Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 Next
Comments 94501 to 94550:
-
SoundOff at 12:32 PM on 27 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
She “resigned last week smack-bang in the middle of her five-year term”. Perhaps she knows the end is nearer than we think. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:27 PM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Re: Berényi Péter (13) Your comment was deleted due to your contextual usage of the phase "if you actually understand". Those who have a history of pushing the envelope of compliance with the Comments Policy, as you have, will necessarily receive a greater level of comment scrutiny, and less benefit of the doubt, than others do. I reproduce your comment below sans offending phrase: ____________________________________________________________________ Berényi Péter at 08:21 AM on 27 February 2011 "This clearly tells us that oxygen isotope ratios (like the ones used for GISP2) are measuring a local record of temperature for the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, and are not a global proxy" I see. Oxygen isotope and Mg/Ca data from foraminifers retrieved from sediment cores in the western tropical Pacific Ocean are probably not global proxies either. It just shows that not only some pretty cold places got even colder, but one of the warmest spots as well. 2004 Nature, 431, 56-59 DOI: 10.1038/nature02903 Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch Stott, L., Cannariato, K., Thunell, R., Haug, G. H., Koutavas, A., Lund, S.
However, if it is cooler today at both places than it used to be several thousand years ago while global average temperature is higher right now, it follows there should be other places on Earth where it was cooler back then. Could you kindly show us several such examples from the literature?
More importantly, if... the gradual cooling in the tropical western Pacific since the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM), as it is shown in Fig. 3. Stott 2004 has been driven by changes in the tilt of the planet, please share this knowledge with us.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:33 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
BP @ 13... Can I suggest that you also take a look at the Byrd station ice core as well? Once again, I think you're trying to pull out one data set that shows what you want to see without doing the full research to see what is going on. It's not a simple answer. Miller 2010 is the paper that addresses the neo-glaciation idea. I suggest that you read that paper. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:29 AM on 27 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"Even the author says these results are preliminary -- and small." The author appears to say "In other words, whereas the new satellite measurements call into question computer models of solar output, it does not change the fundamental physics of human-induced global warming." And thats an important result. None of your discussion that you've quoted acknowledges the associated stratospheric cooling and you've all focussed on the surface warming. I'm pointing out that the AGW fingerprint of stratospheric cooling is also effected by this result. I'm not saying AGW is wrong and the sun did it. I'm saying the magnitude of the effect is reduced by this result. The strength of the argument that CO2 is the cause of the observed warming because of stratospheric cooling is lessened because its not the only effect now known to do so. -
michael sweet at 10:19 AM on 27 February 2011Prudent Risk
RSVP, Can you provide evidence that ocean acidification is a local effect only? Perhaps you meant that since I have a fresh water pond in my back yard that when the ocean ecosystems are damaged 30 miles away I will not be affected? -
Tom Curtis at 10:15 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Berenyi Peter @13, I would also like to know the answer to that question. The post seemed fine to me, and I was going to comment on it. -
Tom Curtis at 10:10 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
jg @11, GISP2 data is being abused far more than is made apparent in the above post. Considering Figure 1, one major error is that the end date (marked as the present day) is shown as 2000. In fact, by convention, the "present" is in fact 1950, and is 1950 in the GISP 2 data. What is more, the GISP 2 data actually finishes 95 years before "the present", or in 1855. Further, apart from the obvious fallacy of treating a local climate record with global temperatures, they do so inconsistently in that they use the global record for the last 100 years. If you used the local temperature record throughout, the graph would look like this:
(Note, the two red crosses mark recent ice care temperature proxies - ending in 2009 - at the nearby GRIP drill site. The grey line marks the temperature of a similar increase in temperature from 1855 to the present at GISP2.)
