Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 Next
Comments 94701 to 94750:
-
RickG at 06:33 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
I meant to comment on this earlier but got side-tracked until now. rhjames said: "The IPCC has admitted that cloud formation and influence is poorly understood." To me that statement seems to imply that the IPCC was hiding something and finally admitted to it. Would it not have been more accurate to say the IPCC "stated" or "commented" instead of "admitted"? Or am I just misinterpreting the statement? -
pbjamm at 06:31 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Bart Verheggen@4 I want to make sure I understand the argument correctly so bear with me. If climate sensitivity were low (skeptic view) then based on what we know of the forcings at the time the temp would have been lower. Either sensitivity is higher than they claim or some other undefined/unknown force was at work in the MWP. I feel as though I am still missing something. -
Bart Verheggen at 06:23 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Chemist1, Climate sensitivity gives the temperature to any climate forcing, whether man-made (e.g. CO2) or natural (e.g. the sun). It differs relatively little for different forcings, as exemplified by a factor called "efficacy" (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf) And don't forget that CO2 also has natural sources and is strongly implicated in climate changes in the history of the earth (see e.g. Richard Alley's AGU 2008 talk). -
Chemist1 at 06:20 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Daniel you are. Misinformed,gravely so. Please look at the data and the links to journals I posted -
Chemist1 at 06:12 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Actually a warmer MWP would mean a climate sensitive to something other than CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The alleged 0.5 degrees cooler MWP even if true, +which I doubt) nothing points to a rapidly warming planet leading to forseeable dangers from CO2 emissions. -
Bart Verheggen at 06:00 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
rhjames said: "The IPCC has admitted that cloud formation and influence is poorly understood." As have I (starting with the very first sentence). But the funny thing is that e.g. in the case discussed in this post, it is the contrarians who implicitly build their argument on pseudo-certainty about a particular magnitude of aerosol forcing. I.e. they are guilty of what they routinely accuse mainstream science of. rhjames: "The CERN CLOUD experiment will hopefully contribute some useful data." See some preliminary results from CLOUD here. As you'll see, even the strongest link in the alleged chain of causality (ion induced nucleation) is hardly detectable, and even then in a few experiments only (I was there during one of the semi-succesful runs, and remember the comment "completely underwhelming" from someone who strongly believes in the cosmic ray-climate link). The weaker part of the link, whether those cosmic ray generated particles actually make it to big enough sizes to matter for cloud formation is much more questionable still. The second part (on cosmic rays) is not really part of this post though. Thanks for your feedback, Albatross.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the ever-popular It's cosmic rays thread. Bart, that's interesting news about the experiment producing 'completely underwhelming' results. -
muoncounter at 05:54 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Rob, "evidence potentially supporting the hypothesis.[5][6]" Look at the discussion page. Someone (unsigned) added "I am not aware of a specific consensus view on the Iris effect" within the last 24 hours. This is why it is wise to be skeptical of Wikipedia, especially when statements are made without substantiation. Recall someone named damor*el was an editor. -
citizenschallenge at 05:43 AM on 23 February 2011Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I just had a chance to review this entire thread, being inspired by chat mat who's mantra is: "there's no proof for CO2 driving global warming." I agree with John @60, Philippe is pretty near a saint for his repeated patient and info laden replies. I just wanted Philippe know that folks do read that stuff and his efforts are appreciated and helpful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #61 Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 10 February, 2008 ". . . . (although I'm glad the fiat lux comment was kept, it is kinda funny)" ~ ~ ~ Yes it was! [thumbs up smilie] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ #63 GMB at 14:36 PM on 10 February, 2008 "So where is the evidence that goes contrary to all this? No-ones got it and they are all bullshitting about it." ~ ~ ~ The problem with evidence is that until you decide to study it in good-faith it doesn't do you any good. The evidence is out there you just need to be willing to read it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:37 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
I know this is going off topic but I'd like to point out one statement by Chemist1. "These works are by authors who tend to believe the essence of the IPCC report but this work is of far higher quality than anything the IPCC has ever attempted." Can you please tell me what work the IPCC does? You do realize that the IPCC produces a report on climate change research. It does not actually do research, other than to research the published literature. The IPCC produces an "Assessment Report." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:23 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
