Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
Comments 94301 to 94350:
-
ClimateWatcher at 08:08 AM on 26 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"It would be nice to have data up until and including 2010." Will generate these this weekend. "One can see the polar amplification (a predicted consequence of a warming planet) over the Arctic nicely in most datasets." Yes. And the stratospheric cooling, and even the shape of the stratospheric cooling seems to verify. But the hot spot, not so much. -
lenarends at 08:08 AM on 26 February 2011It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
I agree with barry in #4 that "the 1800s" has been confused with "the 18th Century." His post was almost a year ago, and there have been responses in the interim ... why hasn't this single-character edit been effected?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Until lately, lack of manpower. I'll see about getting this one fixed. Thanks for noticing it & bringing it to our attention! -
macwithoutfries at 07:53 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Very interesting post - but I understand that all those studies not only exclude slower-acting feedbacks such as melting ice but also exclude any feedback on permafrost and any methane that is currently locked - wouldn't that be the real 'worst case scenario' which should be also taken into account? Since I know a number of stupid people that will certainly claim that a temperature increase around 0.3 C in this or in the next decade (instead of around 0.2) would also somehow mean that the AGW theory is wrong ... -
michael sweet at 07:39 AM on 26 February 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Berenyi: What is the value of preserving the land in Bangladesh? With only 2 meters of sea level rise 100,000,000 people will be refugees from that part of the world alone. Not to mention all the other major cities around the world that will be inundated. What is the benefit of maintaining those cities versus the cost of building new cities further inland? These are clear economic benefits that have not even been added to most of the analysis cited above, the recent sea level estimates were not available. The infrastructure alone is worth trillions of dollars in the USA. -
actually thoughtful at 07:37 AM on 26 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant - I can't say that I came around to your point of view. But I do find the divergence from Proxies problem to be too quickly 'splained away and never discussed again. I can say your posts made me think about my position, and I appreciate that. I thought the moderators were too hard on you, but to their credit, they also kept a tight reign on the pro-AGW posters. Thanks for posting, and sticking to your guns. I do think it is intellectually unfair to say "a large MWP spike COULD be the influence of internal variability" - and then offer up no coherent theory. It really, truly begs the question: What DID do the warming? One avenue your posts directed my brain to was the problem of confirmation bias. I have looked at the evidence and concluded climate science explains the climate (with a few caveats - but on a macro scale the science seems robust). And given that AGW is the name for the climate science explanation of our current situation - I am a "pro-AGW" person. And when new evidence comes in, I apply more scrutiny if it seems to contradict AGW, and less if it seems to confirm it. When I begin to think I have a problem here - as your posts did - I fall back to this. Where is the competing theory that explains all the data and evidence, and does not appeal unduly to unknown phenomena? That is where most of the objections to AGW die down. And finally, in regard to your claim that un-fiddled data shows .5C, rather than .8C warming. I could accept that at face value and still be very, very worried. Rolling that forward - that would mean a sea level rise in this century of 1-2 meters, instead of 2-4. That would mean 2.5C warming instead of 4C. We are seeing HUGE effects at .5 or .8 and the multi-decadal trend is getting worse. And we are 40 years of warming into your 60 year cycle. When/where and how soon is that cooling coming? Because logic tells us when the sun "wakes up" and we switch from La Nina to El Nino - the experienced warming is going to get worse, not better. -
funglestrumpet at 07:28 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
