Recent Comments

Prev  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  Next

Comments 99601 to 99650:

99601. Jean S at 00:58 AM on 3 January 2011
       Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
       "The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged." This is incorrect. It's "Mike's Nature trick". Mike (=Michael Mann) did not truncate any tree ring data in his publications (not specifically in his infamous 1998 Nature paper). Instead the "trick" is to add instrumental temperature series to the end of the reconstruction (to the truncated reconstruction in the case of Briffa's series) prior to smoothing. This should be clear as the sentence continues "of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s". Finally, the effect of this "trick" is to turn the end of the smoothed series upwards (instead of downwards as they would without adding in the instrumental series), and thus "to hide the decline".
99602. witsendnj at 00:50 AM on 3 January 2011
       How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
       THANK YOU, YOOPER!!!!
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're welcome!
99603. Berényi Péter at 00:26 AM on 3 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       #49 Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:09 PM on 2 January, 2011 Where is the data that shows ocean cooling? It's here. Between third quarter of 2009 and third quarter of 2010 the upper 700 m of oceans lost 1.015×10²² J. That's equivalent to a continuous net radiative heat loss at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) of 0.63 W/m² averaged over the entire year. It is definitely not increasing since third quarter of 2003. Prior to that date it was not measured properly. Trenberth's missing heat can only be found in the past.
99604. Argus at 23:47 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       Berényi Péter, #95, Thanks for the link to the British climate prediction (snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past), written some ten years ago! Little did they know. Parts of it were hilarious read, in the light of this winter. Some quotes: - According to Dr David Viner, ... within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". - "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. - Professor Jarich Oosten ... says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important. - David Parker ... says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
99605. Alec Cowan at 23:42 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       @Berényi Péter #111 "It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record." General perception where? London and NYC, I presume. Define "general". Why don't you let Kamchatka aside and link the other 23 megacities in the world? We are 450 million people living there. Crowded enough? You'll be surprised.
99606. Eric (skeptic) at 23:39 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       #108 KR, the radiation balance (see daily global average temperatures: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/) changes sign every few days down to one or two times a month. The problem is we cannot look at the system from a "sufficient distance" (e.g. monthly averages balances) yet see the changes that matter. For example, November brought us negative NAO which caused two things: the redistribution of heat and (part of the) net global cooling. December had several smaller episodes with no net effect (or was offset by other areas of the globe). Redistribution may not change the balance much, but the cooling that follows does. La Nina also had an impact on November temperatures but it is not a correct assumption that all the variation in GAT came from La Nina. For one thing La Nina doesn't change that often. In this particular case our La Nina leveled off in November after an initial steep drop. We're not in super La Nina territory by any stretch http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml The bottom line is that the short term cooling had a weather component along with La Nina. #109 dhogaza, which observations? Weather partly saved us in November and December. The albedo increased (snow in Europe and N. America, low clouds over the Atlantic), OLR increased (arctic warmth, more low clouds). Right now weather is not saving us (zonal flow with none or less of the above). One of the theories of AGW is that weather won't save us because CO2 will warm the arctic more and lower the amount of meridional circulation which is a positive feedback. The recent blocking negated that effect. #110 muoncounter, yes, no sun, no albedo, I was thinking beyond the Arctic.
99607. Berényi Péter at 23:16 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       #99 dhogaza at 07:06 AM on 2 January, 2011 Yesterday was 6 degrees warmer than average in NY City, and a couple of days ago it was well above average in London. Obviously he's never been to NYC or London, or else he wouldn't make the outrageous claim that "no one lives there". We are talking about December, 2010, don't we? For most of this month temperatures ran well below average in both NYC & London, you can check it. And yes, in those parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, that is, Northern Canada, South Eastern Greenland & Eastern Siberia, including Kamchatka (almost) no one lives. It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record. And now... meet your strawman. BTW, I happened to live in both cities you've mentioned and noticed crowds there. A Happy New Year!
99608. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 22:09 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault Could you describe the mechanism(s) by which a cooling planet can explain changes in outgoing radiation precisely at those wavelengths at which greenhouse gases absorb energy? How does a cooling planet explain the increase in downward longwave radiation? Is there any data that supports this hypothesis? Or even better, scientific papers? Where is the data that shows ocean cooling?
