Recent Comments

Prev  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  1935  1936  1937  1938  1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  Next

Comments 96801 to 96850:

96801. Don Schneider at 06:09 AM on 4 February 2011
       Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
       JMurphy, thanks for your response and the links. It is seldom that I have such a quick turnaround in thought, so I find this astonishing. While driving somewhere just a few minutes ago, and mulling over the point I just made on this forum, I had an epiphany of sorts. How ironic I found it to be that the very first comment posted at the first link you provided—a comment made by one ProfMandia—was exactly the thought that hit me! How strange it would seem that if the tree ring proxies were somehow wrong in the prerecorded temperature times of the Mann chart that they should be both wrong and so closely correlated with other reconstructions using various other proxies as opposed to tree rings. As ProfMandia points out, what are the odds of that? What are the odds that they should all be not just inaccurate, but so closely so in the same way? Therefore, unless the skeptics can somehow prove collusion on the part of all these researchers who have presented temperature reconstructions based upon various proxies, then at least the part of the theory that we are living in an anomalously warm period has been proven to my satisfaction. Being convinced that we are responsible for this, and that the result will be necessarily deleterious to a significant extent, might take me some more time Perhaps I shall mull over these latter points while shoveling out of yet our next snowstorm! (G) By the way, I realize it is hard to sell this theory while so many people in the Northern Hemisphere have been enduring two brutal winters in a row; thus the falling poll numbers as to how many take the theory seriously right now. However, adherents do have a point about warmer air causing more evaporation from lakes and such and thus more snow. It hasn’t been, by and large, the temperatures that have been so brutal, just the snow and sometimes ice. When I was a teenager and young man in the 70s here in Philadelphia, I can recall it was not at all uncommon for the temperature in the winter to frequently dip to single digits and even hit zero (F) occasionally. We haven’t experienced too much of that for many years and the ponderous amount of snow we have been getting has largely been (backbreaking!) wet snow as the temperatures unfortunately have a penchant to remain just below freezing. So you might be right on this point as well, as odd as it might seem to others and me. If AGW is true and we must endure it and its potential consequences, I just wish it could at least get us over 32 here! I wasn’t expecting the 70s in January.
96802. Dikran Marsupial at 05:39 AM on 4 February 2011
       It's not us
       Julian, I tried to reply to your question on Dr Spencer's blog, but it wouldn't accept it, so hopefully you will find it here at some point: If you get hold of a copy of the 1990 IPCC WG1 scientific basis report and go to page 14, you will find it gives the mass balance argument there about three quarters of the way down column 2 (only in rather less detail than I provided on skepticalscience). Its says "Second, the observed rate of CO2 increase closely parallels the accumulated emissions trends from fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes. Since the start of almospheric monitoring in 1958, the annual atmospheric increase has been smaller each year than the fossil fuel input [DK the difference is even bigger if you include land use changes]. Thus ocean and biota together must have been a [DK net] global sink rather than a source during all these years" So it is in the litterature, just that it doesn't merit much discussion anymore as it is so well known (I have seen it given a similarly brief mention in a paper or two). If there is one observation where natural variability can be ruled out, this is it. We know for sure that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, as the theory that it is from natural sources is 100% falsified by the observation that the annual increase is smaller than fossil fuel emissions.
96803. muoncounter at 05:24 AM on 4 February 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       #30: See comment on thread suggested. Spoiler alert: utter nonsense.
96804. muoncounter at 05:23 AM on 4 February 2011
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       From here. "NOAA/NCDC Annual Global Temperature Change vs CO2 dataset clearly shows ... rising CO2 had little impact" Utter nonsense. The graph shows annual temperature change, ie T(now) - T(last year). This removes any long term trend and therefore cannot be compared with the long term increase of atmospheric CO2. Any conclusions taken from the website you reference are therefore also utter nonsense. Surely you can do better than a misapplication of basic math and science?
96805. dharam at 04:27 AM on 4 February 2011
       2010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
       very nice information given on climate change. humanity will have to shed the greed for exploitation of nature for survival of the earth and comming generations Dr D P ABROL
96806. Dikran Marsupial at 04:26 AM on 4 February 2011
       What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
