Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
Comments 94051 to 94100:
-
JMurphy at 21:55 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
QuestofApollo wrote : "I realize I’m being cynical, and if I’m wrong, my sincerest apologizes to Mr. Gore (no sarcasm). So, I don’t believe he would ever have invested in oil and your question is therefore too hypothetical to answer." Not wanting to get into a pointless discussion about Al Gore, but I sometimes wonder what the man has to do to, to stop so-called skeptics from constantly sniping at him : hide his money under his mattress ? Previously he was criticised for holding family stocks and shares in oil and a zinc mine, but now that he is investing in green technology (i.e. putting his money where his mouth is, as he put it) he is criticised again ! I know the so-called skeptics can't stand him and will criticise him come-what-may, but if you didn't laugh at this stuff you'd have to cry at the desperation of the tactics. -
les at 21:50 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Looks like SoD has some suggestions for people confused on this issue, and who want to get a proper grasp of the maths... Find Stuff Out and Book Reviews -
ranyl at 21:42 PM on 28 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
http://www.brightstarstemeculavalley.org/science/climate.html BP, Using this site linked by Albatross, the 10000yr change in insolation at the tropics has indeed risen at 30S south but fallen at the equator and at 30N. However at 65N which is the important one for determining Greenland summer temperatures fallen from 506w/m2 to 462w/m2. It is the far North temperatures which are the the apparent initial driver of ice age glaciation fluctuations from maximum to minimums since CO2 dropped below ~300ppm, so the earth should be cooling in the far North as all the reconstructions posted seem to indicate and as such due to natural feedbacks so should the whole globe as it did in glacials. Also note that average insolation for the earth hasn't changed at all in the last 10000yr but is slowly on the increase over millions of years (the faint sun paradox), people forget this when they peer into the past and it does mean as 55Myr (say) was alot hotter than today that other factors (GHG) must have been heating the earth proportional more then than now. Tom 22 and 14, just clarification on graph 14, if current Greenland top of icesheet temperature measurements are graphed they would be at the blue cross (in keeping with the graph shown in 10), 1950's would be the grey line? And in West Pacific graph posted from Stott 2004, the 0 or now point is actually 1950 and the real now 2010 or even 1990-2010 average is ~1-2C higher than 1950's and as such to actual present the graph should show a sudden steep rise to above 30C. Therefore these two isolated temperature records actual show that on top of the Greenland Ice sheet present temperatures are about 1C warmer than the last 8500yrs and in the Western Pacific for the last 15000yrs, this is keeping with Hansen's most recent estimates that the earth is probably already hotter than the last thermal maximum already. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf WHat was th eworld like in the pliocene cos that was the last CO2 concentration were as now, although as the sun is very very slightly more powerful now than then I suppose the earth might heat a little more eventually than the pliocene, of course put CO2 concentrations up 500 or more and well who knows!? -
damorbel at 21:39 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #392 KR you wrote:- "Now we introduce an object cooler than the Earth (at some temperature above absolute zero) that radiates 'B' to the Earth. It doesn't matter what power level 'B' is - other than it is > 0." How does this 'object' get introduced? The troposphere is only 10 - 15 km thick and in close contact with a surface of 510,072,000 km2 which means they are closely coupled thermally and will quickly come into thermal equilibrium. Any object that is relatively cold will quickly be warmed up to a temperature related to the Earth's surface. Let us suppose the cold object was at 0K (you say it isn't but it could be) such an object would be producing no thermal radiation so it would have no effect on the surface temperature but it would still be warmed from the surface. Do you see a point where this cold object, as its temperature rises, it would begin to warm the surface by radiation? -
MarkR at 21:07 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
CO2 didn't rise between 1980 and 1990! If you look at the CO2 amount in February 1980 and June 1980 at about 85N you clearly see a fall, yet your graph on the left hides the decline! I should write this up for WUWT. -
damorbel at 20:51 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #393 scaddenp you wrote:- "If you do an experiment and it results can be explained by the real 2nd law of thermodynamics but not by you imaginary version" I am most interested in what you write but two lines is just a bit too little to give me a proper grasp of your point. I would very much like to hear how you see 'the real 2nd law of thermodynamics' and how it differs from my 'imaginary version'. Make this clear and I'll happily agree with you. -