99609. Rob Painting at 21:52 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       MV @ 44 - Yes, Mars has a lower gravity, yes it has a thin atmosphere, and yes it is further from the sun. And no oceans of water. And greater orbital eccentricity than Earth. And no clouds of composed of water vapor. And no plate tectonics. And a higher atmosphere. So there should be "some" degree of radiative forcing causing "some" level of warming. Yes, earlier in its' history Mars may have had clouds made of CO2 which warmed it enough to allow water to form on its' surface. Well that's according to some of those atmospheric physicists anyway. But what do we find - zilch. Nada, nothing. By "we" I take it you mean you. Next time look harder. Mars does indeed have a very small Greenhouse Effect, about 2 degrees C according to early work by Carl Sagan.
99610. Alec Cowan at 21:46 PM on 2 January 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       @vank #66 There are now at least two antipodal points in the Earth with the same temperature and pressure. That's absolutely true. And? Say whatever you want, and I will tell you there still are two antipodal points ... It makes no sense? Why? You were making the same kind of argumentation with your 1950/minusquartermillion reference. Let me rephrase your idea "in 1950 C02 levels were the same as in 234116BC without industrial revolution the same way there were no atomic weapons when women had not right to vote" We can safely infer important conclusions from those facts.
99611. Alec Cowan at 21:26 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       You are right, memoryvault. A lot of dialectical techniques we see here daily are just plain manipulative tactics. Such techniques should be described and confronted avoiding names. Calling someone "denialist" deviates attention from the arguments and even ennobles the person as a brave soldier of some worthy crusade. As this site is duplicating traffic each eight months -and this causes people who don't deserve the d-word to become threefolded- the problem is locating and citing the comments from a person in a way it is evident what is he or she doing. For instance, someone wrote recently "MemoryVault's five fallacies 1)That balance means one page for lies to balance one page of truth. Rather balance means understanding that all stories have..." but I found it using Google and I am unable to locate the proper page to see the discussion. Can anyone tell me where is located?
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] That quote came from here.
99612. Marcus at 21:13 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Low incoming solar radiation + very few CO2 molecules to capture outgoing infrared radiation = VERY COLD PLANET. Its not rocket science, MV, though clearly its well beyond your understanding. As to your claims re: the planet cooling off. What complete & utter bunkum. Did you fail to grasp the part where I pointed out how, in geological time, the Sun is getting brighter-not dimmer. So how exactly is the planet meant to "cool down"? If it were somehow "cooling down", then that should be causing the stratosphere to warm-not cool-& we should also be seeing an increase in IR radiation escaping the atmosphere. So you see, MV, that your claims are contradicted by observed reality-as always. Similarly, your claims of a cooling ocean are also not backed by observation. The total heat content of the oceans are continuing to rise-not fall as you claim. I've already debunked your ludicrous claims of a "25-30 year cycle", using *actual data* (data seems to be a concept people like yourself are unfamiliar with), data which shows we've been in a warming phase for the better part of 100 years-with the first 50 years being explainable by increased solar input, but the second 50 years running contrary to decreasing solar input. Indeed, in spite of decreasing solar input, the warming of the last 30 years has been the fastest ever recorded (including the Holocene Optimum, the Roman Warm Period & the Medieval Warm Period-all of which occurred over the space of *centuries*-not decades as we're currently seeing). Your claims regarding climate in the distant past are equally pseudo-scientific. The Sun was significantly cooler than today, so where was all this heat needed to get CO2 into the atmosphere? The CO2, as any primary school student could tell you, was as a result of long-term (multi millions of years worth) volcanism. That CO2 then trapped the radiation of the much dimmer sun to give significantly warmer temperatures than today. So you've really got your cause & effect back to front. So really, not a single one of your claims has any basis in *reality*, & are just more of the same pseudo-scientific bunkum you've been spouting since the start of this thread. All I can say then is, given your complete lack of knowledge in this area, I can only pray you "stick to your day-job" in future.
99613. Richo at 21:11 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       The ol Mars should have lots more heat trick.. So how do deniers explain Venus ??
99614. Rob Painting at 20:30 PM on 2 January 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Vank - So..... 1950 levels are equal to 1/4 of a million years ago with no industrial revolution.. See my comment @ 57. It's Milankovitch cycles. The previous interglacial cycles were warmer because the timing/variation of Earth's orbit/tilt/wobbles lead to greater solar radiation at the surface (insolation). No such confluence of factors exist during this interglacial. In fact we have already seen the natural high point of this interglacial during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, about 6000 years ago. The warming we are experiencing now is not natural, in fact we should be on our way to "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation". Variations in the Earth's Orbit - Pacemaker of the Ice Ages Hope this helps clear this up for you. Also: sorry to hear about your solar panels, but even decades from now, when it's globally much, much warmer, there will still be snow in winter.
