Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Next
Comments 95351 to 95400:
-
David Horton at 07:58 AM on 20 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
Good work Mac. A small point - "Actually fire and smoke is necessary for some plants and seeds to grow in parts of Australia" - isn't true. It would be more accurate to say that "the growth and germination of many plants all over the world can be enhanced by smoke sometimes". This smoke thing isn't an adaptation of Australian plants, isn't an adaptation to fire, and isn't related to smoke from burning Australian vegetation. Your point is still valid (smoke, like CO2, is "good for plants") though. -
Garbfonkel at 07:47 AM on 20 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
Oh, I sure recognize the first argument about cigarette smoke. I've heard it a lot of times. Great comparison between the arguments! -
Alex Poole at 06:46 AM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Here's the most conservative estimate for the denominator that I could find. It comes from The Atlas of Climate Change. I've scanned in a part of it here. Using the term 'climate change', they searched the database at Web of Science and found 17,761 papers published between 1971 and 2005.
Bearing in mind that they define Climate change thus (my emphasis):
'A statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external radiative forcing, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. The UNFCCC, in its Article 1, defines it as: "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods." This Atlas generally follows the UNFCCC's distinction between "climate change" attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and "climate variability" attributable to natural causes. Although often used to mean climate change, global warming is only one aspect of this - the increase in global mean temperature.'
850 papers is 4.8% of 17,761, making it very close to KR's estimate at comment 238.
-
Alex Poole at 06:41 AM on 20 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I've been moved to post on this site for the first time due to the utterly depressing nature of this thread. Poptech - I'd never heard of you before this, and I wish you no ill will, but after 600+ comments you've come across as someone who's much more interested in arguing rhetorical points for the sake of it, rather than investing time in learning about climate science. Your debating style reminds me of an evasive politician, and as such you lose a significant amount of credibility. As for the rest of you commenting here, you're all understandably exasperated with this, but it's made you lose your cool many times, which also diminishes your credibility. Please find some way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, because it damages the reputation of this otherwise useful resource. -
muoncounter at 06:13 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: "as more ice melts, you get closer and closer to North Pole, which means lower and lower insolation." Warm water seems to melt ice quite well. From a study quoted in Science Daily 28 Jan 2011: ... the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, ... "Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," "Furthermore, increasing temperatures can lead to increases in evaporation, which can lead to increasing snow accumulations, which in turn increase the earth's surface albedo and have a cooling effect, which in turn can cause more ice to grow back." Wishful thinking, RW1? Countered by Markus et al 2009, who find that warming temperatures are pushing the melt onset date earlier and the freeze onset later. For the entire Arctic, the melt season length has increased by about 20 days over the last 30 years. Largest trends of over 10 days/decade are seen for Hudson Bay, the East Greenland Sea, the Laptev/East Siberian seas, and the Chukchi/Beaufort seas. Those trends are statistically significant at the 99% level. So the time duration for your cooling-due-to-increased-albedo is shrinking. And isn't that increased snowfall occurring in the winter, when Arctic albedo is irrelevant because there's little or no daylight? -
muoncounter at 05:44 AM on 20 February 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Continued from comment here by Norman. "The interesting thing about the GISS anomaly map above is the choise of base=line (1951-1980). This was a relatively cooler period of time and to use that to show Arctic warming may distort what has recently been going on. I went to the GISS page ... GISS Arctic temp map using 2000-2010 as the baseline. " A baseline needs to be a long time period -- its supposed to represent an average condition, so that anomalies are relative to that average. Your 10 year baseline doesn't accomplish that. It is interesting to choose an historically relevant baseline and look at the relative anomalies. Prior to 1946, carbon emissions were increasing at a steady rate; however, after WW2, carbon emission rates exploded. So much so that the cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels after WW2 virtually eclipses all CO2 emissions in the prior 150+ years (you can verify this with data and graphics readily available at CDIAC). So 1900-1946 is a relevant baseline period. Here is the anomaly for 1970-1980.
Here is the 1980-1990 anomaly.
Fast forward, here is the 2000-2010 anomaly.