       NETDR@95 It is a bit of a strawman, have a look at the IPCC WG1 report and you will find that virtually all claims made there are accompanied by a statement of the (un)certainty with which the claim was made. If the mainstream position were that these things were proven, then such equivocation would not be necessary. There is a reason for this. It is fundamentally impossible to prove any proposition regarding the real world by means of evidence alone. We have known this since the work of David Hume, who argued that we can't observe causality. Instead, knowledge of the real world has to be based on assumptions as well as observation. That is why much of the philosophy of science is based on falsification rather than proof (proof is for mathematics). However, proof is not required for a scientific theory to be accepted as fact. Nobody has every proved that the theory of evolution is correct, yet most scientists accept it as fact. So why do we accept evolution as a fact rather than "merely a theory", simple, becuase it is a relatively simple theory that explains a wide range of observations rather well; rather better than competing theories. This illustrates an important point about scientific method; when there are competing theories that have not been ruled out by observations, you don't rule out any of them and instead assign a degree of belief in the plausibility of each theory according to how well it explains the data. how much of the data it explains, and the strength of the argument and reasonableness of the assumptions on which it is based. For those that accept AGW, it is not that it is proven, or merely assumed, there is a lot of research which suggests it is the most plausible explanation for the observed facts, not just for the climate of today, but also for paleoclimate. Now on to the challenge - has anyone proved that the species we see today are not the result of purely random mutations and was not driven by evolutionary pressure? No. Does that cast any doubt on evolution? No. The reason is that such a falsification is impossible, even though the theory of purely random chance is almost certainly incorrect. Did SPencer say what would constitute a falsification of the "theory of natual variation"? If not, he is asking for the falsification of an unfalsifiable theory, and unfalsifiable theories are non-scientific (Popper). Essentially the challenge works nicely as rhetoric, but it suggests a rather "atypical" philosophy of science. P.S. I saw the "null hypothesis" thread on WUWT, it was incorrect there as well, for much the same reason. Scientific theories are not equally plausible just because neither has been falsified; in that situation science has used the "weight of evidence" for a long time. As David Hume says "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (he could also out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, so he was someone worth listening to!)
96807. JMurphy at 04:16 AM on 4 February 2011
       Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
       Don Schneider, start by reading Hockey Stick or Hockey League, then look at this RealClimate Wiki, then look at this RealClimate Thread. After that, you should find that Mann's reconstruction is not at all the only reconstruction that gives those results. If you don't like Mann's, what's your problem with all the rest ?
96808. Albatross at 03:36 AM on 4 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       RSVP, Sad that you just cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question and admit that Monckton is horribly wrong.
96809. Albatross at 03:31 AM on 4 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
       Scaddenp @30, That is funny. Thanks for that. Lindzen should read that post too.
96810. Bob Lacatena at 02:25 AM on 4 February 2011
       More animations of the Warming Indicators
       Well done. My next request would be an "indicators of a climate sensitivity of 3˚C or higher" graphic... with links to Skeptical Science pages, as well as to the individual peer-reviewed papers supporting each indicator. IMO, we are letting the deniers "win" when we let them focus too much of the debate on the obvious and undeniable (whether the world is warming, what is actually causing the warming, whether greenhouse gases actually work as understood, etc.). The relevant debate, at this point in time, is "how warm are things going to get?" Lindzen and Spencer know this is the only battleground they have left, so they put their energies into the magical properties of clouds, despite a severe lack of evidence supporting their position. On the other side, there are myriad proxy studies, simple physics based mathematics, model results, and more that point to 3˚C or higher. Every time I look, it seems like another study points to 3˚C+ warming.
96811. NETDR at 02:25 AM on 4 February 2011
       What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
       This may be O.T. so please direct me to the proper topic. I used the search function already and this is as close as I came. I would be interested in your readers response. Roy Spencer made the following challenge. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is man made. It in no way “proves” it. If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy: Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record. Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability. 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.
96812. Henry justice at 02:04 AM on 4 February 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       Check out this site: //www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-confirms-recent-global-temperature-change-is-historically-small-warming-is-decelerating.html NOAA/NCDC Annual Global Temperature Change vs CO2 dataset clearly shows the big picture: Rising levels of CO2 have had little, if any at all, impact on annual global temperature changes. The global annual global temperature changes are within normal variability.
