Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 Next
Comments 94651 to 94700:
-
RW1 at 13:52 PM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
By 'atmospheric window', I'm referring to the amount of the emitted surface power that passes through the atmosphere completely unabsorbed by GHGs or clouds. -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - actually that's what I dont understand. What do you mean by "atmosphere window"? A clearer understanding of that might illuminate this. -
RW1 at 13:05 PM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR (RE: 117), Then the answer is no. What's so hard to understand here? I'm trying to find specifically where the disagreement lies. This is pretty basic stuff. -
Lazarus at 13:01 PM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
I would consider getting banned from a trash site like that a badge of honour.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] This thread is, in Dikran Marsupial's words, "Sailing too close to the wind". Let's all return to the topic of the thread and tone down the invective a bit. Constructive criticism is fine (when it complies with the Comments Policy, anyway). Thanks! -
RW1 at 12:52 PM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, Let's take this one question at a time. What does the atmospheric window represent? Please define it for me. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - "The estimated 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 either represents a reduction in the atmospheric window or not." Wrong. It's partially a reduction in the "window", and partially a reduction, a drop in the intensity, in the GHG bands - the ones already inhibited by the presence of greenhouse gases. Not yes or now, but "in part". As GHG concentration rises, the effective emission altitude goes higher and higher in the troposphere, and hence (due to the lapse rate) comes out of colder and colder GHG's. They emit less than warmer lower GHG's - the additional altitude means that the repeated reduction in IR transmission as part gets emitted up (to higher levels) and parts down attenuate the IR levels. That and widening bands, the reduction of the window, combine to provide the 3.7 W/m^2 effect from doubling CO2. That is why I gave a nuanced answer, one that actually answered your question without conveying incorrect information. It's not A or B - it's both. -
RW1 at 12:23 PM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, The actual number for the atmospheric window is irrelevant to the particular question at hand here. Whether it's 40 W/m^2 or 90 W/m^2 - it doesn't matter, nor do I care. The estimated 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 either represents a reduction in the atmospheric window or not. The fact you seem to be side stepping this fundamental question is quite revealing. It's a ridiculously simple and straightforward question with a simple yes or no answer. I can see no one here is interested in getting to bottom of this, so it appears like I'll have to do some more searching around and figure out for myself. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:13 PM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Look, there are 10's of thousands of papers coming out on climate change every year now. Do you think they're all just because people are curious what the weather is going to be like? This is a huge area of research because of... guess what... the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Why is there so much work in this area? People are "alarmed" about the potential consequences. All the papers coming out are about "AGW alarm." -
Stu at 11:53 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Shawn, My first guess would be continental configuration. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - The answers to your four questions are "Yes, ~40 W/m^2", "Yes, although a fair amount of energy also goes into the atmosphere via convection and latent heat (~20%)", "Only partially", and "Almost, it's the amount prevented from leaving via various effects - more absorption and higher/colder emissions". Sorry, but these are obviously important questions for you, and I would be doing a disservice by giving un-nuanced answers. -
shalayka at 11:49 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
scaddenp, Thank you for the information. I can agree that the intensity of sunlight has a lot to do with how warm it is on Earth. :) My main concern is that no ice age is ever the same as the previous one. As you know, Henon studied something superficially similar when he did his work on modeling the orbits of stars in galaxies. As far as I know, Henon used Newtonian gravitation, and so his model galaxy is as deterministic and static as Milankovitch's solar system. Of course, the model galaxy's stars never follow the exact same path twice, though they do stay roughly along the galactic plane. This is deterministic chaos in action. So I ask earnestly... what is the name of the cause behind the fact that the glacial/CO2 cycles are roughly regular (like a galactic orbit), but never the same (like a galactic orbit)? This is something that I have not really got a satisfactory answer to, from either polluters or treehuggers.
