Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Next
Comments 99401 to 99450:
-
hfranzen at 16:13 PM on 5 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
An addition to my response to #29: I certainly agree that I am not in any way capable of considering how the GHG energy is distributed over the earth, and I say that in everything I write. I report the forcing temperature increase because that is the conventional way these results are reported, but for the earth-year average that is just one way of giving the net energy increase. You are complettly correct that I should leave to others the question of the effects of the energy on different areas of the earth. and I do. -
hfranzen at 16:06 PM on 5 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #31: The number that I get (.014 K/yr)is what comes out of the calculation. I do not know where your 1.25ln(1.78)/ln2 comes from so I cannot make a comparison. I do know that my number comes from a quite accurate calculation of the broad-band, diffuse, transmittance and that it is directly related to the GHG flux at the earth's surface. I have seen numbers very similar to 0.014 K/yr quoted for the CO2 forcing, but I don't rememeber where. If you think that your formula is an improvement on the basic science I have presented I would very much like to see how it is developed. On the other hand, I think the two results for CO2 forcing (1 degree and 1.4 degree) are both indicative of a serious warming. -
hfranzen at 15:46 PM on 5 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #29: The last steps of GWPPT6 are based upon a steady state for the earth-year average: energy in equals energy out. If, over the earth and over a year, more energy is coming in to the earth (which is the case because of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the GHG effect)more energy must go out. The energy that goes out increases as the fourth power of the temperature. Therefore the increased temperature from year to year is directly calculable from the increased GHG effect for the earth-year average. The temperarure effects you mention (wind, waves, phase transitions) are irrelevant to the total energy in-energy out for the total earth. -
iana at 15:45 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Hi In the first graph, what year is 'present'?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] It's my understanding that the ice core record graphics typically use 1950 for their "year zero" baseline unless otherwise specified. See the response in comment 3 above for a somewhat updated version. -
dhogaza at 15:40 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
"The Inconvenient Skeptic" is simply repeating the stupidity that climate science presumes that *only* CO2 affects climate, and changes in solar insolation does not. TIS: climate science doesn't claim that. What you are doing is known as making a "strawman argument". The difference between now and the prehistorical times you mention is very simple: Back then, fossil fuel wasn't being burned in ever increasing quantities. It's so tiring to hear people claim, in essence, that if one burns hydrocarbons, the resulting CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere. Where do you think it ends up? ( -edit- )Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Be nice. No need for a tactical nuke when a 2x4 will suffice. -
Polar Bear at 15:00 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Democracy Now reported Congressman Shimkus of Illinois will be the head of the subcommittee on environment and economy.He said in 2009:Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of the dinosaurs, where we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet—not too much carbon. Where does he get these ideas?? -
pdt at 14:54 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#6 The Inconvenient Skeptic: Is it possible that more than one thing can cause the earth to warm or cool? Is it possible that something else changed while the CO2 concentration was stable during a period when the earth cooled? -
muoncounter at 14:54 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#6: "If CO2 isn't a significant factor... " If you've reached that conclusion, you haven't been paying attention. Read the paragraph under Fig. 1 above again. "elevated CO2 levels in the past ... " The strawman is by your choice of one aspect in a complicated story. Elevated? compared to today, no. Elevated while the earth cooled because of a change in orbital parameters that initially overwhelmed the effect of atmospheric CO2. "If elevated CO2 levels caused the warming ... " In #1, you asked us to discount the glacial terminations, now here they are as part of your argument. Bad choice, as the literature doesn't support you: The overall correlation between our CO2 and CH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature is remarkable (r^2 = 0.71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing... -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 14:08 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
All, If CO2 isn't a significant factor, the concentration that is 400ppm instead of 270 ppm doesn't really matter. Phila, Is it strawman to point out that elevated CO2 levels in the past existed while the Earth dramatically cooled? According to the Vostok record the temperature dropped 6C while CO2 levels were stable. If elevated CO2 levels caused the warming, then the Earth would not have cooled. Or are you simply using strawman as a method of avoiding the data from the end of the Eemian? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 13:52 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Thanks, Daniel. Would you give me permission to use that image elsewhere (with credit to you and skepticalscience.com)? It's a very stark reminder of what we're doing.Response: [Daniel Bailey] Not mine to give permission for. However, the SkS version is here. See the Creative Commons language there for fair usage. Thanks!