       Moderator Response: The appropriate thread for this comment *and for all responses* is There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
96813. RickG at 01:53 AM on 4 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Eric (skeptic) 48 "You would have been better off ignoring him (Monckton)". I disagree. Demonstrating the countless deliberate misrepresentations and out-right false claims by Monckton and others who claim to be skeptics is essential in revealing to others just how determined and corrupt the denial machine is. Most skeptics/deniers I encounter have little if any idea how science works or the value of the peer review process. Rather, their knowledge is based entirely on what their preferred political sources tell them. In other words, they cannot separate science from politics nor do they wish to do so.
96814. Don Schneider at 01:39 AM on 4 February 2011
       Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
       John, either your inability or choice not to respond to JMath (1/31/10) does not instill confidence. He makes a very valid point of criticism; one I have voiced myself on various forums. The utility of Dr. Mann’s temperature reconstruction is entirely dependent upon an assumption that is neither provable nor disprovable; thus is unscientific. The assumption is, as JMath pointed out, that the tree ring divergence problem only pertains to recent years. Since there are no recorded temperatures throughout most of the time span of the hockey stick graph, there is no way to verify the correctness of this assumption. This in turn casts grave doubts upon the accuracy of the entire reconstruction.
96815. grypo at 23:33 PM on 3 February 2011
       More animations of the Warming Indicators
       I put together a video on "fingerprints" and "indicators". With help from Bach!
       Response: Thanks for the link. Here's the embedded video for those of you too lazy to click on the link:
96816. JMurphy at 22:07 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       RSVP, instead of wallowing in victimhood or bringing up spurious attempts at diversion, why don't you comment on the subject in hand : Monckton. What do you think of the 'arguments' given by him above ? Do you agree with him or any of his 'arguments' ?
96817. Richo at 21:18 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       I keep having a ground hog day.
96818. RSVP at 20:46 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       JMurphy #41 By admitting my denial, I become guilty of acting in bad faith, yet if I deny my denial, I am labeled a hypocrite. If we are returning to the middle ages, perhaps it is due to the oxygen depravation.
96819. Tom Curtis at 20:27 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Feet2thefire is plainly in complete ignorance of the logical place of models in science. A model is a set of mathematical formula that encapsulate a combination of known physical laws and some proposed theory. For any models other than the simplest, they need to be run on computers because of the number of calculations involved. For even moderately complex climate models they need to be run on super computers. But that does not change their logical basis. Because a model is a set of mathematical formulas encapsulating a theory, the output of a model run is just the prediction of that theory for a given set of initial conditions. (In chaotic systems, its a little more complex than that, but that's basically it.) So, and obviously, model outputs are not evidence. But that does not mean they are irrelevant. When Santer says, "Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.", that means that no theory using natural variability alone as inputs predicts the observed increase in tropopause height. Just to make this quite clear. Models (and hence theories) including anthropogenic influences predict the increase in tropopause height. But no model (and hence theory) not including anthropogenic influences predicts the increase in tropopause height. This fact is not, of course, evidence. It is, however, proof that the increase in tropopause height is evidence of anthropogenic influence. Feet2thefire's slovenly argument is simply a demand that emperical observations (even if only with radiosonde) be not counted as evidence against theories that don't predict it; and not be counted as evidence for theories that do. It is a de facto demand that science be evidence free. I have not gone through all of Feet2thefire's endlessly turgid and repetitive spammed responce. I did note in passing a few blatant errors. Reanalysis is not, for example, weather forcasting. But what struck me most was the obtuse nitpicking. Obtuse because the nitpicks is clearly based on a total failure to understand what is said. They reveal Feet2thefire to be a scientific illiterate. Just one example. He picks fault with Santer for saying, "To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century." (My emphasis) According to him, this is an admission by Santer that as of 2003, nobody had answered Spencer's challenge. But for his responce to make any sense, tropopause height would need to be the only possible signal of anthropogenic climate change.
96820. Feet2thefire at 19:32 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       @228 - The Santer paper is not good science. How in the world did Science actually publish such a weak, sloppy, illogical mess like that? I am not impressed. Is Santer kidding?

