Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 Next
Comments 94401 to 94450:
-
Alexandre at 11:08 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Thanks Nick #19 Yes, sensitivity estimates point to a larger positive feedback. My point was simpler, though: as I understand it, a warming caused by cloud albedo changes would mean an extra LW going unobstructed to the TOA. This increase does not match the LW observations you mentioned. If that's right, no complicated cloud model would be required to point flaws in Spencer's theory. It's so simple that I got the feeling I was oversimplifying it and missing something important. -
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @150, if you care to look at the settings, Modtran is run for specific typical locations, with the default being the tropics. It does not produce a globally averaged result. Because the tropics is warmer than the global average, OLR at the tropics is warmer than the global average of approx 240 w/m^2. As set for default, it also does not include the effect of clouds. Further, and for the umpteenth time (as this is just your same question in a different guise) the OLR from the atmospheric window is included in the calculation. This can clearly be seen in the graph of the emissions for each model run. It can also be seen with line by line detailed data by viewing the whole output file. If you want a closer approximation to the global average, use the 1976 US Standard atmosphere (effective brightness temperature = 259 K). Alternatively, use the ground temperature offset to either set the surface temperature at 288 K (effective brightness temperature = 257 K), or adjust it to match an output of 240 w/m^2, and then run the doubling of CO2 experiment. As previously indicated, this is an obsolete model. And as implemented on the net, it does not even allow us to control all parameters so that you cannot set up a globally averaged surface temperature plus cloud cover. It's use is to show you quite clearly that the 3.7 w/m^2 is the difference in total OLR from doubling CO2. If you want a more up to date model, you'll have to pay the licensing fees. -
bbickmore at 10:53 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Wingding #6, Sorry if that sentence offended you--I was just trying build up a little suspense for the next installments. If I didn't have the goods, however, I wouldn't have said it. Read Part 3 when it comes out, and let me know whether you're still offended. -
Bill Logan at 10:42 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Protestant, the fact that anyone can call the graph in question dishonest or misleading because: "most of the people who read it have no understanding on statistic techniques or the major uncertainities on such statistical excercises" is a mind bender. Its a technical publication. The people to whom you refer feel comfortable passing judgment on technical literature they don't understand. They are perfectly at home making despicable statements about the character of the scientists involved based on statistical methods that they don't have a clue about. The explanation in the text could not be more clear. If the person reading it is unable to process the explanation they should assume they can't understand the data on the graph, and should get someone that does understand it to explain it, before they draw conclusions that they are, by your own evaluation, unqualified to draw. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the information is presented except for the fact that the people judging it are unqualified to do so. Thank you for pointing that out. -
Riduna at 10:38 AM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
What I find disconcerting is that Professor Penny Sackett, Chief Scientist for Australia should be leaving office after 2.5 years without having ever met Prime Minister Gillard and without ever having briefed her on AGW, "the most pressing issue of our time". Julia Gillards' protestations that she believes in AGW, her policy of not adopting a meaningful 2020 CO2 reduction target and her ongoing deferral (5-7 years) of an ETA, combined with Penny Sacketts' departure makes Australia a double looser. Let us hope that before leaving our shores and thereafter Dr Sackett will remind us of the very real urgency for Australia and the rest of the world, particularly the top 20 emitters, of the urgent need to deal effectively with curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you Penny Sackett for all your work. -
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 28 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Well a,b,c is no. of cycle repeats in 2*pi! Try say =(0.3*SIN(0.00006283*B1) + 5*SIN(0.000299199*B1) + 2*SIN(0.000153248*B1)) (which has frequencies around the milkanovich). Note no phase terms either. Now you have peaks of different size and magnitude but a very long time before they repeat (I graphed say from angle 0.01 to 710000). However, I agree though that the cycles are the major driver, a lot of other factors play as well, and yes, random, not chaotic. -
Tom Curtis at 10:25 AM on 28 February 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
I have discussed the WMO report here. The essential points: 1) The caption of the figure explicitly mentions the inclusion of instrumental data; 2) The caption explicitly refers the reader to a discussion of the data, including the divergence problem that was both published and available on the web; and 3) The caption explicitly refers the reader to a repository of the original data available on the web. Given that, there can be no question of dishonesty, or intent to mislead involved. -
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
"The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) document in question was an obscure report, for which a figure was provided for its cover depicting both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings. Criticisms of this figure are valid, as the methods used to create it are not discussed in the report. " On the contrary, the WMO figure had the caption: "Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov). (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office)." The use of instrumental information is explicitly mentioned. Further, as three reconstructions are listed, and only three plots are present on the graph, by logical inference instrumental data must have been used on those plots.