[John Cook] I've added CO2 History to our list of Climate Graphics. It's under a Creative Commons licence so you're free to use it elsewhere:
-
muoncounter at 13:34 PM on 5 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
#6: "the relentless propaganda... " If quotes from 1999 and 2004 are all you've got to show relentless propaganda, you don't have much. FYI, relentless means (of pace or intensity) sustained; unremitting. Meanwhile, nothing about these 'tricks' changed any of the basic facts. See, for example, Did global warming stop in 1998? and the more recent Did global warming stop in ____fill in the blank with year of your choice___? If it's propaganda in today's world you want, look here. The lead article has tropical cyclone activity reaching a new low (ask our friends in Queensland how that's working out). Even better, look here. Dr. Singer is at it again: “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.” -
Phila at 13:33 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
TIS says: the forcing effect of CO2 is not the critical factor in the glacial cycles. Anne-Marie says: The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. Is it my imagination, or has yet another "skeptic" erected yet another strawman? -
Daniel Bailey at 13:25 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Re: Blueflash (210) 1. Read the study (petit et al 1999) 2. IBID. Then read this. 3. You expect all glacial epochs to be Xerox copies? 4. 450,000 years of data, multiple cores. Say what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that that's an awful lot of years and even more snowflakes. Humans do a pretty good job at understanding past and present ongoing climate change and predicting future climate changes. Strawmen distractions about off-topic supervolcano's aside (we are overdue for a Yellowstone blow, tho), human beings are pretty capable of screwing the planet up. Get used to it. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 13:21 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
#210: "if the graph was drawn with uniform granularity..." If the graph was drawn uniformly, it would be a misrepresentation of the data. The time resolution of an ice core (and many conventional cores) decreases as you move downhole (older). Petit et al 1999 is the classic description of how these data are obtained. The mean resolution of the CO2 (CH4) profile is about 1,500 (950) years. It goes up to about 6,000 years for CO2 in the fractured zones and in the bottom part of the record "... only really 5 samples of interglacials represented here and that really isn't much of a data set." Why is this a concern? This isn't a pattern matching exercise. -
Blueflash at 12:46 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Here is the full graph. Shows a more similar curve between 430,000 years ago and now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.pngModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Not so similar. Remember that ice core temperature reconstructions use 1950 as year zero. Here's what that would look like if CO2 were extended to today's levels (I do seem to be having to show this illustration a lot lately!):
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:39 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Pity that the chart doesn't show today's CO2 levels. That really puts the cat among the pigeons!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try this one then: -
Blueflash at 12:38 PM on 5 January 2011We're heading into an ice age
Perhaps I'm missing something,but several things jump out of this graph: 1) The data only goes back about 430,000 years, yet the axis goes back 450,000 years. Why? To me it looks as though someone has removed the first part of the line. I'm not saying they did, but such things do happen from time to time. In this instance it's a fairly critical question because the interglacial that occurs at the left of this graph is allegedly the closest fit to the one we have now in terms of the alignment of the planet. 2) It is apparent that the later data is at a high level of granularity than the more recent data, you can see this by the spikiness (thickness) of the line. This is not surprising because the closer we get to the present the more data we have. However it does somewhat skew one's perception of the graph because when we look at 430,000 years ago compared with now, we are not - in graph terms - comparing apples with apples, due to the granularity difference. I strongly suspect that if the graph was drawn with uniform granularity then the temp change 430,000 years ago would appear more similar to the present temp change. 