       A model-predicted fingerprint [human, I will assume he means] of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) datasets.

       It is a model, folks. Models are not empirical evidence. First of all, Santer is using tropopause height as a proxy for, not warming, but he takes it to an unwarranted next step, bypassing the warming itself and going straight to "humans did it." His statement should have been in two parts. First it should have said, "We show that tropopause height is a quantifiable proxy for a warming climate," and then he should have shown his evidence that it was humans that caused the tropopause height change. His logic is flawed. His CO2 = humans thinking is getting in the way of his logic.

       Increases in tropopause height over the last several decades have been identified in radiosonde data (2), in observationally-constrained numerical weather forecasts (reanalyses) (3), and in climate models forced by combined natural and anthropogenic effects (4).

       Wow. The only empirical evidence here is the first, radiosonde data, and it is only evidence that the tropopause has changed. Nothing in that fact points at humans. The 2nd one is weather forecasts, and forecasts are not empirical evidence. They are guesses. The 3rd is climate models, and models are not empirical evidence, either. So all he is left with is "Weather balloons say the tropopause changed height." That says nothing about humans. To Santer maybe it does, but it isn't scientific to take that quantum leap. Santer: In logic you can't leave steps out.

       Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone (4).

       Again, models are not empirical evidence. They are lines of code and can only give back what is programmed in. GIGO anyone? I am not slurring the modelers intentions, just that they need each physical process to be 100% proven out before they can rely on the output of that portion of the code. And they also need to not include even one code character of supposition or surmise or assumption.

       To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century.

       THIS one is beautiful. Santer here is admitting that as of 2003 no one - I repeat, no one - had done what Dr. Spencer is asking in 2011. So, the first question should be, "Has anyone done it since then?" Of course, in this paper Santer is claiming that he and his cohorts have come to rescue climate science from that oversight. But has he?

       We estimate these contributions here, and demonstrate the usefulness of tropopause height as an integrated indicator of human-induced climate change.

       Sorry. Demonstrating based on estimates? Not science. I think he can do better than that. Really guys, this is not well done. On this site where you claim to be properly skeptical, you don't let that pass as science, do you? And this one in the Abstract caught my eye:

       Tropopause height changes simulated over 1900-1949 are smaller than in recent decades, and are driven largely by variations in volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance.

       I'll even pass on the "simulated" and get to the real goody: This is the same solar irradiance that has been shot down as a direct and naturalforcing for warming itself, but it is okay for Santer to drag it out and claim a causal link to tropopause height? For a proxy? Wow. That sure seems to be a double standard. But at the same time, let's see what Santer does with it... Okay, he only mentions it twice in the body of the text. The first is

       The natural external forcings considered are changes in solar irradiance (S) and volcanic aerosols (V)

       where he assigns a variable name to it. Okay... No real science there. . . Then the last mention of solar irradiance is:

       Solar irradiance changes over the 20th century warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere with offsetting effects on tropopause height.

