Recent Comments

Prev  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  Next

Comments 97701 to 97750:

97701. Sasquatch at 01:53 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       Good point, Notcynical. As a high school student, we were shone An Inconvenient Truth by several well-meaning teachers. The result was polarizing to say the least. The movie was alarmist and non-scientific. Are there any charts available which plot the rise and fall of other greenhouse gases?
       Moderator Response: You are incorrect. See "Al Gore got it wrong." Regarding other GHGes, see "CO2 only causes 35% of global warming," "It’s CFCs," "It’s ozone," "CO2 is not the only driver of climate," "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas," "Humidity is falling," and "It’s methane."
97702. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:45 AM on 25 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
       Thanks Mark. I see that you have a good point. However it is a bit brash to say that certain symbols "by definition" represent an actual physical quantity. Consider this possible physical process: spring now comes earlier snow melts and becomes water wet ground reflects less light than dry ground (I presume here) A century later, spring comes much earlier. Then, by the time each spring when the ground is now wet with melt water, it has dried. Albedo goes back to dry ground albedo. (The wet ground period comes earlier when the sun is a lower angle). Result: equilibrium sensitivity is lower than what you project here.
97703. Kevin C at 01:42 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I've met this one. It can actually be addressed without getting into chaos theory by looking at the structure of the formal argument... 1. Weather in unpredicatable (beyond x days...) 2. Given that weather is unpredictable, it necessarily follows that climate is unpredictable. What is climate? Roughly, the statistics of weather. Thus: 1. Weather in unpredicatable (beyond x days...) 2. Given that weather is unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of weather are unpredictable. The argument falls if either premise is incorrect. The second premise takes the form: "Given that X is unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of X are unpredictable." Which can be falsified by example: Given that dice are unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of dice are unpredictable. Given that lottery machines are unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of lottery machines are unpredictable. Given that crimes are unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of crime are unpredictable. Given that hard disk failures are unpredictable, it necessarily follows that the statistics of hard disk failures are unpredictable.
97704. DSL at 01:38 AM on 25 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       There's that term again -- "pro-AGW." What a weird thing to label people who would probably give their right and left arms to keep the climate as stable as it has been for the last several thousand years.
97705. Kevin C at 01:30 AM on 25 January 2011
       A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
       I'm afraid I think I found a mistake. I was trying to reproduce your result in python and failing. Eventually I had to instrument your code and mine, and eventually I found out the mistake. You use characters 3-7 of the station id as a key, I use 0-10. The documentation isn't very clear, but here's what I get from it and from various blogs: - The first 3 characters a country code, irrelevent for our case because it can be deduced from the rest of the station ID. So omitting this is fine. - The next 5 chars are the WMO station code. - The final 3 are the imod code. IIUC this is used for stations which so not have a WMO code. The station is given the code of the nearest WMO station, which may be a substantial distance away, plus a non-zero imod code to distinguish it. The problem is that the imod!=0 stations are separate stations. By ignoring the imod code, you merge all of these stations into the single WMO station. In the case of disjoint records, the resulting record contains both (but only gets a single baseline), in the case of overlapping records, the last overwrites the others. Examples include: 68262: 14168262000 14168262001 44373: 21544373000 21544373002 72211: 42572211001 42572211002 42572211003 72214: 42572214000 42572214001 72217: 42572217001 42572217002 42572217004 72672: 42572672000 42572672001 42572672002 42572672003 72671: 42572671001 42572671002 42572671003 42572671004 42572671005 42572671006 72670: 42572670001 42572670003 42572670004 42572670005 42572670006 42572670007 42572670008 42572670009 42572670010 42572670011 42572670012 So I changed this in my program and verified I could reproduce your results. Here's my 2 graphs plus yours: http://postimage.org/image/35hd6ufc4/ Note that with 5/8 char station IDs I match your results pretty well. With 11 char IDs the results are rather different. What threw me for a while is that the full ID gives apparently worse results, so I assumed at first that it was my mistake. In particular, it shows a much larger hump around 1935. But looking at the station IDs, it is clear that a lot of the imod codes are in the US (country=425). I think what your code is doing is merging a lot of US stations, and thus reducing the overweighting of US data arising from the over-representation of US stations in the data. The correct solution of course is geographical binning (or some equivalent method) to deal with this over-representation. So I implemented that in my version. Here's what I get, along with NASA's resutls: http://postimage.org/image/2f5tftz9g/ Note that the difference between the 5 and 11 char versions is now reduced, and apart from the sparse early data the curves follow the gistemp data quite well, including the 1935 period. I'm still not 100% certain, so I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable will comment, but at the moment it seems to me that the 11 character approach is the correct one.