jyyh at 20:30 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
The obligatory link to a previous post by Riccardo showing the normal zone of correlation between CO2 and temperature proxy/instrumental record vs. the current values. (CO2 doesn't always lag temperature) -
Carol_S at 20:12 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Brilliant! -
shoyemore at 20:01 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
@Stephen #15, Muller, Curry & co. set out to "make peace" and start by accusing the majority party of dishonesty and malfeasance! I don't think any Peace Prizes will be handed out for their activities -
scaddenp at 19:27 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - fair enough. You could be completely right about Gore. I am not an American and from my perspective, his championing of AGW seems damaging since it seems to have instantly turned other side of political fence into an antagonist stance. It's a quandary though. Politicians divide and yet you need political solutions. Please dont confuse scientists with Green Peace -t hey get on my goat. JohnD. Perhaps a fair point. Not so much survive but be able to devote time to interesting problems. I hate working on boring ones and there is no end of those. Phil -
Tom Curtis at 18:45 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
actually thoughtfull @18, I was recently looking at the TAR graph in which, according to McIntyre, Mann as lead author placed the Briffa plot underneath the others to hide the end point. That is in fact false, but the difference on the GIF version is just two pixels, and is not visible to the naked eye even at 3 or 4 times magnification. On that difference, McIntyre wants to assassinate Mann's reputation. -
Rob Painting at 18:44 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Very cool Rob!. -
Tom Curtis at 18:40 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQuestofApollo @125, while conceding it would make sense to deduct expenses from the oil industry revenues for the comparison, you ought also then deduct expenses from the other side of the equation as well. Doing so, it still looks paltry compared, for example to Exxon's profits of $7.6 Billion for just one quarter. As to Daniel's statement, I don't know that it is true. But it is certainly true that a comfortable and easy living is available to any scientist willing to stay on message in the anti AGW speaking tour. Much easier than actual research. I don't know that financial incentives are important to either side, however. I think people try to make a living doing what they believe in. On the other hand, there are several people who gain a lot of attention for their message because what they happen to believe in coincides with what the Oil industry wants to be heard. In contrast, and especially in the US, speaking out in support of the science has alienated politicians of all stripes, and the major sources of campaign funding. Simple pragmatism has always favoured staying quiet on AGW, or opposing it. -
John Brookes at 18:39 PM on 28 February 2011Visualizing a History of CO2
Beautiful! -
Tom Curtis at 18:20 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @185, sorry, I don't recognize the quote. Could you please cite the source and link to it if on the web. If not on the web, could you please embed the quote in a wider context. -
NQuestofApollo at 18:20 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Moderator - sincerest thanks for allowing the discussion to continue.Moderator Response: [DB] While I'm skeptical that the direction of this comment stream will bear fruitful results, you have made a commitment to adhere to the Comment Policy (my many thanks on that!) and others have shown a willingness to engage you. As such, no one wishes to stifle discussion and ongoing dialogue between interested parties. -
johnd at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp at 17:30 PM, for as long as I can remember, there seems to have been a constant point made by various contributors about scientists salaries being relatively modest. So much so that one could be excused for considering that perhaps it is not the desire to get rich that directs them, but perhaps understandably the desire to survive. -
Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @184, evidently you do not know all this. You may think you do, but that is another question entirely. Consider the "atmospheric window". An "atmospheric window" is any part of the spectrum where transmittance is sufficiently high that you can place a telescope on a mountain, and observe the stars effectively at that frequency. Alternatively, it is a part of the spectrum where the transmittance is sufficiently high that you can use it as a channel for communication to space. If you want to see the atmospheric window in the IR spectrum, you should look at the back radiation at the surface:
Clearly, if you looked up at 680 cm^-1 wave number, all you would see is the thermal radiation of the atmosphere. You would not even be able to see the sun in that portion of the spectrum, from the surface. In contrast, the intervals between 810 and 950 probably have sufficiently high transmittance to be useful for telescopes (and sidewinders). That is a atmospheric window. There is another, smaller one on the other side of the O3 trough.
