Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 Next
Comments 94351 to 94400:
-
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. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:45 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Re: NQA (113, 114) The focus of my comment @ 109 (itself a response to your question @ 108) was points 1-8 of a logical evidenciary chain. That you focus instead on an off-the-cuff (albeit snarky, but entirely factual) throwaway quip instead of an objective dialogue-based examination of the underlying science is both telling and troubling. Resorting to the "attack the messenger" ploy may be considered both acceptable and de rigueur in other venues...but not this one. If you wish to discuss the underlying science of both climate science and anthropogenic global warming and avoid the personal attacks - then Skeptical Science is an incredible resource for learning and the sharing of knowledge in a setting protected from the emotion colouring most other sites on the internet. Here, lay persons rub elbows with scientists of all disciplines. Here, one can learn apace at leisure alone or pick the brains of experts directly. If you wish other forms of dialogue and interaction, then Skeptical Science is not the place for you. Your call. Back to the Oscars, The Yooper -
Tom Curtis at 14:36 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Andy S, so Judith Curry is publicly on record as asserting that there is a 5% chance that changes in forcing have effectively zero effect on global temperatures? Anyone who can think that there is at least a 5% chance that the changes between glacials and interglacials is entirely brought about by internal cyclical changes in the environment (as this entails) is massively disconnected from reality. -
RW1 at 14:36 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, Should I add up all individual transmittance lines and divide? -
RW1 at 14:33 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, Most of the radiance is in the window, so if anything that would seem like it would make the number much higher than only about 0.25? -
Tom Curtis at 14:32 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Stephen Leahy @15, a team headed by Richard Müller (see 13 above) and with Judith Curry as the only climatologist, in a research project partially funded by the Koch brothers? I can hardly wait. -
scaddenp at 14:31 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
NQA - everyone is allowed their values and their political opinions but there is only version of reality. It seems your arguments are largely politically inspired instead of an assessment of real science which is what DB gave you. 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? Does evidence for the Ptolemic system means there is good reason to doubt the earth goes around the sun? Do you make up all your judgements on reality on the basis of supposed motives? I think there are good reasons to be suspicious of meddling of those with a lot to lose but frankly its best to concentrate on the science, what is the best model for reality and leave the political hangups behind. -
Climate sensitivity is low
Tom Curtis, RW1 - do you have a link to the Modtran model you are using? I'm not seeing the same freedom of parameters you seem to have discussed at the model here. -
RW1 at 14:28 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "I know the average is given at the bottom. That does not mean you can use it as you are doing." How do you know? Have you added all the lines up and divided? -
RW1 at 14:27 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, 'INTEGRATED ABSORPTION FROM 100 TO 1500 CM-1 = 1054.84 CM-1 AVERAGE TRANSMITTANCE =0.2465' You're saying this doesn't account for the differences in energy emitted at each line? How do you know this? -
Tom Curtis at 14:24 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
@162, I know the average is given at the bottom. That does not mean you can use it as you are doing. -
Tom Curtis at 14:22 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Addendum to 161: Looking at the values, it appears quite probable that "Surface transmittance" is the surface radiation that escapes to space at each line, with transmittance rounded to five significant figures, thus showing 0 in this case. In that case, to get the transmittance you would have to calculate independently the surface radiance at the surface for each line. However, it would save you a step in integrating determining the total emissions from the atmosphere. You may need to find a manual to clarify this. Of course, the sensible thing to do would probably be to assume that no fundamental errors slipped into the programing based on the fact that a large number of independently programed models yield essentially the same result. -
RW1 at 14:22 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, The average transmittance for '100 TO 1500 CM-1' is given at the bottom. Also, I tried using an emissivity of .98 and it didn't make much difference (2.3058 W/m^2 instead of 2.348 W/m^2). -
