Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
Comments 96051 to 96100:
-
scaddenp at 17:33 PM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
electroken - please see CO2 lag temperature for answer. This has nothing to do with cosmic rays. Short answer CO2 can be both forcing and feedback. -
electroken at 17:28 PM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Can it be proven that the CO2 rose before the warming in the past or did it rise as a result of the warming of the oceans which then gave off the CO2? I have understood that the rising CO2 levels do not proceed the observed warming and actually lag it in most cases where tests are done with core samples etc. I keep an open mind myself. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:20 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
@ Ron (34) Conditions will be none too pretty anywhere in the latter half of the century. Not only are the main mapped graphic projections of future conditions based on a medium emissions path (while actuals are tracking a high-emissions path), one of the vectors not taken into account in the models are the results of Schaefer et al 2011, discussed here. Sheafer et al 2011 further compounds this problem by being too conservative itself: it presumes all GHG emissions due to PCF (Permafrost Climate Forcing) will be in the form of CO2, while in actuality much will be in the form of CH4 (methane). Should this stand up to further scrutiny & be confirmed by subsequent studies, this means an effective CO2 doubling from PCF alone by 2200. In addition, Schaefer et al 2011 do not consider methane hydrate releases, which are currently underway in the East Siberian Arctic Sea. Needless to say, no current model begins to take this all into consideration. Net: Even though the field is advancing rapidly (to the point that many of the assumptions tested in studies are found to be hopelessly conservative & obsolete upon publication), the more we are finding out about how truly effed-up the situation is, the more we realize just how screwed our children are going to be. "Safe refuges?" In North America, I'd say Northern Labrador, due to the moderating influences of the maritime seaboard. Perhaps Northern Scandinavia, but that will be swamped by refugees from Europe. Kamchatka (if the Ring of Fire doesn't destabilize it's volcanoes somehow) should be OK for a while. New Zealand's South Island also (remoteness is a good thing!). The reality is that no place will be safe. By 2050, safety & security will be a condition of the past. All that will matter is a place to grow enough meager foodstuffs and the supply of ammunition to protect them. Such a downer today; I should just go to bed. The Yooper -
Ari Jokimäki at 17:14 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
So, here global climate is being discussed, and then a paper trying to model local weather with (limited selection of) global climate models is being offered as a proof that models don't work. If one would like to show that models don't work globally, simplest method would be to do a global analysis with them. We of course all know here that when a proper global analysis is being done, the models give quite accurate result. This is actually quite a remarkable achievement considering how crude the models are compared to the real Earth system. Models also do regionally rather well as can be seen in the link I gave. However, it is not expected that models should recreate the weather of every point of the Earth accurately. That would be expecting miracles. -
electroken at 16:54 PM on 21 February 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
I can tell you that it is not insignificant to evaporate 100 billion gallons of water per day and it takes an enormous amount of energy to do so. I think it takes approximately 1500 btu to evaporate 1 pound of water to vapor form. Each gallon of water should be about 10 pounds if I recall correctly. So we evaporate an extra trillion pounds of water a day. I wonder if they consider all the surface area of ponds and swimming pools as well as irrigation? Did you know that Texas had more surface water area than Minnesota about 10 years ago? So, this process is transferring massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere whereas 50 years ago this was NOT occurring this way; so what is the affect of doing that? Could it be producing larger and more powerful storms as we have been witnessing in the last 10 or 15 years? That is my opinion! If nothing else it is putting all that energy into the air for a fact. Consider that a jet plane is dumping water at approx 2000deg F into the stratosphere where this was simply not happening 50 or 60 years ago. Burning that fuel produces 5 pounds of water vapor for each pound of fuel and I know that the jets burn a lot of fuel and there are about 4000 planes in the air at any given time over the usa. I only ask that ALL things which can contribute to any warming be considered and not simply dismissed without having any proof they are not involved. Be scientific!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As Phil rightly points out, atmospheric water vapor excesses condense out, equalizing within a 9-day period. As one newly come out of the darkness of the Internet to Skeptical Science, Welcome! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. If, after searching, you cannot find an answer to a question, post it on what you think to be the most appropriate thread and someone will get back to you fairly quickly. As always, please compose your comments with adherence to the Comments Policy in mind. Finally, please use the Preview function to ensure your comments are representative of what you intend for them to say. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 16:31 PM on 21 February 2011A broader view of sea level rise
Muoncounter: the brief blog post uses scholarly references. Organic and biochemist. Elsewhere I use direct peer review, so in this thread ill do the same. Careful,please on cherry picking, in your summary of the conclusion. -
Marcus at 16:29 PM on 21 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
"Marcus, from Figure 6.10c, the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from approximately 950 to 1000 looks very similar to the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from 1940+ but I do not have the original data to make a more accurate comparison." What you need to remember, though, is that the proxies used above are far from accurate. Each proxy is done using different methods & using materials sourced from different locations-& what we seem to have above is a composite of several of the most well-known proxies (Mann, Moberg & Esper). The original data for each proxy seems to contain a lot of noise but, what seems to come through is a definite warming trend from around -0.6 degrees below the 1961-1990 mean up to around +0.1 degrees above the 1961-1990 mean-over the space of around 600 years-driven largely by a significant increase in sunspot activity. By comparison, the warming of the late 20th century is occurring *on top of* the warming already caused by the increasing solar activity of the previous 200-odd years (from around 1750 to 1940). The warming is also occurring during a period of relative solar quiescence & relatively high volcanic activity-both of which should be producing *cooling*, not warming. Hope that makes sense. -
Ron Crouch at 16:09 PM on 21 February 2011The Dai After Tomorrow
Perhaps as Lovelock says; go north or south young man. Although I doubt that any part of Antarctica would be able to support human population any time soon. Not to mention the toxins in the food chain in the Arctic. -
Marcus at 15:59 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Wow, Ron, that's an excellent resource-especially as they make clear where specific factors are at play in above average year-to-year variability. Kudos for that. -
Chemist1 at 15:58 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
US stations. -
Chemist1 at 15:57 PM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Bern are you referring to a moved reference? How about we discuss my refernce in this thread that looks at 55 data points? -
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...
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