We cannot keep letting the ‘skeptics’ get away scot-free with such tactics. I suggest that we, too, should write to the US Congress, drawing their attention to the flaws in the arguments advanced by the ‘Prudent Path’ group by giving them a copy of this post. If the covering letter were to be signed by as many heavy-weight scientists as we can muster, it would obviously raise its profile. I think that we could get more out of this exercise if we offered the opportunity for them to raise any queries they have regarding the science contained in the post. If we explained that because there could be other members of Congress that might have similar points of concern, all queries will be in open forum, i.e. open to view by all, at .... (‘Congress Queries’? – only posts by members of Congress with replies by selected scientists.) These people are politicians, so they will be acutely aware that the media may well quote from this page in order to demonstrate an individual’s level of concern on the subject of Climate Change, a subject that will obviously be somewhere near the top of the agenda in the next round of elections to Congress. They would be foolish to appear uninterested, so will probably want to raise a question or two, if only for appearances. However, in raising any questions, they will have to make sure they understand them in case they get called to explain their concerns. Who knows, they might even come to see that ‘business as usual’ is not a realistic option! If we could raise enough interest now, it might even be a good media story before we get any replies. That would make the public turn to the ‘Skeptical Science’ website in order to check up on their member of Congress. Pity this ‘Prudent Path’ group didn’t write to all senior politicians everywhere – we could really spread the word then! -
damorbel at 07:16 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 375 Dikran Marsupial you wrote:- "how does the first body know that it is radiating to 0K". It doesn't 'know' that. A body radiates only according to its temperature. What is does 'know' (if you can talk of bodies 'knowing' anything) is how many photons it receives. Your example of a body 'surrounded by a black shell at 272K 1mm away' means that the inside body receives almost as much energy from the shell as it loses. This imbalance means the inner body cools slowly to 272K. You wrote:- "and know to emit fewer photons?" The first body doesn't emit 'fewer photons'; the photons it emits get progressively less enegetic as it cools, according to the formula for photon energy 'E', E = hv where 'h' is Planck's constant and 'v' is the frequency. The number of photons remains the same. -
muoncounter at 06:41 AM on 26 February 2011A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
Tom, "increased GCMs will increase cloud albedo by a small amount. It is obviously not a large amount because, if it were, the effect would be very obvious in the temperature record " Thanks. But that albedo increase may well be below any reliably detectable threshold. It would seem to be a second-order mechanism to the whole Svensmark idea, which has thus far eluded reliable detection on its own. It was really the low solar-lack of volcano activity link that made me wonder what I had missed way back when in my 'shake and bake' class. Editors: an unclosed italics tag seems to have infected this thread, immediately after Fig 4.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] I took a look at it; the error is in the html editing window. It's like The Matrix, raw code. Gonna take a bigger boat than I have to fix... -
scaddenp at 06:27 AM on 26 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
" And why do you use the word "power"? What is power?". It's the surest sign that you are dealing with someone who has got their education from George White. This incorrect usage has been pointed out to RW1 before. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:23 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damobel how does the first body know that it is radiating to 0K and know to emit fewer photons? BTW, this was the first stage in the thought experiment, lets not get ahead of ourselves, if we take it in small steps it will be easier to find out where our views diverge. The point of the examples is to find the point of divergence, which is the first step in determining which position is correct. -
muoncounter at 06:23 AM on 26 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
ranyl, Welcome to SkS. You've put a lot into one post; its usually better for everyone (and easier to follow) if you stay topic-specific and break a long post into several smaller ones. Use the Search function to browse the existing threads, which are organized by skeptic 'argument' and comment on the appropriate thread. One thing jumps out in a quick scan of your post: "So if 2010 and its weather was a cold year, what is a warm year going to be like?" Most put 2010 as tied for the warmest year on record. For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). What a warm year was like can be found in threads such as Extreme weather. Not a pretty picture. There's a lot to learn here, because so many posters follow the practice of substantiating their points with references to scientific research. And avoid such declarative statements like 'everybody knows it's warming because ... '. -