Tom Curtis at 14:15 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @158: 1) You did not account for the emissivity of 0.98 for the Earth's surface. That means Surface Radiation (SR) = 385.8 * 0.98 = approx 378 w/m^2 2) The average transmittance, ie, the sum of each line's transmittance divided by the number of lines, cannot be used as you have done it. The energy emitted at each line is not constant, so the distribution in variation in transmittance relative to the distribution in emitted energy can make very large differences in the net transmission. Therefore using a simple average of transmission will give invalid results. 3) Total radiance obviously includes values for emissions by the atmosphere, as for example at line 400: Surface Transmission: 3.18E-29 Total Radiance: 1.42E-03 Transmittance: 0.00000 Clearly with a transmittance of 0, Total Radiance would be 0 if radiation emitted from the atmosphere was excluded. To conduct the analysis you wish to make, you need to go through line by line, and sum the total of surface radiation * transmittance to get the amount of radiation from the surface that escapes to space unabsorbed. You then need to go through line by line and sum (total radiance - (surface radiation * transmittance)) to get the amount of radiation emitted from the atmosphere to space. You will then be in a position to do what you are trying to do in 158. Have fun. -
scaddenp at 14:11 PM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"Do you disagree with this post?" Let me make a prediction: 'Yes, because a cold body cant warm a warmer body because its a violation of 2nd law thermodynamics". On and on like a broken record. Let me pose another question for damorbel. If you do an experiment and it results can be explained by the real 2nd law of thermodynamics but not by you imaginary version, then will you abandon your imaginary version? -
NQuestofApollo at 14:09 PM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
I understand. If someone you agree with dabbles in politics with cherry-picked data that supports their position: no problemo. But, when I challenge that same cherry-picked data with irrefutable facts that are against your world view, my data is deleted and I’m accused of engaging in an ideological rant. And that works for you. That Daniel’s Big Oil comment was incidental is irrelevant – the problem remains that making such a point at all while ignoring the vast riche$ being made by AGW supporters indicates a serious disconnect with reality or intentional disingenuousness. Which is what I was addressing. Naturally, that point blew past you. Next time, muoncounter, why not just tell me to sit down and shut up. It is so much more efficient. In the meantime, Daniel, how about manning up and addressing my point. I know you know what I’m talking about – stop hiding behind your delete key.Moderator Response: [Muoncounter] What would be efficient would be for you to post in accordance with the Comments Policy. No one told you to sit down and shut up; you were told that you should behave as a guest in someone's (in this case John Cook) house. The house rules are relatively simple: You don't see anyone else gratuitously dropping Al Gore references nor playing the 'man up' card, whatever that is supposed to mean. Stick to the science and the topic at hand; you might enjoy the serious discourse that results. -
RW1 at 14:06 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, Then why does the 2.764 W/m^2 difference outputed NOT match up to the difference in the transmittance data outputed? Are you saying it shouldn't? Explain why. What accounts for the difference? All I've done is run some calculations showing what the numbers would be dividing by 2. Those calculations using the exact transmittance data provided at least yield about 240 W/m^2 (255K) leaving. -
Stephen Leahy at 13:41 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Ms Curry is apparently a key member of a new group of prominent US physicists reassessing climate change from the ground up to "end the the war". http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war?CMP=twt_gu -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - Why are you dividing by 2? Seriously, why? What Modtrans outputs is the total outgoing IR, and hence the 2.764 change on doubling CO2 is the entire, whole, complete difference between outgoing IR. Not half the amount, not twice the amount, but the whole amount. Dividing by 2 is wholly unphysical and wrong. This is the basic mistake that GW makes, and that you have repeated. It is wrong. -
RW1 at 13:31 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
The first thing I notice in the data is that at 375 ppm, the average transmittance is 0.2526, and the average transmittance at 750 ppm is 0.2465 (a reduction of 0.0061 or about 2.4%). At temperature of 287.2K, the earth's surface emits about 385 W/m^2. 385 W/m^2 x .2526 = 97.251 W/m^2 passing through the atmospheric window at 375 ppm, and 385 W/m^2 x .2465 = 94.903 passing through at 750 ppm for (a reduction of 2.348 W/m^2). 385 W/m^2 - 97.251 W/m^2 = 287.749 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere at 375 ppm. 385 W/m^2 - 94.903 W/m^2 = 290.907 W/m^2 absorbed at 750 ppm. Here is what I can't figure out: The output of the data is showing 255.565 W/m^2 leaving at 375 ppm and 252.801 W/m^2 leaving at 750 ppm (a reduction of 2.764 W/m^2). If I divide 287.749 W/m^2 (375 ppm) by 2, I get 143.8745 W/m^2. 143.8745 + 97.251 = 241.1255 W/m^2 leaving (255.565 W/m^2 needed to match the data?). If I divide 290.907 W/m^2 (750 ppm) by 2, I get 145.0485 W/m^2. 145.0485 W/m^2 + 94.903 = 239.9515 W/m^2 leaving (252.801 W/m^2 needed to match the data?). 145.0485 W/m^2 - 143.8745 W/m^2 = 1.174 W/m^2, which is exactly half of the 2.348 W/m^2 reduction in the atmospheric window. To match output of the data exactly, at 375 ppm there needs to be 158.314 W/m^2 from the atmosphere (158.314 + 97.251 = 255.565 W/m^2). For 750 ppm there needs to be 157.898 W/m^2 from the atmosphere (157.898 + 94.903 = 252.801 W/m^2). The difference between 158.314 W/m^2 and 157.898 W/m^2 is 0.416 W/m^2, which is the exact difference between 2.348 W/m^2 reduction in the window and the reduction in the data output of 2.764 W/m^2). What accounts for the missing 0.416 W/m^2??? -
