Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 Next
Comments 94801 to 94850:
-
protestant at 06:34 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#83. I will still anwer short: Models do not reproduce the behavior in temperature series (1940's). Only an explanation which includes those oscillations would. My clear point is, they do not (necessarily) generate heat (unless they are linked in changes to cloud cover, like ENSO is), but move heat around. This is enough to cause a short term (<65years) fluctuations in surface temperature. My point also ISNT that PDO (nor AMO) would explain *long term* trend. But the surely will when the trend is less than a full cycle. But I guess I had enough here, I will read any responses that might appear and then disappear. BB. -
robert way at 06:30 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Also, There was some commenter who insinuated that the use of GISS was because they supposedly "inflate" the warming. As I have shown before there is WIDE agreement amongst satellite and instrumental records, as well as including reanalysis datasets. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=14 In fact, Hadley is the one whose station combination method has been shown to be dubious (by Roman M, a "skeptic") and therefore undersamples the actual warming. Furthermore, the european center for medium and long range forecasting who produce the most accurate of the reanalysis datasets (ERA) has also confirmed that Hadleys station combination method results in less sampling of the regions that are warming the most. I can even show you a direct example of this if you like? It is a huge annoyance that people continually make these claims. NASA data is used because it is the best representation of the trends, NASA assumes that the stations around the high arctic warm at the same rate as the high arctic whereas hadley just assumes they have the same trend as the global average. If you know anything about polar amplification you know which assumption is more accurate. Finally as I showed before in my post on temperature trends and Monckton, the Reanalysis datasets which include the most data agree much better with NASA than Hadley. So enough of the insinuations about selective method choice. There are in fact "better" methods and Hadleys is not better. -
protestant at 06:29 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Robert, I will not answer to Joe Romm's rant claiming Judy 'discredited'. You will definitely find blogs and writings where each of us and each and single one of the blogs in the internet are being 'discredited'. Have you read the two referenced I cited few messages back, about AMO? And please tell me, how do you get an almost one degree incline from mid 1900's if you calculated only decadal averages? As my calculations show above, the incline is less than 0,45degC, and I didnt use any predictive techniques. 2010 data is being used (downloaded from CRU) so that the graph ends where it should end, 2005. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - Solar activity change hasn't been large enough to be significant since the late 70's; some measures (as you correctly point out) rising, some dropping, neither movement significant enough to change the climate based on our understanding of climate sensitivity. And statistically, random walk components including ENSO and PDO don't hold up (not numerically supportable) as drivers of the climate over oscillatory periods >11-15 years. For longer time scales the various forcings including CO2 emissions are the statistically relevant issues. -
johnkg at 06:24 AM on 24 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I don't suppose RW1 or Co2isNotEvil can help in explaining things to damorbel? Would be nice to see the skeptics helping each other out rather than leaving all the hard work to KR :) -
muoncounter at 06:23 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant, Apparently you do not understand the meaning of 'oscillation'? Consider finding the area under a sine curve over a full period; you always obtain 0. "Why do both, AMO and PDO STRONLGY correlate with temperatures?" Wow, then that must mean that correlation = causation? Thanks, we can use that basic principle to demonstrate CO2 -> increased temperature. For the lack of any long term effects due to the PDO, see the appropriate thread. Short answer: Ocean circulation moves heat around; it doesn't add heat. It is a response to a pre-existing non-uniform heat distribution. You really shouldn't need to see a link for that. This is not an oscillation thread; further oscillation discussion should go to the appropriate thread. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:23 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
NBModerator Response: Please, no more accusations of dishonesty, there have been enough warnings on this thread already. -
protestant at 06:22 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Dikran Marsupial: So now that I brought up McShane & Wyner, I hear some commenters starting to discuss about the paper overall. I am not interested in sucha discussion now. But here is the spesific statement I was referring to, and to which I fully agree: "It is not necessary to know very much about the underlying methods to see that graphs such as Figure 1 are problematic as descriptive devices. First, the superposition of the instrumental record (red) creates a strong but entirely misleading contrast. The blue historical reconstruction is necessarily smoother with less overall variation than the red instrumental record since the reconstruction is, in a broad sense, a weighted average of all global temperature histories conditional on the observed proxy record. Second, the blue curve closely matches the red curve from 1850 AD to 1998 AD because it has been calibrated to the instrumental period which has served as training data. This sets up the erroneous visual expectation that the reconstructions are more accurate than they really are." So far, I havent seen any evidence that would be in contradiction to this point. Even if you disagree with some points made in the paper, I dont think there should be any disagreement on this one. And this is my point. Using temperature data on top of proxydata should be done with extreme caution, and at least not with "predictive" smoothing excersises. What I also didn't get an answer to, is that what kind of smoothing Dana and Robert used. Was it Minimum Roughness, or something else with 'predictions'? Since rolling averages (or decadal if you wish, as Ljungqvist used) do not give even closely such a staggering result, it is a clear hint towards that something like this was being used.Moderator Response: Sorry, my responsibilities as moderator mean that I have had to withdraw from active discussion on this thread. -
