Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 Next
Comments 96751 to 96800:
-
Chris G at 04:02 AM on 5 February 2011Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
Re: Adelady Re RHJames, :-) I've been outside on many, many nights, summer and winter, and the effect of clouds is so readily apparent to me that I wonder about those who only talk about clouds during the day. Regarding Monckton and how often he is correct: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. -
Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites - Um, what is the relevance of your comment to the current topic? You might want to discuss CO2 concentrations on the Are CO2 levels increasing or Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels threads. -
muoncounter at 03:58 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#11: "Natural climate variability has always existed and it didnt suddenly just disappear." See comment on It's a natural cycle, a lonely thread that needs some traffic. -
muoncounter at 03:58 AM on 5 February 2011It's a natural cycle
Reply to comment from here. "Natural climate variability has always existed and it didnt suddenly just disappear." No one said that 'natural variability' has disappeared. However, there is excellent evidence that this variability is insufficient to account for the current warming. The graph below shows we've already exceeded the limits of natural variability. There is therefore ample rationale to accept that man-made global warming will far exceed anything natural.
--- from Chapman and Davis 2010 via ourchangingclimate
Chapman and Davis explain: This collection of curves suggests that the Northern Hemisphere was relatively warm around 1000 C.E. (but not as warm as current temperature), that the period 1500–1850 was relatively cool, and that there has been considerable warming since 1900. ... All of the emissions scenarios considered by the IPCC yield global warming in the 21st century that dwarfs warming seen in the past millennium.
Response:[DB] Upgraded image quality.
-
thepoodlebites at 03:52 AM on 5 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#49 I agree, facts are wonderful: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Precip, Snow. The snow data were more difficult to obtain, NCDC likes maps more than trend plots. I see no threat to civilization in the current trends. Concerning statistical significance, Roy Spencer said it best with "The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system." Now on to your CO2 source, using an Earth radius of 6370 km, I get 5.23 ppm/year from CO2 emissions, not 6 ppm. The current yearly trend in CO2 increase is 2 ppm, not 3 ppm. According to the correct calculations, 3.23 ppm of the yearly CO2 dump is being absorbed, half from natural processes, 1.615 ppm. So where is the other 1.615 ppm going? How can you estimate the CO2 increase in 50 years when you don't fully understand all of the absorption processes? -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
I've thought about the terminology for some time - I've seen the "where's this heating hiding?!?" argument quite often, and find it very irritating in it's misconceptions. Possible terminology: Expected warming Unrealized warming Warming needed to redress the imbalance Acme anvil of heating (Coyote/Roadrunner reference) I don't know what the proper term might be (nobody in our group ever lets me name anything, so my skills in this might be suspect). But the "in the pipeline" term is easily misinterpreted. -
Chris G at 03:40 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
OK, I got caught behind the wave at KR#6. However, CO2 levels will not suddenly return to ~280 ppm even if we quit burning all fossil fuels today; so, we are committed to further warming. (I've little doubt that we will quit burning fossil fuels; there's just a question if that will be at the 2-3 degree warmer equilibrium level or the 6 degree level.) In terms a layman can relate to, there is warming 'in the pipeline'. It depends on the audience; anyone familiar with stats will understand a different meaning from the term 'expected value' than someone not familiar, to which it will sound dodgy. -
grypo at 03:34 AM on 5 February 2011More animations of the Warming Indicators
Thanks Alb. I'm going to readjust the timing on those slides over the next couple of days and then fix the font color. I think the white works better. -
Riccardo at 03:23 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
I second KR #6 on the "in the pipeline" terminology. As Ken Lambert's comment #4 shows, it is often misinterpreted. Budgersouth they're not synonims. The thermal inertia of the oceans is the cause of the "expected warming", using KR's terminology. Rememebr that this expected warming refers to a constant forcing, i.e. keeping CO2 concentration and everything else but temperature constant. In reality, it will be larger. -
dana1981 at 03:23 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