-
From Peru at 10:10 AM on 27 February 2011Prudent Risk
"The "skeptics" would have us continue driving the car in the blind hope that the brakes will never give out" It is actually worse than that, the climate system has no brakes (once the planet has warmed, the change is IRREVERSIBLE). All the best we can do is leave the accelerator, hoping that the speed already reached isn't enough to crush ourselves in the giant concrete wall ahead. But this "skeptics" want us to continue to accelerate towards the concrete wall, saying that: "there is not evidence that hitting a concrete wall is dangerous" and claiming that all the physisists, engineers, doctors, firemen and all the people that shout: "stop!" are dishonest people with a hidden agenda, an agenda that includes a range astonishingly large of possibilities, from financial speculation (with carbon credits) to communism (the "logic" is like: since capitalism depends on fossil fuels, and communism is against capitalism, then being against fossil fuels is being a communist) The nonsense of the "skeptics" is so big, that it reminds me the words of Albert Einstein: "There are two infinite things, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I am not sure of the former" -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - You've repeatedly, and by multiple people, been told what the data is, and continue to argue for your (mis)perception of it. We've told you what the results are - denying the data is the unscientific approach here. Something to think about, RW1 - which is more likely? That everyone's interpretation of LBL analysis of CO2 forcing is somehow blatantly wrong? Or that George White (not published AFAIK, certainly not in climatology) is misinterpreting the results of the model he's run? I'm not asking for an answer from you, but just for you to consider the question. I'm out of this thread until real questions are discussed again. -
Berényi Péter at 09:32 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Daniel Bailey, would you explain how Comments Policy was violated by this post? I suppose you thought it was, because you have deleted it. -
TimTheToolMan at 09:21 AM on 27 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"The Haigh 2010 paper was discussed in The sun upside down" OK, you have a discussion of the paper but dont relate the result to the possible impacts on the Stratospheric cooling at all. Hence my inability to find it in the context of "Stratospheric cooling" So why does your article indicate that stratospheric cooling cant in part be due to the sun's changes? -
RW1 at 09:07 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, As stated before, you're just repeating and declaring conclusions I'm already aware of. This is not how science, logic and reasoning works. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - The 3.7 W/m^2 energy imbalance from doubling CO2 is kept in the Earth climate system, atmosphere and surface. This is the sum result of multiple absorption/emission events distributed throughout the atmosphere, as we've told you, and as (it appears) Gavin Schmidt has repeated. Each of those individually is isotropic, with nearly equal (due to horizon effects) probability of upwards or downwards. The sum radiation change upon doubling CO2 is that a global mean of 3.7 W/m^2 less energy leaves the top of the atmosphere. Shopping around for a different answer won't change that... -
TimTheToolMan at 08:53 AM on 27 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
I'm not actually sure you understand the argument Dan. This is a relatively new paper (Oct 2010) and looks at the spectral components of the TSI. I did a search for "Stratospheric cooling" and came up with the usual references to TSI increases resulting in a different warming profile to CO2 warming. For example "8.If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling." But this is an incorrect statement on TSI changes and assumes that all spectra change together. It turns out that this is not correct and so the observed changes since the satellite was put up there indicate a change that ought to mimick the CO2 profile. I'm happy to hear any arguments you have against this, but pointing to "its not the sun" links are irrelevent.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The Haigh 2010 paper was discussed in The sun upside down and on It's the sun. Search function finds prior threads. Jedi Master DB was right (again). -
RW1 at 08:41 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Another question: Do we all agree that not all of the absorbed infrared affects the surface? That a portion of it is directed up out to space and the remaining portion of it is directed down to the surface? -
RickG at 08:38 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
@138 How easy is it to get fooled? -
Daniel Bailey at 08:36 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Here it is: "RW says: 24 Feb 2011 at 8:50 PM Interesting thread. I have a question about some frequently referenced data: I’m wondering if someone can shed some light on this subject for me. I’ve searched around at length all over and cannot find a clear answer. The 3.7 W/m^2 estimated from simulations for the increase in ‘radiative forcing’ from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – does the 3.7 W/m^2 represent a reduction in the atmospheric window or does it represent the half directed down due to isotropic re-radiation/redistribution (meaning a reduction in the atmospheric window of 7.4 W/m^2)???" [Response: It is the global mean change in outgoing LW flux at the tropopause (integrated over the whole spectrum) for a doubling of CO2. - gavin] [ -Edit: More ensuing discussion follows- ] The Yooper -