Albatross at 06:21 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant, I am not going to get drawn into a mud fight with you about various blogs on the internet. I would, however, urge you to be more skeptical about the true motives of some people claiming to be interested in "reconciliation". Tamino demonstrated that removing "the estimated impact of el Nino, volcanic eruptions, solar variation, and the residual annual cycle" the observed global warming signal is clearly evident. He also demonstrated that "Correlations with the AMO index do alias effects of global warming". Regarding DeSole et al., I will leave readers with these excerpts form their abstract: "This component, called the Internal Multidecadal Pattern (IMP), is stochastic and hence does not contribute to trends on long time scales, but can contribute signifi- cantly to short-term trends" and "While the IMP can contribute significantly to trends for periods of 30 years or less, it cannot account for the 0.8 C warming trend that has been observed in the twentieth century spatially averaged SST." Seems that you are seeing what you want to see protestant. And you still keep avoiding answering my question about climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (with feedbacks). Why? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel I've thought about the difficulty of getting this particular point through to you, and have a small Excel exercise for you. First row (1): "Sun" "Earth" "Atmosphere" "Space" Second row (2): "240" "=A2+0.5*C2" "0" "=B2-0.5*C2" Third row (3): "=A2" "=A2+0.5*C2" "=0.2*B2" "=B2-0.5*C2" Copy the third row and paste it in the 4th-20th rows. The "0" in the second line is to avoid a circular reference, but the actual guts take place in the third row. This represents solar input energy (240), surface radiated energy, energy intercepted/spherically radiated by the atmosphere, and energy radiating out to space. Constants (such as the 0.2 of IR intercepted by the atmosphere) are illustrative, but not tied directly to real values. The 0.5 radiated up and down from the atmosphere goes directly to space or the surface, so this is essentially a single-layer radiative atmospheric model without convection. What you will see is that the atmosphere, due to redirecting half of the energy back to the surface, warms it so that it radiates ~267 rather than 240. Meanwhile, the output to space is still 240, regardless. A cool object (atmosphere) has warmed a warmer object (the surface). Try constants other than 0.2 for IR absorption, and see how it goes; a 0.3 absorption brings the surface radiation to 282. Energy comes in from the sun, goes out to space - and reflecting insulation keeps the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, while maintaining the conservation of energy. Think about it. -
citizenschallenge at 06:14 AM on 24 February 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
MC, OK I've gone through it again with more care and I've look at some of the links below but am as confused as ever about the various claims. In particular, when someone waves that The FSU graph at #18: "Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy" graph in one's face. Why no trend? Because Maue lumped all cyclones together and would have come up with something very different if he looked at just category 4, 5 storms? (is such a chart available?) And if one does that, what about being charged with cherry picking? -
thepoodlebites at 06:10 AM on 24 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
# 76 I’m not disputing the surface warming since 1980, about +0.4 C in the UAH satellite record. I’m disputing the amount of the human component, specifically, CO2 induced global warming. There are alternative hypotheses that should be considered for both surface warming and droughts, including solar and SST variability, specifically ENSO and PDO. If the PDO shifts to more negative this decade with more La Nina’s than El Nino’s, then the global drought patterns will change and the Dai et al results will be more about drought patterns associated with persistent El Nino’s than any CO2-induced AGW signal. # 77 I have repeatedly pointed out that solar irradiance has not been dropping since 1960, according to LISIRD, TSI. The accuracy of PMOD reconstruction is in dispute, specifically, that the PMOD TSI trend is incorrect. But solar cycle 24 is weaker than 21-23 and it will be interesting to see how the global temperature record responds. -
damorbel at 05:48 AM on 24 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR you write:- ""Net" == summed, total, the amount actually moving after all elements are considered, etc." Follow your own logic, KR. The Earth's surface is a 'net' loser of energy; the upper atmosphere a net gainer. My conclusion is that 1/the surface is a net loser because it is warmer than the upper atmosphere so it (tends) to cool down, being a net loser of energy to the upper atmosphere. And 2/ the upper atmosphere is a 'net' gainer, therefore it tends to warm up with the (net +ve) heat gain from the surface since the upper atmosphere is cooler than the surface. No need for SoD's explanation or a visit to the good Dr. Spencer to understand this, is there? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - Rereading this thread, I have decided that it's not worth my while to rehash issues that have been discussed ad infinitum with you. You've been pointed at the appropriate information; I would suggest reading the thread over and working on understanding it. You've been given the data, you've been given multiple explanations - but your last post indicates you are repeating the same errors you've displayed from the very beginning. >300 comments later, and you're still holding to those physically incorrect views. Rehashing this topic with you yet again is a repetitive rhetorical exercise, unless you show some propensity towards learning. I'm not going to waste my time. Sorry about the rather harsh attitude; I'm just getting tired of people who simply refuse to learn. -
dana1981 at 05:42 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Harry Seaward - the first graph contains all the data from the studies in question. So it can't really be extended any further back in time, unless we attach data from different studies. -
protestant at 05:34 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Tamino didn't show anything about AMO. He just claimed it as a result of global warming and didnt substract it. His claims about AMO are also based on false calculations and interpretations, like substracting GISS from Kaplan to prove it where GISS does not use Kaplan SST, see here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2011/02/comments-on-taminos-amo-post_03.html). If you substract global SST anomalies (*the* nonlinear GW signal) from NA anomalies you get AMO, as you do by detrending NA. Same result. Just for the sake of this discussion, read the two references I just gave you (DelSole et al and Otterå) Also you are referring on dishonesty about ClimateAudit and claimed Climate etc. is a politically motivated site. Isn't that against your moderation policy? FYI Curry is a climate scientist and isnt keeping her blog for 'politics', but for truth seeking. I hope the rules are same for everyone here.Moderator Response: Indeed they are. Please leave the moderation to the moderators, and avoid inciting further discussion of topics that would contravene the comments policy. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - "Net" == summed, total, the amount actually moving after all elements are considered, etc. I suggest you read Roy Spencers excellent discussion, Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still. If you've already read it and disagree, read it again. Repeat until understood. -
Albatross at 05:27 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant, "So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians?" Sigh, actually follow the links and read the submissions before commenting. There were 13 or so articles submitted that discuss M&M10, from both paleo climate scientists and statisticians. I happened to give you the RC link for convenience. And I don't trust those affiliated with ClimateAudit-- their modus operandi and objectives were exposed a long time ago. Talking of which, thanks, but I do not go to politically-motivated sites like Climate etc which seem more interested in slandering climate scientists and web traffic than science. Anyhow, that is off topic and irrelevant. Also, as shown by a statistician (Tamino), the PDO, ENSO and AMO do not explain the observed long-term increase in global temperatures. So internal climate modes, while they may have had a role at times during the MWP, cannot explain the duration of the warming. I note that you have not provided a single paper to back up your assertions. Actually ENSO is well understood, and the "delayed oscillator" mechanism explains the formation of El Ninos. To me, the LIA is of more interest as far as inferring climate sensitivity goes, because the cooling was more widespread than during the MWP. We also have a very good idea what caused the LIA, and it was not internal climate variability but mostly by the Maunder minimum and aerosol loading from volcanism. Those factors producing such marked cooling over a prolonged period point to higher climate sensitivity, not lower climate sensitivity. You did not answer my question about climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (with feedbacks).Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I know protestant was pushing the boundaries of the comments policy, but please do not follow likewise. Accusations of dishonesty go against the comments policy, and will result in posts being deleted. -
Harry Seaward at 05:27 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Can the first graph be extended further back in time and keep the same format? -
protestant at 05:26 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#74. They might know the data, but they do not know the methods. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:14 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant@69 wrote "So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians?" Yes, actually they do know the data better than the statisticians; the specialist statisticians know the statistics better. Either working alone is unlikely to do as good a job as both in collaboration. A statistician applying relatively advanced statistical techniques without a good grasp of the nature of the data generating process is more than likely to shoot themselves in the foot. I know this to be true as I am a statistician, and I regularly collaborate with scientists and their input is absolutely vital. -