dorlomin #1 - thanks, that's very high praise. As Mark said in #2, climate sensitivity evaluations based on paleoclimate data would include carbon cycle feedbacks. Arkadiusz #3 - you may have noticed that I used a range of 0.06 to 0.30 W/m2 for the solar forcing. Your preferred value of 0.24 W/m2 is within that range, so it does not change the conclusion. There have been other studies concluding that the solar forcing is less than the IPCC value as well. This is the whole point of doing the calculation while keeping the uncertainties. Ken Lambert #4 - sorry, you are incorrect. See KR #6. Also I suggest you read the Lindzen E&E paper I linked in the article. He explicitly states that there is warming in the pipeline from the ocean thermal inertia. He just neglects it because he feels it's too small to make much difference in the calculation, but unlike yourself, doesn't deny that it exists. Alexandre #5 - Monckton has made the same claim about Lindzen being the only scientist to evaluate climate sensitivity based on empirical data. We criticized him for that in Monckton Myth #4. KR #6 - thanks. Terminology is always tricky. If you call it "expected warming" the "skeptics" will latch onto the word "expected" and claim it's not coming. Badgersouth #10 - I think the terms are basically the same thing. protestant #11 - no, it's not an assumption. That's why I included the solar forcing. The "O" in AMO and PDO is "oscillation" for a reason. They switch between positive and negative states, and just move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. Even if they contributed 0.08°C to the surface air warming in question, it wouldn't significantly change the calculation. The rest of your comment belongs in the climate sensitivity is low comments. -
Chris G at 03:17 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Ken, On further thought, my first response is a little inadequate, but that only means you have me confused. You state that there is no warming in the pipeline, and then acknowledge that it will take a long time for the oceans to reach a thermodynamic equilibrium. Those statements don't seem to be compatible with each other. -
Chris G at 03:09 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Ken Lambert #4, So, what you're suggesting in your first paragraph is that the energy absorbed at the surface is instantly transported clear to the bottom. Sorry, but that is absurd. There is a constant turnover of oceanic water via the thermo-haline cycle, but it takes hundreds of years for a complete cycle. It'll be some time before the entire ocean reaches a thermal equilibrium with the energy level the surface is now receiving. -
protestant at 03:05 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
All of that 0,8C is not made by CO2 thats just an assumption taken from the climate models ,which actually do not replicate the 1940 hump. A great of warming (specially post 1970) is from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). AMO has also been recently discussed in the scientific literature by Delsole et al contributing circa 0.08K/decade to the trend. The recent flattening of the rise is consistent with this explanation. Then you have to prove that there is no decaedal natural variability (almost evident and the oscillations can be seen in paleo records too), or that this variability is due GHG's (nonsense, since CO2 was almost constant pre industrial). Natural climate variability has always existed and it didnt suddenly just disappear. Whether it is internal or caused by clouds (North Atlantic temperatures correlate very well against Solanki et al at least for the last couple of hundred years), both occasions will seal the CAGW case. -
John Hartz at 02:53 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Re #6 KR's concerns about the phrase "in the pipeline". I note that the header title of the section of the article where this term appears is "Thermal Inertia." My question for Dana: Are the terms, "in the pipeline" and "thermal inertia" synomonous? If they are, perhaps the term "in the pipleine" could be followed by (i.e., thermal inertia). -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:24 AM on 5 February 2011It's not us
My posts on that thread have now also started to be "waiting moderation", which is very indeed very dissapointing. If his hypothesis is falsifiable it should be straightforward for him to have answered my question directly. If it is not falsifiable then the challenge is meaningless. My most recent was timestamped "February 4, 2011 at 8:36 AM". -
muoncounter at 02:16 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
#3: "I recall a sentence from the study ... many aspects of indirect effects of solar activity on climate is poorly assessed" I also recall a sentence in the Gray et al study you cite: Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes and the predicted SC-related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes. This is the sentence immediately after the first one you quoted. Shouldn't the 'skeptical' statement 'there are many uncertainties' also include the qualifier 'but those uncertainties are small'? -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Arkadiusz - "Almost each of the data given above is questioned by skeptics." Quite true, Arkadiusz. In fact, there are uncertainties in all the relevant quantities. But as a climate scientist, Lindzen is not justified in using that uncertainty they way he does, claiming for example that aerosols have zero effect - when that falls outside the 95% confidence interval for them. Acknowledging uncertainty in various factors means accounting for it, not using uncertainty to somehow justify ignoring those factors completely. -