Tom Curtis at 08:31 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp @137, out of a morbid curiousity, what thread? -
scaddenp at 07:39 AM on 27 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Guys, noticed RW asked at Realclimate: "’m wondering if someone can shed some light on this subject for me. I’ve searched around at length all over and cannot find a clear answer. The 3.7 W/m^2 estimated from simulations for the increase in ‘radiative forcing’ from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – does the 3.7 W/m^2 represent a reduction in the atmospheric window or does it represent the half directed down due to isotropic re-radiation/redistribution (meaning a reduction in the atmospheric window of 7.4 W/m^2)???" Clearly absolutely nothing we have said has been understood at all. I doubt he will like Gavin's accurate response either. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - "I'm not getting any 'proof' here of anything, so I'm left to figure it out on my own." Actually, I will have to disagree with you. You've been pointed to the documentation, you have statements from several people who are quite familiar with line-by-line atmospheric calculations, and even George White sees a ~3.6 W/m^2 imbalance with his own runs of the HITRAN code. Unfortunately, as muoncounter pointed out, these efforts are met with disbelief, rejection, and (yes) denial - "I'm going to get to bottom of this. I'll be back when I know and can show the proof". I have the impression from this conversation that you will reject anything that does not conform to your preconceptions, and that is very sad. 3.7 or so W/m^2 is the difference in total planetary emissions upon doubling CO2, the amount of extra IR not leaving at a particular temperature, the change in outward directed energy. Please - we've offered this information honestly and clearly, as the best established data available. I would suggest you consider your own reasons for not believing it, and why you are so insistent that we are wrong. -
Rob Painting at 06:35 AM on 27 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
Dan, how did you know?.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Just a feeling.
-
70rn at 05:28 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
@mod KK - cheers for that - probably not a bad idea since the original is 3 >< larger. -
Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Thank you. I'm remain in denial about how often data is grossly misrepresented. I didn't know the GISP2 data was being abused, and quite elegantly, as shown in Hall's animated GIF. FYI: I've recently added GISP2 to my interactive Vostok Viewer. I've juxtaposed GISP2 with EPICA, and you can easily see the drastic mood swings of GISP2 against the gradual changes in EPICA. I look forward to Part 2. jg -
70rn at 04:30 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
don't mind me - testing the image posting code.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Tip: When posting an image, it's considered good form to also post a link to the source for the image. Example for above: Source for image here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
nigelj @ #1.... Actually, I think a great deal of Watts' work is relying on the misinformation of others. This one originated from J Storrs Hall. Watts is just the central repository for wrong and poorly researched information. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 27 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Feeble rethoric is an understatement. PT says "This is incorrect, I stated it did not fully support my position, "I was finally able to obtain a full copy of the paper and do not believe it fully meets the list's criteria". None of this changes the fact that I did go through them prior to adding them." That you do not see the irony here confirms that your reading comprehension might not enable you to stick to your own standards, so I'll point it to you. You said you went through the papers before adding them. Then you describe how you "finally" were able to obtain a copy of the Mavromichalaki paper so you then realized it did not meet your criteria. That was after having already included it in the list. That is a confession that either you did not really go through the paper before including it in the list, or that the "going through" means a kind of examination that does not allow you to understand what the paper is about. Perhaps you meant just reading the abstract. In which case, I will challenge you to point what, in the paper's abstract, supports your position. What we see here is not even feeble rethoric any more, I can't really think of a name for it. -
dana1981 at 03:15 AM on 27 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Agnostic - I haven't checked the comments for a while, but every commenter besides me was a "skeptic" who thought Motl's error-riddled post was just brilliant. None objected to him banning me. It's possible that he didn't allow any objectionary comments through his iron-fisted moderation process. -
Bibliovermis at 01:56 AM on 27 February 2011Prudent Risk
Negative effects outweigh positive effects on the global scale. It's Not Bad (argument #11) Insisting that negative effects can only be local while positive effects are global is an impressive display of sophistry and willful ignorance since you are a long-time commenter on this site. -
muoncounter at 01:53 AM on 27 February 2011Prudent Risk