With that in mind, closing the window means reducing the IR radiation from the surface that escapes to space, particularly in those parts of the spectrum; and it is a minor effect. Deepening of the CO2 emission band means that in that part of the spectrum outside of the atmospheric window, the amount of IR from the atmosphere itself is reduced because it comes from a higher altitude and hence has a colder temperature.
These effects are not strictly independent. For example, at the right edge of the CO2 trough, there are transmittances that rise from around 0.2 to 0.8 over a 60 wave number interval. Over this interval, both trough deepening,and narrowing of the atmospheric window occur with rising CO2. On the equivalent left side, however, transmittances peak around 0.2 because of the overlapping effects of H2O. The trough deepening, however, contributes almost as much to the reduced OLR as does the equivalent on the other side.
Speaking of which, on the graph shown, total area under the line equals the total power (watt's per square meter) radiated to space, so the difference in area is the difference in radiated power. As you can see, the most significant part of this comes from the deepening of the trough on the wings, and that is approximately equal on both sides, even where transmittances are very low. Therefore it is clearly not a narrowing of the atmospheric window.
-
NQuestofApollo at 18:17 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp – please forgive me as I only have the energy to address one statement of yours right now, (Moderator – I’m directly answering a question). Personally, I think Al Gore started out as a true believer in the horrors of anthropogenic CO2. Now, I think he is just invested. I realize I’m being cynical, and if I’m wrong, my sincerest apologizes to Mr. Gore (no sarcasm). So, I don’t believe he would ever have invested in oil and your question is therefore too hypothetical to answer. I have a reason for believing that Gore is “invested”, it is indirect and admittedly spins off of Green Peace. More on that another day. -
NQuestofApollo at 17:59 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Tom - I appreciate your thoughtful counter-point and respectfully disagree. Including Oil revenues without considering their expenses and capital investment expenditures is completely missing the mark. Big Oil must actually spend money to make money. When the gov't gives away Billions of dollars and props up the "green" industry (as was done in Spain, et al) with tax payer dollars - we are not comparing apples to apples. Also, the intention of including #5 was not for the purpose of total global dollars spent, but to point out that $100 Billion a year wasn’t enough and that the motivation is a money grab. (you can claim that is conjecture - again, I will disagree). However, I will concede your point that the fund is not locked in yet - that fund is a great example of true politicking. Regardless, the point of including that fund in the list is to point to the dollar motivation of the “green” team. Unfortunately, the formula isn’t as simple as donations. Daniel’s original statement was, "Fossil fuel interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the US every year to lobby against any controls on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry (I'd chip in a couple of hundred myself)." The first sentence is accurate; the second sentence is where I’m taking issue. With Billions of dollars being GIVEN to green technologies, this constant whining about oil lobby dollars rings hollow. With regard to your last paragraph - I disagree (I know, you’re shocked). As the hour is late, any further support of my position will have to wait for another day. -
Andy Skuce at 17:44 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Tom @17 What she said was that at a 90% level, the bounds are 0-10 degrees. This implies that 10% of the time the sensitivity would be outside that range. If she doesn't accept that sensitivities can be less than zero, then that would mean that there's a 10% chance of it being over 10 degrees. But you should read the the thread I linked to for yourself. I would guess that what she meant was that she doesn't know (or won't say) what the sensitivity range is, so she threw up a big range and said that was the 90% certainty range for good measure. Of course, recognizing more uncertainty does not mean less action is required, on the contrary, more uncertainty means that exceptional outcomes are relatively more likely than in a more tightly bounded probability distribution. It's a pity that we have to guess what she means. -
Tom Curtis at 17:32 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