- Shawn
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your question is addressed on the CO2 lags temperature thread, specifically here. I'm not at all sure why you feel these cycles should all be the same, nor why there is a single name (ie, a single cause?) for these similarities/differences. Subsequent comments should go to that thread. -
Andy Skuce at 11:48 AM on 25 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
Hugh@7: the comment you referred to says that the trees were burned by a prescribed fire. On the other hand, this Wikipedia caption to the same picture says Invaded pine tree forest on the slopes of Chancellor Peak in Yoho National Park, Canada. The two comments are not contradictory since Parks Canada has adopted a policy of prescribed burns to manage the beetle infestations. I should add that climate change is not the only factor influencing pine beetle outbreaks, forest management practices, especially fire suppression in the twentieth century, have played a major role. In case anyone is curious, here's a map showing the location of Chancellor Peak and the areas susceptible to pine beetle outbreaks in three of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks.
According to the BC Ministry of Forests, 16.3 million hectares of forest have been affected by pine beetle infestations. That's roughly the area of Austria and the Czech Republic combined. Map here.
-
HumanityRules at 11:42 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Tom Curtis OK thanks I hadn't gone back so far in the literature to estimates that were as high as Crowley's and I was working on the basis of the other Hegerl paper where the references were for Lean solar forcings (around 3). That seems to fit with the papers I'd been reading. You wrote "Hence your previously stated concern that the new evidence on solar forcings might require climate scientists to adopt unphyscical climate sensitivities to explain the past is unwarranted." But you've now done the opposite to what Dana did in the post. You've allowed for the changing understanding of solar forcing but have kept Hegerl's temperature reconstructions. I'll have a stab at back of the envelope calculations. Gray's estimates of changes in solar forcing on centennial/millenial time scales 0.16-0.28 Wm-2 Natural temperature variability from Fig1 (MWP to MM). I'll be generous at 0.4oC (but I think Ljundquist is maybe 0.6-0.8). Lowest Climate sensitivity based on these numbers = (0.4/0.28)*3.7= 5.3 Highest Climate sensitivity based on these numbers =(0.4/0.16)*3.7= 9.25 (I have no idea if that's how you do the calculation, I'm wearing my flak jacket) Both these numbers are outside the IPCC best guess at climate sensitivity and as I said I think I'm being generous with the temperature variability. The numbers can get even worse. The STEINHILBER reference in #54 has MM to present solar forcing of <0.1. MWP to MM is probably the same (the data and readme file if you want to play with them). Those numbers go beyond problematic and start to get unphysical. I think you only keep the IPCC favoured range within the error bars if you retain the lower deltaT reconstructions (early Mann and others) or higher deltaTSI estimates (Lean). If you do that you get wider error bars, I think the IPCC has been working to reduce them. However you approach this it's problematic for the concensus view. "Neither techiques for reconstructing past forcings or past temperatures are sufficiently exact to tightly constrain climate sensitivity" Look I take your caveat on board. But the science is supposed to have evolved, it's meant to be better now than it was in 1998-2000. If you're making this arguement now in 2011 what should we (or the IPCC) have been saying in 2007 or 2003? It's the IPCC that's suggesting this type of data is supporting evidence for AGW. So is it or isn't it? (An unrelated question I have from reading the literature. TSI changes correlate well with temp change over this period. But the magnitude of TSI is too small to account for the change. Doesn't this open up the possibility that there's a big hole in our understanding of solar-climate interactions? I know there are controversial ideas about other solar mechanism for changeing the climate and it's probably not right to discuss those on this thread. But isn't all this demanding higher solar forcing and that coming from somewhere other than direct changes in solar energy output?) -
RW1 at 11:17 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp, I'll break it down into a series of separate small questions: 1. Do you agree that some of the emitted surface infrared power passes through the atmosphere unabsorbed by GHGs or clouds? 2. Do agree that the remainder is absorbed by the atmosphere? 3. Does the 3.7 W/m^2 of 'radiative forcing' represent a reduction in the atmospheric window of 3.7 W/m^2? 4. Does the 3.7 W/m^2 of 'radiative forcing' represent an increase of 3.7 W/m^2 in the amount of infrared absorbed by the atmosphere. My understanding is your answer to 1 & 2 is YES and your answer to 3 & 4 is NO. Is this correct? -
scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 25 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
The 100,000 cycle is problematic. See here for some more discussion. I'd say the jury is till out. -
scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Shalayka - ice age cycle is not chaotic. Do spectral analysis and you see instead that is the sum of the milanvokitch cycles. Not the pattern of a chaotic attractor. Look at series here to see this but easy enough to repeat yourself. -