RSVP, "a negative effect or threat is very obvious, it is more than likely only a local problem, whereas on a global scale, someone or some species is coming out ahead in some way." I suppose you can go on wearing those rose-tinted glasses for a long while. Since all threats are local, let's go on with our "What! Me worry?" business as usual. Let's take just one local threat: Sea level rise threatens to inundate sections of coastal Louisiana with increasing frequency. No big deal, you say, who cares about a bunch of marsh grass and pelicans? That's a local threat that won't bother anyone, say up Yooper's way, basking in the warm waters of Lake Superior. Heard of Port Fourchon, at an elevation of 0.64 m (2.1 ft)? Sea level there is rising at more than 9mm/yr (a combination of sea level rise and land subsidence). From a 2008 report prepared for the South Louisiana Economic Council: This port services about 90 percent of all deepwater rigs and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and it is also the host for the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). We estimate that in 2006 about $63.4 billion worth of oil and natural gas was tied to this port via the LOOP and the offshore platforms the port helps to service. We conservatively estimate that a three-week loss in services from Port Fourchon would lead to: • A loss of $9,994.7 million in sales at U.S. firms; • A loss of $2,890.9 million in household earnings in the U.S., and; • A loss of 77,440 jobs in the nation And that was in 2008! Put storm surge on top of sea level rise and the LOOP goes out of service (and with it, 13% of US oil imports). Do that when oil is already pushing $100/bbl and you've got economic meltdown. No, it's not local; this particular threat will come find you. -
guinganbresil at 01:43 AM on 27 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
I know this question is way out there, but I have to ask. Does the rise of sea level take into account changes in the Earth's radius, or is this considered a constant? -
RSVP at 00:30 AM on 27 February 2011Prudent Risk
When assessing options and yhe negative consequences of global effects, your starting point must account for both positive effects that come as a result of not taking action, as well as any negative effects that would have been there anyway. It is then only the difference that matters. If on the otherhand a negative effect or threat is very obvious, it is more than likely only a local problem, whereas on a global scale, someone or some species is coming out ahead in some way. And since it is impossible to predict all outcomes (in a global sense) until this is possible, "business as usual" is about all you can justify. -
TimTheToolMan at 00:30 AM on 27 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming." From "An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate - Haigh et al" we have... "...since April 2004, have revealed4 that over this declining phase of the solar cycle there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding. This reduction was partially compensated in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wavelengths..." And so compared to the the "previous misunderstanding/simplification of TSI" I'd expect there to be more than expected surface warming and more than expected stratospheric cooling. This is from a natural change in the sun's output that mimicks the CO2 fingerprint.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] "This is from a natural change in the sun's output that mimicks the CO2 fingerprint." You are simply incorrect on this matter. Use the search function to find several threads addressing this meme, as it is the topic of those threads. Muoncounter: I win! (Gané, Gané!) -
Pete Dunkelberg at 00:13 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Thanks for this article. The ScienceDirect links aren't working for me at this time, but here is a link for Alley_etal_2010_History_of_the_Greenland_Ice_Sheet__Paleoclimatic_insights.pdf (6.25 Mb). It's a beautiful paper scientifically and aesthetically. There is even a picture of ancient coral at Key Largo Florida. -
70rn at 00:11 AM on 27 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Jason Box, PhD from the Byrd polar research center, has as a blog here; - http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=294 - showing the current 2010 greenland ice sheet temperature anomaly at 2.4 degrees above average. It's hardly good science to put in the current curve atop figure 1 for comparison, but no worse than slapping on the global trend for the same period. It would be intersting to see if some one could smooth the contemporary trend into the GISP2 curve to give a better idea where we're at currently. Failing that, getting his curve onto this site might be nice, at the very least. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:58 PM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damobel@379 Rather than engaging in pedantry, please answer the question. You can call it transfer instead of flow if you like, it makes no difference to the argument, I;ll reword it for you: "O.K. so you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? In this case heat energy is transferred from the cooler shell to the warmer inner body, although there is a greater transfer of heat in the other direction, and so the second law of thermodynamics isn't broken." Your financial analogy is incorrect, money is transferred in both directions. The net transfer would have been the same if you had just given me the $10 instead, but to understand the physics of the greenhouse effect the individual transfers are relevant, not just the net effect. To continue the analogy, consider two companies that trade with eachother, one buys $1M of services from the other, which then buys $999,999 of services from the first. If you are the IRS, would you accept the argument that the first company had only given the second $1? No, becuase in finance, just as in physics, the individual fluxes matter, not just the net flux. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:44 PM on 26 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech sorry poptech, even your rhetoric is feeble. I point out that you are applying a double standard by refusing to accept arguments based on subjective information: "Whether a paper supports your personal skepticism of AGW alarm is entirely subjective" and you reply "Just like any papers that you would consider to implicitly supporting alarm." Yes, but it is you that is refusing to accept subjective information, not me, hence that doesn't excuse your double standard does it? *I don't reject your list for its subjectivity, but I do reject individual papers that are known to be incorrect, or individual papers where the text of the paper is inconsistent with your intepretation of the abstract, or where your reason for inclusion is a logical fallacy (for instance a paper showing there has been natural climate change in the past does not mean that the current climnate change is natural). -
MichaelM at 21:28 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
XPLAIN: It's should be no surprise that this site addresses that particular argument about a 21-year old report here. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 20:44 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
It's ironic that people refer to scientific analysis (eg oxygen isotope ratios) and willingly accept that from this, temperature can be estimated (and then proceed to fabricate extended conclusions). Yet the same people say 'climate science is a fraud', or words to that effect. It shows that such people are not at all interested in furthering their knowledge. They only want to sift the information provided by scientists and pick out bits and pieces they can misuse to further their political ends. BTW, ice cores give researchers a lot of information, not just oxygen isotope ratios. -
XPLAlN at 20:39 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Thankyou Rob. nigelj: I struggle to see how anyone remotely intelligent, and presumeably Watts is intelligent, could blend a single local record with a global record and seriously present that as a scientific argument. You are quite right of course. I would expect nothing better from WUWT but it's difficult to explain why the IPCC did precisely this when they published Lamb's Central England data in their FAR. -
DonaldB at 19:49 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
I've read that Greenland is currently about 1/2 a degree cooler than the MWP (locally) -which agrees with Watts' graph- but that local climate conditions around Greenland have temporarily isolated the continent from about 1 degree of warming which remains in the pipeline as an inevitable consequence of warming of the northern hemisphere due to AGW. And of course, Greenland continues to warm. That's the real issue. -
pdjakow at 19:46 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
As i remember average temperature of last 10 years at Summit is about -28 C. 2010 was very warm with temperature -25 - -26 (from SYNOP reports). -
Kooiti Masuda at 19:31 PM on 26 February 2011Prudent Risk
The definition of "committed warming" is different from one scientist to another, and the difference is not a problem as far as we talk about the general situation. But when we include numerical values, we must be careful about the definition. If I remember correctly, Ramanathan and Fang discussed the equilibrium response of the atmosphere-ocean system to the constant greenhouse gas concentration at the current level. This is not a realistic scenario of the future but an idealized case for the sake of evaluation. Some others think that the case of zero-emission is more appropriate to be expressed as "committed warming". See, for example, "Climate Change Commitment II" at RealClimate (June 2010). Also the assumption about anthropogenic aerosols makes much difference, which was actually the main subject of Ramanathan's paper. I do not think that there is a unique right definitions of committed climate change and that the rest are wrong ones. I think that we always need to explain the definition we choose when we mention any numbers of its estimate. -
damorbel at 19:27 PM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #378 muoncounter You wrote:- "Are you willing to spend another hundred or more comments re-drawing the distinction between 'flow' vs. 'transfer'?" As I noted above 'heat flowing' is an outdated concept belonging to the caloric theory of heat. It is outdated because it was discovered that it didn't explain experimental results, so a better theory of heat was developed called thermodynamics. The attractions of the 'heat flowing' concept are very great, I fall for them myself occasionally but none the less lead to erronius results. My advice is to avoid the term to maintain scientific credibility. -
damorbel at 19:18 PM on 26 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #377 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- "so you agree that heat energy can flow from a cooler body to a warmer object?" Flow in this connection is an outdated concept, it went out with the caloric theory of heat in the early 1800s. I admit to using the term sometimes but it is a mistake because energy is frequently transformed during thermodynamic interactions. Now look at it this way; I give you a $100 bill, you give me 9 $10 bills by way of change; which way is the money transfer? Who has the increased financial liquidity? Would the transfer have been significantly different had I just given you a $10 bill in the first place? The analogy is good because the money transaction can have different formats such as bank transfer. The similarity is remarkable because energy transfers can also have different formats e.g. compresing gas in a cylinder with a piston heats the gas because work is done on the gas by the piston; energy is transferred to the gas via the piston. -