Following up to PAGES takes you to an article by Briffa in which he discusses the divergence problem:
Briffa, K.R., 1999
“Analysis of dendrochronological variability and associated natural climates - the last 10000 years (ADVANCE-10K).”
PAGES Newsletter 7 (No. 1), March 1999, 6-8 (R)
Following up to NOAA takes you to original data
A case can be argued that Jones should have plotted the reconstructions and the surface station data seperately. But that is just an issue of best presentation, not of deception. Any suggestion that Jones' was dishonest in preparing the WMO graph when he explicitly mentions the inclusion of instrumental data, refers you to a discussion of the divergence problem, and refers you to the original data, is absurd.
-
Nick Palmer at 10:18 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Alexandre #14 "If this warming were caused by cloud albedo, that would mean this albedo would have been decreased, that is, more shortwave radiation from the sun would have reached the surface to heat it up." I'm no expert but Spencer's ideas seem to be rather like Lindzen's - a variation of L's Iris theory. By now there should be sufficient satellite albedo measuring data to have measured changes in the relative proportions/densities of cirrus vs cumulus vs stratus clouds in the various areas of the globe. Measurements of incoming SW radiation at the top of the atmosphere must be very well known. Changes in outgoing LW radiation over several decades must be known. Importantly, any changes in "reflected back out to space" (off the tops of the clouds) SW radiation must be known. Surely, all these figures boiled up together could establish whether the net feedback from clouds of all types is negative or positive. That the net cloud feedback could be neutral or negative seems to be falsified by paleoclimatology where I believe evidence shows that relatively small natural forcings were not significantly damped but led to rather large changes over time befeor equilibrium was re-established. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen are not expert paleoclimatologists are they? -
WheelsOC at 10:06 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
@17 A tactic taken by the Intelligent Design movement as well. They know that there's no scientific research backing them up, and they don't even try to make up the deficit there (to Spencer's credit he USED to submit papers for peer-review, though now he has chosen to stick with refereed letters journals). Instead of participating in the scientific venues and making their arguments where they'll get the most exposure to expert opinion, they instead focus on a campaign of popular opinion. If they can convince enough of the public, then it doesn't matter to them how little support there is in the scientific community. It's perhaps quite telling that Dr. Spencer is also a self-described ID advocate who thinks that the scientific case for evolution is, at best, the same level as that for ID. If he continued to do good work in climate science without letting his IDist sympathies creep in that would be one thing, and I wouldn't make much of it. Everyone's entitled to some wacky eccentricities if it does no harm. However, time and again you can see him applying the same pro-ID rhetoric and baloney arguments to his opinion of climate change: belief in an academic conspiracy to suppress dissent, becoming more withdrawn from the scientific community, calling the consensus a faith-based position, refusing to acknowledge the broad body of evidence in support of the consensus while taking a few seemingly incongruous tidbits to support the opposite of the mainstream view, and focusing more on generating public controversy and division than on generating scientific support and understanding for his case (i.e. the Dessler press conference example). -
Dikran Marsupial at 10:06 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
" Since there is momentum exchange in both directions but the energy transfer is only in one direction you should thus be able to grasp the physics behind the 2nd law." That is obviously incorrect, every photon that is emitted by the shell and is absorbed by the body within has transferred energy from the cooler shell to the warmer body. You still haven't given a clear answer to what happens to the second body within the shell when it is heated. Keep it simple, does it (a) get warmer (b) stay the same temperature or(c) get cooler? -
Sean A at 10:00 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists - This OIG report came out on the 18th (link to full report in article). Basically, another CRU hack investigation concludes that scientists are clear of any wrongdoing. - Curry's post is dated the 22nd. Talking about "hide the decline", accusing scientists of dishonesty. -
JMurphy at 09:57 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
I don't understand what Curry is up to. She claims to be trying to build bridges but it's difficult to work out where those bridges are going from and to : she seems to be constantly accusing certain scientists (and the IPCC as a whole) of dishonesty, etc. and doesn't appear to want to build bridges in that direction; but is constantly appearing on CA and WUWT (and allowing all sorts of accusations and various forms of wild denial on her own website), playing to the crowd. It seems to me that she is trying to build bridges between the so-called skeptical blog scientists and the minority of the general public who spend any time reading blogs, and who might be persuaded to become sceptical because they don't really know who to believe. All very strange. -