scaddenp at 10:45 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
I would say that models have reliably predicted global climate trends(but not weather) in that observed climate variable have tracked prediction within the bounds of uncertainty. Is that useful? They are telling you it will be expensive implications if GHGs continue to be emitted at current rate. Sounds a useful prediction to me. -
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - "You are saying the 3.7 W/m^2 increase is not the reduction in the atmospheric window? " Hmm, but we have this rather odd expression about "reduction in the atmosphere window". What does this mean? KR identifies it with a GW idea. Can you phrase the question in a way that we can understand, and preferably makes physical sense? -
mothincarnate at 10:37 AM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I suppose I should also mention from experience, that Andrew (aka Poptech) seems committed to the validity of his list beyond all reason. One can point out that others have demonstrated flaws in this or that paper, but he'll reply that the others are 'alarmists' or that certain papers don't actually question the reality of AGW, but he will then start talking about 'AGW alarm' or ask his about AGW Observer, but he will just ignore you, or point out that Monckton has been demonstrated wrong on numerous occasions and even if not, an article about free speech in AGW doesn't counter science literature, he'll wash his hands of responsibility, or point out duplicates, non-science journals etc etc etc: but as you can see in this comment thread, Poptech goes on and on.. His personal research, in his mind, stands up against a large qualified scientific community with many people-centuries of research. Such people define the meaning of "unreasonable" beautifully. -
mothincarnate at 10:23 AM on 25 February 2011Meet The Denominator
JMurphy, I had directly cut-and-pasted a comment thrown at me by an advocate of Poptech's silly list (spelling mistakes left for added hilarity - the character "indulges" in "humouring" and educating me, whilst continually demonstrating really basic spelling errors). I don't personally think that demanding the other to "debunk all these papers" is logical - hell, that's what the science community already does. But I am surprised that Poptech and his fan "Adam" (whom I'm quoting) and many others really think Poptech's list means anything.. But then again, they also support Monckton... -
MarkR at 10:14 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Alex C: The model 'guess' is a reasonable one if you're not at all familiar with the models. Thankfully RC put up the effect of a 2% solar increase and it shows it very clearly: h/t to thingsbreak's post here. I've emailed Lindzen to ask how he calculated the fourfold response, I'm stumped. Perhaps he used a more complicated model, but there's not much point me running through more complex models until I know there's an answer there. I've wasted enough time doing detailed checks of 'facts' quoted as evidence against AGW that I think the onus is definitely on the accuser to support their point now. -
dana1981 at 10:07 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Yes, definitely human. Last time I checked, anyway. -
MarkR at 10:06 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
Alex: I think I know how you can massage out that 'fourfold' figure. Assume that the IPCC climate sensitivity is 4.5 C. Therefore the climate feedback parameter (definition here) = 3.7/3 = 0.8. If you look at the Soden and Held values can be seen in a graph here then pick the highest estimated lapse rate feedback (~-1.2) and treble it then you get a feedback factor of 3.2. This makes your climate sensitivity = 3.7/3.2 = 1.1-1.2 K and yes, you've almost cut the value to a quarter. That's one way of doing it, but it's so far wrong I refuse to believe that's how Lindzen did it... so I'm going to try and find out how he did. It's the sort of thing that would turn up on WUWT. -
RickG at 10:03 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
@ #111 "No, the problem is no one is answering my question. Or perhaps its just not the answer you want to hear. -
RW1 at 09:54 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, My question isn't related to what the number for the window is. scaddenp, No, the problem is no one is answering my question. -
Albatross at 09:39 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
ClimateWatcher @12, Are those the trends from 1979 through 2006? It would be nice to have data up until and including 2010. One can see the polar amplification (a predicted consequence of a warming planet) over the Arctic nicely in most datasets. IMHO, one of the problems in identifying the elusive tropical "hot spot" is that it is expected to be close to the tropopause, and that is especially problematic for the coarse satellite data. -
RickG at 09:37 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
95 Fixtures23, Oh my! Welcome to the site, the folks here are very open-minded and love discussing science. I see JMurphy has already suggested that you visit the "Newcomers Start Here", "The Big Picture" and Most Used Skeptic Arguments". Also, be sure to check the comments policy. I think you will find them very helpful. Cheers! -
Rovinpiper at 09:35 AM on 25 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Tell me if I have this right... The 100,000 Milankovitch Cycles are the result of eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. So, interglacial periods, like the present, occur when the planet is closer to the sun. -