And... "A one-time author, Roger Pielke Jr, said '…had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there.'" -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:21 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Hmmm... Just read this on RealClimate: "...Hence E&E’s exclusion from the ISI Journal Master list, and why many (including Scopus) do not consider E&E a peer reviewed journal at all." Interesting that many do not consider E&E to be a peer reviewed journal. -
les at 04:51 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
688 pbjamm Denier-bots live! Why are online comments’ sections over-run by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd? I told ya so... -
Albatross at 04:48 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Might I humbly suggest that arguments about the fantastical "iris effect" be moved to another thread? This thread is primarily about aerosols, and how "skeptics" like Lindzen and Singer have also mangled the science of aerosols and aerosol forcing. -
dana1981 at 04:47 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Thanis Albatross. Ljungqvist extended his proxy reconstruction through the decade of 1990-1999. Half of his proxies (15) extend through 1989, and one-third (10) through 1999. But he also plots the instrumental temperature record, unlike the Idsos. Which, considering the relatively low number of proxies extending to the late 20th Century, is a smart thing to do. -
Chemist1 at 04:32 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Addendum: I will also show why the Iris effect is alive and well even if under the radar for the moment. -
Chemist1 at 04:32 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Oh but I did look at those links. I see overestimation of the Earth's climate sensitivity and treating high unknowns and uncertainties as known and certain when they are not. Are you familiar guys and gals with the work in Darwin with the aircraft Proteus and the like? There are a bunch of papers I have looked at published in world renowned journals that discuss the effects of aerosols on precipitation, ice nucleation, and resulting cloud formation/ice size. Larger ice in cirrus clouds tend to absorb heat and smaller ones tend to reflect it back to space. Interesting reads. Some of the papers focus on the decrease, others the regional increase, in precipitation alone while others are more ambitious and look at both and why they might occur. Even when assuming climate change, AGW, specifically and the like, there are huge uncertainties discussed. Here are a few papers I have read and I think you should to below. Keep in mind these are not so called "skeptic"papers or papers that attempt to rule out global warming, but peer reviewed papers produced with the work of the top pilots, meteorologists and climate scientists in the world. They, themselves believe in global warming, but the amount of conclusions they state they cannot make, the level if uncertainty, the complexity of the system and variability analyzed is worth the read. They clearly discuss mechanisms and propose potential mechanisms of warming and cooling of aerosols, and discuss ice nucleation in a manner that one can easily extrapolate and infer the take home message: some GCM's are getting better, but there is a lot of work to do. These works are by authors who tend to believe the essence of the IPCC report but this work is of far higher quality than anything the IPCC has ever attempted. When non-skeptics point to such unknowns and level of uncertainty, the IPCC assigned probabilities dwindles. Nature laughs at mathematics and we need far more data. You really have to look at these papers and analyze them. Again they are not skeptics but their work provides evidence for a skeptical perspective, based upon real science. Here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=aeosol+effects+on+cirrus+clouds+iris+effect&as_sdt=0%2C8&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Darwin+project+cirrus+clouds&as_sdt=0%2C8&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=effects+of+aerosols+on+cirrus+clouds&as_sdt=0%2C8&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0 Next post I will show why more scientists have become increasingly skeptical, even in climate science. Also even those who are not skeptical are realizing we cannot make accurate projections about global mean temperature based on the work above and other works I will post when I can open my file folder. I have specific papers in mind, but the above are a good start.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You are hardly presenting an evidenciary chain of logic here. Statements and phrases such as "world renowned journals", "top pilots, meteorologists and climate scientists", "more scientists have become increasingly skeptical, even in climate science" and "Also even those who are not skeptical are realizing we cannot make accurate projections about global mean temperature based on the work above" are the logical equivalent of unsupported hearsay and amount basically to appeals to authority. In a court of logic you have done the equivalent of testifying against yourself. -
pbjamm at 04:21 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
While this was fun for a while I think it has been amply demonstrated that Poptech is unwilling to give any ground. No matter what evidence is presented it will never be good enough. No flaw in his list is too big to be explained away. No discrepancy in AWG theory is too small to create doubt. No typo is too pedantic to argue. No time is too wasted. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Very interesting update on the Iris effect on wikipedia. The last line reads: "However, there has been some relatively recent evidence potentially supporting the hypothesis.[5][6]" The references are Lindzen 2009 and Spencer 2007. But no reference to Trenberth's response. Interesting. -