97706. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:24 AM on 25 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Here is a pdf file of the slides from a presentation of the paper. MarkR, I appreciate your comments. Since you mention textbooks, why not name and briefly describe a couple?
97707. notcynical at 01:13 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       "A change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather." Wow, 7C is 12.8F; 80F vs 92.6F, 20F vs 32.6F are not worth noting? The whole post lost some credibility with that statement. The pool analogy is a good one... up to a point. One question is why has the pool level not gone up much, if at all, in the last 10 years even though the water has been flowing in at an ever increasing rate. This is not to deny that water is flowing into the pool, just that things are not so simple, and that there are still some things we do not have a good explanation for.
97708. Eric (skeptic) at 01:00 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       The example of 7 degrees change in average should perhaps be supplemented with a sentence on the length of time versus the type of prediction. The GAT just dropped 0.1 degrees in two days which could not have been predicted a week ago. Last year a rise of 0.3 degrees in a month was only as predictable as the El Nino with a few months skill at best. At the same time that we are inflicted with unpredictable day-to-day changes in albedo, week-to-week changes in atmospheric circulation, month-to-month in ocean circulation, the GAT plods upward decade-to-decade reflecting AGW and (to various debatable extents, long term cycles). Prediction of AGW is deterministic and can be greatly helped with empirical studies (e.g. measurements of actual OLR changes from feedback processes). The greatest uncertaintly in AGW predictions is the changes in weather itself, e.g., will AO become more positive or more negative (or cycle between both extremes or neither)? Temperature data source http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_ch05.r002.txt
97709. muoncounter at 00:36 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       #9: "Many climate models are presnted to the public as fact" On the contrary, I find the language of climate models overly timid. See the thread 'IPCC is alarmist' for examples of consistent use of conditional language. "When climate change is presented to the public as predictions instead of facts, then there may be less and less arguments" Wishful thinking at best. The primary tactic of the 'argument' community is to create doubt via making noise. See Oreskes' book for an exceptionally well-documented history of this.
97710. TimTheToolMan at 00:14 AM on 25 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       dehogza writes : "Lindzen testified to Congress that it's not really warming, and that supposed warming is due to modern thermometers that magically records transient warmth more efficiently than older mercury-based thermometers, while at the same time not being more sensitive to transient colder events." Would you care to speculate the conditions surrounding those "transient cold events" that might tend to effect the daily minimum for me?
97711. JMurphy at 00:12 AM on 25 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       LandyJim wrote : "Many climate models are presnted to the public as fact, in 50 years the planet WILL be 7°C warmer, the ice-caps WILL have melted and the ocean WILL be 7m deeper.. This is BAD science, or at least the reporting of it." Sounds more like BAD reporting to me, or do you have actual examples ? LandyJim also wrote : "When climate change is presented to the public as predictions instead of facts, then there may be less and less arguments raised against it." The former is currently the way climate change is reported by the people involved in studying it - just have a look at the last IPCC report. The latter will never be possible with a certain section of society, because they don't want to accept the facts. Unfortunately, enough of them have enough influence to impede progress : that is the real problem.
97712. Paul D at 23:32 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       Dikran, maybe weather is somewhat chaotic, but the causes of it aren't. Same goes for climate. Excluding unpredictable events such as something big hitting the Earth, the main inputs that cause weather are well known, or known well enough. Those inputs cause well known behaviours globally. There are actually more knowns than there are unknowns (beginning to sound like Rumsfeld!). But the ultimate outcomes may be less predictable. In some respects it is the scale that is a problem. Most people probably don't realise that the machines and equipment they use, only work reliably because someone has worked out the statistical probability of it failing and using components that minimise the probability of the product failing. All they see is a product that works for x years. They don't think that reliability is 'engineered' and they just get the engineered result. They then expect the same to be done with a system that is not engineered and have expectations that go beyond what is practical. I think half the issue is the huge expectations people have today.