ClimateWatcher at 09:28 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"So, does the hot spot actually exist?" No. I did this check four years ago:
Upper Left: NASA GISS Model through 2006
Lower Left: RATPAC Raob data through 2006
Upper Right: UAH MSU (LT, MT, LS) through 2006
Lower Right: RSS MSU (LT, MT, LS) through 2006
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed image HTML tag. -
JMurphy at 09:27 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Wow, fixtures23, you could do with some reading on some of those claims you are making - quite the Gish gallop, eh ? For your enlightenment and further education try these links : Newcomers Start Here The Big Picture Most Used Skeptic Arguments That should help you become more aware of the facts. As for Popular Technology, trawl your way through this link and see what you are aligning yourself with. By the way, where did you get all that false information from in the first place ? -
shalayka at 09:16 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Dana, I know it can be upsetting to be verbally attacked by someone, but don't let it get you down. When someone attacks me personally, I generally smirk and make popcorn. I was only trying to heckle you for your loose language. You're otherwise clear in your writing, and so it's obvious to everyone that you're not actually illiterate or anything of the sort. I had a right to be ticked off at Acton last year, specifically because of his loose language that made it seem like CRU couldn't release their data because Canada's some kind of a draconian datapig. So, I do get a little testy when I see people beaking off about climate science. Anyway, please don't put me on your list of deniers quite yet. I shovel snow for a living, and so I'll be my own judge, in due time. For what it's worth, I'm crazy enough to believe that chaos exists in the ice age cycle. I mean, it's cyclical, but never ever exactly repetitive. Sounds like the work of a chaotic attractor to me -- an idea that I can guarantee that Lubos Motl would think is naive. So please don't think of me or anyone in particular as part of a Motl-ey crew. That's way too black and white a model of reality. Shawn Halayka -
invicta at 09:15 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
since starting to research the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change a couple of months ago I have visited a good few websites and blogs and have found that even without a scientific background it is remarkably easy to judge whether a site is likely to yield any good information or is simply a front for some vested interest or inflamed ego. I started with an open mind but very quickly realised that the sites that openly discussed the issues and the science were those that accepted AGW as fact. Most 'denier' sites seem to be a triumph of (poor) style over substance. This site may be about the science, but it is the willingness to discuss the facts and engage with the contrarian view however tedious that make it work and worthwhile -
fixtures23 at 09:15 AM on 25 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
The evidence that the climate is being changed by man does not exist. The IPCC predicted an average trend of 3.9celsius/century from theoretical computer models. these models are not based on observations. they respond to what the modeller puts in to them(not very scientific) However actual satellite observations from the RSS and UAH satellite data sets show this trend to be a mere 0.3celsius/century(see SPPI global temperature data index.) Since coming out of the Little Ice Age in 1850 it is to be expected that there would be some warming. however the rate of warming in the second half of the 20th century has been exactly the same as the rate of warming 1918-1940 when clearly human carbon dioxide could not possibily have been the cause.One must consider all of geological time not the small 130 years of the instrument record. This geological record shows for example the MWP(Medieval Warm Period 950-1300) to be four degrees warmer than today. Pollen samples taken from Baffin Island also show that temperatures 5000 years ago were five degrees warmer than today. the alarmists are wrong! As for numbers Dr Spencer and Professor Lindzen are in good company. In fact Dr Art Robinson has listed over 31 000 graduate scientists including over 9000 PHds who reject antropogenic global warming as responsible for climate change.(see www.petitionproject.com) Also populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed----------html lists 850 peer reviewed scientific papers who all reject AGW as the cause of climate change.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that newcomers do as JMurphy has just suggested to you below. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. When you have questions, please post them on the most appropriate thread. Remember to use the Preview function (avoids html tag errors) and to construct your comments in compliance with the Comments Policy. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level. Only the anthropogenic contribution (which did not exist in the paleo record) completes the picture, explaining the warming we can empirically see and measure in the absence of other forcings. Else we would be measuring a decades-long cooling trend. Which we aren't:Forcings, except for CO2, have been flat for nearly 40 years. Temperatures continue to climb, and that rate of climb is still increasing (as are CO2 levels).
