Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 Next
Comments 94751 to 94800:
-
RW1 at 14:06 PM on 24 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
My goodness, the answer is yes or no. You are claiming the 3.7 W/m^2 does NOT represent the reduction in the atmospheric window, right? (This is what I'm assuming you're saying). I do not find this information in the stuff you've referenced, and I've continued to search online to no avail. What we are talking about here represents a fairly simple thing. I sent an email to one of the links from the source you referenced to inquire: SpectralCalc.com Hopefully they will respond. -
scaddenp at 13:57 PM on 24 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Sigh. The Science of Doom takes you through text book. Is that documentation enough? The problem seems to be that you are looking for a statement that doesnt exist because it would make no sense. The way real physics is done is bears little relationship to way you are trying to approach it. We are trying desperately to show why that is. As far as I can see you either: a/ study the physics b/ see that since model matches measurement so model must be right. I am guess that are ignoring the textbook, SoD, papers, because they dont relate to George White's "logic" and you search in vain for an analogous treatment. However, this is the right way to do it. I'm beyond my power to help you further. -
muoncounter at 13:23 PM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1, Your second linked abstract "Computer models are powerful tools ... " provides no actual scientific criticism of models. Their interplay helps to weed out model errors, identify robust features, understand the climate system, and build confidence in the models, but is no guard against flaws in the underlying physics. This is merely a caveat; the author suggests that models could have 'flawed' physics. Do you automatically assume that because an author says something could happen, it necessarily does? A far more robust criticism would be 'here is a model study with flawed physics.' I assume you did not use this because you have no such example at hand? -
SRNE2 at 12:37 PM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
This is the 2nd time I write this. I scrapped my 1st post since I didn't want to partake in this insanity. I changed my mind. This needs to end. You are arguing with a professional troll that has spellbound you for years. And by pro I mean he is definitely hired by vested interests to do this. He has A+ skills. I don't want to rain on your parade, but this shill is wasting everyone's time. So, can we please just ignore him? No matter how "fun" these threads may appear, there are more pressing issues to address. Let's face it, we have been pwned.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) While I deeply sympathize with your frustrations, please realize that you are not alone in enduring the train wreck this thread has become. All reading this would be well advised to not add fuel to the fire. -
Ron Crouch at 12:32 PM on 24 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
Speaking of permafrost. NOAA Hot on Methane’s Trail A new study led by Kevin Schaefer, Ph.D., and a team of scientists from NOAA-funded Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the NOAA Earth System Research Lab now predicts a 29 to 59 percent decrease in permafrost by 2200. Published in the journal Tellus B, the study estimates a large release of carbon – in the form of carbon dioxide and methane – from thawing permafrost over the next century, though much is still unknown about how these emissions will accelerate climate warming. Scientific climate projections do not currently account for carbon emissions from permafrost, but the study concludes that the effect is “strong enough to warrant inclusion in all projections of future climate.” It will certainly be interesting to see how much the inclusion of methane in future projections will change the range of outcomes. -
Ron Crouch at 12:14 PM on 24 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It held true in the past and it holds even truer today. -
Bibliovermis at 12:08 PM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech (#710), The 97% figure comes from the Doran 2009 study as discussed on the argument #3 thread There is no consensus.97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes to "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Please respond to this point on that thread. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:55 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT post # 720. I don't doubt that this is the perception you get from reading E&E on a regular basis. In any case it is a sweeping accusation against all scientists, formulated with words that you have declared yourself as leading only to subjective statements. Your accusation must be substantiated with objective criteria, otherwise, even by your own stanadrds, it is null and void. You're demonstrating again and again that you're arguing for the sake of argument and that reality has no bearing whatsoever on said argument. It has come to a point that's beyond grotesque. -