Albatross at 04:14 AM on 23 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Dana, good work. I was dumbfounded when I looked at page 10 of the Prudent path document-- they did not include the temperature data from the observational record-- that is totally misleading, because the end date for the Ljungqvist reconstruction was around 1990. Is that end date correct? -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:10 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@686 The implication that other climatology journals does artbitrarily reject skeptics papers is also an unsubstantiated statement, but that doesn't seem to worry you. "By the way, E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research. " Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 September, 2009 emphasis mine. -
DSL at 03:55 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
For those interested, Gavin Schmidt has been threatened with a libel suit (UK) by E&E. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:50 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@679 The skeptic side do not get their papers arbitrarly rejected from any journal. They get rejected because they have (in some cases blatantly) obvious errors in them. They don't get rejected from E&E though. Just because she didn't state that she didn't favour one side over another, neither did she say she was not biased. There is no acceptable "political agenda" for the editor of a science journal, full stop, end of story. -
RickG at 03:40 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Just a question (anyone). Does E&E allow rebuttals to be published in their journal or on their site?Moderator Response: Yes, they do, they published refutations of Beck's paper for example. -
Albatross at 03:39 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Mike @21 makes some excellent points, especially number #2. -
Albatross at 03:37 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Again the contrarians' arguments are found to be inconsistent, at odds with observations, and relying on a whole lot of 'what ifs'. It is sad that people who want to wish AGW away will uncritically accept such seriously flawed science and logic. This is a pretty damming refutation of Singer, Idso and Lindzen by Dr. Verheggen. More where that came form please. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:30 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@676 You may think you addressed that point at the beginning of the thread, but what you apparently don't realise is that what you wrote in that post is at least as great an indictment as the original quote. Having an explicit editorial policy to preferentially favour one side of an issue is deeply unscientific. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples - "Higher is colder" is certainly part of the greenhouse effect. So is band broadening as greenhouse gases increase. Both effects (dropping the emissive power of GHG bands in the upper atmosphere and widening those bands) reduce overall thermal emissivity of the Earth to space. Reducing emissivity, as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law, reduces the power emitted to space at any particular temperature. This causes an imbalance, energy accumulates, temperatures rise, emitted power returns to match incoming power - and we're a bit warmer. Now - if you think the radiative greenhouse effect is contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics (as per the various canards of the G&T paper), I suggest you go discuss that on Science of Doom. SoD has written far more (and far better) than I on that subject. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - KR, "If a paper is viewed as correct, and especially if considered seminal, original work, it will get cited." "So all papers that are cited are correct?" Please refrain from strawman arguments, Poptech - I clearly did not say that. If a paper is viewed as correct, judged as a worthwhile contribution by others in the field, it will get cited. If it is not, it won't, and will vanish away. And if it is viewed as incorrect, but still cited by some, it may get a peer-reviewed comment. Most often not - usually it's not worth the considerable effort to publish about what is being ignored. Sometimes (quite rarely, actually) a paper will be controversial yet correct, will attempt to overturn large parts of the consensus but be rejected. Early plate tectonics papers did not receive acceptance - not until a mechanism (liquid mantle movement) was proposed in a testable fashion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - when the evidence was forthcoming the consensus changed. Like it or not (and your list seems to indicate that you do not), consensus views and the incorporation of worthwhile work into further research built on it is a key part of science. Scientists stand on the shoulders of giants - and on the shoulders of midgets, too - everyone who adds a piece to the puzzle contributes. Junk gets ignored. -