97713. MarkR at 23:21 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       RE: 19 LandyJim To me this method makes perfect sense, based entirely on how feedbacks are defined and by looking at the heat flow in the system. If you go to my notes (linked to twice in the article), I give the relevant equations. If you don't follow the importance of this then introductory climate science textbooks tend to include it and it makes a lot more sense. If you can find flaws in this, then you have the makings of a wonderful, groundbreaking paper. :) We have a world where there are different feedbacks. We are interested in temperature's effect on them, and then their effect on radiation which can be converted to an effect on temperature. By considering the feedback parameter dF/da.da/dT you get the parameter a's effect on F given a change in T. This, from mathematical definitions allows you to determine the ultimate climate sensitivity assuming the feedback remains close to its measured value. By measuring it in observations, what you are doing is measuring feedback a1 as a1(F,T,a2,...,aN) i.e. it is a function of the (N-1) other feedbacks. But by taking observations, you are measuring it at specific values of a2,...,aN so their cross effects are included. You then measure the other feedbacks, e.g. clouds might be a2(F,T,a1,a3,...,aN) and that fully includes the coupled effects to the other feedbacks as well. So in each individual measurement, you don't need to calculate the other ones, you just need to independently measure them all. This is why Flanner's results are useful even though they don't discuss clouds in much detail. It's not scaremongering, it's just what the real world has done, which has been measured and reported on by a group of scientists who have a very useful theoretical tool that allows them to put it as a single value that is easy to compare and handle and very physically relevant.
97714. Dikran Marsupial at 22:58 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       A thought experiment based on a double pendulum is the best way of explaining this canard that I have been able to come up with. Weather is chaotic, and inherently unpredictable (beyond a short prediction horizon) but that doesn't mean the long term statistical properties of the weather (a.k.a. climate) are chaotic or unpredictable. Likewise the the exact path followed by a double pendulum can't be predicted beyond a short prediction horizon, but you can make predictions about its statistical behaviour if you for example you stuck a large magnet to one side (follow the link for pretty picture and discussion of simulation based prediction).
97715. LandyJim at 22:31 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I agree there is a clear lack of understanding in the public domain of the difference between weather forecasting and climate predictions. Governments are actually to blame for this, but so is the science community because of statements that are made. Many climate models are presnted to the public as fact, in 50 years the planet WILL be 7°C warmer, the ice-caps WILL have melted and the ocean WILL be 7m deeper.. This is BAD science, or at least the reporting of it. It should be worded so that people understand this is a prediction of what MIGHT happen if things stay as they are. The problem is we cannot predict what will happen this time tomorrow, let alone in 50 years. A major series of volcanic events can alter the weather very rapidly, many of the events predicted may have effects that have not been foreseen or may not be as severe as people and models estimate. The truth is we understand the climate and the weather very poorly, Yes reasonable predictions can be made over a few days to a week, but this is based as much on experience as calculations. The atmosphere of our planet is highly complicated, the interactions it undergoes within it and with external influences is immense, and we have only scratched the surface in our understanding. Models may be getting better, the information we put in is of a higher quality, but there is still those unknowns, the uncertainties and the unknowable. When climate change is presented to the public as predictions instead of facts, then there may be less and less arguments raised against it.
97716. LandyJim at 22:16 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       @Geln Tamblyn #11 That criticism seems to me to be based on a rather simplistic view of how science works Jim. Much of science is based on researchers looking at small parts of a puzzle. This spurs others to investigate other parts. And what a research team looks at depends on their backgrounds, resources, budegt etc. To criticise some work because it didn't try to look at all aspects seems unfair. Others will do that over time. This paper is showing one result. Others will no doubt look into other aspects subsequent to this. Patience Jim Glen, I understand how science works very well and in general for how science operates in the modern world your comments are correct, but there is also a responsibility to researchers to ensure that their papers are as complete at possible. MarkR has highlighted the minuscule cloud data in the article, but it does not stack up as it is incomplete, perhaps in haste I worded my original post in a misleading way...(Just going to hospital with 9 month old son..). For the record, I am not devoid of a science background. I am an Electrical Engineer and I hold an Honours Degree in Astronomy, currently, as I said in a post in the Hurricane thread, I am working on Hurricane data to ascertain what if any changes have occurred there and as an aside I am researching rainfall records from all nations who have rivers feeding the Atlantic and all inter-related data on this, including sea state locally, temperature, salinity etc. As I have said, I do not accept many of the Pro AGW arguments, but that does not mean I will simply sit on my hands..it will simply take me time to compile all the data I need to come to an independent conclusion about a few aspects of this that simply do not sit straight with me as they do not make sense.