99615. memoryvault at 20:00 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Marcus - and Rob Painting Yes, Mars has a lower gravity, yes it has a thin atmosphere, and yes it is further from the sun. Nonetheless, it does have an atmosphere, and that atmosphere does have CO2. So there should be "some" degree of radiative forcing causing "some" level of warming. But what do we find - zilch. Nada, nothing. Marcus As to the other points you wish me to debunk, let's see: Stratospheric cooling and decreased IR emissions into space could simply be the result of the planet cooling off. Note I said "planet", not "atmosphere". In the larger scheme of things the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is piddling compared to other sources. The warmer climate hundreds of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today? A warmer planetary surface system (atmosphere + oceans + land surface will ALWAYS have higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is fully in accordance with Henry's Gas Law - one of the Noble Gas Laws which, along with the Laws of Thermodynamics are obviously no longer taught in high schools today. The fact that temperatures are (or at least have been) rising despite a decline in solar activity. Simple. All energy comes from the sun (well most of it anyway). A large amount of it ends up stored in the oceans. The oceans have what is erroneously described on this website as "low thermal inertia", but we'll stick with the term for now since everybody here knows what it is meant to mean. Put simply, the oceans have been acting as a "thermal blanket", trading heat with the atmosphere. Now the loss of heat energy is becoming measurable and the oceans are cooling. So too will the atmosphere. It goes in roughly 25 -30 year cycles. Has done since the last glacial. Almost like the planet breathing. Which is about where I came in.
99616. vank at 19:24 PM on 2 January 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       So..... 1950 levels are equal to 1/4 of a million years ago with no industrial revolution.... Thanks for answering my question by spending your precious time. Good Night, and Good Luck PS Im not in denial.... maybe u are. I did spend 40000 € 4 years ago for solar panels on my roof (did u?)to produce clean, CO2 free electric power and i m cleaning now the snow of almost on a daily basis.... so spare me the "denial" article
99617. Rob Painting at 19:18 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       MV @ 42 You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Low gravity, thin atmosphere, further from the sun. That rebuttal is on the "to do" list I think.
99618. Marcus at 19:16 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       First of all, Mars is much further away than Earth. Second-but most importantly of all-the air pressure of Mars is much lower than Earth. So even though CO2 is a large proportion of the Martian Atmosphere, the atmosphere is simply too thin to retain much heat. Look at Venus, though, with its very thick CO2 rich atmosphere. Its also worth noting that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere-warm enough to support liquid water-abut the same time water was beginning to appear on Earth-so clearly the rich CO2 of a thicker Martian Atmosphere was able to compensate for its greater distance from the Sun. So yet again your counter-argument is totally weak & unsubstantiated. I'm of course still waiting for you to provide evidence to debunk my other points with regards to CO2-namely stratospheric cooling, the decrease of IR emissions into space, the warmer climate of hundreds of millions of years ago (when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today), the fact that temperatures are warming despite a decline in solar activity. Come on, I'm waiting.
99619. memoryvault at 19:06 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Marcus "The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? You tell me why Mars IS an iceball? Much higher proportion of CO2 in it's atmosphere than here on earth - so obviously enough for a bit of radiative forcing. And yet it remains largely a frozen ball. And I never claimed atmospheric gases don't hold a certain amount of heat energy. I wrote that the transfer of heat energy is from the oceans to the atmosphere, not the other way around. Or are you now claiming that the atmosphere holds more heat energy than the oceans? And no, I didn't get my "established physics" from "Denialist propaganda sites". I got it from a good high school education followed by a degree in mechanical engineering, followed by 35 years working in the field - quite often in areas associated with heat energy transfer - you know, thermodynamics. Where did you get yours from? And for the record, I'm downunder here OZ and I don't get cable - I've never seen the Fox News Network.
99620. Marcus at 18:41 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       If your take on the laws of thermodynamics were true, memoryvault, then our planet would be an uninhabited Ice-Ball of a planet. It is the ability of Greenhouse gases to trap infrared radiation that gives our planet the comfortable average temperature of roughly 16 degrees C, rather than -18 degrees C. The problem is that you get your "established physics" from Denialist Propaganda sites.