Alexandre at 01:50 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Arkadiusz #3 says "Almost each of the data given above is questioned by skeptics." Oh yeah, no news there. Everything is questioned by "skeptics". They claim it's not warming, but the observed warming is caused by the sun but it's caused by PDO or NAO. And they also claim it's caused by CO2, only the climate sensitivity is lower than usually accepted (like Lindzen). Of course, some "skeptics" also claim that averything the IPCC said is fine and correct, it's just that giving up fossil fuels would be disastrous (like Lomborg). They question everything. Even the concept of temperature itself is brought into question if that would help their "argument". The funny (or sad) thing is how many people go along with such a contraditory mess. Right Arkadiusz? -
It's not us
Julian, Dikran - Odd thing, that; I tried posting there too, my post apparently did not survive moderation. It showed up as "awaiting moderation", but never made it to the blog comments. I'm saddened by that approach, when Dr. Spencer had issued the challenge in the first place. If he wants to issue such quixotic challenges, he should accept responses too. -
A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Dana - Excellent post, very clear and it covers the issues/obfuscations quite well. I have, however, always hated the "in the pipeline" terminology. What this refers to is energy that hasn't accumulated yet, but is expected to given the current imbalance. Conditions are such that we expect further heating to occur before the imbalance is removed. However, I keep seeing skeptics yelling about the "in the pipeline" heating, as if the energy discussed were somehow already here, hiding under a bush or something, and our supposed inability to point to it represents to them a failure of science. I would propose describing it as "expected warming", rather than "in the pipeline". -
Alexandre at 01:37 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Linzen repeatedly claims that his climate sensitivy is based on observations, whereas all other higher sensitivities are based on models. How can a climate scientist say something like that and get away with such a grossly "uninformed" claim? -
Ken Lambert at 01:16 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Original Post #dana1981 There are several things wrong with your piece. Firstly your point: "Due to the fact that much of the Earth is covered in oceans, and it takes a long time to heat water, there is a lag before we see the full warming effects of an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (this is also known as "thermal inertia"). In fact, we know there remains "warming in the pipeline" from the greenhouse gases we've already emitted because there is a global energy imbalance" It takes a long time for heat energy to warm a large mass of water to a uniform temperature, however the first law mandates conservation of that heat energy. If that energy is absorbed in the oceans then it will be represented by higher temperatures in some portion and lower temperatures in other portions with complex circulations generally driving heat from the warmer to cooler portions over time. The heat energy is already here - not 'in the pipeline'. There is no other major storage device other than the oceans so what is here today must show up as temperature increase (or ice melt or evaporation) somewhere RIGHT NOW. Secondly, your point: "Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the ocean has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over the full surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003 [21]. This rate must be subtracted from the greenhouse gas forcing of 2.6 W/m2, as actual warming must reflect the net change in heat balance, including the heat flow into the ocean." Rahmstorf references Willis et al. (2004), which found an oceanic warming rate of 0.86 ± 0.12 watts per square meter of ocean. Given that approximately 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, this becomes approximately 0.6 ± 0.07 watts per square meter (W/m2) of overall ocean heat uptake. Schwartz et al. (2010) put the value at 0.37 ± 0.12 W/m2. For our purposes, we'll put the figure at 0.25 to 0.67 with a most likely value of 0.4 W/m2." endquote The ocean heat uptake of 0.6W/sq.m (1993-2003) is in serious doubt due to the step offset efect of the XBT-Argo transition extensively debated elsewhere on this blog. Even accepting this figure, your claim that: "This rate must be subtracted from the greenhouse gas forcing of 2.6 W/m2, as actual warming must reflect the net change in heat balance, including the heat flow into the ocean" This is simply wrong. The oceans account for more than 90% of the heat storage capacity of the Earth system - so if they are absorbing 0.6W/sq.m then the whole system cannot absorb more than about 0.66W/sq.m. You do not subtract 0.6 from 2.6 and say that is the warming 'imbalance'. Where is that 2.0 'imbalance' showing up?? It cannot be stored anywhere because we have already accounted for the 0.6 absorbed in the oceans. Similarly your point: "On top of that, as discussed above, ocean heat uptake accounts for between 0.25 and 0.67 W/m2. Therefore, subtracting the ocean heat uptake, the total net anthropogenic forcing over this period is somewhere between -0.07 and 2.15 W/m2, with a most likely value of 1.1 W/m2." - is meaningless without a net figure including cooling and climate responses. The total net forcing (warming imbalance) MUST be represented by the heat energy stored in the earth system at ANY point in time. This is accounted by Dr Trenberth at +1.6 (net anthropogenic) -2.8 (S-B radiative cooling) + 2.1 (WV + ice albedo feedback) = +0.9W/sq.m imbalance. The oceans can account for only 0.4 - 0.6 W/sq.m with high uncertainty - so the balance of the 0.9 - (0.4 to 0.6) is Dr Trenberth's missing heat of 'travesty' fame. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:12 AM on 5 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Almost each of the data given above is questioned by skeptics. For example, I recall a sentence from the study: Solar Influences on Climate, Gray et al., 2010.: „A value of 0.24 Wm-2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate than the 0.12 Wm-2 estimated by IPCC (c.f. the range of 0.16-0.28 Wm-2 ...)” According to this study - paper, many aspects of indirect effects of solar activity on climate is poorly assessed by the IPCC models (so far): “Periodicities, trends, and grand minima are features of solar activity which, if detectable in climate records, can be used to attribute climate changes to solar forcing (Beer et al. 2000; Beer and van Geel, 2008). However, one must be aware that this may not always work well because there are other forcings as well and the climate is a non-linear system which can react in a variety of ways.” “... the majority of climate models employed to date ... ... represent primarily the ‘bottom-up’ TSI mechanism and have a very poor, or no, representation of the ‘top-down’ mechanism that requires spectral variations in solar radiative input and ozone feedback effects. Only a few have an adequate representation of the stratosphere and even those do not generate a complete representation of stratospheric effects such as an internally consistent quasi biennial oscillation." -
John Chapman at 01:09 AM on 5 February 2011More animations of the Warming Indicators
National Geographic have prepared a variation of this theme, shown on a global map. It can be found at http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive/ The site also links to what we can expect as a result of the warming. -
Berényi Péter at 00:17 AM on 5 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Dr. Roy Spencer's rebuttal is also linked at the RC Wiki page. It is a bit funny, because he starts by misquoting Dr. Miskolczi. “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.” From a logical point of view it looks like a proposition, does not it? However, if the full context is included, it is clearly a definition (of the term "radiative exchange equilibrium"). “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.” Now, in logic there is a difference between propositions and definitions. One does not even have to be a climate scientist to see it. Propositions can have a truth value assigned to them, while for a definition it simply does not make sense. Shortly afterwards he admits he does not understand a couple of the claims he [Dr. Miskolczi] makes. The actual situation looks worse than that. He does not even seem to be able to tell claims and definitions apart. But let us elaborate on the concept "radiative exchange equilibrium" (defined above) some more, just to see how much sense it makes. If regions both A and B have uniform, well defined temperatures, radiative exchange equilibrium simply means thermal equilibrium, that is, their temperature is the same (TA = TB). It is not particularly interesting, but neither is it the case for the climate system. Although below about 50 km mean free path of air molecules is short compared to their coupling strength to EM radiation background (plenty of collisions occur between absorption/emission events), that is, local temperature is pretty well defined everywhere, temperature distribution is usually far from being uniform. One can still define average temperature for regions like that, even if it does not make much sense to compute averages of intensive quantities. However, it looks like a standard practice in climate science and at least for the time being let's go with it. Now, for subsystems A and B not in thermal equilibrium themselves it is perfectly possible for them to have the same average temperatures while maintaining a steady nonzero net radiative heat flow between them. It is also possible of course for the two subsystems to have different average temperatures while being in radiative exchange equilibrium (in the sense defined above by Dr. Miskolczi). One can not emphasize enough how sharp is the difference between equilibrium and steady states. Unfortunately they are quite often mixed up in climate discussions (even in some peer reviewed pieces). I do not know what the actual net radiative heat fluxes are inside the climate system, much less their global averages, but I do see Dr. Spencer attacks a straw man he himself created. It would be his personal problem, were his misguided analysis not linked by RC Wiki with no comment whatsoever. This fact alone shows the blog community there is more interested in appearance of debunking than in thorough understanding and well formed argumentation. -
MarkR at 23:11 PM on 4 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