3) The temp peak in this current interglacial is presently a very thin one at 2C. Other than that the temp appears to be hovering somewhere between 0-1C, this is actually lower than in pervious interglacials, all of which peak between 2-4C. 4) There are only really 5 samples of interglacials represented here and that really isn't much of a data set. Now I fully appreciate that this can;t be help given the time periods in question, but it doesn't change the fact that there are only 5 samples for comparison. Humans are as yet hopeless at predicting localised weather let alone the climate. This doesn't mean people shouldn't try but perhaps they should hold back predicting catastrophes until we have a better understanding. For all we know the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park could go off in a few decades and that would really throw a spanner into the works. The Earth is a living planet, and nature takes no prisoners. Personally I am glad of all this hoo-har over climate change because if nothing else it is teaching people not to mess around with nature. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that won't mess around with us and everything else on this planet. If nature chooses to make some changes then - take note kids - human beings are powerless to do anything about that. Get used to it. In LVX -
michael sweet at 12:29 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
TIS: As the article points out, CO2 was not a forcing in the past. It was a feedback to the solar forcings. CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing. In the past CO2 was a feedback. The situation today is that CO2 is the forcing. The data showing CO2 lag indicate that the solar forcing started the cycle and the CO2 feedback makes the cycle stronger. Since CO2 is the forcing today its effects are different from what was seen in the past. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 12:16 PM on 5 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
The lag at the beginning of an interglacial is not overly useful for determining the impact of CO2 on the temperatures. Far more interesting is the end of the interglacials. At the end of the Eemian CO2 was above 260 ppm until ~112 kybp. Temperatures had been dropping for more than 10,000 years before the cooling oceans was sufficient to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Forget the beginning of the interglacial periods to determine the importance of "warming." The fact that the interglacials end with CO2 already elevated indicates that the forcing effect of CO2 is not the critical factor in the glacial cycles. Solar insolation leads the global temperature which leads the CO2 levels both at the beginning and end of the interglacials. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:23 AM on 5 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Added 5 more posts from November, 2006:Nov 8, 2006 Tales from the Thermometer Nov 9, 2006 Hockey Sticks Nov 10, 2006 CO2: They call it "life"... Nov 10, 2006 For the Love of it! Nov 11, 2006 Days of Wine and Roses
The Yooper -
Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
The entire Dr. Mann comment can be found here on RealClimate - search for "graft" to see it. To quote one of the next lines: "Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here)...(again see the comparisons here, with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red, the proxy reconstructions indicated by e.g. blue or green, and the uncertainties indicated by shading)" The extra detail is quite informative. -
tobyjoyce at 09:46 AM on 5 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
dorlomin, Yes, I think we know how this will play out. Sometime in the future a serious weather/ climate disaster will just make it all so obvious. Unfortunately, a series of minor disasters can be easily hidden on the back pages, so it will have to be a major showstopper. Like the British Appeasers after 1939, or the American Isolationists after Pearl Harbor, suddenly denialism will disappear. Not that denialists will disappear, especially the political ones. What's the betting many will become more climate-hawkish than the climate hawks? Suddenly they will "always have believed in the science". I only hope too much damage has not been done, and that it is not too late, when this comes about. -
Albatross at 09:25 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Tim @86, OMG, you have to be kidding me. Argue strawmen much TTT? "This is about rubbishing Lindzen because he made a claim that most people dont even begin to understand." Except you, of course. And this is not about "rubbishing Lindzen"-- as has been explained to you several times now, it is about Lindzen engaging in B.S. The responsibility for that lies with him, and him alone. But if you insist on fighting his battles for him, the ball is now in your court to provide hard scientific evidence (not musings about hypotheticals or what ifs) which supports Lindzen's claim. So either put up, or please do shut up. "Lindzen's responses were very brief and he went into no detail" Exactly-- he made a baseless and unsubstantiated claim. He could have also submitted follow-up evidence in writing after the hearings to support his baseless assertions made at the hearing. He has, to my knowledge, not done that. The planet is warming TTT, deal with it. -
mclamb6 at 09:22 AM on 5 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Fred, Why don't you post the entirety of Mr. Mann's comment? -