       First here, let's point out that this is the only meaty (?) use of solar irradiance in the entire paper. But this is puzzling. Without any sourcing, he states it as fact, leaving everyone else (I guess) to stipulate that it is an uncontested fact. But, wow. He is giving solar irradiance a power that isn't referenced and a power that isn't allowed to anyone who tries to use it as a direct forcing on climate warming directly, who want to use it as a "natural forcing." They can't use it directly, but he can use it as a forcing - for a proxy - with no demonstrated evidence that it is even really true. Do I have that right? He can't do that. VERY poor logic, sloppy concepting of the paper - what can I say? Terrible... And in conclusion, nowhere in it does Santer develop an answer to Dr. Spencer's challenge. Models and simulations and estimates - none of them are empirical evidence that does what Santer claims it does. Solar irradiance - if he wants to use that for proxies, he has to "show his work," and prove why it is valid to use it. And then allow everyone else to use it. Seriously, if I were a grading it as a paper, I'd flunk the dude.
96821. Bibliovermis at 17:59 PM on 3 February 2011
       Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
       HumanityRules, Thank you for admitting that you are arguing belief. You are correct that such a discussion is not going to be resolved by "trading science". This is the core problem in self-proclaimed skepticism - the two "sides" are not having the same discussion. I do agree that humanity is comprised of dynamic problem solvers. Dismissing the results of that problem solving because it conflicts with belief is not beneficial. The original instance of the term CAGW, that I know of, is the Oregon Petition.
96822. HumanityRules at 16:25 PM on 3 February 2011
       Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
       54 actually thoughtfull There is no possibility of a logical discussion between us on this subject. You see humanity as passive victims of change. I see us as dynamic problem solvers. That simple fact is not going to be resolved by trading science. I guess you're on "The Road" with Viggo Mortensen, I'm in the Shuttle with Bruce Willis. Of course that assumes CAGW is on the horizon.
96823. Bibliovermis at 15:08 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       I have never heard of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi and can't find any published work by an author of that name. Can you provide any citations? That claim is in direct contradiction to many different lines of empirical evidence. argument: CO2 effect is weak argument: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
96824. muoncounter at 15:06 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       #231: "there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue" It's not really a debate; that would imply some sort of parity between the two sides. If you look around this site for any length of time (and you should), you will quickly realize that most denier positions fall flat on their face. "despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media" What media do you watch? Most of the media ignores climate change as a political hot potato -- and those who do talk about it feel compelled to pretend it needs a 'fair and balanced' presentation. "the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi" Very convincingly shown to be false here. Before falling for a fringe theory, it would be best to read up on the basics here at SkS. Start with the newcomers guide, then read through the rebuttals to the common skeptic arguments.
96825. scaddenp at 14:35 PM on 3 February 2011
       It's not bad
       eric. that's nice. I'm not expecting Apocalypse tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. However, the papers by Matthews and Weaver, and Hare and Meinshausen for instance lead me to conclude that even if we start making changes now, it will take a long time to turn the climate ship around. There are significant risks associated with change that becomes too rapid as well - instability from climate refugees, effects from failures in food production, in particular - that I suspect will effect everyone on planet however isolated from direct effects they may be.
96826. qball17 at 14:26 PM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       hey guys, i am an engineer so i am no expert in the field of climate science however i am deeply interested. i take quite a neutral position on whether CO2 is driving the climate, there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media. I was just wondering have you guys seen the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi? he has published quite a few papers. His conclusions are that there is a constantly maintained green house gas factor that cannot be changed with further emissions alone. He claims that there would be an equivalent amount of water vapour withdrawing from the atmosphere as the CO2 rises. I'm interested to hear standpoints on his work. Thanks
96827. Bibliovermis at 14:22 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       That is the paradox of addressing purveyors of misinformation. Ignore them and they can spin that as proof of how they are correct and there is indeed a conspiracy to suppress The Truth. Cuckoo Science
96828. Eric (skeptic) at 14:05 PM on 3 February 2011
       It's not bad
       David Horton, you noted in the other thread that I am in your shoes because I live on earth. I live in Northern Virginia, a climate somewhat moderated due to the Appalachians to the west, but still can be cold and dry in the winter. In the summer it can be hot and humid. I think about winter cold a lot, so I have plans for that: a southern exposure on which I already use passive solar: foundation painted black, with some acrylic (a mistake) covering and warm air intakes. I have heat mass in the crawl space. I heat with wood. There's a lot more I could do and will as I have time. I also think about summer heat and have started five shade trees. I don't worry about drought, my well is 200 feet below the river and the river will never go dry. I don't worry about floods on the river 80 feet below. My summer electric bill peaks about $50 / month with central air so I haven't done much. There simply isn't as much to do about heat except perhaps water some plants, put up shade cloth, etc.
96829. Eric (skeptic) at 13:50 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Actually I am not in your shoes (more details on an appropriate thread). But I was referring specifically to Monckton obsession. This is how far you have come in a little over 4 years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment You have turned Monckton from a typhoon of errors into a flood of much more clever misinformation. You would have been better off ignoring him.