99621. Marcus at 18:36 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Ah, memoryvault-when faced with an argument you can't win, you resort to the tried-&-true denialist tactic of character assassination. The fact is that the ability of CO2 to absorb Infrared Radiation has been proven-time & again-in the laboratory. Tell us, if the Greenhouse Effect isn't real, then why isn't our planet an ice-ball? If CO2 isn't a significant Greenhouse Gas, then why were temperatures several degrees warmer about half a billion years ago-in spite of a much dimmer sun? If CO2 isn't the cause of current global warming, then why is there a decreasing correlation between solar activity & global temperatures? If Tropospheric CO2 concentrations are not the key cause of global warming, then why is there a decline in outgoing IR radiation into space? Why is there a decrease in stratospheric temperatures over the period of 1979-2010? Seriously, your arguments are getting increasingly infantile, & its abundantly clear that you have nothing intelligent to add to these discussions-& never did.
99622. memoryvault at 18:33 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       KR "Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it." Temperature is not heat. The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere. Observable proof - evaporation which leads to our precipitation. There is more "heat energy" in the top 10 feet of the oceans than in the entire atmosphere, and there's a couple of miles of ocean under that, all containing heat energy. Our Laws of Thermodynamics clearly hold that heat energy will always flow to maximise entropy - or in simple terms from systems of high heat energy to systems of low heat energy. Or in this case, from the oceans to the atmosphere. All of this is very well-established physics, KR - at least in my universe - and has very little to do with VW's pulling trailers.
99623. SoundOff at 18:17 PM on 2 January 2011
       A Positive Outlook For Clouds
       Ken Lambert #31, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I just don’t see its relevance. If one adds a continuous forcing, the climate system does reach equilibrium with that specific forcing. If one adds more forcing on top of the earlier one while the system is still adjusting to the earlier forcing and one keeps doing this, the system will never reach full equilibrium. This is true but it has incorporated the earlier forcings at some point by getting warmer in small steps. Equilibrium with a specific forcing is what’s relevant to observing the results of the standard CO2 radiation forcing formula. This is becoming way too complicated for most readers who are not climate scientists, including me. I will leave further discussion for the scientists.
99624. memoryvault at 18:14 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Actually Thoughtfull "the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science." You mean Arrhenius' work that was discredited by Angstrom within a couple of years of its publication, and languished in obscurity for for nearly seventy years until it was dusted off to give support to the CO2 AGW theory. Hardly 114 years of "time tested science". By the way, would that be the Arrhenius who was a lifetime member of the Swedish Society of Racial Hygiene, and board member of the The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology that was at the forefront in sterilising tens of thousands of "mental defectives"? Yet another climate scientist who supports global warming and dabbles in population control as a hobby - seems uncommonly common.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Further comments containing ad hominems such as yours will be deleted - and all comments replying to them. Keep it clean. Final warning.
99625. KR at 18:12 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault - If you have particular issues with what you perceive as conflicts between thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect, please say what they are. Note there are several threads appropriate for the "greenhouse effect", "2nd law of thermodynamics", and "ocean heat content", which you can find using the search box. Thermal inertia - if you hook a VW bug to a small trailer, and floor it, it's going to accelerate to highway speeds pretty quickly. On the other hand, if you use the same VW to tow a tractor-trailer, it's going to take a lot longer to get up to speed. Air has very little thermal mass, water has a lot by comparison, and it takes some time to respond to the radiative imbalance. I don't understand what your issue is with it. As to cycles - checking back (using a great number of tools) on various forcings of the climate, it's evident that solar changes, pollution albedo, El Nino, volcanos, and other things have had an effect on the climate - CO2 is not the only driver of climate. But if you look at the last 150 years, it's clear that only CO2 heating can explain the current temperature trends - nothing else correlates. In particular, look at the moderator response to posting #2 on that thread. All of this is very well-established physics, memoryvault. There are definitely uncertainties, such as just how much the climate will respond to a particular forcing, and how cloud cover will respond. But the overall picture is quite solid.