Bern at 11:51 AM on 24 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
David Horton @ #1 - paradoxically, I've heard that some areas are substantially increasing their logging rates because they know the pine beetle is going to kill most of the trees in the next few decades, and they want to harvest the timber before it gets ruined. Yet again, though, as this article points out, it seems wherever there is uncertainty, the deniers assume without question that the error is on the high side, and the actual value is at the bottom end of the uncertainty range. We're gonna be in one heck of a pickle if the actual values turn out to be at the top end of the range. Well, if nothing else, at least the unrest across the arab world may help promote alternatives to fossil oil. It's going to be a painful process to get through, though (and has already been painful for the folks in those countries, with more pain to come as their oil-dependent economies start to falter - I saw a report [free reg req'd, I think] this morning that an analyst has given a 25% chance for revolution in Saudi Arabia, which holds 20% of world reserves) -
RW1 at 11:49 AM on 24 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp, I'm not finding the information and/or documentation I'm looking for to verify the claims made by you and KR. You are saying the 3.7 W/m^2 increase is not the reduction in the atmospheric window? -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:48 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"My argument continues and has always been that only a small fraction of these explicitly endorse "anthropogenic global warming". But you have failed to demonstrate that by the standards you define yourself. By your own standards, it's entirely subjective. You can't even begin to prove it. "Credentialed scientist"? That is exactly the kind of thing you were arguing against, earlier, at some point. You've been doing this all along this thread, strongly defending against a semantic issue only to use it when it suited your argument. Just like you tried to argue that quality is subjective and then turned around to say that one could not objectively claim to be qualified as a reviewer from having a track record of numerous "mediocre papers". That is obviously a concept that you failed to objectively define. Nonsense on top of more nonsense. This is by far the most accurate assessment of your ramblings: "he's invested in the process of argumentation itself." You have nothing of substance to say other than "I have a list." That is so laughably limited as to be irrelevant to anyone who can think. -
Marcus at 11:27 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Robert Way. The thing I love was how the Hadley Climate Research Unit was the focus of the ludicrous "Climate-gate" beat-up, yet now all the "skeptics" are pointing to HadCRU temperature data as better than anyone else's-apparently because it shows a shallower warming trend than GISS or RSS. Boy the own goals from the Denialists are coming in thick & fast! -
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Invicta @65, Dana @ 67, from the article: "When you combine the temperature record over the past millennium with climate forcings, you get a most likely climate sensitivity value close to 3°C, consistent with the IPCC climate sensitivity range of 2°C to 4.5°C. So if the temperature swings were actually larger than in the reconstructions used by Hegerl and other studies on millennial climate sensitivity, it means the climate sensitivity is actually higher than the IPCC has concluded." So, Invicta, the thread is saying that if the MWP were warmer than the reconstructions (and hence 1990's temperatures), that is a bad sign for the future because it indicates a high climate sensitivity. A hotter MWP, and a colder LIA would both indicate forecasts for future temperatures are underestimates. It does not argue that current temperatures being actually higher than the MWP is a bad thing for our future. That is in fact bad, but only because current forecasts with the current best estimate of climate sensitivity are grim enough. I have to assume that Dana was very tired when he responded to you, for his response contradicts the article. -
David Horton at 10:42 AM on 24 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