damorbel at 09:37 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #389 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " I wrote in #382:- " Since there is momentum exchange in both directions but the energy transfer is only in one direction you should thus be able to grasp the physics behind the 2nd law." And that is the complete answer to your question. Perhaps I can expand it. The Kinetic theory of heat replaced the Caloric theory in the 2nd 1/4 of the 1800s. This theory is that, above 0K all molecules are in a continuous state of vibration with momentum proportional to temperature. Momentum and energy are closely related momentum p = mv; it is a vector quantity because v (velocity) is a vector. The energy of moving particles is E = 1/2mv^2 which is not a vector quantity because v^2 is not a vector. Since heat transfer has a direction, it needs some kind of vector (you can use energy gradient but it is clumsy) to define the direction of heat transfer; momentum is much more handy. So heat energy tranfer goes from the high momentum/high temperature place to the cold/low momentum place but there is all the time (unless the cold side is at 0K) a tranfer of momentum in both directions but the average is fron the hot side to the cold side. You ask me:- "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " Don't you see that the answer must be no? The mechanism of transfer (as well as all observations) make it impossible. -
Phila at 09:19 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
rhjames: Some people think positive will dominate, and others suggest negative. Some people think the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, and others suggest it's made of iron. Fortunately, Spencer has shown us how to settle vexing questions like these: bypass scientificconsensusgroupthink, and put the question up to a popular vote. -
Albatross at 09:18 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Protestant, Curry has very clearly demonstrated that she does not have credentials to speak to paleo data, nor does she have the credentials to speak to climate sensitivity, she things the 90% confidence interval for climate sensitivity lies between 0 to 10 C for goodness' sakes. She is an embarrassment to the scientific community. The divergence problem, IIRC, refers to only one particular dendro chronology, not all dendro chronologies. Protestant, while you are vehemently objecting to plotting thermometer and paleo data on the same graph, please be sure to also tell Ljungqvist and McShane and Wyner that they should have not included the thermometer data on their reconstructions. I'l let someone else address Muller's intriguing talk. And can I take this opportunity to remind everyone that is is now 2011, and not 1999. And I find your comments about CP laughable, you clearly have never read CA or WUWT, now those are in reality probably "the biggest disinformation &ad-hominem site[s] on the whole field" -
RickG at 09:14 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
protestant: The proxies are inaccurate and do not respond solely on temperature, so there is no reason to hide any data. That is *not* scientific practise deleting adverse data. Why would anyone use data they know to be incorrect? -
Alexandre at 09:08 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
rhjames #13 said Some people think positive will dominate, and others suggest negative. Please try to learn why some people think it's positive, and why so few claim it's strongly negative. That will give you more background to your surprisingly confident assertion "the fact is, we don't know". A good starting point may be the post on Climate Sensitivity, here on SkepticalScience. -
protestant at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
oops. Someone fix my link, please. Thank you. -
protestant at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
The proxies are inaccurate and do not respond solely on temperature, so there is no reason to hide any data. That is *not* scientific practise deleting adverse data. And for the same reason no thermometer readings are justified being plot on the same graph as I stated on several other topics elsewhere here. A graph from prof Müllers presentation:
illustrates clearly, that there are similar "divergence" problems everywhere in the reconstruction.
You can watch the hidethedecline part of his talk
here.
And the main point is, why that is misleading (even if its mentioned in the text) is that, most of the people who read it have no understanding on statistic techniques or the major uncertainities on such statistical excercises.
Unless you will use a caption: "Warning. This data is baked to show us the result we wanted. It is purely an artifact of statistical excercises and only the temperatures which have been replaced with thermometers are somewhat reliable."
I do not understand how people can still be defending the indefensible like "hide the decline".