-
johnd at 08:53 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
Dikran Marsupial at 20:45 PM on 24 February, 2011, re "Large uncertainty does not imply unreliability. In fact it means that models are more likely to be reliable as the model projections cover a wider range of possibilities." Whilst that may satisfy the academics, the question that arises for those looking for something worthwhile to work with, is at what point is any usefulness lost? As an example, in Australia, BOM and CSIRO found the secret to increasing realibility of their medium to long term forecasts was by issuing them in terms such as one frequently offered "there is a 50% chance of above average rainfall". The classic however was a seasonal forecast of a 40% chance of above average rainfall. However, as is painfully obvious, but as was also observed in a recent Parliamentary inquiry, such forecasts are somewhat less than useful. Reliability is meaningless if it has been gained at the expense of usefulness. -
invicta at 08:33 AM on 25 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Tom Curtis @102 Thanks for the extra enlightenment I was surprised by dana's reply but glad to see he is human -
John Mason at 08:30 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
Started reading, saw the personal stuff and gave up. If he cannot make points without feeling the need to embellish them with unpleasant personal stuff, then frankly his arguments aren't worth following up. Cheers - John -
citizenschallenge at 08:28 AM on 25 February 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Very interesting. So the Maue graph is misleading because it is missing an important metric - rainfall(and its energy release). If that were included that graph would look much different. Thank you for info and those links. -
scaddenp at 08:23 AM on 25 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
The problem of getting your "physics" from George White instead of from a textbook. Is George untroubled by lack of match with empirical data? -
muoncounter at 08:18 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
What do you expect from a blog carrying a link to 'the list'? -
muoncounter at 08:10 AM on 25 February 2011Models are unreliable
"... in many journals, missing, flawed and uncertain physics, are discussed" That is an utterly devastating argument. Of course, one could equally say 'in many journals, complete, correct and convincing physics are discussed'; another utterly devastating argument. No, rebuttal of science must be made with science and not with vague generalization. This is an excellent example of the poverty of argument in denierdom: At some point, the denial always reduces to merely another version of 'No, its not. Because I said so.' An interesting non-technical review of the state of climate science modeling appears in the Winter 2010 Tau Beta Pi magazine: ... climatology is a young science. Its practitioners rarely work in laboratories. They must rely on highly variable field measurements and complex mathematical models that have very visible limitations. Arrayed against them are a smaller number of scientists and engineers. Only some have degrees in climate-related sciences. They charge that governments and climate activists have a pro-global warming agenda that stifles true scientific debate and that climate data and models are flawed. Many of these so-called skeptics have a clear agenda. They seem bent on denying climate change at any cost. Few do original research or publish in peer-reviewed climate journals (some submit articles to friendly journals in unrelated fields). Nor do they propose research to resolve the contradictions they claim to find, a common practice among the climate scientists whom they also claim lack skepticism. It is a recipe for controversy. And on the Internet, these scientific debates take on a life of their own. ... But key to the question here, If models raise so many questions, why does anyone trust them? The answer is that they do a surprisingly good job of predicting climate. -
LDW at 08:02 AM on 25 February 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Any loss of land or sea ice due to melting increases sea levels which threatens those in Florida waterfront real estate. In fact the majority of the state at such a low sea level may be threatened even while more and more people migrate south. -
XPLAlN at 08:01 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Dikran: “This seems to me to be making a mountain out of a molehill.” It’s just possible that back in 1990 someone at the IPCC made a comment similar to mine and someone else there made a comment similar to yours ;-) -
gsanmartin at 07:44 AM on 25 February 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
NOAA PR, Feb 24, 2011: Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html Partial excerpt: At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data. The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the leak and to determine if there was evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines. “We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science.” The Inspector General’s report states specifically: “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12) “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16) PR truncated here - read the rest here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html No backlinks to this page exist yet as of this post. -
John Hartz at 07:31 AM on 25 February 2011500 scientists refute the consensus
Something is amiss. On the "Listing of Arguments" page, the "What the Science" says blurb for this argument is: "Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming." This statement does not appear in the above rebuttal article. -
johnd at 07:25 AM on 25 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Daniel Bailey at 02:12 AM on 25 February, 2011, the infomation in the graph below is the basis of the study referred to and helps visualise the historic perspective of the regular cycles.