dorlomin: most estimates of climate sensitivity do not include carbon cycle feedbacks. Models don't include them properly, nor do observational estimates based on observations we have now. However, some palaeoclimate estimates implicitly include them (because they kind of look at total temperature change divided by total forcing over a long enough period for carbon feedbacks to kick in). There has been some new research into this but I'm not up to date. I'm pretty sure most old estimates and the CMIP3 models (IPCC AR4 ones) don't. And calculations based on the time constant, or heat balance data, or changes over the past century or so don't properly include them either since they're slower than that and we can't predict any quick changes yet. -
dorlomin at 22:18 PM on 4 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
One of the best posts on the blog. Great to see so much put together in one piece. Do the sensitivity calculations take into account possible realeses of natural sources of carbon gasses as feedbacks or is it purely on atmospheric physics? -
Albatross at 16:22 PM on 4 February 2011More animations of the Warming Indicators
Grypo @1, Nicely done (and same for Chemware and Martin)! Grypo-- I found that I did not have quite enough time to read the text on many of your slides. Maybe shorter versions in larger font, or keep the slides up longer? -
muoncounter at 15:52 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
#241: "because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework" Oh, that's rich. There's so little evidence. Any doubts about the total lack of credibility of the editors of E and E? -
chris at 15:44 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Berényi Péter at 12:04 PM on 4 February, 2011"I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps."
Oh dear Peter, your prejudices are showing! The RealClimate "community" are extraordinarily productive scientists. We could look at the first two on RickG's list just above, for example, and find that Gavin Schmidt has published since 2005 more than 40 papers (in real science journals) which have been cumulatively cited well over 1000 times, and that Michael Mann has published over 40 papers since 2005 that have been cited around 800 times.... these are truly impressive records of scientific productivity during the period they (and others) have been running RealClimate.org. I wonder whether you misunderstand the nature of science in the modern world. Every grant application we write, for example, must include descriptions on how our research results will be disseminated, and the enhancement of public understanding is a fundamental element of the scientists role. Schmidt and Mann and the "community" at RealClimate illustrate how a straightforward and honest application to obtaining and disseminating knowledge go hand in hand. And while their "timestamps" indicate that they may fulfill some of their public understand roles during office hours (and why not?) you can be sure that like most scientists that work in the public sphere, they will be doing science outside of office hours too! Peter, do we really want our scientists to be "office drones"? Of course not...we want them to be insightful and productuve and their work to be useful and influential....rather like the "community" at RealClimate -
Clearsight at 15:34 PM on 4 February 2011Climate's changed before
It seems that you have alot of scientific information that mis-intreperted, could result in mistaken understanding. I believe that is what is going on in the world today. The simple facts are that 70% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton found in the ocean. Coral reefs remove about 33% of the world's carbon dioxide. Temperatures have been steadily increasing for the past decade. They are finding that the plankton are living deeper than before. The photic layer of the ocean only extends so far, if we loose the plankton, 70% of the world will die. Coral reefs are bleaching (temporarily dying) at an alarming rate. I have worked outside for 30 straight years and I know it is getting hotter. I have 4 college degrees, two science minors, one B.S. in Zoology, and an IQ of 136. I fininshed in the top 8% of all of my military and college analytical classes. In junior high on the Standford Achievement Test I scored in the top 8% of the entire state in both mathematics and english. I finished top of my critical logic and reasoning class. I am convinced with every fiber of understanding in me that global climate change is happening and if left unchecked, there will be catastrophic events. -
calyptorhynchus at 14:35 PM on 4 February 2011Kung-fu Climate
Unfortunately the MWP isn't as much of a comfort for denialists as they'd like to think. When it ended, social chaos (including the Reformation and wars of religion) erupted across Europe and millions died. If that's what happens when it cools, we can expect something similar when it warms. To the denialist argument "but the climate changes all the time" we should always add "and when it does species go extinct". -
Tom Curtis at 14:35 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Berenyi Peter @244, I'm just wondering how much peer review you need to recognize that a well known physical law is completely misstated? Better yet, what type of peer review can't even recognize the misstatement of a well known physical law? -
Bibliovermis at 14:29 PM on 4 February 2011Renewable Baseload Energy
Very interesting and definitely worth keeping an eye on. University of Central Florida Researchers Confirm Battery Breakthrough Developed By Planar Energy -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:08 PM on 4 February 2011Renewable Baseload Energy