damorbel at 06:20 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 373 Dikran Marsupial, you wrote:- "Which object will cool faster and why?" The first because it radiates to a fixed 0K. Because of this it will eventually reach 0K The 2nd black body cools much less quickly because it radiates to a fixed 272K. Eventually the 2nd black body will reach the fixed 272K of the shell. Only a few people on the second body will notice much difference, 1K change is not very much. Those on the first body will not be caring much, they will have been frozen to death long ago! I am sorry but I can see no point in these examples. However there are interesting observations to be made. The first body has no heat source, internal or external and because it is 'black' it will cool at the maximum possible rate to 0K. If it is not black it will cool at a lesser rate, dependent on the surface emissivity. This could be very low indeed if it had a highly polished surface or even multiple surfaces; that is the principle behind using multilayer foil insulation (MFI) on spacecraft. The point is the MFI stops heat getting out of the craft by reflecting it back into it, so the craft does not cool down quickly. The MFI also reflects incoming radiation away from the craft, which is convenient because it stops the Sun heating it up too quickly. For these reasons MFI is sometimes called 'a thermal blanket'. -
Rob Painting at 06:17 AM on 26 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
guinganbresil -and in my opinion, is most likely, caused by one of the other major non-anthopogenic factors. Yes, but that's just an opinion. And word-smithing doesn't hide the critical flaw in your hypothesis. They did not consider the effect of changes in the other major factors, specifically upwelling Again - see comments @ 23 & 25. You linked to those DIC graphs without actually understanding what they revealed. That's your bad. If you don't want to accept what the science says on this topic, then fine. But please don't be selling us an alternative ocean acidification mechanism that doesn't even make sense. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:03 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Albatross... I've spent a lot of time in China (my wife is from China) and I can tell you the smog is shocking. My wife's aunt lives in a high rise just up from one of the rivers in Chongqing, maybe 1/4 mile from the water's edge. In the summer most days you can barely make out the buildings on the other side of the river. Interestingly, I remember almost the same thing when I was a little boy growing up in East Tennessee. Everyone used coal furnaces and in the winter everything was covered in suit and you could not see 1/2 a mile ahead. China is closing down old dirty coal fired power plants at a fairly rapid pace. I'm also concerned at what this is going to unleash in terms of extra warming. If mid-century cooling was aerosols, is the same thing going on now? -
lenarends at 05:50 AM on 26 February 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
At the intermediate level, this is the final sentence in the caption for Fig. 1 ... "In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers." Yet it appears in that very chart that there were more cooling than warming papers in 1971 (2 vs. 1). Am I misinterpreting either the chart or the assertion in the caption? The basic premise remains solid that climate papers in the period leaned heavily towards suspected warming, but it's best to correct overreach, before the "doubt mongers" use your own words against you. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:43 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
I think it's a little worse than that with Lubos Motl. The guy quite literally possesses a genius level brain, he's just choosing to apply it very selectively. The tiff that I got into with him over the Phil Jones interview he was trying to tell me that something that "did not have a 95% confidence level did not exist." It was absent, so there was no warming since 1995. I was shocked that a person of his level could make such an utterly absurd statement about statistical significance. My suspicion is that Lubos Motl has a political ax to grind and he will attempt to use the skills he has to further that agenda regardless of reality. -
Albatross at 05:40 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
My post @ 21 should have read: "... goes to show just how what genuinely good people they are and how much confidence they have in the science. " Dana, good for you to engage the aggressive and misguided crowd at Curry's blog-- you probably realise this, but I'l say it anyways, you are very likely wasting your time their. Don't confuse them with the truth and reality, it angers them -
Albatross at 05:34 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
I like that analogy of the car's brakes. As with most things, prevention is better than cure. I'm really concerned that the huge aerosol loading from Asia is providing quite a substantial buffer, that may be giving some a false sense of security.