Look at the numbers in the upper right hand corner, which are the estimated global means for the period mapped. It's obvious that warming rates dramatically increased in the '80s, nearly 4 decades after the rapid increase in CO2 emissions began. Considering that it takes time for the warming effect of CO2 to be fully realized (see the 40 year delay thread) that result is not surprising.
Moderator Response: [DB] Your images aren't showing up anymore (and the links don't work so I no canna fix 'em). [mc] Aargh - should work now. -
sidd at 05:40 AM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Concur with zinfan94, I too calculate the same heat flux into the deep (deeper than 700m) ocean as the upper (less than 700m deep) ocean. I also find interesting the phase shift between the model and the data, which only has some small discussion on page 9. sidd -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:36 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Norman... Remember, we're trying to look at climate, not weather. Your choice of the most recent 10 years as a base line is wrong on many levels. 1) It's not statistically significant (too few years). 2) Comparing the past year to the most recent decade tells you absolutely nothing. Stick with a 30 year baseline. -
Albatross at 05:00 AM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Thanks for the feedback Zinfan, I am pretty busy right now, which means that I cannot devote as much time to this as I would like. Yes, it will be interesting to hear Trenberth's thoughts on this, and I'd be curious to know what Pielke Snr's and other contrarians' spin will be on this. Ari, I realise they do not have any new observational data for the deep ocean, but surely their model calculates deep water temperatures, b/c they do calculate the contribution from the deep water to the SSL? Then again, a closer read of zinfan's post suggests that the deep water contribution to SSL was determined as a residual.... Anyways, if zinfan's maths is correct then this paper is very exciting indeed, at least in terms of trying to close the planetary energy budget.Moderator Response: (DB) My first read-through yielded the same interpretation as Zinfan. -
zinfan94 at 04:33 AM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Albatross #8 Ari Jokimaki #9 and Ken Lambert #10 I read the paper last night, and found it very interesting. They used gridded satellite altimeter data for sea level and compared this to gridded ocean bottom pressure (OBP) from GRACE. They then took the upper level (700m) ocean heat content (OHC) info from XBT/ARGO and translated that into a steric sea level (SSL) contribution. The contribution of eustatic rise from ice sheet and glacier melt is removed, leaving the SSL contribution from the deep ocean heating in each particular grid cell. In these two paragraphs from the paper, they explain the deductive reasoning: [30] So far, we have mostly assessed the upper ocean (0–700 m) data, satellite SSH and OBP data, and compared them with the model. In this section we focus our attention on the deep ocean. Figure 12 shows the model deep ocean SSL below 700 m. Note that the seasonal variability in the deep ocean SSL is rather weak, particularly for the annual amplitude. This is consistent with the previous data assessment, suggesting that deep oceans contribute very little to the seasonal variability of the sea level. However, the story is different for the regional trends. The model suggests a significant deep ocean warming trend, particularly in the North Atlantic and along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). The warming features appear closely related to the oceanic circulation and dynamics. As such they may provide an explanation as to why altimetry SLR cannot be adequately explained by the sum of upper ocean (0–700 m) SSL and ocean mass change calculated from GRACE (discussed in section 3). [31] In order to verify a possible hypothesis that connects the deep ocean warming to the missing part of the sea level budget closure, the following two conditions should be fulfilled: (1) The model deep ocean warming should be consistent with available bottom water measurements, and (2) its combination with the in situ upper ocean SSL and GRACE data should explain the altimetry SLR in both global mean and regional trends. In the following we discuss these two conditions in more detail. They estimate that eep ocean heating contributes about 1.1 mm of the observed 3.1 mm per year of sea level rise (SLR). The paper also shows significant regional deep ocean warming variation, with the Southern Ocean and portions of the Atlantic warming much faster. The authors compare the regional results with other studies and discuss many similarities and a few discrepancies. Although not discussed in the paper, this amount of SLR should translate into the deep ocean acting as a heat sink with a rough estimate that the deep ocean is taking as much as 70 x 10^20 J per year of the planetary energy imbalance, roughly the same as the upper 700m level. In essence, this would close the planetary energy budget, and confirm the planet is heating about 0.9 W per square meter, the estimated top of atmosphere (TOA) imbalance from AGW models (and roughly confirmed by measurements of outgoing longwave radiation). Dr. Trenberth has published extensively on the planetary energy imbalance, and it will be interesting to hear his views on the Song and Colberg results. This paper may go a long way in helping resolve the famous “Trenberth Travesty”. -