Oh, and before any arrive, some interesting material coming to light eg http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/20/denier-bots-live-why-are-online-comments-sections-over-run-by-the-anti-science-pro-pollution-crowd/ and http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/02/government-and-big-business-gaming.html about the existence of highly sophisticated "denier bot" operations, able to swamp any climate change threads with denier diversions, while appearing to be genuine individuals with unique IPs, backgrounds, internet histories. I'm sure all of us have had our suspicions from time to time! -
scaddenp at 10:21 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
"Dikran the range of uncertainty is so wide that it makes long term projections or predictions unreliable." That would be unsupported opinion, at odds with models reliability to date. What's your idea of "short term"? At decadal level, models are hopeless. At longer scales they do exceedingly well. Cutting to the chase - how much accurate prediction by models can you take before you change your mind? -
Paul D at 09:53 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
rhjames: "If someone says that doubling CO@ might result in a 1 degC increase, then I'll accept that as consistent with known science. Anything beyond that is just guess work at this stage." Logically your comment is in error. Your own logic would imply that the 1 degree increase is guess work, because you know that there are feedbacks that would alter the forcings. You are defying your own logic by accepting what you call known science. -
Paul D at 09:46 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
rhjames: "only computer models and theory which are still based on very limited understanding of many contributing factors." I suspect very much that the details of all the processes, down to the quantum level are not well understood when it comes to understanding why smoking kills. Your assumptions are bull. -
Paul D at 09:41 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
rhjames: "What I found is that over the past century, there has been increased precipitation in some areas, and decreases in others." erm, both imply change, compared to the past! One wouldn't expect the same patterns in every location, that would be silly. -
Albatross at 09:38 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR @100, As shown by muoncounter in their post @40, MBH98 is not shown in Fig. 6-10b in AR4, MBH99 is. We have been over this, MBH98 is discussed in AR4 but only because of the controversy surrounding it. Really, you guys have nothing and it is showing. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - For temperatures in the second model, add a second "named range" of "Surface_E", value of ~0.97 (a better surface estimate, once I looked it up), and another column starting at E5 containing: =SQRT(SQRT(B5/(Surface_E*5.6704*10^-8)))-273.15-4 Copy this cell and paste down the column. This reverses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to get degrees Centigrade, with a "4" fudge factor (sets the ~18C final result back to ~14C, accounting at least in part for the surface variations and T^4 increase in radiated power). Not perfect, but a reasonable back of the envelope correction. Given this model and that a doubling of CO2 should result in an imbalance of 3.7 W/m^2, the effective decrease in emissivity of 0.606 * 236.3/240 =.597, which fed into the model results in a temperature rise of ~1.1C, just about what everyone expects from a CO2 doubling with no feedbacks. -
David Horton at 09:22 AM on 24 February 2011Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
We know that carbon uptake by plants could't happen fast enough in the past to prevent severe climate change, why on earth would you think it could happen now with the greatly reduced, fragmented, damaged forest remnants we have; with the further damage to those forests being caused by the changing climate; and with the continuing short-sighted effects of logging, clearing, wood-chipping, recreational use, prescribed burning. It is also worth noting that it takes hundreds of years for a forest to mature, ie to have taken up the maximum that can be absorbed by vegetation in that area given the parameters of topography, soil, moisture, nutrients and so on. We don't have hundreds of years. -
HumanityRules at 09:19 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
99 dhogaza OK I look forward to seeing the Mann 98 bring dropped by the IPCC. -
dhogaza at 09:07 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR:if I talk about early Mann reconstructions I'm stuck in the past, If IPCC 2007 refers to early Mann reconstructions it's......
Because it was written in 2007, therefore didn't have Mann '08 and other recent papers available for inclusion.Ah yes I see your logic now.