Fred Staples at 03:16 AM on 23 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I am sorry to have delayed a reply to the comments on my post. I quite literally lost the thread. The explanation you offer, Very Tall Guy, is the only plausible explanation of the AGW effect. It is the preferred explanation of the founding fathers over at RC, and you can find it in the Rabbet rebuttal of the G and T paper, (immediately following their absurd multi-layer, back-radiation explanation). It begins with the lapse rate, a function of gravity and specific heat, which has nothing to do with radiative effects. Without this lapse rate there would be no AGW. Increasing CO2 in the cold, dry, upper atmosphere, impedes outgoing radiation, and moves the effective radiation point to higher (and therefore) colder temperatures. Radiation is reduced, incoming radiation remains the same, and the whole atmosphere and surface warms up to compensate. As your drawing demonstrates, the lapse rate moves to the right. In the trade this is the “higher is colder” explanation. It is plausible, but is it true? There was no sign of unusual global warming until the mid-seventies, when satellites began to measure temperatures across all levels and latitudes of the atmosphere. The UAH charts at Global Warming at a Glance show the temperature movements in the lower and upper troposphere, every month. At the very least these temperatures movements should be the same. In fact, the upper atmosphere temperature has hardly changed, while the lower temperature increase is 1.4 degrees C per century. Several years ago RC claimed that this contrary effect was the result of cooling in the stratosphere, which distorted the readings. (If the facts don’t agree with the theories, so much the worse for the facts). Sadly, from 1995 to date (15 years), lower stratosphere temperatures have been constant. Before that, minor falls appear as step changes associated with violent volcanic eruptions. (HadAT radio-sonde results). So there we are, Ned et al. The only plausible AGW theory is doubtful, at best. The others, (back-radiation, heat trapping, blanket-style insulation etc) are either absurd or directly contradicted by experiments (Woods and Angstrom’s) or the second law. Incidentally, the point of the second law is that energy is not capable of doing anything (work or heat) without an increase in entropy. One final point. It is always entertaining to see my fellow physicists at RC patiently explaining that everything with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate energy. They then go on to exclude Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere, leaving it to the greenhouse gasses (in the thin upper atmosphere) to radiate most of earth’s surface energy to space. -
sime at 03:12 AM on 23 February 2011CO2 is not a pollutant
I'm so bored of this nonsense, have you actually ever grown anything BP or are you an armchair horticulturalist? Extra CO2 works in e.g. grow houses, green houses, and sealed tunnels because the plants are in a protected environment with little Fred from the potting shed cuddling them 24/7 Put them outside of that environment where they are no longer isolated from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects and all hell breaks loose. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412204831.htm Personally I'm an amateur who knows jack poop about horticulture after 10+ years of trying, I might even get the hang of it in another 30+ years if I lucky and assuming we have a functional environment...
One thing I have learned from all this is that if you mess around with the balance of these systems they can and they will kick back very, very hard and in ways you never ever thought about...
But the monkey just has to play with the switch...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:04 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Albatross@672 Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen said “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” err, no. ;o) P.S. I am aware that poptech wrote an attempt to put that quote into context, but in a scientific journal, there is no context in which following a political agenda would be acceptable. Science should have a bearing on politics, but politics has no bearing on science. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:00 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@667 It is amusing that in the extensive list of wordprocessors supplied by poptech, he failed to mention the one by far most widely used in scientific publishing, namely TeX/LaTeX! -
Albatross at 02:56 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Well, well, that numerator shrinks more and more. H/T to RC Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (editor of E&E) in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education on 3 September 2003: "The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” Enough said. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:55 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@667 Poptech, what part of "The galley proof shows exactly how the paper will appear in print" did you not understand? Whether the problem was caused by "deleted text" in a word processor is irrelevant; is still the responsibility of the author to approve the galley proof, which in this case they obviously did without properly read through the galley proof. That is the only way in which such an error could ocurr. That is the whole point of the publisher sending the galley proof. -
Ari Jokimäki at 02:52 AM on 23 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