muoncounter at 03:46 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Norman: Don't you think a comparison of what happened last month to what happened in the last 10 years has a major sample bias issue? Like comparing what happened yesterday with what happened last week? For further discussion of recent surface temperatures, go to Global warming stopped in ... -
Ari Jokimäki at 03:32 AM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
This new paper or Purkey & Johnson do not depend on the 0,64 W/sq.m figure. It's just used in Purkey & Johnson to compare their result. This new paper doesn't seem to use it in any way. -
Norman at 03:21 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
The interesting thing about the GISS anomaly map above is the choise of base=line (1951-1980). This was a relatively cooler period of time and to use that to show Arctic warming may distort what has recently been going on. I went to the GISS page (At this time I do not know how to paste a map on a post so I can only send a link) and put in this last decade for the baseline. The Global temp for January is lower than the last decade and the Arctic warming does not look too severe except around Greenland. Going to the Arctic sea ice page this is explaine by a negative Arctic Oscillation: Quote from the page "Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. The Arctic oscillation persisted in its strong negative phase for most of the month, keeping ice extent low." The negative phase kept parts of the Arctic warmer but created much colder weather in other areas as this cold air was able to move much further south. GISS Arctic temp map using 2000-2010 as the baseline. -
ranyl at 02:36 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
As someone else has eluded to, for the last 4 years the arcitc sea ice level has been well below 2SD deviations from the 1979-2000 mean. This means all things being natural variation that there has been a 1:100 year at least event in the arctic every summer for the last 4 which would be a rarity I'd of thought. It is most likely from sea ice extent estimates and arctic temperature reconstructions that the arctic hasn't had this little ice in the summer and this high a temperatures since the thermal maximum if not longer and the trend for temeprature change in keeping with the Northern hemisphere insolation averages was for a slow cooling until 100ppm of CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere in a very short period, when the arctic temperature suddenly started to rise again. The arctic really should be cooling all things natural! Due to natural variation 2010 should have been on the cold side, unless of course the recent paper in nature saying the solar max and heat in put min. is correct. However if it is correct then there is no accounting for the LIA cooling other than the very slight drop in CO2 at the that time, which would mean CS to CO2 is very significant, so lets maintain that low sunspot activity means lower general earth temperatures, thus the none activity from 2008-2010 should have been a signifcant cooling effect of about 0.1-0.15C from the mean, La Nina (which was strong) and El-Nino (which wasn't strong in early 2010 until May) somewhat cancle each other out but still overall a cooling effect! Do wonder if the earth has slipped into a new phase with a higher median temperature with 2010 representing a low year in the natural variance? Would be in keeping with chaos for the climate to start to do jumps or leaps from one phase of being to the next. Anyway it is more likely that despite being much warmer in the pliocene and previous inter-glacials that the arctic ocean was still only free of ice in the summer. Virtually ice free summers do seem inevitable by 2050 at the latest, this is sobering stuff, for it will accelerate warming locally as water will warm up alot more than it did basking in the long summer sun and will release this heat in the Autumn. Lots of amplification potential and less latent heat exchanges which mean the artic winter to summer temperature differential will be amplified. Interesting times, new weather patterns to emerge, extreme events to witness and new arctic tourist industry to set up. Swim with the, ?who knows? Lets face it CO2 emissions aren't seriously going down any time soon so what were does leave us? -
neilrieck at 02:28 AM on 20 February 2011Climate Models: Learning From History Rather Than Repeating It
Way back in December 2006 I attended a lecture on "climate change" at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics where the presented stated that "all climate models predict warming" and only differ on the point of no return. I just stumbled onto this lecture which can be viewed by clicking the following link: From here to eternity: Global Warming in Geologic Time -
angusmac at 02:28 AM on 20 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
The MWP is is alive and well and it is shown in AR4. Northern hemisphere temperature variations from AR4 Figure 6.10c are shown below. I have deleted the instrumental temperature from HadCRUT2v data so that only proxy records are compared.