Image from here.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:27 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - The point I was making is that you can reject any scientific theory regarding the nature of reality by demanding provable facts - but that doesn't make it rational or scientific behaviour. Consider a thought experiment, a blackbody object exists in a hard vaccum; initially the object is 273 degrees Kelvin (for the sake of argument), but it will cool by radiation to its environment which is at zero degrees kelvin. Now consider a second identical black body, also initially at 273 degrees kelvin, but now enveloped by a concentric hollow sphere of a blackbody material, leaving a gap all around of 1mm containing a hard vaccum. The shell is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin. Which object will cool faster and why? -
dana1981 at 05:19 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Sure, I'm pretty patient when it comes to discussing the scientific evidence. Though there are limits - I've been commenting on Curry's "hide the decline dishonesty" post for the past day, and I'm to the point where I'm no longer responding to several of the commenters there, because it would just involve a Gish Gallop whack-a-mole on my part. Plus they're very rude people. But since Motl banned me from his site after just 4 comments, I never reached the point where my patience with him ran out! Motl doesn't understand climate science, but he's capable of understanding it (based on his physics background), so if he were willing to learn, I'd be willing to discuss it with him. Unfortunately he seems completely disinterested in learning. -
damorbel at 04:54 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 371 Dikran Marsupial, you wrote:- "Matching experimental results does not prove that the quantum explanation of black body radiation is correct (however it is repeatable)." I'm afraid I do not understand what you expect of quantum theory other than 'matches experimental results'. The essence of a good theory is that it enables new experiments to be devised which produce results that could not have been predicted with previous theories. Do you feel that quantum theory is deficient in this respect? Also you wrote:- "Nobody claims that the upper atmosphere does raise surface temperatures. The energy that causes the temperature of the surface to rise is from the sun" All significant climate energy comes from the Sun. The question is about how it is distributed. When you write:- "the upper atmosphere being warmer than outer space just means the surface looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher" Now there are various explanations for this and the presence of gases that radiate towards the surface in the infrared (GHGs) is the matter in hand. It is well established that matter cools when there is a net transfer of energy away from it. Correspondingly its temperature rises when energy is transferred into it. When you say "looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher", you are of course talking about a change in energy distribution. Now according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics a temperature difference is needed for a change of energy distribution and the also other way round, a change in energy distribution is always accompanied by a temperature difference. You seem to agree that it the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a surface temperature rise and many say that it is radiation from increases in CO2 that causes this. However this explanation would need the CO2 in the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface otherwise it will be the CO2 that is warmed by the surface (2nd Law). Personally I can see no other effect of CO2 that comes anyway near explaining temperature changes of any sort. Is there any other effect, in your opinion? -
dana1981 at 04:50 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Dang sorry, that was sloppy. Comments #1 and #3 are correct that the text should have read "unlikely to be more than 4.5°C". I've corrected the text accordingly, thanks. michael #1 - I provided a link to an article I previously wrote on the costs of carbon pricing. Click the link for more details. -
keithpickering at 04:34 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Um ... After reading Annan & Hargreaves 2009, it seems that their result is the opposite of your presentation: they concluded that there was a 95% probability that sensitivity is less than 4.5 C (actually, within the range 1.3-4.2), using the Cauchy prior, updated by the ERBE data. -
Albatross at 04:26 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Robert @20, All too true (well most likely). It is odd though that Dr. Motl has not been here to defend his misguided understanding of the science. Dana just picked one of the most egregious errors in Motl's post, but Motl erred in practically every one of his "rebuttals". I think John and Dana are still being willing to engage Dr. Motl and discuss the science, even after the personal attacks that he has made against them, goes to show just how what a genuinely people they are and how much confidence they have in the science. They are bigger and better people than I. -