Apparently yours is that IPCC 2007 should've trotted out their secret time machine and fast forwarded until after those more recent papers were published, and included them? What do you think AR5 will include? Here's my guess ... those papers that came out 2007-2010. You're stuck in the past because you're posting in 2011, not 2007, when AR4 was published. -
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Sorry Fig 6.13 of AR4, WG1. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - When I worked up the two spreadsheets, I transcribed the content as individual cells with values surrounded by quotes. I've had little (read that, 'no') success in copy/pasting entire spreadsheets as text - hence the approximate formatting. Sorry about the difficulties; if it doesn't work blame my typing! For the first spreadsheet the initial setup is a set of 4 columns, 3 rows, with the items in quotes in each cell in order (don't type in the quotes!). Then copy the last line (4 columns) and paste it into the next 20-30 to converge. Here radiation to space is what's left over when the atmosphere returns some to the surface, and it converges when outgoing=incoming. For the second spreadsheet, the emissivity driven model, there's a single line with a "named range" of "Emissivity" (getting a bit tricker), initial value 0.6. Two rows down there's a section 4 columns across, 3 rows high, with items in quotes in individual cells (don't put in the quotes!). Copy those last 4 cells and paste into the next 20-30 lines for convergence. Try different planetary emissivities to see how the surface energy changes. Here "Emitted" is what's sent to space, and it again converges when outgoing=incoming. These are radiation only models, lacking (in the first example) any convection/evaporation, in order to make the point. In the first, I'm just looking at radiative energies - 240 W/m^2 from the sun, and in convergence 240 W/m^2 to space as IR. Since it's such a simple model temps are not going to be accurate, but it clearly shows that in the presence of an absorbing/spherically emitting atmosphere the surface will be radiating more than the input energy in order to put the total input energy out to space. The primary take-home from the first model is that surface radiated energy goes up in the presence of a GHG containing atmosphere, and that only happens if the temperature goes up. In the second model we can look at temperatures related to those energies; it's a simpler yet more accurate model looking at only the radiative elements. 240 W/m^2 is indeed the incoming solar power. 0.6 is close to the Earth emissivity (zero dimensional model). 396 W/m^2 is the energy radiated from the Earth's surface (surface temp of 14°C which should radiate ~390 given an emissivity of .91-.95, but surface variations and the T^4 relationship raise that to 396). This really simple model quite accurately captures surface emissions and hence surface temperature. I was actually quite surprised at how closely this agrees with the data. In either case - re-emission back to Earth, which shows as reduced emissivity of the planet to space, results in driving the surface to emit more energy to get the incoming 240W/m^2 back out to space, and hence conserving energy. -
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
"Besides, no computer model can replicate MWP". I've seen this claim a lot. Seems at complete variance with Fig 6.13 which has output from 12 models. Or is this problems replicating an imaginary MWP? -
John Hartz at 08:55 AM on 24 February 2011Greenland is gaining ice
There's a new peer-reviewed paper on this topic: "The role of albedo and accumulation in the 2010 melting record in Greenland" by M Tedesco, et al, Environmetal Research Letters #6 (January-March 2011) This paper can be accessed for free at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/1/014005/fulltextModerator Response: [muoncounter] See also the discussion on the Flanner thread. -
RickG at 08:55 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1, Concerning your first link please note that it is a news article in Nature, not a peer reviewed study. Secondly, the error about the Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC report has long since corrected "by the IPCC". However, the Himalayan glaciers are receding, just not as fast as initially reported. There are many discussions concerning the Himalayan glaciers on this site. Please review Return to the Himalayas. -
Chemist1 at 08:32 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Dikran the range of uncertainty is so wide that it makes long term projections or predictions unreliable. Short term projections are so-so, but not great, and some models are almost completely unreliable, which I will get into at a later date. -