97717. sime at 22:09 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       If this keeps up there won't be any ice in a few years never mind a few decades... http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/23/canada-mildness-high-presure-record-ostro-global-warming/ "The largest anomalies here exceed 21°C (37.8°F) above average, which are very large values to be sustained for an entire month." Abrupt climate change perhaps? Here comes the boxer, that we trained so well!
97718. alexaraujoc at 21:13 PM on 24 January 2011
       Hockey stick is broken
       I would like to call your attention to the most recent temperature reconstruction, which was published in Science this month. The paper entitled "2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility" by Büntgen et al. actually suggests that the current warming has no parallel in the last 2500 years. ABSTRACT Climate variations have influenced the agricultural productivity, health risk, and conflict level of preindustrial societies. Discrimination between environmental and anthropogenic impacts on past civilizations, however, remains difficult because of the paucity of high-resolution palaeoclimatic evidence. Here, we present tree ring–based reconstructions of Central European summer precipitation and temperature variability over the past 2500 years. Recent warming is unprecedented, but modern hydroclimatic variations may have at times been exceeded in magnitude and duration. Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from ~AD 250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the Migration Period. Historical circumstances may challenge recent political and fiscal reluctance to mitigate projected climate change.
97719. MarkR at 21:05 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       #9 LandyJim: the paper specifically considers clouds. e.g. at the top of the right hand column of text on the second page. It is an observational set so implicitly it includes non T & non F interactions with cloud, vapour etc which is very useful if you go to the calculations attachment and follow what's going on there. You see that feedbacks can be decomposed into independent, measurable values and the feedback equation fully includes their interaction with each other. The method used by Flanner makes no assumptions about ice->water, I have no idea where you got that idea from! To determine the feedback parameter for albedo changes you don't need to know much about clouds. But to determine the total global warming you need to know all the individual feedback parameters quite well. Other papers have looked at other feedbacks (e.g. Dessler '08/'10; Chung '09; Lauer '10 spring to mind).
97720. MarkR at 20:54 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       #6: krab, I tried to be clear by stating that it was their contributions to the Northern Hemisphere. They concentrated on the NH to do a like-for-like comparison between models and the data they had. To convert to global is easily done assuming models=truth for the southern hemisphere, but doesn't tell you the scale of the mismatch between observations vs models.
97721. Paul D at 20:53 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       This sort of conversation is the type one would have with another bus user whilst waiting for a bus. Those that insist on driving and never use public transport, probably avoid this type of reality and only encounter it in the comments of a newspaper web site. There isn't a lot that can change the intellectual abilities of the people you talk to, what is done, is done! But what you can do is spend some time explaining the issue in terms that they might understand. There is no guarantee that even if the person you were talking to was better educated, that they would be more inclined to agree with you. See this report: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44825
97722. les at 20:49 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       small suggestion, the sentence: "However, slight errors in initial conditions make a forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible." might be: "However, slight errors in initial conditions make a weather forecast beyond two weeks nearly impossible." very pedantic, I know. But then the use of cherry-picking and selective quotation by some, calls for that.
97723. MarkR at 20:40 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
       These calculations are by definition for the equilibrium climate sensitivity. That's why I said at the bottom 'if the current pattern holds...' So if this relationship between temperature-albedo and albedo-flux holds, then you would expect a boost of 20% to climate sensitivity if your original estimate was 3 C and all other feedbacks retain their properties linearly. This sounds a bit weird, but I'm thinking of doing a post at some point to try and make it clearer. In effect the feedbacks 'reinforce each other' - the extra energy trapped by your change in albedo is 'recycled' multiple times by the enhanced greenhouse effect etc.
97724. HumanityRules at 20:36 PM on 24 January 2011
       Oceans are cooling
       52 nealjking From all that is it possible to put absolute values on abyssal warming to forcings of different magnitudes over different time periods? The reason I ask is there seems to be some subjective descriptions of different time periods as being long and short. was used to suggest forcing over only 1-2 decades have had significant impacts on abyssal warming. While the discussion around this image. suggests volcanic forcings (4-5 years) fall into the category of forcings that only have a temporary effect on OHC at the top level, similar to season variation. There seems to be some convinient placing of different forcing into particular categories in order to make wider points about what is going on here. I'm interested to know if the conclusions about all these different forcings can be resolved by a consistent description of heat transfer in the oceans?
97725. Tom Curtis at 20:04 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Pete Dunkelberg, thanks (sort of :) ) for picking up my slip. The comments regarding sensitivity were in responce to Bodo @5.