Fred Staples at 09:05 AM on 5 January 2011Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Phil Jones 16th November 1999 “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Michael Mann December 2004 “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum”. As a direct result of this hockey-stick nonsense, George Monbiot in the Guardian ( a paper with a well respected “bad science” column) announced the elimination of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with a single stroke. The problem with the relentless propaganda which alarmists purvey is that non-scientists believe it.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from accusations such as: "The problem with the relentless propaganda which alarmists purvey is that non-scientists believe it." Unless, of course, you can provide linked quotes from reputable sources (i.e., not a blog) to prove your assertions. Thanks! -
TimTheToolMan at 08:51 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
" Total discussion about greater preponderance of highs versus lows was about 4 min and 30 sec. " With the chaiman phrasing and rephrasing the question, sure. Lindzen's responses were very brief and he went into no detail. From his "answer" point of view the exchange was considerably shorter. "And what dhogaza said--there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the planet is warming which do not require thermometers. " One thing at a time. This is about rubbishing Lindzen because he made a claim that most people dont even begin to understand. He won an award for it in your eyes afterall. -
Utahn at 06:53 AM on 5 January 2011Temp record is unreliable
Here is the link to "Tales from the thermometer" which is available via replay wayback machine: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090216121919/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/ Which brings up my question on the temp data sets, the HadCRU and GISS ones are the same thermometers, with different data adjusting procedures etc..., while the GSOD database has many more stations - my question is does it also include the GHCN stations (while adding many more), or is it a set of completely distinct stations? I couldn't find for sure from the links at Ned #90...Also, are there any other worldwide surface station data sets distinct from the GHCN that have been looked at? Many thanks!! -
Rob Painting at 06:30 AM on 5 January 2011Glaciers are growing
rockpicker - "Dr. Tim Ball.....He said world glacier ice mass is currently growing" The World Glacier Monitoring Service say otherwise:
Given that the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record and 2010 the warmest year in that decade, Tim Ball's assertion seemed unlikely from the get-go. Does make you wonder why he would make such an erroneous claim, when it's so easy to check its' veracity.
-
Utahn at 06:26 AM on 5 January 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Can we add "Tales from the thermometer" to the top? http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090216121919/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/08/tales-from-the-thermometer/ It's the one referenced in the "Temp Record is Unreliable" post, but the link doesn't work, the replay machine did find it as above, though... ThanksModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks, I'll take care of it! -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
To follow up on dhogaza... Or maybe scientists should not make any predictions about anything. All systems at their core are chaotic. That means it's impossible to know anything to a level of certainty that we could ever act upon anything, ever. Okay, I'm going back to bed now. No point in doing anything because I can not have certainty about anything I'm going to do today. //Sarcasm off// I can hardly count the places I've read about uncertainties or lectures I've listened to on uncertainties related to climate change. Some here will remember that I did a count of the number of times the word "uncertainty" was used in the WG1 report of AR4 (the number was larger than the number of pages in the report). All of life is a game of how we act upon uncertainties. The uncertainties related to climate are low enough that we should, as a broader society, be making concerted efforts to avoid the potential outcomes that we face. From the standpoint of uncertainties, this is a no-brainer. -
DSL at 06:15 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Snowhare -- fist-bump on the Asimov essay. His non-fiction is badly neglected. -
dhogaza at 05:21 AM on 5 January 2011A Positive Outlook For Clouds
"See Second Law of thermodynamics for a thorough discussion of this question. Hopefully, we don't have to reinvent this wheel." Staples might also want to visit Science of Doom, which has dissected the bogus second law arguments in excruciating detail. -
dhogaza at 05:18 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"This reminds me of surfacestations.org repeatedly threatening to expose the soft underbelly of the USA SAT record. In the end it was Menne et al (real, working scientists), who actually did the number crunching and research and published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of the US temperature record." For the heck of it, I visited surfacestations.org. Here's the lead: "NEWS Updated 07/16/2009" That's 18 months ago. Tee-hee! -