Note that there is a distinct MWP comparable to the current warming period.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Yes, if you hide the incline (wherein we've equalled the maximum temperatures reached in the Holocene Altithermal), then a regional temperature excursion like the MWP does become more evident. Do you have a point with this exercise? -
RW1 at 01:34 AM on 20 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 41), "RW1 @33, in 30 you quoted 0.2 w/m^2 per degree centigrade of global warming. That would mean the effect of polar amplification is 0.6 w/m^2 at 3 degrees of global warming, or 3.6% of the total effect. Of course, the figure you quoted is that derived from models which are underestimating the extent of sea ice loss in the arctic. Based on observation, the net forcing for the ice and snow loss to date is 0.62 w/m^2, and we have not yet experienced a full degree of global warming. That suggests the total effect could result in 7 to 10% additional warming, or up to an additional degree centigrade by the end of the century." Not really. There becomes less and less ice to melt, and you'll never melt it all because half of the year the Artic is dark and the ice grows back. Also, as more ice melts, you get closer and closer to North Pole, which means lower and lower insolation. Furthermore, increasing temperatures can lead to increases in evaporation, which can lead to increasing snow accumulations, which in turn increase the earth's surface albedo and have a cooling effect, which in turn can cause more ice to grow back. -
Ken Lambert at 01:05 AM on 20 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Ari Jokimaki #9 & zinfan94 #7 If the above paper is using Purkey & Johnson quoting Lyman 2010 viz: "From 1993 to 2008 the warming of the upper 700 m of the global ocean has been reported as equivalent to a heat flux of 0.64 (±0.11) W m–2 applied over the Earth’s surface area (Lyman et al. 2010)." - then it is probably wrong. The 0.64W/sq.m is derived from linearizing a step jump in OHC over the 2002-04 period which has been extensively discussed elsewhere on this blog. -
Ann at 20:37 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
@17 HPB “From what I can see and knowledge of history, like everything else on this planet it goes in cycles. One minute we are hot another cold. One minute theres ice and the next there is not. I can remember as a child rivers (salt) freezing over in southern England that you could walk on.” We have had some slight variations in the climate in historical times, for instance the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age, but you shouldn’t compare f.i. a time in which it was possible to ice skate on the Thames in Winter (the little ice age) with a time in which the whole of Europe was covered in an ice layer 2 kilometers thick (a genuine Ice Age). Likewise, the worst case scenario: triggering a runaway greenhouse effect would have consequences that cannot in the least be compared to the medieval warming period. It is true that drastic climate changes have taken place in a more distant past due to natural causes so strictly speaking the current warming is not unprecedented in the entire history of the earth. But you have to understand that these past climate changes have led to mass extinctions, and a virtual standstill of the evolution for millions of years (look up for instance “snowball earth” or the “perm-trias mass extinction event”). The argument that sea ice melt or temperature trends have occurred in the past is in itself not comforting at all. I think this is a major problem with most people. They still think that climate change means we’re going to have a climate comparable to the south of France (at least that’s what people in Belgium think ). They even welcome the thought. We also know that the arctic regions were once fertile and that Mammoths were frozen in situ as they grazed these areas. In Roman times grapes tropically grown fruit was being farmed in Scotland and CO2 level were supposedly higher then than now as well as temperatures higher than now. Average global temperatures are currently higher than during the MWP, and still rising. CO2 levels have never been this high in historical times. They are the highest in 800000 years and very likely the highest since the origin of mankind, 3 million years ago. We are creating conditions on this planet that have not prevailed since the dawn of mankind. The consequences are difficult to predict, but knowing from the past how strong the earth’t climate may react to different conditions, we should prepare for the worst. -
johnkg at 20:26 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#611 Thanks Muoncounter, I no longer need to read any more of this car-crash of a thread. -
Ann at 20:03 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
One pretty strong argument you can use in the discussion with the deniers is that even gas and oil companies believe that the arctic ice is disappearing (although it is still unclear whether this means that they endorse AGW). In every case they are in full battle for the rights to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Sea.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Even Shell Oil Company, to their credit, is on record as accepting the findings of the IPCC AR4. -