And Robert Way, please! That is ... . For the 2nd time in a short period of time I see you attacking Curry personally. Last time you used a link on ClimateProgress which is known to be propably the biggest disinformation & ad-hominem site on the whole field. You should be aware that neither you nor Joe Romm have absolutely none of the scientific credentials nor match the expert judgment in the subject. Nope. -
Albatross at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Rhjames @13, Seriously? To be honest, I don't think any amount of evidence that is out there which supports a positive feedback will convince you. And a little troubling that you are apparently unconcerned about Spencer using inappropriate parameters in his models. Also, going by your tone, I do not think we need to take your "story" or interpretation seriously. Maybe this paper by Rohling et al. (2009) will perhaps convince you to be just a little more concerned about sea-level rise. It could very well be that the scientists have been too conservative in their estimates of sea-level rise. In fact, recent observations on are on the very upper bound of the expected range reported in the IPCC (i.e, the scientific community). Anyhow, GSL rise is off topic. So I'll move on. -
Alexandre at 08:55 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Kevin #11 If this warming were caused by cloud albedo, that would mean this albedo would have been decreased, that is, more shortwave radiation from the sun would have reached the surface to heat it up. The heated surface would in turn emit more longwave radiation. This increase has not been observed. Longwave is emited by cooler bodies, like the earth heated by the sun. Shortwave is emited by very hot bodies, like the sun itself. So trying to answer your question, increased shortwave emission from the Earth would take place if our albedo was increased (thus reflecting back more of the sun's shortwave). If you want to understand this LW/SW emission better, I'd recommend the first two or three lectures of David Archer here. It's global warming physics for non-scientists at the Chicago University. -
Jesús Rosino at 08:51 AM on 28 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Thanks for your answer, dana1981. However, I don't think a low climate sensitivity opens up that window to a natural effect. If such a natural factor existed, it might affect climate sensitivity (it might not). However, the fact that climate sensitivity was low, IMHO, wouldn't say anything about the likelihood of its existence. Consider, for example, the uncertainty in radiative forcing from aerosols. Imagine that, within the said uncertainty, aerosols happened not to have cooled the planet much, and their negative radiative forcing is in reality at the lower end of our estimate (close to zero). This would imply that net radiative forcing would be in the upper end of our estimate (around 2.4 W/m2), and therefore climate sensitivity would be in the lower end of our estimate, with the 'percentage' of warming attributed to human activities unaffected (likely more than 100%). I'll give some numbers just in case it makes my point clearer: Let's assume that equilibrium temeprature change to current forcing is 1.2ºC. Then, Eg.1: standard (most likely value) estimate of forcing and sensitivity is: Net forcing = 1.6 W/m2 --> Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 1.6 = 0.75 (W/m2)−1 (that means ΔT = 3.7*0.75 = 2.8 ºC for CO2 doubling) Eg.2 Weaker aerosols (less negative forcing) -> higher net forcing: Net forcing = 2.4 W/m2 --> Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 2.4 = 0.5 (W/m2)−1 (that means ΔT = 3.7*0.5 = 1.9 ºC for CO2 doubling, with human contribution being the same) -
rhjames at 08:48 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
I think the last paragraph says it all, regarding clouds and negative/positive feedback. Some people think positive will dominate, and others suggest negative. The fact is, we don't know. Until there is some sort of actual data, or scientific evidence, we can't make any long term claims, other than "it's possible" of "our assumptions suggest". To suggest that there is "scientific consensus" on this is irresponsible, and immediately throws the whole concept of AGW into doubt. We need to stick to the facts, and call it how it is. If there's doubt, say so. I don't want to read headlines like "sea levels to rise by 1m by 2100". I want to read that a model, with many yet to be substantiated assumptions, suggests that this is a possibility. Then I'll respect the story. -
Albatross at 08:44 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
This whole episode is putting me off Curry. Sad really, because I so used to love curry. -
Phila at 08:41 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
"Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it." Translation: "Given that AGW is a hoax, I am either smarter or more honest than the rest of the world's climate scientists. My natural modesty compels me to suggest that I'm more honest, but I'll let the reader be the judge." In light of these developments, I have decided to take my message to the people. Translation: "Since the scientific community has rejected my work, I will now spoonfeed it to people who lack the knowledge, skills and training to judge its competence and accuracy. I fail to see anything wrong with this plan." If Spencer put as much work into science as he does into shoehorning logical fallacies into his rhetoric, articles like this one might not be necessary. -
pbjamm at 08:18 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@758 "This means that over the years the amount of government funding climate change research has received has increased." I dont think that anyone would dispute that Climate Change research has been receiving an increasing amount of money over the last 30 years. This is logical if it is considered an important topic worth researching. Why do you bring it up? What relevance does it have to the conversation we are having? You may also want to look into the vast increase in Space and Astronautics funding since the 1920s. -