Albatross at 05:17 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Arus@160, "I believe in AGW, and there is no hard evidence yet that it has either stopped or slowed down," Thanks for answering the question. It appears to me though that your posts here are not consistent with that position. Also, as Alec points out @162, until now it has been incredibly difficult to determine exactly what your position is. "I think the purpose of these two rather aggressive and hostile comments must be to get rid of all opposition, so that everybody here agrees about everything" I save us the "surprise" at the alleged "aggressive" comments-- a perusal of this thread shows that you are not innocent in all this. It is no wonder that people have grown extremely tired of playing the same game of whack-a-mole with contrarians over the years. In fact, people here have been tolerant of your posts, and you have made many posts. All we ask is that you bring some constructive and substantive to the table. Requesting that is not unreasonable. And nobody has been trying to "get rid of all opposition". Early in your post @161 you agreed that AGW has not stopped or slowed down (on that we agree), and yet, later in the same post you claim that SS is trying to get rid of 'opposition'. How can SS posters like me be guilty of that when (a) you are allegedly in agreement regarding the topic of this thread (i.e., there is actually no opposition), and (b) when you have had the opportunity to post so many comments? "But what then would you debate about, with whom, and why? Anyway, I am out of here. Healthy (and oftentimes vigorous) scientific debate continues daily in coffee rooms, journals, talks, and at conferences. You, on the other hand, seem to be here solely for the sake of arguing because some has to. That is not constructive debate. Pick your battles, but be prepared to back up your assertions with data, science and the scientific literature. -
dhogaza at 04:58 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
"Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors." Tell that to all those Europeans who schedule month-long vacations each and every July or August ... -
Ron Crouch at 04:51 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Casino managers may not be able to predict actual profit and loss margins, and they don't need to. I'm afraid that the gambling that takes place in a casino has a lot less unknowns or not understood factors as is submitted. The odds are always stacked in the casino's favour. Therefore a casino manager can always predict with confidence that the casino will make a profit. I have found that the majority of those seriously studying climate science are much more cautious about such claims. That's why most climate scientists talk about "range of possibilities". While a climate scientist may not be able to specify the exact nature of what the future ramifications of climate change might be, he/she can certainly predict with confidence based upon the preponderance of evidence that change can be expected. And I've never run across a serious scientist who would dispute that there are unknown unknowns. I can use a weather forecast as an example. A forecast is nothing more than a prediction based upon certain knowns that are subject to the influences of unknowns. So if a forecast calls for a high of 30C and the actual temperature at that location for that day registers at 32C, does this mean that we should have no confidence in the forecasts being produced? Certainly not. Therefore I submit that Kelvin's fallacy does not apply here. -
Alec Cowan at 04:29 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Argus #161 If that's your position -which I can't share with intellectual honesty- there's still the matter of what argumentation are you trying to do with this long thread of comments to this post. It all looks fuzzy, like a bunch of examples of heights and lows that should make somebody think that while the sound of clanging may be heard, there's still a possibility to win some kind of battle. I prefer you to explain it, but we could also start a careful analysis of what you wrote here. -
muoncounter at 04:25 AM on 5 January 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
"It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors" It was the consensus (bad word) of this thread that weather is chaotic, while climate is not. In each of Ned's examples, there will be times and locations where the weather varies due to local conditions and is therefore difficult to predict. However, the overall pattern and trend is well-determined from the conditions in each case. See the wiki article on chaos theory for other examples and an explanation of the specific meaning of 'chaotic' in the scientific sense. In short, complicated does not equal chaotic. -
Ned at 04:18 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Phila's suggestion is a very good one. I've replied to fdijkstra's claim over in the thread Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?. -