Chemist1 at 08:29 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Okay so here is my edited, kick off on why the models are unreliable, and the IPCC report's over reliance upon them, from peer reviewed papers is a very poor decision. First link:http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1003/full/climate.2010.19.html First Quote: Initial studies of how the rivers will respond to ice loss show modest changes in stream flow — far from the IPCC report's dire scenario of rivers running dry. Even if the glaciers were lost completely, flows down the Indus would drop about 15 per cent overall, with little or no change in the dry-season flow, one recent study found9. Lall cautions, however, that climate models are poor at simulating rain and snowfall, especially for the Asian monsoons. “I wouldn't hold these models to be very accurate,” he says. In the absence of clear predictions of what's to come, close monitoring of changes in the mountains is all the more important, as rising temperatures will probably affect the whole water cycle, says Eriksson of ICIMOD. “There has been too much focus on the glaciers as such,” he says. “It's urgent to understand the whole [impact] of climate change on snow, ice and rainfall, and that is not happening.” Second Quote back a few sentences prior to the above quote: Cogley. Upmanu Lall, director of the Columbia Water Center at Columbia University in New York, agrees. Lall says the idea that the rivers could run dry because of shrinking glaciers seems to stem from a confusion about how much glaciers contribute to river flows, compared with the contribution from melting of the seasonal snowpack." Link 2, I am introducing because it because you can download it and and place it into GOOGLE Earth and look at data and so called trends yourselves as individuals. It also illustrates how short any decent temperature record keeping has been around and how few stations there have been. The download is free. http://www.climateapplications.com/kmlfiles.asp The above link can assist everyone in analysisModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please note: You are responsible for the content of your copy/pasting from other sites when you then post it here. Your comment previously appearing as number 297 contained multiple allegations of impropriety. Repeated violations of the Comments Policy will also be deleted and could subject you to further, more rigorous moderation. Be aware. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - You're quite welcome, glad to add my tiny bit of pocket change to a reasonable discussion. To be honest, I don't have enough information about ACRIM vs. PMOD vs. Frohlich to definitively say which measure is most appropriate; just that all of them seem to indicate low levels of solar variation that don't line up with temperature changes. And yes, Steig vs. O'Donnell looks to be quite the mess. I think it points out that the reviewed should not be able to identify and yell directly at the reviewers, and that researchers disagreeing with each other should likely not be reviewing each others work. Most unfortunate. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:23 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1@300 Uncertainty is not the same thing as unreliability. Unreliability implies that the models have errors that lie outside the stated uncertainty of the projections. GEP Box said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". You have not established that the models are unreliable, nor have you demonstrated that the stated uncertainty of the projections is so high that they are not useful. It is well known that GCMs don't work well at smaller spatial scales, but that doesn't mean they are not accurate in projections of global climate variables.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) FYI: Chemist1's long link-fest originally at 297 contained an extensive copy-paste with multiple allegations of impropriety; it and 3 subsequent responses were then deleted. That is why the numbering sequence on comments is off right now. -
Albatross at 08:23 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
muoncounter @94, "'unforced free oscillations' idea -- call it UFOs" Thanks for making me laugh...that is hilarious. -
Chemist1 at 08:17 AM on 24 February 2011Models are unreliable
Here are a few more links straight from peer review regarding strenghts, weaknesses and areas where serious need of improvement, exist: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/1/014008: " Abstract This study assesses the accuracy of state-of-the-art regional climate models for agriculture applications in West Africa. A set of nine regional configurations with eight regional models from the ENSEMBLES project is evaluated. Although they are all based on similar large-scale conditions, the performances of regional models in reproducing the most crucial variables for crop production are extremely variable. This therefore leads to a large dispersion in crop yield prediction when using regional models in a climate/crop modelling system. This dispersion comes from the different physics in each regional model and also the choice of parametrizations for a single regional model. Indeed, two configurations of the same regional model are sometimes more distinct than two different regional models. Promising results are obtained when applying a bias correction technique to climate model outputs. Simulated yields with bias corrected climate variables show much more realistic means and standard deviations. However, such a bias correction technique is not able to improve the reproduction of the year-to-year variations of simulated yields. This study confirms the importance of the multi-model approach for quantifying uncertainties for impact studies and also stresses the benefits of combining both regional and statistical downscaling techniques. Finally, it indicates the urgent need to address the main uncertainties in atmospheric processes controlling the monsoon system and to contribute to the evaluation and improvement of climate and weather forecasting models in that respect." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.60/full: "Abstract Computer models are powerful tools that allow us to analyze problems in unprecedented detail and to conduct experiments impossible with the real system. Reliance on computer models in science and policy decisions has been challenged by philosophers of science on methodological and epistemological grounds. This challenge is examined for the case of climate models by reviewing what they are and what climate scientists do with them, followed by an analysis of how they can be used to construct new trustworthy knowledge. A climate model is an executable computer code that solves a set of mathematical equations assumed to represent the climate system. Climate modelers use these models to simulate present and past climates and forecast likely and plausible future evolutions. Model uncertainties and model calibration are identified as the two major concerns. Climate models of different complexity address different question. Their interplay helps to weed out model errors, identify robust features, understand the climate system, and build confidence in the models, but is no guard against flaws in the underlying physics. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd." These two last links with Abstracts included are not skeptical arguments against using GCM's or climate change. Yet they highlight regional issues, weather events, patterns,microclimate, and making projections based upon these and finding trends in climate. Not that these papers conclude nothing can be understood better or analyzed but that models still contain lots of unreliability, which is the topic of this thread. -
damorbel at 08:15 AM on 24 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 344 KR You very kindly provided an excel sheet for doing calculations showing energy tranferred by radiation without any indication of the relative temperatures between the heat source and the heat sink. Now it is a fundamental of physics that, without knowing these temperatures, you cannot make any energy transfer calculations or predict any temperature changes. You claim that I do not understand your arguments, do you understand my need to know what the various temperatures are involved in you 'warming' model? PS Your EXCEL explanation will not load in my MS EXCEL, Would you be so kind as to provide a clearer version; perhaps just the cell identities and the cell entries? Thanking you in advance. -
dana1981 at 08:11 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant - I'm not saying I'm certain the divergence is due to the lack of proxy data. I'm saying your certainty that the divergence illustrates a problem with the proxies is misplaced and unwise. Moreover, once again you are scoring an own goal. If you are correct, and the proxies underestimate large temperature swings, then the prior temperature changes were larger than we think, which means climate sensitivity is higher than we think. But if you examine the figure I provided, you can see that the instrumental record and Ljungqvist proxy data match up quite well until about 1980, which constitutes about 85% of the instrumental record, only diverging at the end when there is little proxy coverage. The logical conclusion is that the divergence is due to a lack of proxy data. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel Here's another Excel exercise. "Row 1: "Emissivity" "0.6" Right click the 0.6 and "Name a range" to "Emissivity" Row 3: "Sun" "Earth" "Emitted" "Difference" Row 4: "240" "=A4" "=B4*Emissivity" "=A4-C4" Row 5: "=A4" "=B4+D4" "=B4*Emissivity" "=A5-C5" Copy Row 5 and paste it into the next 20-30 rows. As the Earth emissivity goes down relative to a theoretic black-body, due to the widening/deepening GHG bands in the spectra of the total planetary emission, surface radiation must go up due to the difference (energy conservation) between incoming and outgoing radiation. I find an emissivity of 0.606 and input of 240 gives a surface radiation of 396, emission to space of (again) 240 on convergence. Interestingly enough, this is just about what the planetary emissivity has been calculated to be... -
muoncounter at 08:07 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
"Models do not reproduce the behavior in temperature series (1940's)." No, they sure don't: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 9-5
See Models are unreliable.
Or just chuck all climate models and basic physics out and go with the 'unforced free oscillations' idea -- call it UFOs!
-
Albatross at 08:05 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant, You seem to be arguing in circles and using excuses to try and discredit whichever information is inconvenient to you. You have questioned the validity of the temperature data from the instrument record, then questioning the splicing, then introducing the red herring of transient oscillations, now you seem to be arguing that the paleo reconstructions are questionable (including Ljungqvist it seems). Well, Idso et al. sure are placing a lot of emphasis and weight on Ljungqvist (2010) and excluded the spliced temperature data from the instrumented record that ljungqvist (2010) included in his paper. All data have issues, that does not render them useless. You have been shown to be wrong about a few things on this thread, yet you insist on trying to obfuscate and detract from the own goal scored by Idso et al. PS: If you wish to challenge Tamino's work, then please do so at Tamino's site. -
thepoodlebites at 08:04 AM on 24 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