96830. David Horton at 13:37 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Eric "Y'all seem to take it much more personally than I would in your shoes." You are in our shoes. Or do you have another planet lined up somewhere, and a deal with Virgin Space for a trip?
96831. Eric (skeptic) at 13:03 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Tom, that is true, politics follows the path of least resistance and Monckton puts on a good performance. I am on the other side politically on this (because I believe we have time on our side), but in the long run it hurts the skeptical cause to have so much misinformation out there. Anthony Watts is also in the entertainment business as are many weathermen. I don't think the popularity of his blog is due to a yearning for scientific truth. When I started my research in the late 90's I took things more seriously. But I can't anymore so that is why I don't care what Monckton says. I just do the little bit I can to correct the more outrageous falsehoods that I see (mostly on conservative forums).
96832. Tom Curtis at 12:46 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       When skeptics invite Monckton to adress Congress, we are forced to take him more seriously; and skeptics less so. Until skeptics rebut and repudiate the likes of Monckton themselves (and that includes the likes of Anthony Watts), any suggestion that scientists should take their views seriously are laughable.
96833. Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Climate sensitivity is something I have written about on other threads. What Monckton says: "Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling." That is wrong, paleo estimates do not use models. I haven't written about sea levels, but Monckton says "Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century." Also wrong, greater sea level rise is certainly physically possible. The former above is distortion, the latter is cherry picking of scientists or both can be considered misinformation. The reason I've never commented about Monckton is I simply do not care what he says. Y'all seem to take it much more personally than I would in your shoes.
96834. scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
       And if future when submitting graphs, please use the appropriate scale for the axes, in you case the y-axis. For an excellent article on the appropriate scale for axes and other important graphing techniques, please see How to cook graph skepticalscience.com style (Cat and coffee warning. His latest is very funny too).
96835. Albatross at 10:45 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
       "Springs may be coming earlier, but if autumn is too then there would be no net difference." The data and literature I provided do not support your (unsubstantiated) assertion. Please demonstrate for us here, using the literature and appropriate data, that the snow in the fall (September-November) has been arriving sooner. You made the assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it instead of musing hypotheticals. Agnostic, you may not realise it, but you are presenting as a concern troll...and this discussion is getting tiresome, especially when I hunt down numerous papers to back up my point and your retort is essentially full of "what ifs". Monckton misled, that much is unequivocal. He chose that part of the picture which fit his agenda. Dana (and I) provided seasonal and annual data.
96836. Albatross at 10:36 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
       Agnostic, "I'd really love to know why the ANNUAL average is not being shown..." I fail to see how you keep missing this graph from the above post: Do you not see the title of that Figure? "Northern Hemisphere Annual Snow Extent" And if future when submitting graphs, please use the appropriate scale for the axes, in you case the y-axis. Thanks.
96837. agnostic at 10:13 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
       "I think that you are missing the point of the post. It is Monckton who is cherry-picking. " No i have not missed the point. I can see that John makes an excellent general point that we would not necessarily expect to see a reduction in winter snow extent, especially initially, but that spring would arrive sooner. He then goes onto to create a graph depicting how springs have had trending smaller extent. Well that is also cheery-picking. Springs may be coming earlier, but if autumn is too then there would be no net difference. If autumn comes at the same time, and spring earlier then there would be longer periods of the year with reduced ice extent. That would show in the Annual average as a decline. But if autumn starts earlier then it means the seasons are not respecting our notions of when they should start. That might possibly indicate some change to the climate, just not necessarily warming. (NB I am not disputing that there has been warming!) So I took the data he posted and made my own graph - taking care to ensure that the missing data was patched. ""Would it be not reasonable to suspect that there was some kind of change in data collection?" I do not think so, Brown and others do mention it." Hmm. My plot points bounce around, then suddenly drop a bit and remain pretty consistent thereafter. Never-the-less I scanned the article you linked regarding uncertainty and they seem to think it is not unprecedented - something like it occurred in the 20's. I suppose it's possible but you have to admit it really looks suspicious. "Inparticulare look at Table 4.2-- it shows N. Hemisphere snow extent showing statistically significant decreases between March and August (excluding May), with negative trends between January and October" Why just between March and August? In my experience mother nature does not always rock up on cue - surely the safest way to be sure that you account for different starts to the seasons is to take an annual average? If there is a trend it should still show up. I will look at the links you posted carefully, some I have already scanned before, but nothing there leaps out at me in answer to the questions I posed. If the Rutger data is as reliable as you suggest (and I have no reason to suppose otherwise), then simply comparing percentage differences of annual averages seems more striking in their consistency than as a clear trend - apart from that big jump at 1989. "All this presents a consistent and coherent picture. " Well to you may be, but I can't see one yet. I'd really love to know why the ANNUAL average is not being shown...