Solid state batteries with 2-3x the energy per weight, 10's of thousands of charging cycles, 1/3 the cost. http://www.economist.com/node/18007516?story_id=18007516&fsrc=rss -
scaddenp at 13:56 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
BP - Nonetheless the assertions by Nick Stokes are easily checked in a text book. The lack of peer-reviewed rebuttal may have something to do with those who do atmospheric science having better things to do. Get back to me when there is peer-reviewed research (other than E&E) that builds on his paper with empirical results. The "peer-review" of E&E allows it to fulfill the function of tobacco science journals. It would be career damaging to publish there and you would be mad to publish a real scientific result there. Pseudo-skeptics strenuously argue that this should not be true, but that is the reality, like or not. -
RickG at 13:15 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
244 Berényi Péter: I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps. So, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Man, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Thibault de Garidel, Jim Bouldin and many others are just climate policy makers. Well, I'm glad we cleared up that bit of information. As for E&E it is not listed by ISI as being a peer review journal and Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a trade journal. Again, what do you specifically disagree with in the "hasty debunking"? -
Phila at 13:09 PM on 4 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Humanity Rules: I see us as dynamic problem solvers. It's not either/or. We accomplish amazing and inspiring things, and we're also guilty — frequently — of incredible stupidity and shortsightedness and brutality. To be "problem solvers," we have to be able to acknowledge that a problem exists. Currently, you seem to be trying to avoid doing so, for reasons that you yourself acknowledge are largely emotional. My feeling is that if this problem can be solved, it will be solved by people who are capable of looking it in the face, accepting it rationally, and taking personal responsibility. In the absence of that commitment, your platitudes about "humanity" seem more like some conscience-numbing narcotic than an expression of true optimism. -
Berényi Péter at 12:04 PM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
#239 RickG at 10:17 AM on 4 February, 2011 You do realize that the "RealClimate.org community blog" is a community of practicing climatologists don't you? I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps. As for E&E, it is my understanding that it is not a peer review journal It is. However, neither the Nick Stokes rebuttal at RC Wiki from Jun 2008 nor Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory by Van Dorland & Forster are peer reviewed publications for sure. Therefore citing them here somewhat goes against the rules at this site. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:45 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Albatross... " Lindzen's iris hypothesis remains that, a hypothesis. " One could easily qualify that and say that Lindzen's is a hypothesis in tatters. -
Albatross at 11:13 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Bibliovermis @241, Very interesting (and revealing )post. Regarding this from E&E: "The voices of well known scientists opposed to this dominant paradigm (e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Christy McIntyre, Pielke, Khandakar)". McIntyre is not a scientist. And Singer is, well, a scientist for hire it seems, and seems to have some intriguing ideas on climate science. Khandakar is not a prominent climate scientist and of late his reputation has fallen into disrepute in the scientific community. Lindzen's iris hypothesis remains that, a hypothesis. The "skeptics" do love to hammer away at the models, forgetting that Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer etc. all use models in their research. Not to mention that one doesn't require a model to estimate climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. And look at all those pejorative words "paradigm", "protagonist", "dominant".... -
John Hartz at 11:01 AM on 4 February 2011It's not bad
Is it possible for someone to clean-up the formating of the "Cites" bibliography in the Notes section? PS -- I favor a space between each cite. -
John Hartz at 10:55 AM on 4 February 2011It's not bad
Is it just me, or did the comment thread for both the basic and intermediate versions of this rebuttal become intertwined? -
Bibliovermis at 10:47 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
The guest editorial speaks to the credibility of the journal in general.The voices of well known scientists opposed to this dominant paradigm (e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Christy McIntyre, Pielke, Khandakar), and backed by their own research, have been less clearly heard. ... Doubts about the mainstream "CO2-paradigm" arise because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework that has been constructed from computer model studies/experiments. ... However, so far, we can see no sign that the protagonists of the IPCC line on expected Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are willing to consider any alternative to the CO2 paradigm.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & EnvironmentI myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.