97726. MattJ at 19:01 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       Failing to understand the difference between short term and long term averages and their predictability is a common failure among the 'innumerate'. Innumeracy is as big a problem as illiteracy -- if not more so, since people instinctively recognize the latter as bad but tolerate the former all too easily.
97727. adelady at 18:58 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       You want accurate. I'll give you accurate Followed this one from Hot Topic (I think). I'm keeping it foreverandever.
97728. Pete Dunkelberg at 18:15 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
       I agree with Steve Bloom: something is not right here. I think you may have mixed transient response with equilibrium sensitivity. This is quite a worthwhile discussion all the same.
97729. Pete Dunkelberg at 17:56 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Tom Curtis, you arrive at a good conclusion despite a slight typo: "The paper finds a much greater albedo rise (sic)...." but I don't think sensitivity belongs in this discussion (but I don't have the paper). Perhaps a slight slip in the OP set you off. I think this is another indication that the "slow" feedbacks are not cooperating by being slow. They are are not influenced by what we call them.
97730. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:45 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I want some of what he was smoking...
97731. villabolo at 17:30 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I guess climatologists have been perceived as...
97732. Bern at 17:25 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I don't know, there have been some pretty impressive predictions made by climate modelling over the years, like the one in this Skeptical Science post. They tend to be longer-range forecasts, so a lot of the predictions made in the past decade or so wont be realised for some time to come. Of course, you could always take the approach that, so far, climate science has tended to underestimate the rate and impacts of global warming...
97733. rhjames at 17:01 PM on 24 January 2011
       Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
       I haven't yet come across a technically educated skeptic that uses this argument. However, I have heard it from non technical people. Actually, I'm generally surprised at how accurate weather predictions are. I wish the climate models could match this accuracy.
97734. Paul W at 16:40 PM on 24 January 2011
       Seawater Equilibria
       #31 you asked what effect organic carbon has. Fair enough question. Here is my rough answer at the question Dr Franzen has avoided for reasons of space I assume. The answer is complicated. Multiple cycles are at work in the ocean. For the AGW deniers who want to excuse increases in CO2, looking at the organic carbon in ocean life does not help them. The slow addition of calcium bicarbonate (from calcium silicate minerals) and other minerals by weathering (historically the major process) involved in the drawdown of CO2 into ocean sediments have been vastly exceeded by the fossil fuel CO2. Looking at the Paleo record the CO2 peaks go up quickly and down very slowly. The drawdown of CO2 by life in the oceans had a large historical example. The Azolla Event 49 million years ago, is thought to mark the end of the Hot House Earth and lead to the start of the glacial cycles. It took 800,000 years. Even in optimum conditions like the Azolla Event life is not quick at drawing down CO2. Azolla Event We will need to manage ocean pH sooner or latter due to poor CO2 level control in the atmosphere. Any idea that just adding alkali will fix the oceans needs to be quickly dropped. Aquarium keepers are already doing this on a tiny scale and the below is to help shine a light on what it takes to keep salt water at a healthy pH 8.2 to 8.3 for tropical species. A short answer to your question is the effect of healthy life in the ocean seems to be to add to the alkaline buffer strength. This seems to be because life increases the species that can bind to a H3O+ ion. My reference for this is: marine aquariums The aquarium keepers have a challenge with keeping stable pH in salt water aquariums as the complex cycles that are in the oceans are not present. The buildup of fish waist quickly turns acid. Attempts to gain good pH control by just adding calcium carbonate or bicarbonate powder just work for a few days as the pK of the buffer shifts to 7.6 and away from the sweet spot of 8.2-8.3 for tropical creatures. The salt aquariums challenge to get stable pH is achieved by adding the complex mixture of buffers that are similar in their levels to the ionic species found in the oceans. commercial aquarium product marine aquariums pH control The shortest answer to the problem of ocean acidity it seems to me is that the oceans ability to absorb CO2 is coming to an end as evidenced by the rise in average pH of the oceans, so quickly limiting the use of coal, oil and gas, till atmospheric CO2 is below 350 ppm is the most direct solution.
97735. dhogaza at 15:45 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       Daniel Bailey: "There was a time when I thought I could convince you using the scientific method and peer-reviewed primary sources." GC's been a die-hard denialist from the beginning, and while it's a good idea to give the benefit of the doubt for a few posts, there's no reason to do so over periods of months or years. At some point, the truth's out, and that point's been long passed by GC.