96838. Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 08:34 AM on 3 February 2011
       Norwegian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       Thanks for the nice comments. Sorry about the small typo. Tunnel vision, I guess.
96839. Albatross at 08:18 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Alleagra, Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point. How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing. I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see... Oh, already found one, Schwartz et al. (2010): ".....and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%." And "The standard deviation of the difference in temperature over 150-yr intervals for the period (1000–1850) based on the synthesis reconstruction of Juckes et al. (2007) yields 0.2 K, which is 25% of the observed increase in GMST (Fig. 2). Somewhat smaller changes in GMST were found in simulations of the twentieth century with coupled ocean–atmosphere global climate models using estimated natural forcings only (as reported by Solomon et al. 2007, see their Fig. 9.5), which for 19 runs with 5 models yielded a temperature increase of 0.09 K (standard deviation is 0.19 K, maximum is 0.49 K)" Spencer might also want to try and explain what is causing the planet to be in a net positive energy imbalance (see Murphy et al. 2009). One cannot blame that on internal climate variability, nor can one blame it on solar. Also from Murphy et al. (2009): "After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semi-direct forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects." Then there is Foster et al. (2010), in which they state: "Trenberth et al. [2002] found a residual global mean surface temperature trend of 0.4°C over the period 1977–1998 after ENSO impacts alone are removed. More recently, Thompson et al. [2008] removed an estimate of global temperature variations associated with both ENSO and the so‐called cold ocean/warm land or “COWL” pattern of extratropical temperature variation, and found a residual global mean surface warming of 0.4°C over the 1950–2006 period. In all of these previous analyses, ENSO has been found to describe between 15 and 30% of the inter seasonal and longer‐term variability in surface and/or lower tropospheric temperature, but little of the global mean warming trend of the past half century." Where the residual refers to the anthropogenic component. Trenberth et al. (2002) found that: "For 1950–1998, ENSO linearly accounts for 0.06 C of global surface temperature increase." And there are more where those came from....what does Spencer think he is trying to pull here? These games being played by those in denial about AGW/ACC (and it seems now that Spencer is officially in denial about AGW) disgust me. Spencer is just providing fodder for the "skeptics", who will lap anything up it seems so long it fits their preconceived (and misguided)ideas.
96840. MichaelM at 08:00 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out unicorn farts as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." They can't! It's a conspiracy!
96841. muoncounter at 07:56 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       #224: "Show me one peer-reviewed paper ... " How about Santer 2003: Our study shows that the increase in tropopause height over the second half of the 20th century was predominantly due to human activity, and provides independent support for claims of recent tropospheric warming. And Hegerl et al 2011: we find that external forcing contributes significantly (p<5%) to the reconstructed long-term variability of winter and spring temperatures and that it is responsible for a best guess of 75% of the observed winter warming since the late seventeenth century. This warming is largely attributable to greenhouse-gas forcing. A more appropriate thread for this fish-in-a-barrel is It's not us.
96842. Bibliovermis at 07:48 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       The It's the Sun argument discussion provides links to 17 more peer-reviewed papers on this topic.
96843. Bibliovermis at 07:41 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       argument: It's not us Geophysical Research Letters Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes Science Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans argument: Models are unreliable Nature Geoscience The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes
96844. Albatross at 07:29 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       Alleagra, Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point. How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing. I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see...
96845. alleagra at 07:21 AM on 3 February 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       I have just noticed this site and will read submissions on it with interest. I have a simple question. Dr. Roy Spencer [ http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ ] who I am sure, needs no introduction, has just posted a comment "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-challenge-from-dr-roy-spencer/#more-33053 Any offers for him?
96846. Albatross at 06:52 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Astounding is it not JMurphy...and the hypocrisy and double standard they live by is equally astounding.
96847. Albatross at 06:49 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       RSVP, Please just answer the question, it is a simple one. A "yes" or "no" will suffice.
96848. JMurphy at 06:48 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       How come so-called skeptics can't even criticise someone as obviously false as Monckton ? Or, if they do, they try to make out that those doing the criticising are worse ? There can only be one explanation : denial.
96849. RSVP at 06:21 AM on 3 February 2011
       Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
       Albatross #38 "What is your position on Monckton's campaign ...So far you have not stated your position regarding these actions. Please do so. " I guess I do see the mote in Monckton's eye, but I also see a few beams here and there.
96850. Rich D at 06:02 AM on 3 February 2011
       Skeptical Science iPhone app now with blog posts
       I was just updated to the new version on an iPod Touch (3rd Gen) running version 4.2.1 of iOS. The application starts, shows Loading... and then closes. I tried turning the iPod off and then on again, but the application fails in the same way.

Prev  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  1935  1936  1937  1938  1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  Next