# 80 Thanks KR, I found the ACRIM vs PMOD link after I posted #79. Actually, the paper I wanted to cite for PMOD TSI reconstuction is Frohlich, the observed trend since 1978 is not significantly different from zero. Shouldn't Figure 1 here be replaced by Fig. 1 in the Frohlich paper? Thanks for the lively debate on climate trends. I'm reading about the Steig vs O'Donnell controversy with the 2009 Antarctic temperature reconstruction. Apparently, PCA can be tricky with sparce data fields. I searched but couldn't find a thread on this topic. I'm sorry to read that the matter became overly personal. -
RickG at 08:02 AM on 24 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Over the past several days I have participated in discussions over several threads as many of us have. I have seen many very well thought out and well presented arguments with the best intentions of helping all to understand the many aspects of climate science. Conversely, I have observed many posts that seem to ignore the most basic principles of physics as well as the many requests to look at data and citations presented to them. Many contrarian arguments have been thoroughly debunked by addressing specific questions and providing scientifically supporting evidence only to have the originator of the argument to return and say their question was not addressed. I know many posters here as well as I have become somewhat frustrated with the experience. For the past 24 hours I have only observed posts from the "Recent Comments" page and begin to look at this from a whole new prospective. No doubt it was difficult for me not to respond to some of the posts, but I begin to realize something very important. Anyone coming to this site seeking information and understanding with an open mind can easily see what is happening in the climate debate. One side presents only science with supporting evidence and references from the scientific community. The other side continously ignores the information being presented and even refuses to read any of the many articles presented on this site already addressing their questions. Any open minded person visiting this site whether they post or not can easily see this and separate the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, I think the contrarians are their own worst enemy, if by nothing else, the tone presented in their own posts. As someone said in the "Meet The Denominator" thread, "you are the gift that keeps on giving". Understand my above comments apply only to those posters who have no intention of engaging in meaningful debate and not the true skeptics who wish to discuss and exchange ideas. Thank you John, Moderators and everyone connected with SkS for following the "proper path", rather than the "prudent path", with such a high quality site for us all to learn and enjoy.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] On behalf of John and the other moderators and the large community of regular posters & commentators (not to mention the lay readership at large) here: Thank you. You are a breath of fresh air & have succinctly summed up the nature and flavor of the debate going on here. -
muoncounter at 07:49 AM on 24 February 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
citizenschallenge, I think the problem may be that ACE blends wind speed and storm duration, as seen here in Bell et al 2000: ... accumulating Vmax^2 for all 6-hourly periods in which the system is either a tropical storm or hurricane, thereby also accounting for the number and duration of storms while at a tropical storm status. This modified HDP index is referred to as accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index, and is both a physically and statistically reasonable measure of overall activity during a given hurricane season. This was a modification of 'hurricane destructive potential (HDP),' which was originated by William Gray in 1987. As a wind speed-duration index, ACE neglects rainfall. As we associate increasing sea surface temperature with more intense precipitation events, it is not unreasonable that ACE appears to have little or no trend. For example, Fran (1996, cat 3) has a higher ACE (26) than Katrina (2005, cat 5, ACE 20). Though lower in windspeed, Fran became a TS while well out in the Atlantic and thus had a much longer track. (wikipedia has detailed storm season histories; ACE data are tabulated here). Without including rainfall, ACE has the potential to misstate the energy redistribution taking place during a hurricane by a large amount: The rate of energy release for each mm/hour of rainfall is three times as great as the solar energy (~350 Watts/m2) that falls on the same surface area. Thus the precipitation process concentrates heat that was used to evaporate moisture from large expanses of the tropics by factors of ten to a hundred into those regions where rain occurs. While solar heating of the atmosphere takes place mainly at the surface, the heat released by condensation occurs at high altitudes where it has a greater impact on the atmosphere's large scale circulation. Averaged over the entire Earth the heating released by precipitation is about five times greater than that produced by variations in surface heating. -
protestant at 07:48 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