dhogaza at 08:15 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Also, she doesn't claim to be expert on these subjects, she just knows everyone else is wrong. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:08 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel I asked: "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " Instead of giving a direct answer (yes or no would be a good start), you wrote: "My #382 explains about how heat energy is tranferred and how it happens. You appear to have a problem with #382, could you make it just a little clearer what it is?" which doesn't actually answer the question. I don't have a particular problem with what you had written, other than that it was avoiding giving a direct answer to a direct question. "You say 'just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature'. But how does it do this (keep the first body at 273K)?" If the heater is producing heat at the rate that the black body 273K radiates heat, it will stay at the same temperature as energy in = energy out. It doesn't need a regulator to achieve that. So can you just give a direct answer to the question, what will happen to the body in the shell if it is heated by a heater providing the same amount of energy required to keep the first body at a constant temperature. -
NQuestofApollo at 07:35 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Sorry Moderator, but I have to respectfully disagree with the deletion of my post. If Daniel is going to bring up the amount of money being spent by Big Oil, he is the one bringing politics into the discussion and I don’t see why I don’t have the right to respond. How is it that you let a comment stand about millions being spent by the oil companies, but complain about comments referring to the billions spent on the AGW?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Read DB's comment again. His mention of fossil fuel industry spending is incidental to the point of the comment. Best advice: Stick to the topic, stay out of politics, stop wasting everyone's time complaining about moderation. -
damorbel at 07:19 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #383 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- " I can see you are unwilling to discuss the science and want to bog the discussion down with pointless pedantry after I had already altered my terminology to suit you (from "flow" to "transfer"). Suit yourself" I would like to suit you so perhaps you could explain what part of #382 is 'pointless pedantry'? Your comment is rather dismissive of what is necessarily short on detail. Re #387 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " My #382 explains about how heat energy is tranferred and how it happens. You appear to have a problem with #382, could you make it just a little clearer what it is? Re #377 You wrote:- "Now put an identical heater in both bodies, each supplying the same amount of heat energy - just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature. What happens to the temperature of the inner body within the shell? " The 'body in the shell' is the 2nd body - right? In #373 you wrote "The shell is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin" - You ask "What happens to the temperature of the inner body within the shell?" When you put the same heater (in the 2nd...) as gives - what? You say 'just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature'. But how does it do this (keep the first body at 273K)? Is it 1/a constant temperature heater, regulating its output to maintain 273K? or 2/does it deliver the same power to the 2nd body as the 1st? The two cases are very different. The matter is complicated because you said (in #373) "The shell [tound the 2nd body] is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin." The simplest case is /2 because the shell temperature is defined at 272K. In this case the temperature of the body inside the shell would rise somewhat according to the thermal resistance of the 1mm gap, which is something I am leaving to you. I am really interested as to why you put this problem together, as yet I cannot see why. I am waiting for your explanation. -
NQuestofApollo at 07:13 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
But, Daniel’s comment “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” was not political? I was specifically addressing that comment, which you allowed to stand. Furthermore, my reference to Al Gore contained absolutely no opinion – only fact.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Al Gore is not a scientist; nor are Sec of State Clinton and Pres Obama. Comments regarding money spent on legitimate research into alternative energy sources are off-topic. Comments regarding who stands to gain financially through investments in technology are indeed opinion. Come on, NQA, there's plenty to discuss here without going off the reservation. -
Kevin C at 07:08 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Alexandre, Dana: I'm a novice so this is probably wrong, but wouldn't a increase in albedo due to clouds cause energy to be reflected, not absorbed and re-emitted? In which case the increasing output would be as short wave, not long wave radiation? (Or does albedo cover both reflection and absorbtion/re-emission?) -
hank at 06:57 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
http://www.google.com/search?q=top+of+atmosphere+255K First hit: meteo04.chpc.utah.edu/class/1020/Lecture2.201009.pdf Start around slide 31. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:53 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Re: NQA In addition to muoncounter's valuable counsel above, please also remember this portion of the Comments Policy:No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticize a person's methods but not their motives.