"Sorry but this is about what you like." No, it isn't. In both P&J and this new paper case I have reported what the authors are telling. There of course might be some problems with my interpretations, but that still doesn't mean it's about what I like or not. Suggesting something like that about me is what I don't like. "So you choose to argue the positive features of the data in your first article and negative when you try to tell a different story. You're trying to elevate the S&C model estimate over the P&J observational estimate by changing your position on P&J." Nonsense. In your first quote I just said that P&J seems to make the ocean heat budget more accurate which I think is still true as before P&J the role of deep ocean was practically non-existent. In your second quote I said that P&J data is sparse, which it is. So, perhaps you could clarify to me where exactly you think I have changed my position on P&J? On the other hand, you are trying to make it look like that this new paper is just some make believe model exercise which has no relevance to anything. You seem to ignore that the model results were compared to the existing body of observations with rather good results. "Your headline is misleading, the puzzle is certainly not yet solved." Sure, that might be the case. Headlines are short and it's not always easy to write them so that it wouldn't be misleading to someone. Hopefully people sometimes also read past the headline and don't stop arguing there. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech Dikran Marsupial, "The majority of papers that are substantially in error are never corrected by a peer-reviewed comment." "This is an unsubstantiated statement." You don't publish, do you, Poptech? If a paper is viewed as correct, and especially if considered seminal, original work, it will get cited. If it's irrelevant or worse yet, wrong, it won't. Most of these just vanish away, although they are occasionally the subject of coffee-room humor. The only time anyone takes the not inconsiderable effort to write a peer-reviewed comment on a wrong paper, and publish it, is if said paper is being treated as accurate when it isn't, if it's getting wrongly cited or bandied about. So - if you see a peer reviewed comment on a paper, it's one that (a) had important errors missed in the original review, (b) is being incorrectly relied upon, or (c) in some cases is just an embarrassment to the journal that they are being called on. It means the paper is not just considered wrong, but loudly wrong. If a paper is viewed as worthwhile it gets cited. If not, or if it's just wrong, it won't. If it's wrong and someone cites it, you might get a peer-reviewed comment. -
RickG at 02:29 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
602 Potpech: RickG: "I didn't ask you whether or not there are any published comments on it. I asked if "you" thought the article was credible science." Poptech: I have seen nothing published to suggest otherwise. By that response I gather that you consider the Archibald (2006) article as scholarly science. Is that correct? -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:27 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@661 Quite, E&E is a peer-reviewed journal (although it seems evident that the quality of the peer review is seriously defficient). However, it is more than sufficient to point out the scientific flaws in the papers concerned; that alone demosntrates that their inclusion in the list devalues the list as a resource (unless the criticisms can be adequately refuted). The ad-journalem if anything detracts from that. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:12 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@655 "I agree that there appears to be a printing error on his paper" It isn't a printing error, as those who have published in journals will know, the typsetter sends a "galley proof" to the authors and the editors, and the paper is only published once the galley proof has been accepted by the authors and editor. The galley proof shows exactly how the paper will appear in print, so if there is an error it is the responsibility of the authors and the editor who approved it. As I said, it doesn't say much for either party that a repeated paragraph got through as it indicates they didn't read the galley proof properly. "and I have seen errors like this in all types of works." Can you give an example where it has occurred in a peer-reviewed journal? I suspect not, for the simply reason that such an error would have been detected during (competent) peer review. -
les at 02:03 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
656 RickG: He's suggesting that the NIPCC has the same credibility as the IPCC report... it's probably subjective, though. -
RickG at 01:55 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: I have not seen a published criticism with a response from the author to make a determination on the validity of the blog criticism. So I am unable to answer your question. If a comment is published I will be more than willing to read it. I didn't ask you whether or not there are any published comments on it. I asked if "you" thought the article was credible science. -
RickG at 01:49 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: I agree that there appears to be a printing error on his paper and I have seen errors like this in all types of works. But how many peer review journals (other than E&E) can you cite containing printing errors of that magnitude? Examples please. -
RickG at 01:45 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
653 Poptech, Surely you are not suggesting that the Archibald (2006) paper has any credibility. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:44 AM on 23 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
This post is on the right track, but it is high time for all to become aware of generic denialism. -
Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - To use a database like HITRAN, you set up your parameters (in whatever spectral software you are using, such as JavaHAWKS) for two different conditions, run it twice, and look at the differences between the outputs. The output of interest is the summed energy radiated from the atmosphere given a particular surface temperature and atmospheric mix. The difference between them (~3.6 W/m^2 for doubling CO2 with HITRAN data, 3.7 for more up to date models) is the difference in total radiated energy - outgoing energy. Not isotropic radiation from a particular level of the atmosphere, but the difference in total emissions. Changes in atmosphere modify the emissivity of the Earth, as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law; the amount of thermal radiation emitted at any particular temperature. And that leads to imbalances with incoming sunlight that result in climate changes as energy accumulates or leaves. It's as simple as that - what is the sum difference between radiated powers after an atmospheric change. That 3.6/3.7 Watts is the integrated difference in total radiation going out to space at a particular temperature - which is the very definition of "radiative imbalance". -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:10 AM on 23 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@653 The majority of papers that are substantially in error are never corrected by a peer-reviewed comment. Instead the papers are normally merely ignored by the scientific community and cause no real harm. So expecting there to be a published comment indicates that you are unfamiliar with scientific publishing. I have written two comments papers myself (neither in climatology), but that doesn't mean I have only ever seen two incorrect journal papers. As has been pointed out to you, a paper collection exercise is pointless, the reference list in the IPCC WG1 report is much longer than your list of 850 papers, and also has the advantage of a substantial commentary explaining why the papers are relevant. You need to consider whether the papers are (a) correct and (b) actually do suppport skepticism except your own. The fact the paper was published with a repeated paragraph suggests that not only did the editor not bother reading the galley proofs properly, but neither did the authors! -
Alexandre at 00:56 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Here's something interesting. The paper below refuted Lindzen's iris hypothesis. But the really interesting detail was that it was data refuting Lindzen's models. It's actually no problem to use models to assist in the mathematical understanding of a complex problem, but Lindzen repeatedly claimed that everyone did wrong model sensitivity calculations, implying (wrongly) that he was the only one that used observations. Bing et al. 2002 The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback? Excerpt: The modeled radiative fluxes of Lindzen et al. are replaced by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) directly observed broadband radiation fields. The observations show that the clouds have much higher albedos and moderately larger longwave fluxes than those assumed by Lindzen et al. -
HumanityRules at 00:11 AM on 23 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Ari, Sorry but this is about what you like. Here's what you wrote about P&J at AGW Observer "This study seems to suggest that in the warming of the deep world ocean the Southern Ocean plays a remarkably large role. The warming found in this study has been poorly known before, so this study seems to make the ocean heat budget, and even the whole Earth heat budget, more accurate." And here's what you wrote about P&J in response to my criticism. "On the mismatch between Purkey & Johnson and this new study, you need to remember that Purkey & Johnson's data is sparse and one point of this new study is to emphasize that there are regional differences in deep ocean warming trends which might be important." So you choose to argue the positive features of the data in your first article and negative when you try to tell a different story. You're trying to elevate the S&C model estimate over the P&J observational estimate by changing your position on P&J. I don't see the rational for that. There's a general issue about to what extent climate science conclusions are interpretive rather than based on hard facts. Often what one chooses to like or dislike about a data set is key to that interpretation. I know that OHC and closing the sea level and energy budget seem to be tricky problems at the moment, especially with regard to the ARGO data. But I don't think you solve that by simply imagining a heap of certainty from the lastest model result. Your headline is misleading, the puzzle is certainly not yet solved. -
fydijkstra at 00:02 AM on 23 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
"Of course they can't both be right, and probably they neither are". They can't be both right. Indeed. Most skeptics have quite different views (Spencer, Scafetta, Abusamatow, Akasofu, Soon, Lindzen, many others and - most humble - myself). The funny thing is, that only one of them needs to be right to reject the mainstream view about climate sentitivity for greenhouse gasses and predictions about future warming. -
Ari Jokimäki at 23:34 PM on 22 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Ken Lambert #23: Why are you bringing up already answered arguments as if they haven't been answered? "Does it really?? - certainly does not solve the energy imbalance puzzle." If you claim certainty here, then go ahead and prove your claim. But it will take lot more than simply pretending that the Purkey & Johnson number is the ultimate truth - that is not certain. So, show us where the certainty arises from.
Prev 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 Next