Philip64 at 04:14 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Excellent post. It's rare that we get a chance to see the risks quantified and set out in such a clear way. I think when people see what a gamble the business-as-usual policy represents, their reaction is to support prudent evasive action - in the same way that they shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars in house insurance every year. They prefer losing the money than gambling that there won't be a fire, a flood or a break-in. -
guinganbresil at 04:00 AM on 26 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Dikran Marsupial - If you interpret my statement that non-anthropogenic factors are 'glossed over' as an accusation of deception, it was not intended as such. The 'pattern' I sense is as follows: 1 - Some parameter 'A' causes 'XYZ' which is not desireable. 2 - Parameter 'A' consists of a collection of major non-anthopogenic sources (B + C + D +...) and a collection of minor anthropogenic sources (q + r + s +...) 3 - Since we are mostly concerned with the most salient non-anthopogenic factor (due to funding, scope of research, ability to affect the factors, whatever...) we re-arrange the equation to: q = A - (B + C + D + ...) - (r + s + ...) 4 - We now prepare plots and graphs where we remove the major non-anthopogenic facctors and less salient anthropogenic factors (look up in this thread for examples!) 5 - Armed with our graphs and plots of non-anthropogenic factors we now conclude that we can mitigate 'XYZ' by reducing the non-anthropogenic factor 'q' 6 - There is an unstated conclusion that 'q' causes 'XYZ' - this is applying a 'Fallacy of Composition' It is clear that 'q' could cause 'XYZ', but 'XYZ' could be, and in my opinion, is most likely, caused by one of the other major non-anthopogenic factors. In the specific case of Feely et al 2008 they concluded that: "...the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." They did not consider the effect of changes in the other major factors, specifically upwelling. They came to this conclusion by taking essentially one temporal measurement and projecting the change in areal extent by subtracting the anthopogenic signal. They have no measurements of the affected area from pre-industial times. This is a great example of the 'pattern' I am sensing. No deception - just wrong. -
dana1981 at 03:51 AM on 26 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Jesus - the possibility exists that there is a 'natural' factor we are not accounting for. For example, Roy Spencer's "internal radiative forcing" hypothesis. If climate sensitivity is sufficiently low, it opens up a window where an unknown 'natural' effect could account for a majority of the recent warming. But sensitivity would have to be well below 2°C, and there would have to be a very strong natural effect that we're not accounting for. It's exceptionally unlikely, but not impossible. -
michael sweet at 03:45 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
Dana, I always like your posts. In paragraph 4 I think you mean "unlikely to be more than" (not less than). I would be interested in expanding the reference to the minimal costs of reducing carbon emmissions. Moderator: this post can be deleted. -
ranyl at 03:31 AM on 26 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Figure 1: Moberg et al. 2005 NH (blue), Mann et al. 2008 EIV NH (red), Ljungqvist 2010 NH (green), and GISS land+ocean NH (black). Courtesy of Robert Way and John Cook.
This is a fascinating graphn thanks Dana. Firstly the reconstructions do follow measured temperatures since ~1900s until 1990 ish which is reassuring to a degree, after which things get hot quickly, 0.2C a decade from 1980, or ~0.6C on 30 years.
Looking at the graph two things get my interest, there appears to be a ~1000year natural temperature variation of about 0.3C (0.3C either side of the mean) arround a mean of -0.1C (from 0yr to 1980ish) with an added variation of ~+/-0.2C arround the running mean, meaning that (0.3C + 0.2C) or 0.5C above -0.1C would be a thousand year extreme warm year, so that is +0.4C on this chart and there are 2 spikes in blue of that magnitude in the middle of Medeival NH warming event.
However the mid 1000-2000 cold dip period is cooler than the previous one between 0-1000 years by about 0.1-0.2C suggesting a possible cooling between the two, which is also in keeping with the 2000year cooling trend found in the arctic temperature record and in keeping with orbital variations in the NH which leading a general cooling of the NH at the present time, although this is a very slow cooling.
All things being equal therefore by natural variation the NH should have been warming from 1500-1600 on wards and 1900-2000 should be the peak of the warming. Without the cooling trend it would be expected from the natural variation that the NH would reach another 1000year peak hot round about now, however this peak should be +0.2C mean with a year to year possibility of +0.2C or +0.4C just like in the 900-1100's and although for an individual year may even surpass this, the probability is less 1:1000 or more.
Lets not forget the long term cooling due to orbital changes in the NH (clearly the arctic would amplify this effect as orbital effects are greatest nearer the poles), which should be bringing the mean down to lower than -0.1C (i suspect it is -0.1C as the mean for the whole series is skewed to 0C by the inclusion of the recent hot years), which means to get any year hotter than 0.4C than 2000year mean would be a truly exceptional event via natural variation.