Ned at 04:13 AM on 5 January 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
In another thread, fdijkstra writes: Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. That is silly, as a moment's reflection would have told you. Would you seriously object to any of the following predictions? (1) On average, in 2011, the Arctic and the Antarctic will be cooler than the tropics. (2) On average, in 2011, regions lying in the Intertropical Convergence Zone will have higher precipitation than regions lying at the poleward edge of the Hadley Cell. (3) On average, in 2011, the northern hemisphere will be warmer in July than in December, while the southern hemisphere will show the opposite seasonality. Those are all very specific, quantifiable predictions about the climate (well, #2 would require some complicated definitions to quantify...). I suspect that virtually everyone who understands the basics of the Earth's climate would agree that all three of those predictions are reasonable. OK, how about these predictions: (4) In the absence of any other countervailing forcings, an instantaneous 25% decrease in solar irradiance, sustained for a century, would cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease and the extent of sea ice to increase. (5) A volcanic eruption or large asteroid impact that injected a large quantity of aerosols into the stratosphere would also cause the Earth's mean surface temperature to decrease. Those are slightly more complicated predictions, but still things that pretty much everyone would agree with. Again, they are based on conceptual or numerical models of the climate system. From here, one could move to more detailed and more complex predictions. Naturally, we will be less confident in our predictions as they get more specific in terms of time, place, and phenomena. That's OK, everyone understands that. The claim that somehow the climate is just too complicated to predict is just plain wrong. We can make simple predictions with a very high degree of confidence, and more specific predictions with correspondingly greater uncertainty. -
Glaciers are growing
rockpicker - As addressed on this topic with multiple papers and lots of data, glaciers are not growing. There's also no indication that the level of undersea volcanism has changed in the last 100 years or so - and geothermal inputs are on the order of ~1% those of greenhouse gas effects. So changes in undersea volcanism isn't driving oceanic warming. Dr. Tim Ball is not what I would call a reliable source - he chairs the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which is apparently run by energy industry lobbyists, as well as being one of the best known members of the Friends of Science group. He's a well known climate change skeptic with ties to industrial groups. I'll also point out that a show which "...is a broadcast vehicle for introducing new and ancient knowledge, solutions, discoveries, and compelling stories" doesn't sound like a great scientific forum - it sounds like something closer to "Ripleys Believe It Or Not!". -
caerbannog at 04:06 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the climate can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. Casino managers should not make any predictions about revenue. No loss predictions, no profit predictions, because any particular gambler's winnings/losses are unpredictable. A casino is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. The illusion that the a casino's earnings can be predicted is an example of Kelvin's fallacy: the assumption that there are no unknown unknowns. -
rockpicker at 03:54 AM on 5 January 2011Glaciers are growing
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/timball2/ Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed by Kim Greenhouse on her program on Dec. 10, 2010. He said world glacier ice mass is currently growing, and he talked about the contribution undersea vulcanism is making to oceanic warming. Can you address these issues? -
Ron Crouch at 03:47 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Someone earlier suggested that the Gulf Stream was slowing. I've not seen anything in press that supports this. However there may have been some changes to the Labrador Current since the 1970's that requires further studies in order to deduce the implications. More on this: Atlantic currents have seen 'drastic' changes.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping was a fake story. See here. -
Argus at 03:30 AM on 5 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Alec Cowan 157, - I am rather touched by seeing the effort you have put into finding all my comment numbers. I don't know why you bother asking for an answer from me about #143, but (providing I understand the question correctly) my answer is: instances of record colds do not form evidence of global warming, nor do they form evidence of global cooling. Record highs and record lows are both perfectly compatible with global warming. Albatross 160, - So what is this thread about? What is pertinent? I haven't seen many significant contributions from either side in this thread. As for your earlier question in #122 - ("Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down.) If so, when exactly?") - I believe in AGW, and there is no hard evidence yet that it has either stopped or slowed down, (but I am hoping that it will slow down, and looking at some curves and other diagrams presented, I can sometimes see reasons for hope in the latest decade). I think the purpose of these two rather aggressive and hostile comments must be to get rid of all opposition, so that everybody here agrees about everything. But what then would you debate about, with whom, and why? Anyway, I am out of here. -