hank at 13:28 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"he then misinterpreted ... that is a mistake." The misinterpretation. -
Andy Skuce at 13:12 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Judith Curry has recently asserted: That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C. Her previous bounds were 1-6 degrees C. This means that she is saying that climate sensitivity could be greater than 10 degrees five percent of the time and greater than 6 degrees in 16.7% of possible cases. This would make her more alarmist than anybody I know. As a commenter on her blog remarked: 0-10C at 90%? I’d say that makes you more of an alarmist than anyone I’ve ever read. Hansen is Pollyanna in comparison. That looks like a 50% chance of the end of civilization. At the other end of her range she seems to accept the possibility that negative sensitivities are possible. Her range of uncertainty possible outcomes spans everything from the most, er, skeptical to the extreme alarmist; surely, a bridge too far. Perhaps that was just an off-the-cuff comment and we shouldn't take it too seriously. It was, however, made by a climate scientist on a popular blog aimed at the general public. In contrast, the "hide the decline" comment was made years ago in private between scientists who knew how to interpret such a remark, yet we still have Climate Etc devoting entire blog posts to this phrase, as if it were consequential. -
Tom Curtis at 13:04 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
You did not show the data output. However, with settings as indicated and 375 ppm CO2, the base output is: I, W / m2 = 255.565 Ground T, K = 287.20 For 750 ppm, the output is: I , W / m2 = 252.801 Ground T, K = 287.20 The difference in I is 2.764 w/m^2. That is the difference, according to this model, between the IR leaving the atmosphere with 350 ppm and with 750 ppm. Plainly, if that is the IR leaving the atmosphere, it is incorrect to divide it by two to determine the difference in the IR energy leaving the planet in the two cases. But that is exactly what George White does with his equivalent calculation. -
Tom Curtis at 12:41 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Protestant, having watched Prof Müller's presentation, I would certainly take any paper by him with a large grain of salt, for he is prepared to lie, and lie repeatedly to make political points: Case in point, he claims that scientists would say they have "seen the data" because they have seen a graph with a stated 50 year smoothing. - Nonsense, no scientist is unaware that the plot of a 50 year smooth will not follow the actual data points. In fact, no moderately competent layperson would be so mistaken. Further case in point - he says "they" smoothed the graph so that the transition from paleo to instrumental data would not be evident. - Nonsense, smoothing is routinely done in all branches of science to show overall trends over particular time scales. In this case, smoothing highlights the real differences between the reconstructions by making it obvious on the graph. Further case in pont - with respect to the WMO graph (the only one he refers to, and the most obscure) he keeps on referring to "they" did this, and "they" did that. - Again, nonsense, Jones and Jones alone prepared the WMO report. Müller is obviously trying to conceal this fact so he can tarnish the whole group of scientists. Further case in point - He says the data was not made available. As noted above, the caption of the graph referred readers to a repository of the data accessible on the Internet. The data for Jones et al (1998), for example, was last updated at that site in December 1998, and has presumably been available since then. Mann et al 1999 has files last modified in March 1999, and hence available since then, although the parent directory was last modified in 2003. Briffra 1998 was last modified in 2003, and Briffra et al (2001) last modifed in 2002, are also now available and there is no reason to think they were not available at the time. In fact, what he has done is assumed the genuine difficulties in obtaining the source data for the HadCRU temperature series applied to all attempts to get original data, which is simply false. Case in point - he claims to be able to show "the original data" that was concealed, but does not show the HadCRU temperature series, but rather the graphs of Mann et al 1999, Jones et al 1998 and Briffa et al 1999, all of which were originally published as graphs in the original publications. In those graphs, he even distorts the data himself. He extends the data to 2000, when it only goes to 1991 and He shows a decline more than double that in the original data. Here is the original data as plotted in Briffa et al 1999 without any hiding of the decline, or truncation of data, for comparison with Müller's as shown by you.:
(Briffa et al's data is shown in green.)