HR @19, actually, I expect them after considerable expense to end up confirming current estimates. I then expect the entire project to be dropped quietly before publication, because I don't trust the principal's bona fides. Of course, they may show some integrity and publish. Of course, given that they have no-one in the team experienced in temperature reconstructions, they may accidentally or deliberately not adjust for surface station distribution, or treat long records from nearby stations as blendable without adjustment as denialists are wont to do. As the team leader has already been caught out in data manipulation (while trying to slander Jones, Mann and Briffa on a charge of data manipulation), I would be foolish to assume this will be an honest, and competent endeavour until they prove otherwise. -
scaddenp at 17:30 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - the not-so-simple fact is the scientists on the "AGW side" are not trying to make money. If you actually want to make money, it far easily to money from other side where any sort of shonky argument will do. And you can get really rich, which you cant on science salary. IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies in 2008 at $557B annually. That represents a lot of shareholder value to protect. If you ended those, you would pay more for energy but less for tax. Seem like a good idea? Not if you live on coal subsidies. NOAA spends its money on instrumentation largely. Now if Al Gore invested in oil, what you say? I will agree that if you want to make money by investing in new technology, then investing in green technology is the way to go. That's what we need - who wants to freeze in the dark on the back of a horse? But the DB argument that you object to wasnt about technology - it was about investment in climate science -finding out what its all about - versus investing in lobbying and dirty tricks. That's the difference. -
Tom Curtis at 17:19 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NquestofApollo @122, your list is interesting, but it is not an apples and apples comparison. You are comparing Oil Industry money spent on lobbying alone with with the total revenue for research (most of which does not end up in scientists pockets), industrial applications, and profits from "green activities". For an apples and apples comparison, you would need to compare that list with the total oil company revenues, which was over a trillion dollars in 2009 for the top four companies alone. Even that is not a fair comparison, because that is a single years actual revenues, while your big ticket items are multi year expenditures, and in the case of 4 & 5, double counted and not even locked in yet. Another apples and apples comparisons is total donations to political parties in the US. Oil and Gas companies donated over 45 million dollars in 2102. Less than 3 million was donated by the alternative energy industry. Just shy of $19 million was donated on environmental issues, but that is as likely to include Koch brother donations as it is Al Gore's. Any way you slice it, there is more money to be made in, and by appeasing the oil industry (not to mention the coal industry) than there is in environmentalism. And much more to be made in spruiking denialism then there is to be made from doing climate science. -
RW1 at 17:16 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "The decrease in transmittance directly tells us how much more outgoing surface power, across the entire emitted spectrum, is absorbed by the atmosphere." If 'transmittance' does NOT tell us this, then what does it tell us? -
scaddenp at 17:14 PM on 28 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR - in my reading of the paper, they estimate global forcings, run a GLOBAL model, and then extract from that model the temperature series for NH. They are not trying a simple-minded application of sensitivity no.s Remember that sensitivity is an OUTPUT of a model, not an input. -
RW1 at 17:10 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "As regards the window, the figure above @ 171 shows the radiance for 325 ppm CO2 overlaid on the radiance for 750 ppm CO2 on the right. As you can see, the main difference is on the wings of the trough, where a slight step pattern is deeper with 750 ppm than with 325 ppm. That is not a change in the atmospheric window, because IR radiation at those frequencies were already absorbed, possibly completely absorbed as far as radiation from the surface is concerned. If you look even closer, (closer than the resolution will allow, unfortunately), you will also see that the center of the trough is slightly deeper. You will also see the walls of the trough at the top are slightly wider (which is a reduction of the window). You will also see some of the secondary troughs generated by CO2 are deeper. There is one just to the right of the main CO2 trough where a single spike shows up in the center." I know all of this. The total atmospheric window is simply the quantity of the whole spectrum of surface emitted infrared that passes through the atmosphere completely unabsorbed and goes straight out to space. Visually, there is a slight widening of the CO2 absorbing bands at 750ppm, which narrows the more overtly visual part of the 'window', but it's a specific quantity - not just a visual reduction. The outputs of these programs are detailed numbers, specifically the transmittance - not just what can be seen overtly in visuals of a graph. The decrease in transmittance directly tells us how much more outgoing surface power, across the entire emitted spectrum, is absorbed by the atmosphere. -
