Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 Next
Comments 95101 to 95150:
-
RW1 at 15:51 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Tom Curtis (RE: 86), "it comes from the incorrect assumption that line by line radiation models do not already apply that effect already" Where is the documentation that the halving is already applied? That's all I'm asking for. I've looked around and cannot find it. -
muoncounter at 15:50 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
Chemist You're citing the World Climate Report: Chief Editor - Patrick Michaels, as if it's a scholarly source? In the post in question, he seems to take issue with the IPCC's sea level rise rate, quoted in the blog as: the average rate of global mean sea level rise is estimated from tide gauge data to be 1.8±0.5 mm yr–1 He then goes on to praise GPS-corrected sea level data, which concludes: when compared to the GIA-corrected data, the GPS-corrected data are better “both on the global and the regional scale, leading to a reconciled global rate of geocentric sea level rise of 1.61±0.19 mm/yr over the past century in good agreement with the most recent estimates”. -- emphasis added Are you seriously suggesting there is a meaningful difference between these two rates? May I ask what branch of chemistry you practice? What chemicals are involved? -
Ron Crouch at 15:47 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
How hot is Earth? The Worldwide Surface Temperature speaks for itself, even when it is derived from multiple sources. But then I expect that the skeptic solution would be to shoot the bear (after provoking it with stones). -
scaddenp at 15:43 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Yes, hence my attempt to show that science had it right by direct empirical means since I despaired that RW1 would understand the calculation. -
Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Muoncounter @85, it comes from the incorrect assumption that line by line radiation models do not already apply that effect already, and then applying it again to the output of the line by line models. -
muoncounter at 15:28 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1: You've linked to a 3 year old Marc Morono paper written for the senator from the state ofOklahomaPetrodollars. This isn't 'controversy,' its junk. For example: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. Even for 2007, that was blatantly false. -
calyptorhynchus at 15:27 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
#12 Riccardo "We are not here to Save the Planet, but to save human souls." How can we save human souls without saving the planet, where are the bodies that these souls inhabit to live?Moderator Response: [DB] I believe you mean BP's meanderings in his comment at 14 above. -
muoncounter at 15:20 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
KR, You may recall the last time we went around this tree (the endless Lindzen and Choi thread), this came from the assumption that 50% of emitted IR photons go up and out - 50% down. -
scaddenp at 15:12 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
Chemist1 - all that link shows is what wallowing in a sewer will get you. Firstly, the paper does not support the claims the tin-hats claim of it. Secondly, it was also wrong and revised by Schwatz himself in 2008. It would help to link to the science paper instead of breathless political posturing. Controversy is one thing, but controversy supported by data and published in peer-reviewed science is another. -
Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp, RW1 - George White has stated that running the HITRAN models results in an imbalance of 3.6 W/m^2 (here, post #19). And then he, for some reason, halves that value. Which I cannot consider as other than a blatant mistake.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed URL link. -
Bern at 14:42 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 @ 16: I haven't read through that paper yet (and I suspect the statistical discussions are beyond my skills in that area), but the site selection immediately leaps out at me as being very, well, odd for Australia. For comparison of precipitation, for example, 3 out of 4 sites in Australia are in the "red centre" - very sparsely populated areas which get very irregular rainfall. It seems very odd, considering the high density of good weather records in the rest of the country... @mod response at 15: thanks, but I was mostly commenting on the fact that there doesn't appear to be a handy link to those graphics anywhere on the standard page layout - I've previously found it by searching for the blog posts that mention it.Moderator Response: [DB] Fair point. While the link I provided originally appeared in this blog post, they seem to be unreferenced anywhere easily findable. A fix is in the pipeline; stay tuned for future developments. -
Chemist1 at 14:38 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
The title of the link desribes some of the issues with models being unreliable in peer review like this one: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 The reason I am posting this link is to show there is considerable controversy and evidence of GCM's not being reliable or valid from 1900 to 2011. -
RW1 at 14:29 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
I'm not following. -
scaddenp at 14:23 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
If George was right, (ie should be 1.85W/m2), then the model result that calculated 3.7W/m2 would not agree with the actual measurements of IR. Similarly, if you compare spectrum measured in 1979 with that in 2004, if the incremental change in IR was wrong then the measurement wouldnt agree. This is experimental verification that 3.7W/m2 for doubling is correct. Furthermore, you check that the change in IR is due to CO2 by looking at the spectrum. -
Chemist1 at 14:16 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only. Future comments containing links without some description of why you are posting it and why you think it's relevant to the discussion on this thread will be deleted. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 14:14 PM on 21 February 2011Models are unreliable
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+models+unreliable&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=2009&as_vis=0Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no link only. -
Chemist1 at 14:10 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
To get the discussion back: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/09/gps-aids-in-sea-level-rise-debate/ Thoughts? I do not want to flood the thread with references. Let's go at it one at a time, if we can. -
Chemist1 at 14:08 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The idea may be established but its reliability is not. But I will defer further reference to GIA to the appropriate thread as per the moderator's comment. -
Chemist1 at 14:04 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bibliovermis here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928 -
Tom Curtis at 14:00 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
HR @152, pointing out a limited truth without context in such a way as is likely to deceive is a form of lying. People who do it are said to be telling half truths, and are appropriately described as disingenuous. Had you pointed out that there are natural forcings that have caused polar amplification in the past (half the truth), but that those forcings are now acting in opposition of polar amplification (the whole truth), then I would not have called you disingenuous. But had you done that, of course, you would not have opened up any doubt as to whether the current arctic amplification is natural, or anthropogenic in origin. -
RW1 at 13:58 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
scaddenp (RE: 79), I don't understand, sorry. -
scaddenp at 13:52 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
(Oops, the above is response to comments from RW1 at A swift kick in the ice -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - I have responded Climate sensitivity is low -
scaddenp at 13:48 PM on 21 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
RW1 - there is another way to look at whether the radiative change is correct or not without going into the mathematics deeply. Step 1/ assume scientists have the maths and physics right. Use the model to calculate TOA emissions. Not just the energy, but also the spectra. Compare with REAL measured spectra. Step 2/ Assuming that was right, you can see whether the calculation for incremental CO2 increase is also correct by doing the same procedure but doing it for different decades and seeing whether the change matches the change in CO2. Sound fair enough test? In fact you could do the calculation for downward IR at surface or for outward IR by satellite. For results, see the papers on this Now lets see George White produce some calculations from his approach that can match these empirical results. -
jatkeison at 13:42 PM on 21 February 2011Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
This is a terriffic resource! I have been linking to SKS more and more often on my facebook Wall, and get a good response. (I have over 4,000 friends there.) I took the liberty of posting this with a short intro as a Note at Skeptical Science's Quick Guide Toolkit to Global Warming Baloney Numbering the list makes it even more impressive, IMHO. Thanks again. -
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
The correct thread is this one. The issue I was raising was not climate sensitivity, or the Earth's energy balance. It is that RW1's self proclaimed "critical thinking" is neither. I am not going to bury that point by pretending that whether or not the doubling CO2 would have an atmospheric forcing of 3.7 w/m^2 or 1.85 w/m^2 (as Geoge White would have us believe) is a matter open to discussion. The later opinion is simply an error, an error only possible in some one who does not even know the meaning of "atmospheric forcing". The correct response in this situation is not to discuss this on some other thread but for RW1 to admit the error, and to stop swallowing uncritically any sort of nonsense churned out by denier hacks. -
Bern at 13:33 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
BTW, is there a handy link anywhere to the SKS graphics? I can't see one up the top of the page anywhere...Moderator Response: [DB] Try here. -
Bern at 13:31 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bibliovermis, you're absolutely right - I had second thoughts about that post almost immediately after I hit the "submit" button - luckily, the mods here are on the ball and deleted it. :-) Back on topic - the rate of change projected by all the climate models is very high. A common skeptic argument is that there have been large changes in climate previously. Does anyone know of a chart which plots, say, the temp rise at the end of the last ice age (even just the steepest 1,000 years) against the temp profile as presented in Figure 2 above? I should probably dig up the source data and chart it myself - I'd like to do the comparison for a presentation I'm putting together for work. CO2 & temp would be a useful pair of charts to illustrate how what's happening now differs from past episodes of climate change. There's also an interesting post over at ClimateSight about the potential for mass extinction as a result of warming events. -
RW1 at 12:49 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 209), What thread do you want to take it to? Moderators - any suggestion?Moderator Response: [DB] KR has suggested the How sensitive is our climate? thread, while RickG has suggested the Measuring Earth's energy imbalance thread. Depending on your desired focus, pick the more appropriate one. Or use the search function to find one you feel most appropriate. Thanks! -
RW1 at 12:49 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 209), Let's take this over to the appropriate thread. -
scaddenp at 12:35 PM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
HR - why would the fact that natural forcing have acted in the past (and act today) give anyone palpitations? Someone is denying it? However, the natural forcing that might have resulted in ice-free pole are NOT acting now. -
Bibliovermis at 12:31 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern, Implications of "being on the payroll" as the basis for being a supporter are unwelcome here, regardless of the position being supported. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus @ 205... Just trying to extend a little in order to build a connection. I actually believe that the hypotheses being put forth from the skeptic side are not consistent with observations. Low climate sensitivity for Lindzen just doesn't jibe with paleoclimate reconstructions. And there are various fundamental problems for GCR's being a serious driving force in climate. -
Tom Curtis at 11:59 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @189, George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet. As I said, this is an obsolete model, built in the early 1990's. More recent and more accurate models have since been built which refine the prediction to 3.7 w/m^2, a result consistent by satellite observations. When you have a dispute between a single amateur and the whole of the world's scientific community on a single well known value, it is not "critical thinking" to simply accept that word of the amateur. It is gullibility. It is no less gullibility if people cannot find published papers establishing some thing taught in first year climate science courses. For some reason, journal editors are loathe to accept papers that merely reestablish some well known result (unless it is done with a novel and interesting method). However, in this case it is not true that nobody could point you to an academic source for this value. They, after all, will have pointed you to the IPCC at minimum. That you and George White do not understand the definition of "atmospheric forcing" is not their fault. Nor is it "critical thinking". Rather, it is simple ignorance, and in anyone who has read up on climate science as you claim to have done, willful ignorance. -
Marcus at 11:39 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who." Yes, & your answer proves you to be a conspiracy theorist-not much better than a Young Earth Creationist or a 9/11 Troofer. I'm sorry, but *when* have you ever proven that your conclusions are based on "logic & evidence"? You've just revealed that you believe the whole of Climatology is just one long conspiracy-all financed by an as yet undisclosed group/individual. I see nothing logical or evidence based in that. My conclusions, by comparison, are based on reading *all* the available data, & using a mind that's been *trained* to read scientific papers (as I have a B.Sc (Hons) & work in a scientific field) to determine whether what they're saying is accurate or not. What the majority of the world's climatologists fits in with *everything* we know about how the world works-& has yet to be overturned by any competing hypotheses/theories-whereas the Denialists (like yourself) rely mostly on conspiracy theories & straw-man arguments. So, based on that choice, guess which side I'm going with? -
RickG at 11:37 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. So, by your own words you have no problem with GHG physics. As for climate sensitivity and feedbacks I was going to recommend the thread, "Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements", but reading through it I see you have already been taken to task on your misunderstandings quite well. It also seems in that thread that you also seem to ignore the plethara of peer reviewed literature and care to learn no "real science". Again I'll ask you, list your sources that back up your claims for a large positive feedback nullifying the GHG forcings. You know to do this you also have to deny the 5 major global temperature measurements (GISS, HadCrut3v, NCDC, RSS & UAH) that all show significant warming is happening. Also, you seem to be drifting off topic, there are more appropriate threads concerning feedbacks and forcings. -
scaddenp at 11:36 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - what I want to see is your evidence. Your logic so far has been based on invalid assumption. If you want to talk science, then please go to appropriate thread and we can try to continue. Very important - have you got your head around Ramanthan and Coatley 1978? Science of Doom has some excellent aids to understanding the RTEs but discussions about where the 3.7W/m2 etc is going to be pointless without grasping these at some level. -
Marcus at 11:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
"On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories." In fairness, they don't even have alternative *theories*-they have *hypotheses*-ones which haven't even been supported by additional research. Lindzen's "Iris Effect", for example, has yet to receive any support from actual observations of cloud behaviour. Its not looking good for the Denialist Cult right now. -
guinganbresil at 11:28 AM on 21 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Rob Painting - I see that your graphic is missing respiration and photosynthesis:
It appears that respiration and photosynthesis drives the CO2, O2 and pH profiles of the oceans...
-
RW1 at 11:27 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Marcus (RE: 203) Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. I'm basing my conclusions on logic and evidence - not who has financed who. -
Marcus at 11:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
@RW1 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." Oh yeah, unlike your denialist mates, who are often *proven* to be financed by the Fossil Fuel Industry. Are you suggesting that Arrhenius & all the other physicists & climatologists over the whole of the 19th & 20th centuries were also just trying to show 'what their financiers are more or less looking for them to discover'? If so, then that's a conspiracy with one *hell* of a lag time. With the sentence above, you've pretty much proved that you're not only a denier, but also a bit of a simpleton to boot. If these are the best "arguments" you can come up with to 'debunk' climate change, then its no wonder you probably spend most of your time hanging out with PopTech, Monctkon & Anthony Watts! -
RW1 at 11:22 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion?" I'd respond, but the moderator is deleting my posts, so I'm done here. You're asking good questions, BTW. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:12 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... I apologize for taking this thread off topic here but I have some more questions. So, on one hand we have some 10 thousand-odd climate scientists (not sure what the number actually is) and dozens of the most prestigious scientific organizations on one hand. On the other hand we have maybe a dozen or so top level scientists (Lindzen et al) who have put forth alternative theories. There is the possibility that the larger groups have made the mistake. Or there is the possibility that the smaller group is making the mistake. Laying aside any given actions that should be taken, who are you more willing to bet your children's future on? Are you really willing to bet that so many scientists are somehow pulling a ruse, ignoring some elemental aspects of science, in order to support their preferred conclusion? -
RW1 at 11:08 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
( -Snip- )Moderator Response: [DB] You persist in posting things that are not only off-topic, but in violation of the comments policy, such as allegations of impropriety. Your comments must stand on their own based on the science (preferably with peer-reviewed sources to back them up) or not at all. -
Bibliovermis at 10:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1, I politely suggest that you apply your critical thinking skills to your base assumptions. Independently validated, empirical researched is not overturned by vast conspiracy notions and lack of understanding. -
José M. Sousa at 10:54 AM on 21 February 2011Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Hi! No problem. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to Alexandre as well. -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - "their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." That is utter unsubstantiated nonsense that as far as I can see arises from an extremely poor understanding of science, and frankly looks like violation of comments policy. This is not "interpreting" data. Its actually doing the maths which you appear not to be. You can what political opinions you like but you cannot have your own version of reality. If you cant do the maths yourself, then unfortunately you have to accept the result from those who can. The 3.7W/m2 is result of very complex numerical integration; there is no "opinion" in it. If you want to dispute it, then refute the equations, but you cant do that with a half-baked piece of simplistic nonsense that this "gain" stuff is.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Yes, indeed it was. Please do not continue responding to these kind of comments. -
muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Gentle reminder: This is an ice thread. Sensitivity and energy imbalance discussions have their own threads; although I doubt if anyone wants to start that up again. Conspiracies, 'financiers,' etc are never on topic. -
pbjamm at 10:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1@193 "Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'." And with that we move from discussing Scientific Theory to Conspiracy Theory. -
RW1 at 10:45 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
KR (RE: 191), I'm not getting into that with you here, nor am I going to speak for George.
Prev 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 Next