Given the nature of his talk, this deception show breath taking hypocrisy.
-
RW1 at 12:27 PM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"Looking at the Modtran model you can clearly see that that is a mistake." I've spent the last hour or more looking at the detailed line by line output and don't see the 'mistake' you're referring to. I do see that the atmospheric window is included in the data though (more on that in my next post). Also, I know this model is out of date, but for the purposes of understanding what these numbers mean, let's break them down as they are. Here are the inputs I'm using: CO2 (ppm) 375 & 750 CH4 (ppm) 1.7 Trop. Ozone (ppb) 28 Strat. Ozone scale 1 Ground T offset, C -1 hold water vapor pressure Water Vapor Scale 1 Locality 1976 US Standard Atmosphere No clouds or rain Sensor Altitude km 70 Looking Down This is the data output I'm looking at. -
Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Ken Lambert - The post you refer to was a long Gish Gallop of topics better discussed (and quite disproved) on other threads, with added ad hominem remarks. I'm not surprised it was deleted. -
robert way at 12:26 PM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Protestant, First of all I was using Gavin Schmidt's evaluation of her not my own. And yes Gavin Schmidt is far more qualified than she is on the subject. Secondly, Dr.Joseph Romm's word I would trust before Dr. Curry's on the subject of climate science. Thirdly, where do you come off attacking my academic qualifications in paleoclimate? I'm just curious how you seem to be so aware of my background or what groups I work with. Finally, the biggest misinformation/ad hominem place in the field is steven goddard's site without a doubt, 2nd is WUWT do you need for me to go and fetch you tangible evidence? -
Ken Lambert at 12:20 PM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
I read and copied (luckily) a long post from BP. It corrected Bern's numbers. It has been deleted without comment by moderators. It should be compulsory reading for all SKS contributors. John Cook et al; this is unwarranted censorship of a valuable contribution which will do harm to the credibility of this site. -
Bern at 12:08 PM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Ed Davies - it wasn't my estimate - it came from the University of Michigan. (was a story linked from the SkS tweets on the right side of the page) I have to admit I didn't do the calcs to see how realistic it is. I understand insolation is a bit higher than 1000 W/m2, though, so your figure is a bit low - but I agree, 150-odd petawatts total insolation, so the albedo figure should be at least an order of magnitude less, probably several, as it still only affects a small part of the earth's surface. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - One last quixotic attempt: The surface of the Earth receives energy 'A' from the sun. If there were no other elements involved, the Earth would have to be at an equilibrium temperature sufficient to thermally radiate 'A' to space. Otherwise it would warm or cool until the incoming radiation power matches the outgoing. 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. The Earth now receives 'A + B' power, where 'A + B > A'. The Earth must now radiate a power 'A + B' in order to regain equilibrium. Since power radiated scales with T^4, this means that the Earth when radiating 'A + B' must be warmer than when radiating 'A'. Cool objects add energy to all nearby objects, even warmer ones, and cause them to be warmer than they would be in the absence of those cooler objects. Otherwise you would be violating the first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy. The atmosphere is cooler than the Earth, but still warms it accordingly to a higher temperature than it would be without a greenhouse gas containing atmosphere. Do you disagree with this post? And if so, how do you justify it?
Prev 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 Next