And how do you confirm its due to lack of proxies? It is just an interpretation. Though it might be partly an explanation, but what is also clear from the earlier reconstructions is that the proxies do not follow measured temperatures so closely no matter how you train them. Therefore they are not as accurate as thermometers, no matter how you bake it. And there is a reason why Ljungqvist suggested extreme caution with thermometer interpretations, isn't there? Can you disagree with this? -
JMurphy at 07:45 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
Chemist1, it's no use posting results of searches which will lead to biased work subsidised and backed by big government and the Pharma industry - haven't you learnt the ways of those who are underpinning the AGW 'scam' ? I want 100% evidence giving physical facts that prove that a smoker will die of lung cancer. -
JMurphy at 07:41 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
rhjames, don't tell me you believe all those elitist scientists and their dodgy/fraudulent/wrong/biased/etc data ? And you believe that it is a consensus ? Well, you know how wrong any consensus can be, don't you ? Anyway, here are more 'facts' from a 'proper' scientist working tirelessly to expose the truth like a modern-day Galileo : It's Official - Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer... As to your belief about climate sensitivity, perhaps you had better read this thread (How sensitive is our climate? - there are also Basic and Intermediate versions available) and post there to show which "known science" leads you to trust a figure of "a 1 degC increase". -
Chemist1 at 07:40 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Smoking+cigarettes+kills&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=on Here. Now I know arguments from statistical uncertainty and probability may be invoked but the sample sizes, the replicability in actual individuals and groups of people,e the random assignment, the years of robust research and qualitative analysis provide the actual proof and not just 'evidence.' Newer published data: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Smoking+cigarettes+kills&as_sdt=0%2C33&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0 -
Chemist1 at 07:38 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
11 rhjames absolutely correct. Just to add a little: Many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke individually have support from numerous studies providing a some causal links between repeated exposure and cancer incidence and prevalence as well. In addition, global warming itself is not falsifiable, while other empirical studies are. 1 degree means nothing. -
dana1981 at 07:22 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant, I think this is the fourth time I'm saying this now. Ljungqvist only has 10 proxies extending to 1999. Assuming that the divergence toward the end of the 20th century between actual temps vs. proxy temps is due to a problem with the proxies rather than a lack of proxies is unwise. -
rhjames at 07:12 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
JMurphy - this is a foolish comment you quoted. There is statistical conclusion at extremely high probability level that smoking kills people. The factors of stress, diet etc have all been accounted for in the studies. If someone smokes, we don't know they will die of lung cancer, but they have a significantly increased possibility of death by lung cancer. Take, 10,000 smokers, and some will die of lung cancer. To compare this with the likelihood of doubling CO2 will cause a 3 degC temperature increase is not valid. There is no data to back this up - only computer models and theory which are still based on very limited understanding of many contributing factors. If someone says that doubling CO@ might result in a 1 degC increase, then I'll accept that as consistent with known science. Anything beyond that is just guess work at this stage. -
protestant at 06:58 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Sigh,it seems I am not getting out of here. Robert, what has Steig vs O'donnell have to do with this? I am completely not interested in any rant written by DC nor Romm (nor Climateaudit). But what concernes is that Steig was Reviewer A and which is a disgrace. Don't you agree one shouldnt be a reviewer when your own work is critisized? I havent looked on the math by either side so I do not know which paper is right, but I tend to believe O'donnell is. But I am not willing to dig this any further since other details are more interesting, and besides, I have a day job. And if DC has anything against M&W then I wish him best luck in publishing it. As I said before I am not at the moment interested on discussing about the paper as a whole, but about the statement I cited. But I definitely need to point you out, that if you are reading blogs on a highly polarized issue, you *must* be reading and considering the points on both sides. I am sure you are doing it, but many people commenting these blogs are certainly not, thus biasing their opinions towards the 'side' they picked in the start. And btw, thanks for the decadal data you have calculated. The differences on our calculations seems to be because I have whole NH data, where you have just extratropical. I trust you and am not willing to spend any time checking the results. But I still dont see how that should be compared on data, which is necessarily smoother and doesn't respond to temperatures as good as thermometers. You must take into account, that if the proxies do not respond to temperatures as good *now*, why would they do it 500, 1000, 1500 nor 2000 years ago?
Prev 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 Next