97736. dhogaza at 15:43 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       Galloping Gish Camel:

       Those folks (e.g. the IPCC and the NSIDC) who predicted a dramatic decrease in Arctic ice by assuming that the trend that gave us a record low ice coverage in 2007 would continue have been shown to be wrong (color them "Alarmists"). Here is some information on Arctic ice in a region that has some economic importance (at least to the Russians)

       followed by:

       You make the all too common mistake (at least on this blog) of refuting imagined statements. I am convinced that the climate is indeed warming. You won that argument as we happen to be on the same side of the issue.

       You posted your reference in order to support your claim that "Those folks (e.g. the IPCC and the NSIDC) who predicted a dramatic decrease in Arctic ice by assuming that the trend that gave us a record low ice coverage in 2007 would continue have been shown to be wrong" An anecdotal cherry-pick which, as it turns out, doesn't support your claim. Quit whining.
97737. Ron Crouch at 15:40 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       #9 LandyJim "around 90% of the south is a frozen continent" Yes but Antarctica is covered mostly with ice as opposed to the northern hemisphere where you get substantially more dark surface area (both land and water) to absorb incoming radiation.
97738. Daniel Bailey at 15:16 PM on 24 January 2011
       CO2 effect is saturated
       Re: Colin Bridge (74) Hey, welcome to Skeptical Science! Thanks for posting your first question on an appropriate thread! Your friend's article is incorrect in many respects: 1. Even if the absorption band of carbon dioxide would be fully saturated in the lower parts of atmosphere, it is not saturated in higher atmosphere and the addition of carbon dioxide (CO²) will cause more absorption of thermal radiation (extra CO² has extra effect for a multitude of reasons). Nice-to-know: CO² exerts its effects primarily though bending mode (you can see visualizations of the various modes of CO² here). As shown there, CO² is infrared (IR) active due to a transient dipole: bending results in charge being asymmetrically distributed with net positive near the carbon atom and negative near the two oxygen atoms. 2. Water vapor is a condensible GHG. Short-term increases in concentrations of it condense out and equalize in about 9 days time. CO² stays aloft for centuries-to-millennia. Like the Energizer Bunny, it keeps on doing its thing. 3. The Earth currently takes in more energy than it emits. We can physically measure this. This emission takes place at the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA), well above where water vapor has anything but a minimal effect (it is found in only trace amounts there). Only the increasing concentrations of CO², which we can isotopically tell come from fossil-fuel emissions, explain the imbalance. And they explain it quite well. Turning up the CO² control knob is like cranking up the thermostat to max...and breaking it: The NOTES section at the bottom of this page contain much useful material. Also see here for background on the greenhouse effect and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which usually comes in the next contrarian article. :) BTW: The introduction of N² and O² is a complete red herring, as they are unaffected by infrared. Hope that helps. The Yooper
97739. Daniel Bailey at 14:38 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       Re: gallopingcamel (32) You are mistaken, sir, when you attribute that graph by the moderator to me. It lacks my name attached to the Moderator Response box (which I always provide to avoid confusion such as this). But since you have dragged me unwillingly into this:

       "This thread is over reacting to Monckton pointing out that Antarctic ice extent is growing."

       Incorrect. This thread is about Monckton's claims of "The global sea ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years".

       "On this site there is a fixation on "Warming" evidence while the reaction to contrary evidence is to ignore it or "Attack the Messenger". This approach repels the very people you are trying to convince."

       Skeptical Science relies upon using the peer-reviewed primary literature as well as the scientific method to examine the various claims out there to separate the chaff from the wheat. Claims that are unsupported by the available evidence that fits this criteria do tend to get ignored. As you are well aware, claims that are intended to overturn centuries of evidence accumulated during the lifetimes of thousands of scientists are therefore extraordinary, requiring an even higher level of extraordinary evidence that is supported by primary literature that withstands scrutiny in the peer-review process. None of which you have been able to provide to substantiate past claims you have made. There was a time when I thought I could convince you using the scientific method and peer-reviewed primary sources. That ended when you falsely accused me of dishonesty, an accusation you have never retracted. In your case, I now limit myself to pointing out your errors with links to sources documenting the correct way forward for the sake of posterity and the lay readership, who may read these threads at some unknown future point. I have no expectation or hope whatsoever of you ever becoming a resource here.

       "The graph that Daniel Bailey appended to my #29 was included in that document (Figure 13 on page 30). If you look closely you will find that the sea ice range predicted for the year 2100 dips to zero."