Ron Crouch at 03:22 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Part of a pattern that I've seen repeated over and over through the years. Always seems to be a large flurry of this sort of nonsense every time the GOP is gearing up to steer the U.S. away from concrete action on climate change. Brace for a lot more of this type of garbage in the ensuing days as the battle between the GOP and Obama heats up. -
Phila at 03:17 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
fydijkstra #29 Scientists should not make any predictions about the climate. No cool predictions, no warm predictions, because the climate is unpredictable. It is a chaotic system with many unknown and ununderstood factors. Or to put it another way, climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. Been there, done that. Please do us all a favor and search this site for your pet "skeptical" arguments before posting them. If you must post despite the rebuttals, please do it on the correct thread. -
Alec Cowan at 03:05 AM on 5 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@fydijkstra #29 Let me analyze your comment: You are using an extended list of buzzwords in a density that is not very common to see (chaotic system, Kelvin's fallacy, El Niño, unreliable datasets, solar minimum) along with your favorite epistemological horse "nobody knows" in a context of add campaigning ("the climate of the next 10 years could bring new surprises" Wow! How deep and precise! And you'll be the most surprised among us) Daniel Baley already set straight your idea of El Niño playing tag as the pursuer and 365-day-long 2010 becoming a warm-to-be year but no. I don't share Daniel's opinion about 2010 being the warmest during the instrumental record. In fact, what I think is worse, it's probably going to be the second many things, not only warmer. You used the buzzwords 'chaotic system' to "extrapolate" the laymen-level meaning of 'chaotic' and substantiate your argument. Your innuendo is that being the flush of a toilet a chaotic system the water can jump and smash all the s*** in your head as 'nobody knows' and the water flowing by the drainage is not an option for this chaotic system. It looks like 'nobody knows' unless you authorize them to know. I don't think so. About the buzzword use of a buzzword concept -the portmanteau 'Kelvin's fallacy'-, you twisted its basic render "rejection in the lack of an explanatory theory" with your see-how-ironic-i-look "assumption that there are no unknown unknowns". Don't agree? Provide then proper links to Kelvin's fallacy. Links with academical value. I will leave aside -by the moment- all the straw you gather to set a fire. -
Albatross at 02:49 AM on 5 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT @82, The whole thing took place in maybe 30 seconds. Honestly TTT, do you know no shame? Your posts now reek of desperation. The exchange (mostly) between Baird and Lindzen lasted 2 min. That was followed by another discussion on the same topic (preponderance of highs versus lows) between Meehl, Cullen and Baird which lasted another 2 min and 30 sec. Total discussion about greater preponderance of highs versus lows was about 4 min and 30 sec. Real scientists keep an open mind about such things. The climate scientists whom I know and work with are inherently open minded and curious. they have also have an insatiable need to solve problem, figure to what is happening and essentially understand how the climate system/biosphere works. Lindzen provided no evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. This reminds me of surfacestations.org repeatedly threatening to expose the soft underbelly of the USA SAT record. In the end it was Menne et al (real, working scientists), who actually did the number crunching and research and published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of the US temperature record. This is most annoying, all it seems "skeptics" have to do is make (sometimes wild) accusations or entertain intriguing hypotheses (for the purpose of sowing doubt), without actually following through. And what dhogaza said--there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the planet is warming which do not require thermometers. Lindzen, like Watts, is chasing ghosts and, yet again, shamelessly engaging in B.S. -
Albatross at 02:35 AM on 5 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Re @1, "When I read the paper" It would seem not. Thanks Daniel, you beat me to it.
Prev 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Next