HumanityRules at 16:49 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
16 Tom Curtis So if they find that all the other temp records are essentially the same as their result then we should scrap the lot? Not even prepared to give this a chance? -
Tom Curtis at 16:49 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1, I cannot keep up with your stream of consciousness posting, and nor will I try to. Sit down, think it out, and work our your objections and problems after a little thought. As regards the "average transmittance", I have seen a comparison of the Modtran model at David Acher's site with the data from a satellite over Barrow Island, and the match is pretty good. Close enogh that you can't tell the difference by eyeball, although if you overlaid them I'm sure some differences would jump out. The "error" you have found is too large for that to be plausible. If you have a further problem with it, work the problem out line by line as I suggest. If you are correct, there will be no difference in the reult. If I am correct, you initial calculation will be shown to be in error. As regards the window, the figure above @ 171 shows the radiance for 325 ppm CO2 overlaid on the radiance for 750 ppm CO2 on the right. As you can see, the main difference is on the wings of the trough, where a slight step pattern is deeper with 750 ppm than with 325 ppm. That is not a change in the atmospheric window, because IR radiation at those frequencies were already absorbed, possibly completely absorbed as far as radiation from the surface is concerned. If you look even closer, (closer than the resolution will allow, unfortunately), you will also see that the center of the trough is slightly deeper. You will also see the walls of the trough at the top are slightly wider (which is a reduction of the window). You will also see some of the secondary troughs generated by CO2 are deeper. There is one just to the right of the main CO2 trough where a single spike shows up in the center. Here for comparison is a modtran graph for 10,000 ppm CO2 with not H2O or O3:
You will notice that that small spike noted above has become a deep trough that overlaps with the first trough, with a resulting large reduction in the atmospheric window. But that widening took place step by step, and in each step, it was always the smallest effect.
-
NQuestofApollo at 16:30 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp – I appreciate everything you have to say, but, at the risk of continually being annoying, I was specifically addressing the one-sidedness of Daniel’s comment on the millions big oil is spending while ignoring the money being made on the AGW side. I’ll try to post my counter points again (again risking being deleted): 1. NOAA alone has a "climate change" budget of $437 million. 2. President Obama Awards $2.3 Billion for New Clean-Tech Manufacturing Jobs. 3. Al Gore is in line to become a Billionaire from investments in green technologies 4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US is willing to contribute to a $100 Billion a year fund to help poorer countries mitigate the effect of climate change 5. Developing nations want $200 Billion 6. Spain's PV solar plants, which directly convert sunlight into electricity, have been charging nearly 10 times the wholesale price. Big Oil companies would have to spend 46 times more just to match POTUS's awards alone. Al Gore stands to be (single handedly) worth double what they've spent. (this is not an attack on Al Gore – congrats to him, I’m strictly putting the numbers in perspective.) And we haven't even discussed what the rest of the world is spending. The very simple fact is that there is more money to be made on the AGW side than the opposition. So, when one claims that there are riches to be made against AGW, I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve entered the Twilight Zone – and THAT has been my only argument here. Why is that so difficult to understand? -
RW1 at 16:18 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, Is it just a coincidence that using the average transmittance numbers and dividing the surface difference by 2 yielded nearly exactly 240 W/m^2 leaving (for 255K)? Maybe, but it certainly warrants further investigation. -