       Again, not my graph. The range you refer to is the width of model runs, the lower bound of which nears zero in 2100. Applying a quadratic fit to actual observations shows sea ice extent approaching zero about 2030. Your remaining comment about snowfall is off-topic here. The Yooper
97740. apiratelooksat50 at 14:26 PM on 24 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Muon @ 176 "I show you peer-reviewed research that 'suggests' changes to el Nino are based on AGW; that 'confirms' that human activity can and does alter global phenomena." How does one go from taking research that "suggests" a hypothesis to "confirming" your opinion?
97741. Tom Curtis at 14:02 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       A question and two comments. The paper finds a much greater albedo rise than expected compared to from models for the amount of warming experienced. However, my understanding is that warming in at latitutude 60+ north has been greater than expected. How does the albedo change in those latitudes compare to the models of the basis of temperature? Ie, in the models, if you correlate albedo change at 60+ north to temperature at 60+ north rather than global temperature change, is the relationship as expected or stronger? As to the comment, at least some of the excess warming in northern latitudes has been because of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilation. Some also has been due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, and some due to the loss of albedo driven by the other two. It is not certain as to the relative strengths of the first two (AMO and GHE), so it is not certain how much this study supports a higher climate sensitivity. If, for example warming effect of the AMO in northern latitudes has been twice that of the enhanced GHE, then the models have got the albedo calculations close to correct, but nature is conspiring against us. If, on the other hand the AMO warming is half that of the enhanced GHE, then the models are significantly underestimating climate sensitivity. Finally, although this result may be very significant for estimated in climate sensitivity in models, it is irrelevant for estimates based on observations. Those, of course already included all the detailed changes in the final output without knowing what they are. So regardless of the implications of this study, we should still be expecting a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees per doubling of CO2.
97742. Camburn at 13:59 PM on 24 January 2011
       The Climate Show #5: Green roofs and Brisbane floods
       Was the last flood in Australia worse than the floods of 1973-74? http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/flood7.htm
97743. muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       #34: Glenn, I think Ignorance is Strength is more SPPI's speed. Caught 'em once claiming that recent Greenland ice melt was due to a volcanic eruption. They hadn't noted that the volcano in question was 2200 years ago.
97744. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       And to the topic of the thread, which is about Monckton's track record in what he claims, his use of the comparison between Arctic & Antarctic ice is demonstrably false. However the bigger issue is the additional data that James and then others have posted here. Monckton is the 'Chief Policy Advisor' of the Science & Public Policy Institute whose Mission Statement begins: 'The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to SOUND public policy based on SOUND science...' (my emphasis) More sound science has been presented here by a range of people doing it as willing amateurs, for free, than ever by Monckton who is PAID to do it. Unless of course expressions from Monckton and Co about 'SOUND science' should be interpretted in the Orwellian sense... ... War Is Peace.
97745. HuggyPopsBear at 13:35 PM on 24 January 2011
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       I am not a scientist but lived with a lot of observation in my life. Can someone tell me if many are actually missing the point and getting to technical? From my observation and reading many papers on line, it would seem that CO2 is far from the cause of global warming, Co2 is a result of global warming from what I can glean. So if water vapour is causing the the increase in temperature, then the increase in temperature is the cause of CO2 rises. To explain: It would appear that after a period of warming and even when the mini ice age came through, CO2 continued to rise to a peak before declining. It would appear that greater degeneration of plant life is caused through warming emitting faster quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, this in turn creates greater growth of natural flora and fauna to again be degenerated and emitting greater flows of CO2. These growths are also as a result of increasing rains, and higher dew points. Research also shows without being specific, that in Roman times CO2 was higher then than now, that the global temperature was 3 degrees Celsius higher then than now and greater vapour was evident in some history books. If this is the case why are we being led to believe otherwise and that the planet is in danger of burning out if we do not get CO2 under control? I would just like to add as an aside , that Australia despite having serious rain problems and flooding this year, our harvest in South Australia has exceeded all expectations and 300,000 tonnes greater output than the highest ever record reached. As CO2 and water are a necessary plant food, could the small rise be sufficient to warrant awarding the increase to these two elements? Maybe we should be applauding the fact that we have this rise to create greater stock piles before it recedes to almost famine growth as it was in the 1950's with most of our water vapour again locked into glaciers and pole caps. Sometimes to much knowledge in one area can be detrimental to a whole picture which has not been formulated yet. Apologies if this has been addressed as I have not had time to read the many posts, yet!