Lastly it looks like the mean has suddenly jumped, (would expect to phase jumps in a choatic system) and the new mean seems be a lot higher as there have just been a 10year period were then mean is 0.8C higher (than -0.1C). It is also of note that 2010 from solar and Nino (mod El Nino 5 months, Strong La Nina 7 months) activity should have been a cooler year than average, yet it was the hottest yet and November 2010 was in a well established La Nina and histroical low of sun activity and yet was also the hottest yet.
So if 2010 and its weather was a cold year, what is a warm year going to be like?
Could the mean have shifted again in 2010 with the earth being tipped into a hotter regime like it probably was 1998?
Would this be in keeping with a step changing choatic system and that would mean that the jumps should get more frequent if the warming influence is maintained?
As for Climate sensitivity, in the pliocene it 3-5C hotter despite all the natural variation of millions of years, and thus the only substantially different variable was the pCO2 at 350-400ppm although 350ppm more robust from recent evidence. 3-5C would take ~1000years to effectuate due to lags in the system however 60% is realised in the first 100year or so, that means we can expect at least 1.8C to a maximum rise of 3C by 2100, if CO2 levels fall to 350ppm ish.
The Earth is a choatic system and therefore will have multiply possible CS as parameters change, the amount of ice will make a difference, the orientation of the continents (pliocene was similiar to now), and therefore CS will vary and have high and low possibilities. From the above long term CS for doubling can be high (3-4x pliocene temperature range) and as at present the earth has a pole whose albedo turn arround is very high going from ice to sea which makes sense as a CS amplifyer especially if permafrost GHG gas release is also considered.
Also all the changes being observed in the system are occuring faster than expected by a CS or only 3C.
Anyway it is very likely CO2 will hit 450-500ish the way things are going and that is well too high for serious consideration of there being any widespread fruitful scenarios for the future.
An interesting graph clearly shows the globe is warming and very quickly, however at least natural variation should trend temperatures down a little, unless of course the natural variation seen in the graph is actually mainly a sea-saw NH / SH event due to long term flow patterns in the AMOC as that makes the current global warming even more impressive and is it likely that flucation could be changed or interupted if an external heating influence is added in.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:29 AM on 26 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Papers on climate change come out because people are interested in researching climate change that does not mean the paper by default supports "anthropogenic global warming"." Not at this rate they don't. Papers come out on string theory because people interested in that. But there are not 20,000 papers a year coming out on string theory. Climate is a hot topic because of people's alarm about AGW. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:13 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damobel. Matching experimental results does not prove that the quantum explanation of black body radiation is correct (however it is repeatable). Quantum theory may be a very persuasive explanation for blackbody radiation, but it is not a provable fact. The point I was making is that if you require provable facts abdout the real world, you require the impossible. Science generally concentrates on the most plausible explanations, proof is generally reserved for mathematics. You wrote: "But all that you write makes it increasingly clear that the idea that the upper atmosphere (UA) can raise the surface temperature simply doesn't work." Nobody claims that the upper atmosphere does raise surface temperatures. The energy that causes the temperature of the surface to rise is from the sun, not the upper atmosphere, the upper atmosphere being warmer than outer space just means the surface looses energy to outer space less quickly and hence its equilibrium temperature is higher. -
MarkR at 03:02 AM on 26 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Thanks for the pointer explorer, it's a mistake and I'll fix it when I have time! -
Pete Dunkelberg at 02:45 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
About the "ozone hole" and Antarctica: isn't the ozone hole closing, bringing the Antarctic stratosphere back to normal? What are the model predictions for Antarctica? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 02:37 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
The Arctic is not looking good. -