99626. Marcus at 18:02 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault, I again ask you to check your facts. If you break the planet's climate for the last 120 years into neat, 30 year "cycles", then you get the following. 1890-1920 -0.007 degrees per decade (effectively no warming or cooling); 1920-1950 (a period dominated by significant increases in solar output-peaking around the mid-1940's) +0.096 degrees per decade; 1950-1980 (a period where solar output remained relatively stable) +0.014 degrees per decade. Finally 1980-2010 (a period dominated by falling solar output) +0.16 degrees per decade. So please do tell us where these natural 25-30 year cycles are, because the evidence isn't backed by observed temperature trends. The other problem is, of course, if the current warming was natural, irrespective of the actual cause, we'd be seeing a warming evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere-but instead its limited to the troposphere, whilst the stratosphere is cooling. I also note you've brought up *another* zombie meme-namely the claim that scientists were predicting an Ice Age. In fact, 90% of all scientific literature of the day was predicting either no change or warming-the "Global Cooling" hypothesis was a minority view, even then. The rest of your post is, yet again, the typical ad-hominem attacks that are used as a substitute for actual proof. The fact that you've not "seen anything" to suggest anything different is just because of your own selective blindness, not the result of a lack of evidence. Unless you're prepared to provide evidence, contrary to what we've supplied you, to back up your increasingly infantile claims, then there really is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
99627. Ken Lambert at 17:49 PM on 2 January 2011
       A Positive Outlook For Clouds
       Bibliovermis #32 I think you are confusing the totals with the differences. If the total energy flux entering the biosphere is 240.9W/sq.m and the total leaving is 240W/sq.m then the Forcing is positive (+0.9W/sq.m). Temperatures will rise in response to the +0.9W/sq.m over time. 'Forcing' is usually the nomenclature applied to this difference. For a new equilibirum temperature to be reached the outgoing energy flux has to rise to 240.9W/sq.m - hence the 'Forcing' is reduced to zero. The biosphere ceases to gain more energy than it loses.
99628. memoryvault at 17:44 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       muoncounter Back in the Sixties we were taught in high school about the 25 - 30 year cyclical nature of climate, within a larger 600 year cycle of warming and cooling. We were taught this because it had already been observed and noted for a long time. To date I've not seen anything, anywhere, including this site, to suggest anything different is happening now. In the mid-Seventies however I did see all of this same "end of the world because man is evil" claptrap. Only then we were all going to die because evil man was causing the planet to cool down. The fact was we were simply transitioning from a 25 - 30 year cooling period into the current warming period. I have no doubt in 25 - 30 years there will be a similar period of mass-hysteria, though I doubt anybody will make the sort of money that's being creamed off this latest insanity. Since I am saying nothing untoward is happening that hasn't happened in the past and won't happen again in the future, and you people are claiming something entirely different is happening - "just this once", then the burden of proof lies squarely at your feet, not mine.
99629. actually thoughtful at 17:32 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Memoryvault - your posts remind me of a frog in water warming to a boil. For some reason you are not noticing that the earth is warmer this year than last, and taken at a decade level -we haven't had a decade colder than the last since the 70s were cooler than the 60s. So we are at 30-40 years of your 60 year cycle. It better start getting cold and quick! More likely the research of thousands of scientists, individually verifying the same data but through different methods and techniques, are in fact correct and the world is warming, and it is warming precisely due to CO2 - as we have known since Arrhenius's work in 1896. That is 114 years of time tested science. Basically eternity for science. Good luck disproving the A in AGW - it is very well understood - unless the person doing the understanding has an ideological ax to grind.
99630. memoryvault at 17:26 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       KR I tried, KR, I really did. I followed the links and I read it all, including the sub-links all the way until I got to the "Humans are causing this warming" and the link to "How do we know CO2 is causing this warming". Then I read through all the stuff about "positive radiative forcing" which hasn't even been established as fact yet, but decided to accept it for the moment in the interests of "getting educated". But then I got to the bit about this allegedly CO2-heated atmosphere "taking a long time to heat up the oceans because of their thermal inertia" and I realised our problem here is we are in parallel universes, you and I. In my universe we have something called the Four Laws of Thermodynamics. These obviously don't apply in your universe.
99631. muoncounter at 17:20 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       #27: "disproved by observable fact." Interesting point from someone who has yet to offer any substantiated facts.
99632. muoncounter at 17:14 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       #107: "Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked." Doesn't that mean the 'scenario' is incorrect? Read the comment, look at the data. "Albedo is not as clear" Albedo? In the Arctic, in winter? It's dark; there's nothing to reflect.