nigelj at 19:07 PM on 26 February 2011Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
I struggle to see how anyone remotely intelligent, and presumeably Watts is intelligent, could blend a single local record with a global record and seriously present that as a scientific argument. Its a con job. There are two groups of people on this climate change issue. Only two groups. People who only care about making the most of now, and those who also care about the future and future generations. There could be a real reckoning on the whole issue. -
Riduna at 18:17 PM on 26 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
I believe skeptics, particularly scientist skeptics, should be encouraged to express the reasons for their skepticism and given every opportunity of defending their position. Attempts by the skeptic to impose censorship rather than argue their position merely confirms that their position is indefensible. What really surprises me is that some scientists, often distinguished in their own field, should put forward and cling to skeptical views on AGW and related issues. If a review of the literature shows their view is wrong, if they can not defend their position in argument or peer review, why would they cling to it? Doing so, or presenting a position which is based on partial, spurious, or tampered data (Plimer) amounts to intellectual dishonesty. For anyone but particularly a scientist, intellectual dishonesty is surely the worst of offences and to indulge in it so as to deliberately and knowingly mislead is both stupid and unforgivable. Maybe I’m too jugemental but I still can not understand why Dr Motl, a distinguished scientist would resort to gagging a critic rather than defend the position he has taken? Have others criticized him for his position on arguments put forward by Dana1981 and have they too been censored? -
Tom Curtis at 16:12 PM on 26 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
I won't argue the trends. I simply took the difference between the running 30 year mean terminating in 1981 and in 2010 and divided by three to get a decadal trend. Very rough, but indicative. The 0.15 to 0.17 global trends in your graph only reinforce the point. The running 30 year interval is of the combined surface record from this site, and has a terminal year of 1979. The reason for that is that the SD rises rapidly to as high as 0.19 after 1979 because of the rapid rise in temperatures. The average taken over the whole surface record of the running 30 year intervals is 0.115, while the SD of the entire surface record is 0.135 -
RW1 at 16:10 PM on 26 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"You need to come good with a very good reason as to why you doubt the 3.7 w/m^2 figure" Agreed - I'm working on it. I really don't doubt the figure - just what the figure supposedly represents. I'm not getting any 'proof' here of anything, so I'm left to figure it out on my own. -
muoncounter at 16:03 PM on 26 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom, "if you already understand this then why are you asking a question which is almost nonsensical, and is certainly irrelevant, given that knowledge?" That is a very troubling question. It appears that if the 'answer' supplied can't be put into the exact format required, it's either alleged to be undocumented (when it actually was documented) or alleged to be unacceptable. Sadly, we've seen this drag on for hundreds of comments. How this rather elliptical debating process can be considered scientific eludes me.Moderator Response: [DB] Tamino has a new post up very "tangential" to those "elliptical" thinkers of whom you speak. -
Tom Curtis at 15:43 PM on 26 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 @129, if you already understand this then why are you asking a question which is almost nonsensical, and is certainly irrelevant, given that knowledge? Your ask it again @130. However, it is irrelevant for all except the most abstruse studies. What concerns us it the total change in Outgoing IR Radiation, not the change at particular wave numbers. It is also very difficult to calculate independently. For each wave number effected, you would need to calculate the energy flows by radiation and convection/latent heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, including both upwards and downwards energy transfers. Line By Line models do in fact calculate exactly that for every wave number (or small band of wave numbers depending on their resolution), so if you were to ask a scientist who regularly dealt with LBL models, they would no doubt be able to find the information you seek. But unless you can show a very good reason why it matters, I see no reason to pander to your request, anymore than I would pander to a geocentrist's request to show the gravitational impact of Mount Everest on the moon's orbit. Given the very accurate prediction of LBL models as shown here, and the detailed discussion of that accuracy by Science of Dooom (linked by scaddenp @102 above) and the many quoted direct claims that the change in OLWR from a doubling in CO2 is 3.7 w/m^2, you have no reasonable basis to doubt that figure. You need to come good with a very good reason as to why you doubt the 3.7 w/m^2 figure, and as to why you persist in your obtuse question.
Prev 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 Next