damorbel at 02:36 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 369 Dikran Marsupial Thank you for your contribution. I'm afraid I really don't see the connection between what you write and the application of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to radiative heat transfer. I might add that the whole of quantum physics was started with the nummerous attempts to explain 'black body' radiation as identified by Gustav Kirchhoff in a way that matched experimental results. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel The theory of evolution by natural selection is neither a provable nor reproducable fact; however that doesn't prevent the majority of biologists accepting that it is correct. Asking for definitive proof of any theory regarding the real world is unreasonable, as demonstrated by David Hume in the 18th century. We cannot observe causality, only correlation, and to move from an observation of correlation to assertion of causation we need to make assumptions. It is impossible to prove any theory about climate, they can only be disproved. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 02:13 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
Constructive fun for regular commenters: You can enlighten other sites. Take Physorg . com for example. Whenever a new climate paper is described from a press release the comments at physorg . com are along the lines of "AGW is a religion" and other unbright ideas. If the regulars here could watch for new papers at a site like physorg . com and visit, and politely ask for citations eg [citation needed: AGW is a religion], [citation needed: you have provided no evidence that I am a (whatever they call you)] and make positive points with citations from this site and RC (use the ZVON index) you could drive the regulars there nuts and educate a great number of readers that don't comment. With practice the regulars here could constructively reduce cyber-bullying at lots of sites. Apologies for this being OT to this thread, but I don't think there is a separate thread for constructive fun yet. There could be though. -
damorbel at 02:09 AM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 363 You wrote:- "Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you believe SoD to be incorrect, please address that there, as SoD is well-established as an online reference tool known for accuracy in these matters. Until corrected, that status will remain." Sorry if I have upset anyone but I do not use links to put arguments I cannot support myself. Nor do I have any general position on what third party writers say; they may well be very good but giving a general approval seems to be fundamentally insecure since the question of interpretation arises. To put it another way, I require provable and reproduceable facts. -
Robert Murphy at 02:08 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
I have never understood the authority which so-called "skeptics" give to Motl. Well, I get that they want to include anybody in their ranks with a doctorate, however nutty their views, in order to boost the illusion of scientific respectability. But Motl is really off the deep end, and I don't just mean his Moncktonesque whoppers with the science. That's bad enough. But anybody who reads his posts for a length of time has to come away with the view that the guy is not all there. He's more than once likened climate scientists like Mann and Jones with the Taliban, and said explicitly that they should and will be treated the same and hunted down. In the post you just linked to he likened climate scientists to islamic fundamentalists. The man has serious issues, and it might be better to just ignore him lest he decide to be more *proactive* in his arguments. He sees himself as someone engaged in a holy war. If I were a climate scientist that would make me nervous. -
Jeff T at 02:08 AM on 26 February 2011Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
Well written, Robert. Unfortunately we suffer a lack of data from Antarctica. Trends in polar temperatures and polar ice will eventually spur action. I hope it doesn't take too long. -
shalayka at 01:47 AM on 26 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
scaddenp, Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. I tried (1.1*sin(2*x) + 2.2*sin(3*x) + 3.3*sin(5*x)) but what I get seems to repeat at intervals of 2*pi (minus a precision error on the order of 1e-15 or so). The reason I asked about these things is that if the clockwork Milankovitch cycle were the only driving force behind the ice ages, then I would have expected each ice age to be identical. As mentioned in the other thread and here, I guess it's not that simple -- there's continental drift, plants, asteroid strikes, volcanic activity. As far as I can tell from what people are saying here, these extraneous forces that give the jagginess to the above temp/CO2 plots are considered to be random, not chaotic. I can buy into their reasoning, though I doubt I'll ever do so wholesale. Thank you for the info! - Shawn -
protestant at 01:46 AM on 26 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
And why are M&M 2010 and Christy et al 2010 not being cited? Both are discussing the hot spot issue and analyzing the observations. I hear also Klotzbach et al 2009, which provide some explanations for the missing hot spot (a.k.a less warming in the upper troposphere than predicted), for not being discussed either.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial]Rather than asking rhetorical questions, you would be better off making a case for discussing them, e.g. by briefly summarising the arguments made in those papers and explaining their relevance to the article to which you are responding. Usually there are plenty of contributors here who are more than happy to discuss any scientific paper, but if you want a paper discussed, then the discussion has to start somewhere. -