Comments referring to Gore are on thin ice by themselves. If you would care to re-phrase your comment to bring it into compliance with the Comments Policy, I'm sure there are several here who would be more than happy to enjoy the discourse. The Yooper -
RW1 at 06:49 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Actually the Archer model you reference seems to be consistent with White's numbers: 385 W/m^2 x .566 (% absorbed clear sky) = 217.9; 217.9 W/m^2 x 0.333 (% clear sky) = 72.6 W/m^2 385 x .857 (% absorbed cloudy sky) = 329.9; 329.9 W/m^2 x 0.666 (% cloudy sky) = 219.7 W/m^2 219.7 W/m^2 + 72.6 W/m^2 = 292.3 W/m^2; Archer = 287.8 W/m^2, which is awfully close. -
robert way at 06:40 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Remember Dana, Curry is just the "conduit" for disinformation, not the "originator" :P -
NQuestofApollo at 06:37 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Moderator - please help me out here. Why does my post keep getting deleted? There are no personal attacks. I am asking a legitimate question about the one-sidedness of a previous post and have included examples and links to support the question. What seems to be the problem?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your recent comments were deleted because they were political. If you have scientific issues to discuss, find the appropriate thread. If you are looking for a forum for ideological rants, look elsewhere. -
RW1 at 06:29 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet." How can 287 W/m^2 be leaving the planet? From Stefan-Boltzman, 287 W/m^2 = 266K (255K expected)? What about Trenberth's transparent window of 40 W/m^2? 287.8 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 = 327.8 W/m^2 = 275.5K (255K expected)???? -
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 28 February 2011It's cooling
You do realise that what models predict is arctic warming but only very slow warming in Antarctica (with some parts getting colder)? Its model verification. Nonetheless, as papers show (even skeptic darling O'Donnell), Antarctica is also warming, and with net loss of ice. -
macwithoutfries at 06:21 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Probably the article should also mention something about the previous huge blunder that we have seen from Roy Spencer - the one in which for a long time he also claimed that his data is correct and the thermometers and other people's models are all a giant conspiracy - a story which was only debunked when external reviewers have inspected his data and found serial error in his data analysis - more details here! -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:19 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Andrew at 766... The George C Marshall institute? That's your source? -
hank at 06:15 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Oh, heck, RW/GW were answered previously e.g. http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=216&&n=588#41029 and earlier. Sorry, I didn't realized I'd walked into the late stages of a thread-to-thread-to-thread Gish Gallop. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Andrew... We have this thing called the National Academy whose job it is to advise the government on issues like this. They have clearly stated that AGW is a very serious concern. For the government to ignore the views of the Academy and fail to fund research into climate issues would be gravely concerning. -
dhogaza at 06:04 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
"We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks." I cringed when I read that. It's too close to the kind of pointless smear language I've come to hate from WUWT or CA
It happens to be true, though ... -
Bibliovermis at 06:02 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Yes, funding for climate change research has increased. That is not in dispute. The reason is. (hmm, this point sounds familiar) Was it: A) Prior research showed the need for more research to better define the scope & severity of the issue. B) A vast conspiracy of politicians and fat cat scientists with the intention of hiding the results of prior research and hoodwinking the general populace. -
WheelsOC at 05:56 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Notice how Spencer avoids the obvious conclusion when setting up this false dichotomy. You can basically paraphase it as, "either I'm right and everyone else is wrong, or I'm right and they don't want to admit it. Either way, I'm right!" You could just be wrong, Dr. Spencer. -
dana1981 at 05:55 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Very interesting post Barry. I look forward to the next two installments! Alexandre #2 - you're correct, there are a number of observational 'fingerprints' which Spencer's hypothesis can't explain, as I discussed here. -
wingding at 05:52 AM on 28 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
If the deep ocean is gaining heat how does this impact climate response time? Does it reduce the rate of warming at the surface we can expect?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
Bibliovermis at 05:45 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Defendent's lawyer: "Your honor and member's of the jury, there is reasonable doubt to acquit my client on the charge of vehicular homicide because humans died naturally before automobiles were invented. I rest my case."
Prev 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 Next