99633. dhogaza at 16:12 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       Eric: "KR, it is not complex at all. If weather on average creates a more uneven distribution of water vapor, then amplification of CO2 warming will be low or even nonexistent. The distribution of water vapor is what matters, not the average amount, whether Arctic or not" Actually, it's observations that shoot the "weather will save us" hypothesis down. Too bad, eh?
99634. Marcus at 16:10 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       "CO2 AGW theory requires a hotspot to have developed in the tropical troposphere. No observable hotspot. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact." Wow, I do love how these Zombie Memes keep coming back again & again. As someone with a modicum of scientific knowledge will tell you, the hot-spot is supposed to exist *independent* of Global Warming. i.e. atmospheric physics predicts the existence of a hot-spot in the tropical troposphere about 10km above the Earth's surface-a hot spot that is meant to exist whether the troposphere's temperature were warming, cooling or remaining unchanged. The failure to properly identify said hot-spot (it has been detected, just not reliably) says more about the difficulty of detecting the hot-spot with current instruments than it does about global warming. Now a *real* fingerprint of AGW is a cooling stratosphere....oh &, guess what, the stratosphere *is* cooling-i.e. observable fact. Once again, do a little research in future.
       Moderator Response: To read more, type "hotspot" without the quote marks, in the Search field at the top left.
99635. KR at 16:07 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       Eric (skeptic) - My "short answer" to BP's claims of a lowered Arctic humidity lie in the data; Arctic humidity is increasing, not decreasing. As to distribution, I will have to disagree most strongly with you. Small scale variations in WV distribution will affect small scale longwave radiation (LR) values; but our satellite measurements of OLR provide large scale values - and it's the global OLR that determines radiation balance. Having worked with fractal systems before, I will point out that once you are looking at a system from sufficient distance, whatever fractal nature is inherent in the system can be accurately dealt with as a parametric evaluation for statistical summary. In addition (as I found your less amplification statement a bit confusing): CO2 warming is extremely smooth on a global scale - local variations of CO2 are of very small values. The WV feedback is driven by CO2, but is an addition based upon CO2 values, not an amplification - the CO2 signature is quite significant in and of itself. Even in the driest conditions, a lack of water vapor will not cause the CO2 forcing to drop to lower values. Lastly, "Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked: - quite true. It's also higher due to Arctic amplification - with the Arctic several degrees warmer than it used to be. If BP is claiming that the OLR from the Arctic is larger than could be expect from actual surface temperatures due to atmospheric window effects, he's going to have to run some numbers and data and prove it. It's certainly not what's been observed by people doing the work.
99636. Marcus at 16:04 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Two of the worst NH winters you say? Only if you live on the Atlantic Coasts (&, even then, not even the worst on record). The Middle East, the bulk of North America & Central Europe-not to mention the Arctic circle-are all suffering above average temperatures this winter-& last winter-& after one of the hottest Summers on record to boot, so do please get your facts straight. As to the proof of AGW-why are we getting a warming trend (which even YOU admit to, apparently) when all the natural forcings (solar output & the PDO) point towards a cooling trend for the last 30 years-a cooling trend which hasn't materialized? Instead, we've had an accelerating warming trend-i.e. the warming trend for the last 30 years has been +0.16 degrees per decade (which was faster than the warming for 1949-1980). Yet look at each decade & you see the following: 1980-1990 had an average temperature anomaly of +0.19 degrees, then 1990-2000 was +0.31 degrees (a difference of 0.12 degrees), then 2000-2010 was +0.53 degrees (a difference of 0.22 degrees). I don't know where you learned maths, but that suggests the decadal change *is* accelerating-consistent with AGW. BTW, at its most extreme, global warming *could* cause Global Cooling. What do you think would happen if sufficient fresh water were to enter the North Atlantic over a relatively short period? Here's a clue-it would reduce the salinity of the North Atlantic which-in turn-could cause the Gulf Stream to slow down-or even stop. That would cause extreme cold in North America & Europe, whilst causing long-term drought in the bulk of Africa, the Middle East & Asia. Of course, someone with a modicum of scientific knowledge-& not merely a reliance on Propaganda-would know that.