funglestrumpet at 19:08 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Thanks for going to all the trouble to ensure that the public are as well informed as possible. A prodigious output for a one man site. Unfortunately, for every day that action is delayed because the public is presented with conflicting information, a lot of it unsupported, or supported in a misleading way, vote-seeking politicians have an immediate need to hang fire. As things stand, to quote Bob Dylan, the 'sceptics' are 'winning the war while losing every battle' (Bob Dylan). -
nigelj at 19:06 PM on 19 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Marcus #28 Ill be back. An idea might be what RC do and allow an open thread for no holds barred discussion on anything. More on topic Im in New zealand we have just had our hottest January - Febuary on record. Ive been having an intersting lengthy debate wth some political hacks using SC as a reference source. Im Gandalf. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10701558&pnum=2 -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:23 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
How can I sample results that I do not have and cannot obtain? Why will you not disclose your sampling method? The method matters little or not at all. Why can't you make up your own? You're not good enough with Google Scholar? -
Ari Jokimäki at 18:05 PM on 19 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
dorlomin #1: I didn't see mention of aquifers in this study. dorlomin #2: Read the Purkey & Johnson mentioned above. They seem to suggest that Southern Ocean plays a large role (by circulation) in the deep ocean warming. Andrea Silverthorne #3: Methane has not risen much during the study period of this paper (1993-2008). Atmopheric methane concentration has been quite steady since 1999 (although it has been rising again since 2007). There's also Dlugokencky et al. (2009), who say that "Near-zero CH4 growth in the Arctic during 2008 suggests we have not yet activated strong climate feedbacks from permafrost and CH4 hydrates." By the way, there's a new paper out that gives satellite measurements of methane concentration. actually thoughtfull #5: It seems to me that the amount of warming discussed in Purkey & Johnson might not be enough to close that budget, but it would be nice to see actual analysis on that. Here's a relevant quote from Purkey & Johnson: "From 1993 to 2008 the warming of the upper 700 m of the global ocean has been reported as equivalent to a heat flux of 0.64 (±0.11) W m–2 applied over the Earth’s surface area (Lyman et al. 2010). Here, we showed the heat uptake by AABW contributes about another 0.10 W m–2 to the global heat budget." Albatross #8: They didn't calculate deep ocean OHC in this paper. They used an ocean model to determine the deep ocean situation, so they don't actually have any new observational data. -
Tom Curtis at 17:37 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Albatross @40, yes, I love the fact that Arrhenius got it so right so long ago. The one area in which he slipped up was Antarctica, which was a virtual unknown at the time. The first attempt to reach the South Pole did not even set out until four years after his paper. SFAIK, there are three crucial distinctions about Antarctica. The first is that rather than sea ice, it has ice sheets which cannot melt to bedrock in a season, or even in a hundred years; thus side stepping the mechanism of polar amplification. The second is the uninterrupted ocean of the Antarctic ocean allows circumpolar currents and winds that drastically reduce heat transfer between the tropics and the antarctic. The original mechanism identified by Arrhenius only works because the polar regions recieve a significant amount of heat from the tropics, and as the Antarctic receives much less than the Arctic, the effect is much weaker there. The third is the unusual fact that due to the extreme cold of Antarctica, especially in winter, sometimes there is an inverted lapse rate over the continent. The surface temperature in these circumstances is actually colder than the tropopause. When that happens, the effect of increased greenhouse gases is to cool the continent rather than to warm it. It is uncertain what the net effect of this is. I believe most models predict much reduced warming, though at least one has predicted cooling for Antarctica. -
Tom Curtis at 17:26 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @33, in 30 you quoted 0.2 w/m^2 per degree centigrade of global warming. That would mean the effect of polar amplification is 0.6 w/m^2 at 3 degrees of global warming, or 3.6% of the total effect. Of course, the figure you quoted is that derived from models which are underestimating the extent of sea ice loss in the arctic. Based on observation, the net forcing for the ice and snow loss to date is 0.62 w/m^2, and we have not yet experienced a full degree of global warming. That suggests the total effect could result in 7 to 10% additional warming, or up to an additional degree centigrade by the end of the century. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:22 PM on 19 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Re: TOP (29) 1. Thank you for your perspective. 2. The study discusses in exquisite detail, replete with sourced references, the entire field of drought in a warming world up to the present day even before it attempts to look at what the future may bring. Could you explain what you mean by:"The computer models just charged on into the far distant future with no correlation to actual future events."