damorbel at 05:09 AM on 24 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 339 KR this is what your link to SoD's explanation of the 2nd Law actually says:- "In the case of the real “greenhouse” effect and the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground." "It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction." I repeat the relevant GHE blind spot; "But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground". How is it possible to say this and claim 'net flow' in the other direction? Net flow causes temperature change. It is a temperature increase in the cold upper atmosphere that takes place due to net (warm) radiation from the surface, not the surface being warmed by a (net) heat loss from the surface to the upper atmosphere as 'explained' by GHE 'theory'. Without the 'net flow' from the surface the GHGs will lose heat through radiation and cool down catastrophically, GHGs radiate IR as well as absorb it, that is what Tyndall discovered. -
protestant at 05:07 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Dikran Marsupial, okay, understood. -
protestant at 05:06 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#70. "Oscillations average to 0." Source? That claim is unfounded and bizarre. Why do both, AMO and PDO STRONLGY correlate with temperatures? And why do models not reproduce the strong warming from 1910-1940 and the cooling since 1940-1970 (aerosols do not explain the blip as we can see from the model outputs)? Show me the evidence, that a change in ocean circulations cant result in a temporal change in surface temperatures? Read: http://hsu.as.ntu.edu.tw/pdf/18.pdf You should propably look what a Norvegian ocean modeler thinks about AMO: http://www.bccr.no/acdc/filer/242.i3yGAl.pdf Also read the blog entry I linked above to Curry's. -
JMurphy at 05:05 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
Chemist1, could you provide the proof that smoking actually kills ? While you are gathering that information, perhaps you should read what others (shall we call them 'smoking kills' deniers) have to say : "...the world data contradicting the notion that smoking kills, and that smokers statistically belong to the lower classes, thus are at higher risk of disease and early death by the myriad of factors in their life - stress, poor diet, poor healthcare etc, plus the fact that smokers are less likely to take as much interest in their health as non-smokers - after all, if they smoke believing it will kill them, why would they be otherwise healthy?" Plenty more 'proof' here. (I really hope those 'rel="nofollow"' values actually work !) Just how do you begin to attempt to convince those who refuse to accept reality ? -
invicta at 05:04 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
dana @ 68 thank you, sometimes I find the message is lost in the argument -
protestant at 05:01 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#65. Read my last comment. Only a change in the THC or gulf-stream can have a drastic impact on the temperatures of NH. #67. No I am not. Besides, no computer model can replicate MWP, nor speaking about RWP or the Holocene climate optimum. They are completely dependant on the "Hockey stick". Unless you prove me no chance will occur without a change in external forcings (then again, you would need to explain the EXTERNAL forcing behind AMO, PDO and ENSO, which you cant since they are largely being interpretated as 'internal variability'). -
muoncounter at 05:00 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant: "where is it proven, that climate changes ONLY due to external forcings?" Perhaps you have some other model in mind? Internal forcings? Volcanoes? Little green men? Or do you propose that climate changes entirely by itself? "temperatures can oscillate not in only 30 year periods but also in multicentennial periods" Oscillations average to 0. -
protestant at 04:56 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#63: So RealClimateScientists know better than statisticians? If they do not agree, then I think they should publish their comments in the appropriate journal. But for the record, I dont trust RC:s honesty partly because of the moderation policy (ciritsism they cant answer they delete). I dont have anything against the observations of the last few decades. The cause for them is another topic. And as I said before, warmer MWP does NOT mean higher sensitivity. It would, if the basic tenet that surface temperature doesn't change without external forcings to be proven, and also you would need to prove that it was the GHG's or the sun which were the cause (neither wasn't I bet ya). Yet we have phenomenoms like ENSO, PDO, NPGO, and AMO which remain unexplained (I would call them internal variability = weather). Tell me what's the forcing behind those things and what is the maximum timescale where events like that could occur? I could bet 1000 dollars you (or anyone here) doesn't have an answer. I would suggest it is just chaotic variability in the heat transfer between air and the ocean. As I understand, the THC (Thermohaline Circulation) and the Gulf-stream is poorly understood (and as we can see MWP was pronounced in Greenland, which is near Atlantic...). You should be also reading this article carefully and with thought (and the following discussion): http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/ You should also know that heat is different than temperature. Heat can be transferred from oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa. Therefore surface temperatures may vary a lot without a big difference in total heat in the system.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial]Accusations of dishonesty are a contravention of the comments policy here and your opening statement is sailing mightly close to the wind. I haven't deleted it in this case, as it might be taken as an indication that you had made a point that coulnd't be countered. Any repetition of that sort of comment will result in your post being deleted. -
dana1981 at 04:53 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
invicta:Is this thread basically saying if the MWP was warmer than today this is not a good sign for our future and if today we are warmer than the MWP this is not a good sign for our future?
No. The article says that if the MWP was warmer than today - which it was not - it's a (relatively) good sign for our future because it means climate sensitivity is (relatively) low. -
dana1981 at 04:49 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant #62:Looks like nothing like yours.
Um yeah actually looks almost identical to mine (actually Robert Way created it). The only difference is that we extended the HadCRUT data through the current decade, which Ljungqvist did not (his stops at 1990-1999). Ours is virtually identical, but up-to-date (and lacking error bars). Albatross has already addressed the other points I was going to cover. The divergence between instrumental temperatures and proxies over the past decade or two is likely due to the lack of proxy coverage, as I have already said twice. And you are still scoring an own goal by arguing that the MWP was hot, and thus that climate sensitivity is high. -
Albatross at 04:48 AM on 24 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Thank you for your response @65 Dr. Verheggen. -
invicta at 04:44 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
invicta as a non scientist who normally only observes can I just clarify. Is this thread basically saying if the MWP was warmer than today this is not a good sign for our future and if today we are warmer than the MWP this is not a good sign for our future? protestant@57 temperatures can oscillate not in only 30 year periods but also in multicentennial periods, without having an actual external forcing. can someone explain how this would work? it sounds more like alchemy than science -
Albatross at 04:38 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant @61, "And one of the basic principles in statistics is not to combine two series which have been measured differently, and this point is being completely ignored over and over again (here and elsewhere)." Now please do look at the graph and read the caption of the graph from Ljungqvist (2010) that you posted @62. You are contradicting yourself. -
Albatross at 04:36 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
Protestant @62, "Looks like nothing like yours." This is going to be fun. And note Protestant, that despite your protestations, Ljungqvist also spliced the CRU data to his reconstruction (as you showed @62). You do not like the observed marked warming in recent decades one bit, it is clearly very inconvenient for you and Idso et al., so I guess it now has to be "attacked". Be mad at Idso et al. for scoring such a spectacular own goal, not us. A likely reason for the proxies underestimating the amount of warming at the end of the record (again referring to the original figure) is that for the last decade, as pointed out by Dana on this thread, there were very few proxies used in the reconstruction. You are now spamming this site with many allegations and much arm-waving. For the record, McShane and Wyner might be statisticians but their ignorance and their inexperience in working worth paleo data was all too obvious in their paper. Regardless, you know what? They ended up with a HS, although their shaft was rather oddly rotated. The many criticisms of McShane and Wyner can be found here, also follow embedded links. Finally, you seem to be arguing for a warmer MWP. So as Dana and others have pointed out you are arguing against low climate sensitivity. What do you understand climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 (with feedbacks) to be protestant? -
Bob Lacatena at 04:27 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
Chemist1,I am not so sure that we can lay the same robust claim for C02 as of yet.