RW1 at 16:15 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, Nor do I see the 252.801 W/m^2 or 255.565 W/m^2. -
RW1 at 16:12 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "Which is more likely, that a program developed by the air force for research and which has been used in various incarnations since 1988 with good correspondence to observational results has an error that produces up to 20% errors in its output? Or that you are simply mistaken in your interpretation of average?" Not the program itself, but the web interface integration of the program. Where do you see the 2.764 W/m^2 in the line by line output, either directly or indirectly? I don't see it in there. -
RW1 at 15:56 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, What use would the 'average transmittance' number be if it were NOT how I interpreted it? Maybe you're correct, but then the information is totally useless as far as I can tell. -
RW1 at 15:53 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
I can't find the manual online. I emailed Ontar to see if they can provide it. -
RW1 at 15:50 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"Why is it that you cannot accept that it's two effects adding up to the total IR reduction?" Simple. I haven't seen the evidence showing/prooving it, nor do I understand what a "deepening in the GHG emission bands" actually means. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - Why is it that you cannot accept that it's two effects adding up to the total IR reduction? -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - "Do we agree that the reduction in the window should be twice the 2.764 w/m^ outputed" Ummm, absolutely not. It's both a reduction in the atmospheric window and a deepening in the GHG emission bands. As we have said repeatedly. Not just a single effect, but two different ones that make up the total reduction in emissions. -
HumanityRules at 15:25 PM on 28 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
119 scaddenp "One other thing though - you shouldnt be just looking at NH temperatures with a global forcing. " I won't argue with you. All the reconstructions are essentially NH even those that purport to be global. Hegerl's work was based on NH reconstructions. So it's not just my problem it's the whole scientific field. I suggest you write to teh IPCC with your concerns. -
RW1 at 15:25 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, Do we agree that the reduction in the window should be twice the 2.764 w/m^ outputed (or about 5.528 W/m^2)? If not, why not? You don't think that all the infrared the atmosphere absorbs is directed toward the surface? Clearly it's not. -
HumanityRules at 15:21 PM on 28 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
115 Tom Curtis Tom when you write MWP do you mean MM (Maunder Minimum)? The volcanic forcings in fig5a don't go back as far as the MWP. I've pasted the volcanic forcings from Hegerl 2006 Fig2 (1000AD to 2000AD) into the corner of Dana'a Fig 1. The idea isn't to show the absolute magnitudes but to show how the periods of peak volcanic activity match to the temperature record.
The problem I have with the importance of volcanic forcing is that it's very short lived. I see the MM coincides with a period of high volcanic activity but it doesn't really explain how we got to the MM. What I mean is the MWP to MM period is 600-700 years of declining temperatures. This period has periods of both high and low volcanic activity. I'm not sure of the resolution in the temperature reconstructions but volcanic may explain some large negative departure in some of the data points (maybe for example those very low spikes at the MM) but they can't really account for the multi-centennial trends. In regard to your mathes wouldn't you have to take some sort of mean volcanic forcing over the full MWP-MM period?
The only real forcing likely to explain those longer trends are solar except as I keep saying it appears that TSI changes are far too small to explain them.
"First, there is nothing wrong with allowing the change in forcings but keeping Hegerl's reconstruction."
I think we both agree that both fields (paleotemperature reconstruction and TSI reconstructions) are fields of science that are in flux, if not still in their infancy then going through a painful adolesence. My contention is the newer paleotemp estimates should be matched with the newer TSI estimates but I concede there is no absolute logic to that. But retain all the estimates and you end up with a spread of climate sensitivity that is so wide to be almost meaningless.
As you say the IPCC may not exclude climate sensitvity being between 5-9 but just based on the image in #109 then other parts of the science are going to struggle. It looks like models won't handle those well or the LGM. That was my earlier point I think this is not just a problem for skeptics.