99637. KR at 15:52 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault - You ask "...what IS the "proof" of AGW anyway? Not GW, which has been observable, but "A"GW?" I would suggest taking a look at The Big Picture, which provides just that - an overview of the evidence for warming, for human attribution of the majority of that warming, and what the results of that warming may mean to us. I would also strongly suggest you take a look at How do we know more CO2 is causing warming and The human fingerprint in global warming. If you disagree with the write-ups, I suggest you follow the links on those pages to various peer-reviewed articles presenting the evidence and conclusions discussed. I believe those links will present a great deal of information for you on this topic.
99638. Eric (skeptic) at 15:37 PM on 2 January 2011
       Did Global Warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
       KR, it is not complex at all. If weather on average creates a more uneven distribution of water vapor, then amplification of CO2 warming will be low or even nonexistent. The distribution of water vapor is what matters, not the average amount, whether Arctic or not. Heat works similarly. If lots of cold ends up in the temperate zones and heat in the arctic (e.g. by current negative AO), then that is "global cooling" or maybe just less amplification of CO2 warming. Conversely if air flow patterns are less meridional then there will be more amplification of CO2 warming. This is mostly because the dominant short term factor in earth average temperature is latent heat transfer. The other two are LW and albedo. Outgoing LW is obviously higher in BP's scenario that you linked. Albedo is not as clear (NPI), but a meridional pattern would indicate more clouds (cooling or warming) and more convection (generally cooling).
99639. memoryvault at 15:33 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Marcus 1) What FOX actually may put to air isn't even germane to this discussion. The BS #5 award in the above article was for a news editor advising his staff to offer balanced reporting. If the BS award had been for an example of actual biased reporting I wouldn't be typing this now. But while we're on the subject, what IS the "proof" of AGW anyway? Not GW, which has been observable, but "A"GW? Apart from some increasingly redundant computer models, where's the PROOF of AGW that all these "experts" are privy to? You refer to "climate scientists who can prove global warming is occurring and why it is occurring". Okay, hit me with the "proof" that it's caused by anthropogenic influences, and isn't just a continuation of a cycle that's existed since the last glacial. 2) Again you avoid the issue. BS award #5 wasn't given on the strengths or weaknesses of the so-called "experts" from either side. It was awarded to a news editor who called on his staff to acknowledge there were, in fact, "sides" to the debate at all. See 1) above. 3) Actually, "trends" in climate study are usually expressed in 30 year periods. In fact, many climate graphs and charts are measured in 30 year periods on the horizontal. There's a historical reason for that. It's because we recognised the 25 - 30 year warming - cooling "trend" a long time ago. 4) No "white-wash" "investigation" of the climategate emails has even looked at the HARRY_READ_ME files. You know, the folder where we find a line of code that ensures the progam creates a "warming" trend even when random numbers are fed into it. A line of code appropriately labelled "fudge factor". No "evidence" that AGW "science" is "crap"? How about the "evidence" of observable fact? CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. Not only should it be getting hotter, it should be getting hotter quicker. It isn't. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact. CO2 AGW theory requires a hotspot to have developed in the tropical troposphere. No observable hotspot. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable fact. CO2 AGW theory requires that "winters warm faster than summers". This is actually stated in an article on this site as one of the "fingerprints" of AGW. And observable fact? Three progressively worsening, colder NH winters. CO2 AGW theory disproved by observable facts. But hey, why should anyone believe their own lying eyes when we've got all these "experts" to tell us what the real truth is? Like the latest "global warming causes global cooling" from Professor Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute. You couldn't make it up . . . .
       Moderator Response: Please don't use all caps. Use italics, or if you must, use bold. Also, the claims you have made are addressed in other posts. Either use the Search field at the top left, or click the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments" at the left. We try to keep comments on the relevant thread. In addition to the posts KR linked for you, also type "email" without the quote marks. Then search for "hotspot."
99640. Eric (skeptic) at 15:11 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Marcus, I didn't see your post before I posted, my only beef with your reply is that sunspots are a canard. They have only been low since 2005 and whatever effect they might have is subject to the same delays as CO2 warming (e.g. the ocean could be releasing previously stored heat masking cooling if it exists).
99641. Eric (skeptic) at 15:05 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault, the easiest argument to rebut is your (3) "there is no cooling right now", lots of threads here on that. I tend to agree about (1) AGW not being debated properly, like I said in #9 above. I have no opinion on (2) and not much of an opinion on (4), they seem a little pointless to argue about. