other renewables for a while. The progress I've seen over the past 5 years or so is pretty encouraging, I have to say, and with a bit more effort, we'll see where things go. Given the combination of high technological capability & large "Greens" political influence, I'm expecting some exciting developments to come out of Germany over the next few years (fingers crossed!).
90602. garythompson at 14:52 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       If the proxy data didn't correlate with temperature data after 1960, then why did Briffa make the claim that the tree proxy data was in error without looking at a possible error in the instrument data? From the paper here there were many theories floated as to why the tree ring data diverges after 1960 but many of them point to a drought condition. Other suggestions include global dimming, polution, strataspheric ozone levels, insect infestation, etc. While all of these might be real, that is a fairly complex set of conditions that must come together to cause this error and surely another obvious answer could come from the temperature measurements. Maybe this was thouroughly investigated and shown not to be a cause in a paper and if someone has a link to that I'd appreciate you sharing it. This graph from that paper also highlights the divergence over the last couple of decades. And correct me if I'm wrong but over the past couple of decades we've seen a large drop out of the number of weather stations, especially in the northern latitudes where the tree ring data diverges. Could this be another possible explanation? How close were the temperature stations to the tree ring samples? Were they at similar elevations and does that matter? #14 Robert Way - If 8 data points aren't sufficient to justify a large enough sample size why is it ok to have 8 data points (i.e. temperature stations) to represent a global region composed of a circle with a 1,500 km radius (which is what the GISS data does for the north pole area)? If you look at the dark red area on the picture below and then go click on the center of that region on the GISS site you'll only find 8 sites that have continuous measurements over the past several decades.
       Moderator Response: If you want to discuss the reliability of the temperature record, please take your discussion to the temperature record thread.
90603. Tom Curtis at 14:08 PM on 29 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @872: 1) Surely you mean that Heat is what is measured by temperature multiplied by heat capacity. "Heat capacity"? How about that. It appears to be implicit to the language of physics (as it has always been to natural languages) that heat is something that can be stored. I think the revisionist physicists who want to outlaw the use of "heat" to describe internal energy are merely sowing confusion for themselves and their students. 2) Any back radiation that is reflected from the surface is simply part of the Surface Radiation. This is because, fairly obviously, IR detectors cannot distinguish between IR radiation emitted and reflected at the same frequency. The amount reflected is, of course, very small, and probably not large enough to include even if you designed instruments that could reliably distinguish it. Therefore there is no problem in treating emitted surface radiation plus reflected back radiation as a single bulk quantity. In this case you are scoffing at ant hills while swallowing mountains of denier nonsense.
90604. Sean A at 14:02 PM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Who's in denial now? Ignoring a major source of sustainable energy would be inadvisable. Any plan for 100% carbon-free energy that excludes nuclear is hopelessly unrealistic. 50% of our energy from wind? You gotta be pulling my leg. Biofuels? There's no future for biofuels, we need arable land to grow food. There's going to be 10 billion people on the planet soon. Go ahead and get all of the nuclear angst out of your systems now. But make it quick, because we're running out of time. Forward-looking thinkers have already come to the conclusion that we have no choice but to develop nuclear (and renewables) if we want to stop burning coal. Lovelock and Hansen, among others. If you look at the numbers, for renewables only, the numbers don't add up. withouthotair.com Generation IV - Use stockpiles of nuclear waste for fuel. No further mining needed. - Passively safe. - Proliferation resistant. - Some designs, such as the IFR, are not new technology. We can start building these plants now. Renewables and nuclear = climate and energy problems solved. Renewables without nuclear = we have to build more coal plants. Bad outcome.
90605. robert way at 13:48 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Charlie A at 10:26 AM on 29 March, 2011 "3. Deleting the pre-1550 data in Briffa and Osborne 1999 article in Science and other peer reviewed articles." I don't think going to climate audit will give you the best opinion on this subject. They seem to believe that not showing data where the sample density is too low and the spatial distribution is low equates to a "trick". What they don't tell you is that going back to 1400 there are only 8 proxies so they do not include the data past 1550 because of the substantial reduction in the number of proxies. An example I can point to is here: http://treesfortheforest.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ghcn_global_temp_area_1961-1990_5x51.png Are scientists "hiding the decline" by not using data going past 1880s in global temperature records? Of course not, the distribution is not accurate. Using less data=noisier data and the authors chose to show when they had confidence in their datasets. No story here.
90606. arch stanton at 13:28 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Dana (10) I hope he does also. Keep up the good work.
90607. Bern at 13:17 PM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       That link johnd provided above for JAMSTEC was interesting, particularly this part of their forecast: "Southeastern China, southwestern Japan, US and Europe would have warm and dry condition during boreal spring-summer seasons." Following on from the very heavy snowstorms during late winter, warm conditions means there is likely to be significant flooding in the US this spring/summer as the snowpack melts (as per the NOAA assessment). The other question is: how warm is warm? Are we talking heatwave warm? It would be somewhat ironic if the continental US experienced record-setting warm temperatures during one of the cooler years of the last decade, given the focus by some on cooler CONUS temps during one of the hottest years ever recorded last year.
90608. getricks at 13:00 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       This is exactly the kind of information a non scientific person like myself needs to see to de-jigsaw puzzle the stuff that makes me so suspicious. Thank-you. Why was muller [--snip--] things.? To increase potency of his skeptical argument it would seem. That is the ongoing problem for us average Joes. Too many [--snip--] written in scientific language.(thinking non scientific folk are too stupid perhaps) And I hope Muller knows he is being held accountable for what he says as should all in this debate. I hope you realize just how important your site is.Thanks again.
90609. muoncounter at 12:48 PM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles#116: "I just wanted to notice that they consider that oil is needed - notwithstanding the well known fact that we could so easily replace it," Classic. You posted a graph (which you didn't cite until 9 comments later - perhaps because you clipped the graph from 'Republicans for Environmental Protection,' whatever that is), without explanatory reference to the report to which the graph belongs. You interpret the graph's 'oil to be found' to suit your biased needs. And reach a completely incorrect conclusion. Here's the actual source document for the graph, which is indeed part of the IEA World Energy Outlook for 2010. Let's do what you conspicuously did not: Define the 'New Policy Scenario,' which you see as a statement that these 'clowns' consider that 'oil is needed.' From the factsheet: In the New Policies Scenario ... world primary energy demand increases by 36% between 2008 and 2035, or 1.2% per year on average. This compares with 2% per year over the previous 27-year period. The scenario assumes cautious implementation of the policy commitments and plans announced by countries around the world, including the national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and plans to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. So this is really a very limited attempt to reduce CO2 emissions; it is, by design, not a radical shift away from oil consumption. Later in the document, the New Policy Scenario is compared to the commitments of Copenhagen: Were those commitments to be implemented in a cautious manner, as assumed in the New Policies Scenario, rising demand for fossil fuels would continue to drive up energy‑related CO2 emissions, making it all but impossible to achieve the 2°C goal. ... Emissions jump to over 35 Gigatonne (Gt) in 2035 — 21% up on the 2008 level of 29Gt. Non‑OECD countries account for all of the increase; OECD emissions peak before 2015 and then begin to fall. These trends are in line with stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) at over 650 parts per million (ppm) of CO2‑equivalent, resulting in a likely temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term. --emphasis added So: The IEA doesn't consider that oil is needed, as you claim. They show a scenario of baby steps, in which oil use increases and we arrive at 650ppm and the high side of +3.5C. That's not a good outcome. Really, Gilles, you've got to try harder. You've not yet shown that you have any inclination to do that; but at the very least, find out what you're talking about before forming an opinion.
90610. e at 12:27 PM on 29 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Fred, The back-radiation in Trenberth's original diagram illustrates the gross flow of energy from atmosphere to surface. If you want to see the net energy flow (heat transfer), just subtract it from the gross flow of energy from surface to atmosphere: 356 - 333 = 23 W/m^2 net radiative energy transfer from surface to atmosphere. Where exactly do you see a violation of the 2nd law? Oh and the "correct" version you cited is derived by doing this exact type of math on Trenberth's results. It is the same information, not a corrected version. All they did was sum the gross inputs/outputs into the atmosphere. Also don't forget that Trenberth's diagram documents measured values, it is not a theoretical whimsy. If you doubt that back-radiation exists, go buy an infrared thermometer, point it at space on a clear night, and prove your point.
90611. dhogaza at 12:14 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Charlie A:

       An example of item #3 is the annotated version of Briffa and Osborne Figure 1 from Science 1999 article.

       Let me see if if I get this right: they discard proxy data that doesn't calibrate with the modern temperature record and proxy data that doesn't calibrate with proxy data pre-1550. This seems like the right thing to do, indeed. D'oh.
90612. dana1981 at 12:06 PM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Susanne - it is temperature of the lower troposphere
90613. dana1981 at 12:04 PM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Arch - thanks, but we'd prefer if Muller began examining the facts more carefully, particularly when speaking to Congress. This is meant as motivation for Muller to start being more careful and accurate with his statements.
90614. arch stanton at 11:48 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       John, Dana, Thank you very much for your hard work in the area of separating the truth from….other. It would appear to me that this (Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline) is an ongoing series concerning Muller’s upcoming anticipated presentation before congress. I humbly suggest that you hold off on critiquing him until after he has exposed himself to congress. Don’t help him polish his presentation or find new ways to deceitfully misrepresent the science. Suggestion for the next person who watches the Berkeley video: Count the times Muller says he thinks climate change is a problem (I don’t want to watch it again). Thanks again, arch
90615. Berényi Péter at 11:37 AM on 29 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       
       Re: Moderator Response:

       [DB] Nice cherry-pick & ignoring the rest of the picture for the TLS

       Nice omission, ignoring the effect of two major volcanic eruptions. If lower stratospheric temperature anomaly is put against atmospheric CO₂ concentration, regime changes due to eruptions can even more clearly be seen. And of course, that carbon dioxide itself has no effect on it at all. There is apparently a strong short time warming effect in the stratosphere from volcanic eruptions followed by a mild cooling with a much longer relaxation time, possibly due to nanoparticles, which have extended stratospheric lifetime (because there's no rain there to wash them out).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Perhaps you missed reading the entire unadulterated graphic straight from RSS, so here's the unvarnished piece in question, again:

       

       FYI: The spiky bits were the eruptions in question. For those not in full possession of the straight information, volcanoes exert their transient cooling effects in the lower troposphere in opposite fashion in the stratosphere: temporarily warming it.

       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. A change in conditions for which mankind is responsible. No matter the dissembling of some.

90616. arch stanton at 11:13 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Besides playing fast and loose with the facts, Muller’s presentation utilizes the Wattsoid technique of carefully crafting straw men from the worst of the MSM.
90617. chrisd3 at 11:02 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Unfortunately for the [--snip--], even Muller's own BEST study appears poised to confirm everyone else's temperature reconstructions:

       Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

       Kind of moots the whole hide the decline non-issue. http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/
90618. adelady at 10:49 AM on 29 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       KeninOz@113. You must have a fly on the wall reporting to you from my household. We recently had a discussion about aluminium. If I had a smelter in Oz I'd be drawing lines on a map to see how easy it would be to connect to the geothermal projects. Getting in first with some investment tied to a guaranteed future supply with some price guarantees sounds like a very good idea. A bit of extra cash flow from claiming a share of the income from the power delivered to others from the lines installed to connect to the plant would be pretty tasty, too. But that's just me.
90619. Susanne at 10:41 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Apologies if this is answered somewhere, but what is TLT (response to comment #5)? Lower Troposphere Temperature seems most likely on the face of it, but why isn't that LTT? Thanks
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See UAH satellite temperatures at wikipedia for additional explanation of these terms.
90620. scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Cant help noticing Gilles claims that SRES scenarios make no account of resource restriction, seem somewhat at odds with SRES itself. However, leaving that aside, suppose we drop all oil use now, dont replace oil with coal-created electric, so we only use half the coal by 2100, what the guess on CO2 ppm by 2050? Gilles doesnt believe in models so I doubt he cares, but frankly I still dont want to go there in less than 40 years.
90621. adelady at 10:28 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shoyemore#1 I think it's important for non-scientists like me to be Absolutely Clear In Our Minds about matters that are likely to be thrown at us in conversations and on-line. We can't fall back on something like a denialist mantra - just reciting and repeating a form of words. As it happens, we're all different. Some things turn on the lightbulb for me that leave others bemused or confused. Many people need, as any teacher knows, several exposures and different explanations before all the elements fall into place for everyone. At =that= point, further details or work or discussion are needed to get the student or interested person to understand well enough to be able to describe or discuss the issue or the phenomenon in their own words. It's not enough to get it. You have to 'own' it in a form suitable to share. So I'd disagree. It might be old hat or boring to someone who's been involved for a long time. For novices or those who've only just begun to grasp why there's a fuss about a particular matter, a new reference or an explanation in a new form of words might be just the ticket.
90622. Charlie A at 10:26 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       For those trying to keep the various issues separate, there seems to be at least three. 1. Splicing instrumental data onto the end of tree ring based temperature reconstructions for the WMO cover. 2. Deleting post 1960 data, both WMO cover and peer reviewed papers. 3. Deleting the pre-1550 data in Briffa and Osborne 1999 article in Science and other peer reviewed articles. There may be others, but those seem to be the main ones. An example of item #3 is the annotated version of Briffa and Osborne Figure 1 from Science 1999 article. For more discussion, see Hide the Decline, Science magazine version
90623. Gilles at 10:24 AM on 29 March 2011
       Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
       SNRratio : could you please be more precise of what you're referring to as "different data or methodologies ending up with the same probability distribution " - because I don't see what you mean. Marcus#29 : "even though you admit you're not a scientists" at least a definite piece of evidence that you don't listen to what I'm saying or don't understand it - I never admitted that I wasn't a scientist, for the very good reason that I am one, and I'd have no interest in saying the opposite. Is my english really that poor ?
90624. Gilles at 10:15 AM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       les : what is wrong in 111 ? do the set of SRES scenarios encompass all likely possibilities for the future, or not ? I mean of course it would be much unlikely that a particular scenario corresponds exactly to reality : but you could expect that it will be inside the whole set, so let's formulate like this : what is the likelihood that the real history of production of FF in the XXIth lies outside the convex polyhedra built by the set of all SRES scenario for all (oil, gas, coal) production numbers, in order of magnitude ? 50 % ? 10 % ? 1 % ? less ? 114 Mucounter : I don't want to discuss here the plausibility of IEA scenarios - I just wanted to notice that they consider that oil is needed - notwithstanding the well known fact that we could so easily replace it, like all FF - isn't it somewhat strange that they seem to ignore such an obvious possibility ?
90625. NewYorkJ at 10:06 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Hard to qualify the McLean prediction. If he's referring to any of the surface records, it's clearly implausible. If he's referring to satellite LT records, where is he getting 1956 data from? If he's referring just to the ENSO region (becoming quite a stretch here), he's claiming that models indicate la Nina will last "well into autumn" and last until June of the following year, which does not match mean model predictions as others have pointed out. But ENSO values were around record levels recently, which brings up a revealing claim: "Since 1958 there's been a 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and if this had a major influence on temperature we'd expect to see clear evidence of the temperature continually rising above what the SOI suggests it should be, but this is not happening". So if McLean's ENSO hypothesis is correct, we will indeed see global average temperature drop to near 1956 levels. To give him credit, it's nice to see a contrarian make a falsifiable prediction, one that is a logical extension of his ridiculous hypothesis. I have to give him credit for that. What are we left with? A serious typo? Maybe by "1956" he meant "2008"?
90626. Peter Hogarth at 10:06 AM on 29 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       johnd at 08:11 AM on 29 March, 2011 If you are agreeing with the authors that GHG forcing is driving longer term global trends in SST and SAT, but shorter term variations in (primarily) tropical SST may in turn be driving corresponding interannual variations in SAT (such as the well known connection between ENSO or tropical SST variations and global SAT variations), then I have misunderstood your point in the final section of 116 and duly apologise. If I rephrase to clarify: If the time frame is long, it is necessary to include GHGs to get correlation.
90627. dana1981 at 09:49 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       And for the record, as a Berkeley alumn myself, it really irritates me how fast and loose Muller is playing with the facts, to put it nicely. He's not representing the university well at all.
90628. dana1981 at 09:48 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Shoyemore - the problem is that Muller seems to be trying to position himself as some sort of climate expert, and yet his lecture is absolutely riddled with fundamental mistakes and misinformation. So we think it's important, if he's going to become this go-to climate expert (he's already been invited to testify before Congress on the subject on Thursday), someone needs to keep him honest and get the facts right, even if the subject is one which has been re-treaded over and over. It's just all the worse that "experts" are still getting these facts wrong.
90629. meanders at 09:40 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       And did you notice how Prof. Muller [--snip--] the WMO graph by adding the legend 'Tree Ring Data'? Of course it's not a graph of 'tree ring data', it's a temperature reconstruction. Not to mention that he chose to use the relatively obscure WMO graph rather than the clearer and more widely publicized IPCC graph. To me the most ironic part of the (mis)quote was his (non)reference to "... Mike's Nature trick...", as in, the peer-reviewed journal Nature. To Prof. Muller, though, "the justification would not have survived peer review in any publication that I'm willing to publish in." Hm. (This section of the lecture is at 34:05 in the link in the main post.)
90630. shoyemore at 09:13 AM on 29 March 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       I have made this comment before, but I wonder if this continual defence of Phil Jones and Michael Mann is doing more harm than good? The public know there have been several inquiries and no heads have rolled. I know deniers like McIntyre are still harping on about the e-mails (and on and on and on ....) but does it really help to issue lengthy rejoinders every time the subject comes up? It sounds defensive and plays into the belief that there is something questionable about the content of the mails. Would it be better just to say "Case Closed!" or simply shout "Boring!" and move on? PS No problem with the content of the post, which is excellent as usual. Well done, Johh, but I am concerned about the wider point above.
90631. Ken in Oz at 09:13 AM on 29 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       My previous comment @112 may have crossed the line into political commentary but I think the real point is that without the political will to act it's a hypothetical proposal. Would it work to reduce emissions if taken up? Surely it would but energy costs, dependent on reliability of supply, would be highly variable and clearly higher than fossil fuels without a carbon price (which is being strongly opposed); current style of energy intensive industry practices would need to change (isn't that the point?). A making hay (or aluminium) when the sun shines approach and/or industry taking responsibility for it's own uninteruptable power storage would probably be inherent in a renewables only approach. It could be very expensive but still not as expensive as failure to act will be. Large scale storage remains an area I think is vital to acceptance, investment and deep deployment of solar and wind that can replace fossil fuels (rather than be as well as FF's), yet has not received an appropriate level of R&D attention.
90632. Michael.M at 08:51 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       At EIKE "European Intitute for C(K)limate and Energy", a letterbox-Institute and the german spin-off of CFACT, they were offered a little bet after they published the McLean-Paper. The author declined with the message: "Wer wettet, will betrügen!" "Who bets, wants to betray". Very neat. A nonsenical claim and when challenged very cold feet.
90633. Ed Davies at 08:19 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Just in case, I've saved a copy of that complete page (including images, etc) in a tar.gz file and put a sha256 sum of it on my Wikipedia user page to timestamp it (even if I delete it it'll be available in the history). It's not that I'm not an entirely trusting person or anything...
90634. johnd at 08:11 AM on 29 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM, I think you will find that one of your excerpts from the paper is the same as one I offered earlier. I find that one has to be careful to understand whether at various points they are examining what influences are being manifested in the physical world or in the modeling. I am not sure what the points are of your last two comments. Can you elaborate.
90635. KR at 07:54 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Moderator/DB @ 22 - The appropriate HTML code for limited image sizes has vanished from the Comments Policy page, where I have frequently copied it before. Might this be restored? I found it quite helpful. The last time I wanted to post a limited size image I had to go to a previously posted image on an old thread and "view source" to remind myself of the syntax. Not terribly "user friendly". In that regard, it might also be worth showing the hypertext for italics, bold, and underlines on that page, if the moderators consider those helpful for the general posting.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Sure, KR, I'll take care of it. Edit: Done.
90636. scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 29 March 2011
       Models are unreliable
       " then why has no skeptic produced a model with a set of parameters that can explain the climate of the 20th century without CO2 radiative forcing? Has this been done?" This is a point that needs some further emphasis. It would be a telling blow to climate science if you could fiddle with the parameterization so as to reproduce historical temperature records without a CO2 influence. Considering the rubbish that opponents do fund, wouldnt attempting this be a better bet than dubious disinformation? AR4 model will run on a modern desktop. Even a TAR model would be devastating, so not that difficult if parameterization is so tunable. Petroleum companies certainly have the resources - hey they could contract my institute to attempt it! That would be fun. Back in real world, this has happened because it cant. The tuning argument is from those that dont understand the process. Its FUD created to rationalize debelief in a message that they dont want to hear.
90637. damorbel at 07:27 AM on 29 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #870 Fred Staples you wrote:- 1/"It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is." - Heat is what is measured by temperature, don't you think? 2/"Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says)....Quite absurd" - 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!
90638. les at 07:25 AM on 29 March 2011
       Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
       Looks like Obama is putting physics to rights... "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," said President Obama.
90639. muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       johnd #25: "my money is on JAMSTEC" I note you did not specify a temperature for 2011 in your reply, so where the pass line is in this craps game isn't clear. I guess it's always prudent to save some room for a late-innings goalpost shift. "there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't." Is your standard here that 'accurate' means 'agrees with you' and 'inaccurate' means 'warming'? "The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms." If by early, you mean predictions made in say, 1988?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed date.
90640. johnd at 07:22 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Just to add to the mish-mash of ENSO predictions, here is a reliable prediction going forward with the prediction made at this time last year.
90641. Albatross at 07:20 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       JohnD, Let us cut to the chase. This post is about McLean's dubious forecast for global SATs in 2011. 1) How much are you willing to wager that McLean's forecast is going to be correct? You said earlier that "my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now". That forecast is largely irrelevant, but how about you put money where your mouth is instead of floating red herrings? 2) Or do agree with that McLean's forecast is hogwash?
90642. scaddenp at 07:10 AM on 29 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       #869. Stunning. Please show us your sums for calculating the average surface temperature and lapse rate for say earth, venus, mars by this incredible piece of physics. I am really interested. After all this can be done by normal climate science. Any alternative explanation that you think avoids such "errors as violation of 2nd Law" has to do so as well. Physci claim he/she could though we are still waiting.
90643. Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       johnd, you seem to have either slightly misinterpreted the Luo paper or deliberately quoted out of context. It proposes that short term enhanced land surface temperatures are driven mainly by Sea Surface temperatures (SST) and heat exchange, rather than directly by GHG and radiative effects. They show that short term (seasonal to interannual) variations in Surface Air Temperature (SAT) is driven mainly by SST (the topic of their paper). They also accept SST is a longer time constant function due to longer term natural variations superimposed on a warming trend due to radiative forcing and GHG. If true, this implies better predictability of regional SAT at periods of over a year by using SST conditions to initialise the models. Some quotes from the paper: “We note that the SST warming itself may be driven by both the increasing GHGs forcing and slowly-varying natural processes (Solomon et al. 2007). The SST change was found to play a dominant role in determining the land/ocean warming contrast probably via complex hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections”. “Considering large uncertainties in local climate response to GHGs forcing but relatively robust response of the global mean temperature (Solomon et al. 2007), here we examine potential influence of the trend of global mean surface temperature on climate predictability at lead times of up to 2 years”. “The warming trend in the tropics, partly due to the increasing GHGs forcing (Liniger et al. 2007), is about two-thirds of the global warming (Fig. 7b).” And the last sentence of their conclusion: “The intrinsic predictability of global warming, which is arisen from the long memory of ocean warming, provides hope for enhanced prediction of climate anomalies (interannual variations + warming trend) under the increasing GHGs forcing”
90644. johnd at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       muoncounter at 06:32 AM, my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now. Regarding computer modeling, the operative word is "can". As I often note,all to frequently, there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't. It depends on how advanced they are in being able to identify what is relevant and what is not. It has been noted elsewhere of the improvements that have occurred in weather forecasts over the decades. As in every endeavor, all players are not moving in lockstep, rather they are moving up a ladder, and the rung the majority occupy now was occupied by someone else a decade ago, and so it will be a decade from now for the rung that someone else now occupies. That reality applies to all fields. The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms.
90645. Paul D at 07:02 AM on 29 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Artificial leaf: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191042.htm Interesting idea, produces hydrogen. It isn't clear how efficient it is in comparison to other methods of producing hydrogen.
90646. Fred Staples at 07:00 AM on 29 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Heat. It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is. It is not energy, although it is measured in the same units. Because it is not energy, it cannot be trapped, stored or transferred. The internal energy of a system can be defined and measured; it is a property of a system. Heat is not a property of a system. There is no such thing as the internal heat of a system. Most of the confusion in climate science explanations arises because heat and energy are treated as synonymous. Unfortunately, it is conventional to speak of heat transfer when we mean net energy transfer. It works if we keep the definition in mind. Heat is a process. It is energy in transit. It is the net energy transferred across the boundary of system due to a difference in temperature between a system and the surroundings of a system. The idea of net energy transfer is crucial. At the microscopic level, energy can travel in both directions between a higher and a lower temperature. The rate of transfer will be greater from the higher to the lower, so the net transfer will be from the higher to the lower and, risking confusion, we can call this heat transfer. By definition, therefore, it is uni-directional. Spontaneously, heat transfer will cool the higher temperature system and warm the lower temperature. Eventually, all systems in thermal contact will come to equilibrium at the same temperature. This does not necessarily stop energy transfer. It does stop heat transfer. That is why the “back-radiation” explanations of AGW are misleading at best, or wrong. All the explanations which claim direct warming of the surface from back-radiation violate the second law. Heat, net energy, travels only from a source to a sink; from a higher to a lower temperature. This is the only way that raw energy can actually do anything, either generate useful work or warm something. Heat (useful energy) cannot go backwards. For global warming, the first source is the sun, and the earth is the sink. For the atmosphere, the earth is the source and the atmosphere (at a lower temperature) is the sink. Finally, the atmosphere becomes a source and space (close to absolute zero) is the ultimate sink. Quite simple, indeed obvious. No-one would contradict that, surely. Have a look at the version of the Trenberth diagram at post 50, which is quoted all over the blogosphere: Outgoing Radiation: 396 watts per square meter Direct to Space : 40 watts per square meter Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says) Quite absurd. The correct version is at page 6 of A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Grant W Petty. The net outgoing radiation is 21% of the solar energy entering the atmosphere, or 71.7 watts per square meter. This is, of course, a surface cooling effect, alongside conduction and convection (23.9 watts per square meter), and evaporation (78.5 watts per square meter). All these combined are atmospheric warming effects. So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake, as this thread suggests in the introduction? G and T are undoubtedly correct as far as most journalistic, political, and blogosphere posts are concerned. However, G and T did not address the interaction between outgoing radiation to space and the lapse rate, which is the favoured explanation of some of the climate scientists and the RC blog. Before we try to decide, we will have to examine the lapse rate.
90647. Albatross at 06:58 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Michael @18, The MetOffice agree with Hansen. They released their official forecast for 2011 in December 2010: "Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely — with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record." Also of note, is the UK Met Office's statement that: "Over the years 2000–2010 that the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error is 0.06 °C." Impressive indeed. Now what are McLean's margins of error when predicting global SATs?
90648. dana1981 at 06:55 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       Yes, the strength and length of the La Nina cycle is really irrelevant here. The point is that McLean is predicting a 1-year temperature drop nearly 3 times larger than any previous 1-year temperature change over the past 130 years. ENSO simply isn't capable of causing a 0.8°C cooling in 1 year. In fact, it took anthropogenic CO2 emissions nearly 100 years to cause a temperature change that large. The prediction is flat-out nuts.
90649. From Peru at 06:53 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       To moderator: Sorry for the huge sizes of the images, I don't know how to rescale them.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] If you use this as an example, replacing 1 with the left arrow tag and 2 with the right arrow tag & put your desired URL between the double quotes, you will get a clickable, linked, appropriately-sized inline picture in your comment:

       1a href=""21img width="450" src=""21/a2

90650. From Peru at 06:52 AM on 29 March 2011
       The Day After McLean
       The prospects for a cool 2011 are melting away. The La Niña is dying: First, see the Australian BOM graphs on NINO indices: ENSO monitoring graphs NINO 3.4 has warmed to -0.47. This is already NEUTRAL territory, as defined by the range -0.5ºC > NINO3.4 < 0.5ºC. The other NINO indices has also warmed, they are currently at: NINO4: -0.34ºC NINO3: -0.32ºC NINO2: +0.26ºC NINO1: +0.24ºC All neutral. The subsurface temperatures are even more indicative. There is a huge volume of anomausly warm water below the weakly cool surface layer, and is spreading eastwards: The Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalies are now positive (warm). The warm anomaly is in average +0.4ºC: It seems that is very likely that will will NOT just return to ENSO-neytral condictions in a few months (BOM show neutrality already), but we will enter an El Niño. Seeing the huge volume of subsurface warm water, I suspect that the El Niño will be strong.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image sizes.

Prev  1805  1806  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  Next