Suggesting that we must wait until after a speeding train hits us before deciding if we should have gotten out of the way seems logically impoverished to me. As do BP's ramblings on past conditions, which occurred under far different circumstances than today. 3. Models used in the study were the 22 coupled models used in the IPCC AR4. 4. On pages 13-14 of the study, that is discussed. Essentially, India gets progressively wetter though increased precipitation (which in its case is expressed as more frequent precipitation, as opposed to more precipitation when it does rain):
FIGURE 10 | Multi-model mean changes from 1980–1999 to 2080–2099 under the SRES A1B scenario in annual (a) precipitation (mm/day), (b) soil moisture (%), (c) runoff (mm/day), and (d) evaporation (mm/day). The stippling indicates where at least 80% of the models agree on the sign of the mean change. (Meehl et al 2007)
The Yooper
-
Albatross at 17:17 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Tom @14, You are right, the framework which he used to make those calculations was in fact a simple model. In my original post I was thinking more in terms of the sophisticated and complex models (i.e., AOGCMs) that we are familiar with today, and not communicating very eloquently (my own lapse) that in fact there are some very basic (yet solid) physics are at play. Fascinating that Arrhenius predicted current events so very long ago. -
Albatross at 17:05 PM on 19 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
Zinfan94, I was wondering how this translates into OHC. Have yet to look at the paper, but I'm wondering if they calculated OHC? If yes then it sure would be nice to see those data; if not, their data could probably be used to calculate OHC. -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:05 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"You have still failed to disclose your sampling methods." I'm sorry I didn't notate the process. Make up your own. It won't make an appreciable difference in the results. -
Rob Honeycutt at 17:01 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Again, you're looking for exacting methods where they have little impact on the results. You're saying that if I can't come up with an exact error rate for each year then the whole exercise is meaningless and that's completely absurd. You're quibbling tiny quantities. Based on the sample I did I got 6%. I don't care, call it 50% if you like, that will only change your number to 1% without even addressing the errors in your figures. You lose on all counts. -
muoncounter at 16:53 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT: "Let me know when you get an actual number." Why? It won't make any difference to you. "I have refuted this some time ago" No, you have not refuted anything. What you have done is state ad nauseum that you have 'rebutted' this or rejected that as 'subjective,' using your own definitions for your own purposes. You cannot provide a single science based argument that could ever counter the likes of SoD, Rabbett, RealClimate, Trenberth, et al. who are the debunkers of your precious 'skeptics' in agwobserver's list. All you can do is repeatedly deny. It's boring and it needs to stop. "Idso and Lindzen have published more papers on the climate than most of them." So what? Here is a nice rundown on Lindzen; on Idso's group here. "That is because E&E is not indexed by them." How do you know that? If E&E is such a valuable paper, why isn't it indexed? And what's all this about 'validating' Rob's numbers? Who gave you the authority to 'validate' anything? If you don't accept what Rob has said, state your opinion as such. Lose the 'validation' concept. Give it up, PT. You've had a run. Time to move on. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:51 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Phila... I happen to like nitpicky. Fixed. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:49 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"You cannot claim robustness for something you did not sample." Yes you can. By your logic you could all polling data would be unacceptable. You don't have to have an exact number in order to infer a result. -
Phila at 16:47 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Grammatical mistake in the first sentence: understand Spulling mistake in the second paragraph: warm faster 'that' the rest. Also, it's "jibe," not "jive." Nitpicky, I know, but that typo has always bugged me, since the words basically mean opposite things. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:43 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Your programmed responses are very tiring. Deflect as you may try, you know I'm right. -
TOP at 16:43 PM on 19 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Just a thought to Daniel Bailey. When talking about a thread getting off topic the article is a good case in point. I have no idea what is going to be discussed until the last sentence of the third paragraph. I suppose that if the title of the first section was "Coexistence of Drought and Flood" a reader would have been clued in from the beginning kind of like peer reviewed papers tend to do. I thought BP brought up a good point in comparing what was predicted with what has happened in the past. The computer models just charged on into the far distant future with no correlation to actual future events. To bad the models weren't run backwards to correlate with the past. I found it interesting that India seemed to go unaffected while China was hard hit with drought. Just what makes India resistant to this effect of climate change? -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:35 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Cato Journal" I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh every time I read those words. -