mclamb6 at 01:36 AM on 26 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech--you didn't, which is precisely the point. You are demanding something in the arguments of others that you aren't demanding of yourself. -
It's not us
Julian Flood - One last attempt, Julian. We are putting an amount "A" into the carbon cycle, a well known amount taken from our fossil fuel use. We're seeing a rise in atmospheric CO2 of "1/2 A", indicating that sources currently exceed sinks by that amount. If we remove an amount "A" from the sources, sinks should then exceed sources by "1/2 A", causing a drop in atmospheric CO2. And as we are responsible for amount "A", we are responsible for the "1/2 A" rise. We are responsible for sources currently exceeding sinks. The only way that CO2 would not drop if we stopped emitting would be if the carbon cycle responded in a non-linear fashion (the LGM of the previous post) - and since the carbon cycle is an order of magnitude larger than our contribution, that would be unreasonable unless you have a testable hypothesis of why it would be different, and some evidence to show it. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:16 AM on 26 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech You may not have said that the papers on your list explicitly endorse skepticism of AGW alarm, but if you apply the corresponding restriction to the "denominator" providing the context, as you implicitly did here, that is a double standard. If the papers in your list don't have to explicitly support your position, why should the papers in the denominator/context have to explicitly endorse the opposing position? For another example of a double standard, you dismiss arguments based on impact factors as being subjective (which isn't actually true, but we can neglect that for the moment), when your choice of peer reviewed papers forming your list is entirely subjective. Whether a paper supports your personal skepticism of AGW alarm is entirely subjective - I have already given an example of a paper on your list that provides better support for "alarmists" as it describes the fall of civilisations brought on by climate change. BTW, regarding your comments here, I am very much in support of your project to provide a resource for skeptics; but that doesn't mean I support every argument you make. In this case a shorter, but more robust list would be a better resource for the skeptic. It is very much your loss that you are to obstinate to take advice from those who offer encouragent and constructive criticism (that is what peer review is all about, so there is a certain irony there!). -
It's not us
Julian Flood - Your "beneficent uncle" and "unscrupulous daughter" are variations of the LGM hypothesis - Little Green Men, unknown and unpredictable. You're essentially stating that although we are adding CO2 twice the level seen as atmospheric rises (and hence sources exceed sinks by the amount of atmospheric rise), if we were to change behavior we would not see the expected decrease in atmospheric CO2 (as sinks would then exceed sources by ~2ppm/year). Because according to you LGM would change the source/sink balance. Complete nonsense, Julian. We're responsible for the current rise, no matter how much you try to invoke LGM to dodge it. -
rhjames at 00:46 AM on 26 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
The Ville - I don't know where you get your logic from. Doubling CO2 is expected to increase temperature by about 1 degC, based on direct "greenhouse" effects. This is based on good science, and is well accepted amongst climate scientists. Any further indirect increase is based on unsubstantiated assumptions of positive feedback dominating negative feedback, with no real data to back it up. -
rhjames at 00:42 AM on 26 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
The Ville - we don't have to know why or how smoking kills - just that it increases the probability of contracting lung cancer etc. Just the increased frequency in a smoking population, after ruling out all other influences, is enough to take action. Climate statistics is still a long way from such certainty. In fact, it's a long way from any meaningful correlation with human activity. -
FatherTheo at 00:38 AM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
As a non-scientist who has been educating myself on the topic of climate change for a while now, I sometimes feel vulnerable when discussing the subject with persons who might have a stronger science background than me. Sometimes someone will in fact raise a point that I do not have sufficient understanding to answer. More often with climate skeptics, though, I find myself with the advantage simply because I have researched and thought about the subject, and they, evidently, have not. I frankly find it refreshing when a climate skeptic can actually talk about the science and is unafraid of addressing the evidence. When that happens there is actually a chance for an argument to evolve. Too often, alas, it's merely political or personal. -
mclamb6 at 00:24 AM on 26 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Yet, you are free to imply when something is "skeptical" of "AGW Alarm"--such as the Pielke paper on hurricane damage? How can you possibly have such an egregious double standard?
Prev 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 Next