       Moderator Response: Welcome to Skeptical Science! At the left of every page is a list of Most Used Skeptic Arguments. To see all of them, click the link "View All Arguments" at the bottom of that short list. You can also get there by clicking the "Arguments" link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of every page. You'll find the answers to all your questions there. For example, see "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas," "CO2 lags temperature," "Warming causes CO2 rise," "CO2 is not a pollutant," and "It’s not bad." There are more, but I'm tired of typing. Your best first stop, though, is the Home page, where you should click on the two boxes at the upper right labeled "Newcomers, Start Here" and "The Big Picture." By the way, one of the rules is that you must post comments on appropriate threads. This first comment of yours is too broad for this thread, but that's okay because this is your first time. But in future please find the best thread ("Argument") to post each comment on. And split up your comments into multiple narrow ones, one comment per topic and therefore one comment per thread. Also take advantage of the Search field at the top left of every page.
97746. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:19 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       GJ Too me the telling graph in James' post is the last one, the decline in multi-year ice. Add to this reports from researchers in the field in the last year that even that MY ice is pock-marked with holes that have been re-covered with 1st year ice. This is a picture of the backbone of year to year ice retention - structurally strong, thick MY ice in serious decline. As more of the Arctic Ocean is exposed in summer, winds are likely to be able to generate stronger waves and swells that can break up younger ice. As with land ice, it isn't just pure melt that matters but mechanical forces that cause break up and enhance melting. Interestingly, the MY ice isn't located around the Pole as one might expect. Where ice can survive longer is probably more influenced by weather patterns and ocean currents than absolute latitude So an 'ice free Arctic in Summer' well before 2100 looks highly likely unless current trends reverse rapidly - with one caveat. Rather than 'ice free' perhaps the correct expression should be 'effectively ice free'. There will quite probably be pockets of ice in the Arctic that persist through summer, depending on local weather conditions that year, and some years may be particularly cold and it doesn't clear at all. But in practical terms an effectively ice free summer arctic looks to be 10-20 years away Certainly in terms of the albedo impacts and trans-polar navigation.
97747. MattJ at 12:51 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Answering #9: Jim- How could any professional claim this paper is 'scaremongering'? It does not, as you accuse, assume all the ice turns into water without some also going to vapor. As the article says near the very top, it bases this conclusion on satellite measurements. So that it does NOT have to make any such rash assumption. The results of satellite observation do in fact confirm that not enough of the molten ice turns into clouds to offset positive feedback.
97748. scaddenp at 12:28 PM on 24 January 2011
       Oceans are cooling
       Should also look at the excellent Science of Doom articles on back radiation and ocean warming
97749. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:21 PM on 24 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       LandyJim #9 'Sorry to say this, but actually this paper will come across as scaremongering and incomplete science, they should have accounted for evaporation from the surface and estimated cloud cover to approximate the offset this would provide.' That criticism seems to me to be based on a rather simplistic view of how science works Jim. Much of science is based on researchers looking at small parts of a puzzle. This spurs others to investigate other parts. And what a research team looks at depends on their backgrounds, resources, budegt etc. To criticise some work because it didn't try to look at all aspects seems unfair. Others will do that over time. This paper is showing one result. Others will no doubt look into other aspects subsequent to this. Patience Jim
97750. gallopingcamel at 12:19 PM on 24 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
       dhogaza (@31), You make the all too common mistake (at least on this blog) of refuting imagined statements. I am convinced that the climate is indeed warming. You won that argument as we happen to be on the same side of the issue. This thread is over reacting to Monckton pointing out that Antarctic ice extent is growing. On this site there is a fixation on "Warming" evidence while the reaction to contrary evidence is to ignore it or "Attack the Messenger". This approach repels the very people you are trying to convince. Michael Sweet (@30), Good point but I was not referring to AR4. The "Copenhagen Diagnosis" was published in 2009. The graph that Daniel Bailey appended to my #29 was included in that document (Figure 13 on page 30). If you look closely you will find that the sea ice range predicted for the year 2100 dips to zero. Personally, I am as skeptical of that prediction as I was about snowfall becoming a rare phenomenon throughout Europe. However, I applaud the IPCC for being bold enough to make itself clear on the issue.
       Moderator Response: I'm not attacking the messenger. I am attacking the assertion that Arctic sea ice decline is "matched" by Antarctic sea ice increase. As I've shown above, neither extent data, nor area data, nor volume data bear this out. - James

Prev  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  Next