Measurement of oxygen isotope ratios (red) and grayscale (black) arranged to show drought cycle duration and intensity with 20th century wet period indicated. Credit: Mark Abbott
.
Whilst this study is for what has occurred at one particular location, being linked to the El-Nino/La-Nina cycles ties it in directly to what will have occurred elsewhere in the region, and by extension neighbouring regions, because what El-Nino brings to one man is what La-Nina brings to another.
Add to this the systems that have been identified in other oceans, also with regular cycles that do not necessarily oscillate with the same frequency or pattern, and what seems to be chaotic takes on some form that becomes more predictable.
For example, the primary driver of the conditions most recently affecting Australia is the coinciding of a La-Nina pattern with a negative phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole, the last time both a La Nina and IOD-ve combined was in 1975, when there were three consecutive La-Nina years resulting in the overall wettest period for Australia since first settlement.
In Australia too, some years ago the realisation come about that much of the planning for our water resources was based on a period that rather being the normal, was in fact just the opposite.
Perhaps with the pattern that appears to be forming now, those responsible for planning may have been handed a get-out-of-gaol-free card with a generally wetter period of some decades that should allow them some breathing space to make more realistic plans for when "normal" conditions return.
-
Don Gisselbeck at 07:04 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
We are dealing with an industry (oil, gas and coal) that probably has more than $1 billion a day in profits. Some people who work less hard than a tomato picker make thousands an hour from this industry. Banning people from a blog is on the low end of what has been done for much less money. It will get worse. Many of them apparently think the survival of western civilization is less important than more money. -
Riccardo at 07:03 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
The rise and fall, it's really sad to see how low a scientifically trained man can fall. I know many physicists, many conservatives, but no self-proclaimed "conservative physicist"; what does this suppose to mean? The disclosure of his political bias in science? Dana ignore him, for he (hopefully) does not know what he's saying. Keep going with your very informative posts; luckly, only a few share the not-so-enviable destiny of crashing years of study under their own feet. -
Lou Grinzo at 06:58 AM on 25 February 2011Motl-ey Cruel
A very concise and revealing example of Motl's view of the world and climate science can be found in his explanation that a rise in global temps of 13C would be just peachy. (Actually, he's talking about the Czech Republic being 13C warmer, which would result in much greater Arctic warming and who knows what horrors from the knock-on effects of rapidly melting that part of the world.) The post in question: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/13-c-of-warming-would-be-fine-for-life.html -
Alex C at 06:56 AM on 25 February 2011Monckton Myth #14: Monckton's Hunt for the H-spot Leaves me Unsatisfied
I'm not sure how Monckton relates evaporation to climate sensitivity in your last quote. Can someone fill me in on what train of thought he was using? Probably regarding the "fourfold" part too, but I think that might just be him taking a figure form the lower end of that range of 1-3%. I also wonder if anyone will try to write off the hot spot in the second graphic as being too small to be definite or outside of error (i.e. a glitch in the model matrix). Props for the title too, very funny! -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 25 February 2011Dispelling two myths about the tropospheric hot spot
"Their errors were identified by others." Not only that, but they continued letting the old erroneous data being used for political purposes by non scientists.
Prev 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 Next