Over a hundred years of empirical research by thousands of independent scientists merits the term "AGW hypothesis", while a single work that is contradicted by observational records merits "Miskolczi theory"? This is a prime example of a political rather than science-based argument. It's amusing that Miskolczi's work, a model based on simulated effects, is being pushed by those who decry the vast bulk of climatological research as invalid for being nothing more than models & simulated effects. -
muoncounter at 10:31 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
#238: "the rather hasty debunking" Even Spencer shoots FM down. I have spent many hours examining it and thinking about it, ... I disagree with his explanation of why the atmosphere’s total greenhouse effect should remain the same, particularly his use of Kirchoff’s Law of Radiation. Doesn't sound hasty. -
RickG at 10:17 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Berényi Péter #237 Hasty debunking? What part of the hasty debunking do you disagree with? You do realize that the "RealClimate.org community blog" is a community of practicing climatologists don't you? As for E&E, it is my understanding that it is not a peer review journal and has a rather dubious reputation of publishing less than scholarly science? -
Berényi Péter at 09:49 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
#237 scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 4 February, 2011 Bibliovermis - Miskolczi is a crank. You can see a quick summary of what he postulates here Some may want to check what Dr. Miskolczi (and others) actually say about a possible upper bound on atmospheric IR optical depth due to IR absorber (a.k.a. "greenhouse") gases in a planetary atmosphere with practically infinite potential supply of IR opacity instead of accepting at face value the rather hasty debunking provided by RC Wiki (a supplement to the RealClimate.org community blog). Energy & Environment, vol. 21, num. 4, 2010 ISSN 0958-305X Special issue - Paradigms in Climate Research Guest Editor: Arthur Rörsch Dr. Miskolczi's paper is on page 243, but one may be interested in other papers in the same issue as well. -
Rovinpiper at 08:25 AM on 4 February 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
As I understood it the argument was that there are more transient warm events than transient cold events. The cold temperatures come with nightly low temperatures and the like. They happen gradually. Whereas, you can have daylight spikes in temperature that are much more sudden. Such as when the sun comes out from behind a cloud. I think this line of argument ended with the post that pointed out that poleward and upward migrations of organisms cannot be explained by this, nor can sea level rise, or glacial retreat. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 4 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
Bibliovermis - Miskolczi is a crank. You can see a quick summary of what he postulates here -
JMurphy at 06:30 AM on 4 February 2011Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Don Schneider, there are plenty more pages on here that will give further information as to the cause of our current warming. Try these two for a start : Newcomers Start Here The Big Picture Also, while I understand that parts of America are experiencing lots of snow and cold temperatures, that isn't the case for the rest of the Northern Hemisphere - as far as I'm aware. Temperatures in Europe, at least, are normal for the time of year, although they are going up and down all the time. And, the last I heard, Canada and the Arctic were pretty mild, comparatively ? All that snow digging will keep you fit !
Prev 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 Next