muoncounter at 16:33 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob: Better to say 'Arctic amplification' than 'polar' for the current context, as the South seems to respond dramatically differently. Serreze et al 2009 is a key paper describing what's happening in the Arctic. As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea ice at summer’s end. Summertime absorption of solar energy in open water areas increases the sensible heat content of the ocean. Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere, is delayed. This promotes enhanced upward heat fluxes, seen as strong warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This vertical structure of temperature change is enhanced by strong low-level stability which inhibits vertical mixing. Peter Hogarth did an excellent post on this as well. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:22 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... No, it's not. Polar amplification just mean that. Global warming is amplified at the poles. Nothing more nothing less. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:17 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Yes I certainly can. In fact, it's more likely to work in your favor, bub. I also went back and looked at very early years with few papers and the number of erroneous results is higher. So, I'm sampling a year that has a higher error rate than more recent years. Just get used to it. Your list accounts for a very very tiny fraction of the scientific work on climate change and there are approximately 400 papers a week coming out on this topic these days. -
RW1 at 16:13 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
The issue at hand ultimately is what effect polar amplification may or may not have on global average temperatures, is it not? -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:03 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
pbjamm... Poptech has a rule about carrying a conversation over to his blog from another blog. But of course he is allowed to carry that conversation over here. Hence, we have 619 comments here and he has one there. Go figure. -
zinfan94 at 15:52 PM on 19 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
It might be worth pinging Roger Pielke Sr. on the subject of this post. RPSr made a series of comments on this site last summer, where he claimed that ocean heat content measurements weren't supporting the planetary heating rate expected by AGW. He hinted revisions to OHC and SLR measurements would support his view. With this paper it now appears the planetary energy budget is closing, If RPSr is consistent with his previous comments, he should now reverse his position, and agree that the planetary energy budget supports AGW. -
Marcus at 15:34 PM on 19 February 2011CO2 is not a pollutant
In his attempts to hijack yet another thread, BP once again assures as of the hackneyed old "CO2 is plant food" meme-even showing us pictures of soybeans grown in otherwise ideal conditions to back him up. Of course, what he is not aware of is a little thing called "acclimation"-which effectively means that C3 plants, if exposed to high CO2 levels for sufficient time will start to lose the initial benefits they gained from the excess CO2-because they reduce the amount of enzyme that processes the CO2 (as production of enzyme is an energy dependent process). This of course means that the Rubisco pathway will just become saturated sooner-bringing the plant back to its "default" growth rate. Also, BP's post ignores the damage to plant growth caused by heat stress, accelerated aging, & damage from flooding & drought-all of which are proving to be the side-effects of increased CO2 emissions.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The comment Marcus refers to is by Berényi Péter and is located here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:25 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... Again, you are conflating global temperature with polar amplification. -
Marcus at 15:24 PM on 19 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Nigel, I know it can be frustrating, but please don't give up-that's just handing victory to deniers like BP. That's exactly *why* they hijack sites like this. Don't worry, though, we have excellent moderators who will ensure that all future OT posts get deleted, as they deserve! -
pbjamm at 15:23 PM on 19 February 2011Meet The Denominator
muoncounter@611 If only you had found and posted this 10 pages ago! I wonder if we shall now have to endure a few pages of Poptech criticizing the your list. Perhaps a rebuttal at his blog. -
RW1 at 15:15 PM on 19 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
If it's only about 0.2 W/m^2 - that's only about 2% of the difference needed, or only about 0.03 degrees C of warming.
Prev 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Next