-
NQuestofApollo at 15:20 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
BTW, Daniel, remember that - in my many deleted posts - I agreed with the factualness of your snarky comment. Is it really impossible for us to agree that, even within sarcasm, the comment was one sided and designed to bolster your world view? -
RW1 at 15:20 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
wrong version. -
scaddenp at 15:14 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - but he is right. Any half-convincing line of evidence against AGW would be funded instantly and if you overturned science, you would have a Nobel prize. That's an incentive but you cant make anything fly. Sad. The money poured into climate research goes mostly into satellites. Scientists are not well paid. Not so for coal executives. And as for me, well I am oil and coal man! And end to those would definitely affect my funding streams. I dont think there is a single person in my department who doubts the reality of AGW either. However, I cant actually imagine that there is no use for my skills, no other problems to solve so I don't exactly fear unemployment. What I do think though is that you seek the truth however personally annoying it might be. What I do find repellant is suggestions that AGW theorists are scheming, pushing some political agenda, looking at the data one sided etc. There is a dearth of any other sensible way to look at the data. Only deception practised on blog sites and other media. -
actually thoughtful at 15:12 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
What I find most confusing is that people are going back in time to make these accusations. When these reports came out, no one was attempting anything nefarious, the results weren't THAT controversial, a few liberties in the artwork (explained in the text) not only weren't out of line, but they were helpful in communicating the main message that we were in trouble. Have any of you skeptics ever given a presentation to your peers, and also to the general public? How does that differ from the work you do by yourself? I find I ALWAYS have to simplify, even for my peers, unless we have a weekend workshop or an entire semester to dive into the minutia. And my subject matter is plumbing! If anyone had dreamed of the level of scrutiny - of course they would have been at pains to point out that one of the 13 squiggly lines was truncated (or left it in there). This is, in essence, a rewrite of history to paint these professionals as bad guys. The only trouble is there are millions/billions of us who were alive when the history happened, and we simply are not letting the revisionists get away with it. -
RW1 at 15:11 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
I'm downloading the manual. -
NQuestofApollo at 15:02 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Daniel, my apologies that my first post (which was promptly deleted) seeemed to attack the messenger. I did my best to clean that up in later posts. Which were still deleted under the guise of being ideological motivated. They were not. They specifically countered a statement you made. When you are ready to address the reason you made such a one-sided statement, I will happily engage in a conversation with you and promise to do my utmost to refrain from anything that seems like an attack. -
Tom Curtis at 15:00 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR @167, that is the model. If you run it there will be a link to "View the whole output file" which shows a large number of additional values. RW1 @168, as can be seen in this image, the peak of the surface transmission is in the 400 to 800 wavenumber band, ie, in the band with a deep trough due to CO2 and a number of troughs due to H2O. The peak radiance is at wavenumber 592, inside the left hand side of the CO2 trough. Therefore if the average transmittance is the mean, it would definitely underestimate the reduction in outgoing IR from the surface.
@164 and 165, I don't know, but that seems the most natural reading to me. You should always take average to mean "mean", not "weighted mean" (or median or mode) unless there are clear contextual reasons to think otherwise. There are no such contextual reasons here; and furthermore, your discreprancy gives weight to that interpretation. Which is more likely, that a program developed by the air force for research and which has been used in various incarnations since 1988 with good correspondence to observational results has an error that produces up to 20% errors in its output? Or that you are simply mistaken in your interpretation of average?
Regardless, if you disagree with me, you do the LBL integration. I am not the one chasing windmills here.
@169, no, you just add up the individual lines. Any divisions (if necessary, see 163) shoud be done for each line only.
Moderator Response: Fixed image width. -
NQuestofApollo at 14:52 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
scaddenp – it remains stunning to me that my point is constantly missed. It is so very simple: when one sees only one side of an issue, it is evidence of a clouded view. Daniel, in his post, could only see the millions big oil has spent while ignoring the billions that team AGW is making. His comment was exactly this: “Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry”. The current state of spending is so completely OPPOSITE of this statement as to cause me to wonder about his motivation. For Daniel to make such a statement and then have the moderators (of which he is one) accuse me of engaging in politics is Orwellian. My point is NOT to bring politics into this issue, but to address his insertion of politics. And I have to apologize to you, I’m not good at substituting words and your critical question isn’t quite phrased correctly, so I can’t answer you. If you can rephrase this, I’ll give it an honest shot: “Got some EVIDENCE that scientists are doing the world a favour by pointing out that their is a problem are somehow making huge amounts of cash?” -
RW1 at 14:50 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RE: my 168 Actually most of the energy is not really in the window.
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