Spoken like a true 1960s tobacco lobbyist. I am very certain we can lay that same robust claim for CO2, and have been able to do so for quite some time. The science is pretty voluminous and convincing, just as it was in the seventies for tobacco. But the tobacco industry, and people themselves, found it very easy to close their eyes to the truth for very many decades. I'd like to say that they only hurt themselves in doing so, although I think my own health insurance premiums say otherwise (being far higher than necessary, to pay for past smokers' heart and lung disease and lingering deaths). But not so with climate change. You don't get a free pass on this one, and we don't get to say (with detached sympathy) "poor guy, what a way to go, if only he'd listened to the science." Your "not so sure" had better be accompanied by some very careful, intense, open-minded and educated scrutiny, because if not your hesitance and inability to make a decision is going to contribute to causing a lot of suffering. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:26 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
Chemist1... I believe the point that gets continually made is that we are rolling the dice. Based on the broad scientific research it's very likely that doubling CO2 will raise global temperature by about 3C. Regardless of whether you agree with that position, that is the current consensus of the published literature. So, there are unknowns. The effect might be less that 3C. They might be more. They could be a good bit more but it's unlikely to be a good bit less. We are rolling the dice none-the-less. We do not know what number the dice will land on. But we do have a choice about what numbers the dice will NOT land on. Same with smoking. I could smoke a pack a day for the rest of my life and never get cancer. You can never smoke a cigarette in your life and still get cancer. It's a roll of the dice, but one that you can influence where the dice may land. -
DSL at 04:20 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "My position on citations (the are a measure of popularity not scientific validity) has not changed." 'Popular' in science means 'useful' and 'accurate'. People don't cite the work of others because they like it. They cite the work of others because they find it useful and, yes, valid. Why build your own work on the flawed work of others? The development of modern science is based on this very principle. You're utterly wrong on this, Poptech, and your misunderstanding suggests that you're purely in the rhetoric business. You are a politician, in the sense that you attempt to manage the politics of the reader. Politicians will cite anything they think is useful for this management. You built a list of instruments--850--that you hoped would serve to manipulate the beliefs of your trusting readers, but you don't have enough scientific understanding to recognize garbage in the presence of those whose business it is to recognize garbage. You should never have come here, Pop. I know the slight sense of self-respect you have drove you to do it, but now the fine details of your misunderstanding are a matter of public record. I suggest that we end this thread. It's like arguing with a smoker about the physical and psychological effects of smoking. In other words, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, except that the dead fish have no actual value: Poptech is not here to argue and learn, as some "skeptics" are. He's here to simulate an argument. He's not invested in the ongoing outcomes of the argument (so he thinks; perhaps he doesn't have children, either); he's invested in the process of argumentation itself. Keep in mind that these assessments of your ability to critically think are not ad hominem attacks. They are observations based on the evidence (the written expression of your thought process, or the thought process of your Poptech persona) given on this 700+ post thread. -
Chemist1 at 04:19 AM on 24 February 2011Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Ari 64: To simply give some foreshadowing of where I am headed. Each piece, as you will soon see, is connected the previous piece. I will though make no more claims until these are discussed in the appropriate threads with the links as the mod suggested here, later today. -
Chemist1 at 04:15 AM on 24 February 2011Smoking, cancer and global warming
Cigarette smoke is very dangerous, especially over the long term. With over 4000 chemicals, many of the effects are now shown in causal linkages. True, no one can be said to have died 100% from smoking alone, but it is pretty clear that cigarettes cause cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The human system, as complex as it is, and variable, for that matter, smoking really does kill.I am not so sure that we can lay the same robust claim for C02 as of yet. -
Ian Forrester at 04:03 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Bigcitylib gives a good example of how a paper by Oliver "Iron Sun" Manuel goes through "peer review" and eventual publication by E & E.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for the link, Ian! -
protestant at 03:50 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
In short: what you could have done is that you had displayed the original reconstrucion from the paper. No own versions with own smoothings are needed. There was a similar post like this one by "Ned" few months ago, with similars problems and with similar ignorance on what is said in the original paper, and which were clearly pointed out. Original version by the author:
Looks like nothing like yours.
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid injecting your personal judgments; no one who has been around SkS for any length of time would use 'ignorance' and 'Ned' in the same paragraph, let alone sentence. Further ad hominem comments will be deleted. -
protestant at 03:45 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
And how is the HadCRUT3 being smoothed? The incline from mid 1900's in your graph seems to be from 0,1C to 0,8C = 0,7C when the properly smoothed data shows only less than 0,45C. Minimum Roughness being used? And you didn't address what Ljungqvist actually said in his paper (see citation at #57) and neither did you address the proplem of comparability between proxies and temperature records. As I said before proxies are not as accurate, and if they do not follow temperatures as closely in the 1900's it also means they propably do not reproduce the temperatures of the MWP as accurately either. Therefore you can not do such a comparison, period. This has also been discussed in McShane & Wyner (and those guys are statisticians as you might now). And one of the basic principles in statistics is not to combine two series which have been measured differently, and this point is being completely ignored over and over again (here and elsewhere). -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel - I would suggest looking at SoD's excellent Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics. Use the search function on his website - as I recall he has multiple pages on the subject. Gerlich et al 2009 is a horrible paper - there are plenty of discussions across the web discussing them in detail, which are quite easy to find. I personally regret the time I spent reading it, as I will never recover those wasted hours - the more advanced version of this page covers it pretty well, but SoD digs in to much greater depth. Arthur Smith is worth reading on it as well, as is the excellent peer-reviewed Halpern et al 2010 reply. The other major point of my post was in regards to blocked band widening and deepening due to increased GHG's and increasing altitude of effective emission, seen in the graphs here. Reduced emissivity to space means reduced power to space - an energy imbalance; the temperature will change until said imbalance is zeroed out again. -
dana1981 at 03:36 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
protestant #57 - I already discussed this in the second comment. Ljungqvist has very poor proxy coverage over the end of the 20th century (33–50% of his proxies). Moreover, there is little difference between Ljungqvist's proxies and the instrumental temperature data, until those last few decades.
-
damorbel at 03:17 AM on 24 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR, I find statements like this "SoD has written far more (and far better) than I on that subject" are not verifiable without a link. Would you care to provide one so we can discover the point you are making? In 329 VeryTallGuy wrote "This is the best simple explanation I've ever seen of it and may clarify for you (thanks to Science of Doom): You are referring no doubt to the diagram in your post I do hope there are better explanations. Your diagram does not show how CO2 or any other GHG has a warming effect; all it shows is the standard averge lapse rate which is known to arise from the increase in pressure on descending through the atmosphere. What it also shows is that, when the Earth gets warmer it... does... indeed... get warmer! What your diagram shows applies equally to the heating effect of the Sun at different latitudes; there are quite different tempertures at different latitudes because of the lower angle of the Sun in the sky; it's called the cosine effect; it is one of the reasons for different climates in the first place! To have a diagram with the tropopause at the same height for different surface temperatures just illustrates how far from observational measurements it is possible to get; changes in the surface temperature are always reflected in the height of the tropopause. The height of the tropopause is governed by a number of factors of which the surface temperature is one. An equally important matter is the Stratosphere where the temperature increases with height, very nearly to the surface temperature, almost reversing all the temperature drop due to the lapse rate. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:16 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I would have to say that I actually did learn a thing or two about Google Scholar from Poptech in this process. Not an easy pill to swallow but I accept it. But Poptech has yet to learn the lesson that I was teaching in that numbers require context. Poptech's position is somewhat like a guy running down the street screaming, "I've got $850!!" quickly followed but a creditor with a bill for $85,000. -
pbjamm at 03:02 AM on 24 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"You seem confused in that you believe you or anyone else here has any remote ability to teach me anything. I find that humorous." I find it very very sad. By your own admission you are not a climatologist but a computer dork like myself*. There are, at least on occasion, actual climatologists and experts who show up on this site to share their knowledge. If you think they can not teach you anything about this subject then you are deluded. * not exactly like me since I am eager to learn -
protestant at 02:59 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
#15: You are using a 133month smoothing, when one was discussing about about the divergence POST 2000's. So what you just did was that hid the divergence with smoothing. How does it look like when looked more closely, HadCRUT vs GIStemp since 1995:What you also stated that why should "polar amplification be ignored". GISTEMP HAS NO MORE DATA IN THE ARCTIC THAN ANYONE ELSE! They just interpolate it. Interpolating DOES NOT mean they have more data or that it would be more accurate. There is also LESS multidecadal dynamics in GIStemp, clearly visible when comparing detrended data:
(both graphs end in 2003 so the recent decline in HadCRUT isnt shown here)
I wonder if that is because Model E cannot reproduce the 1910-1940 warming and the 1940-1970 decline.
Moderator Response: [DB] Last warning: please refrain from using all-caps. Thanks! -
Tom Curtis at 02:54 AM on 24 February 2011Hockey Stick Own Goal
HR @54, Hegerl 2007 notes that: "Consistent with earlier results (Hegerl et al. 2003), a response to solar forcing cannot be robustly distinguished. This can be due to either the climate response to solar forcing being small, or to low-frequency variations in solar forcing being different from estimates used here. The latter is quite possible given large uncertainties in these reconstructions (Lean et al. 2002)." In fact, Hegerl produces the most coherent results, ie, with climate sensitivity of solar and GHG forcings being the same, if solar forcings are half that of the estimates which he used. With solar forcings only 1/4 of that which he used, the sensitivity of GHG and solar forcings will still be very close, within limits of error. In other words, more recent reconstructions of solar variability make sensitivities fit better with the AGW picture, not worse. Having said that, this is an area with room for substantial refinement as shown by the significant differences in scaling factors for different temperature reconstructions.
Prev 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 Next
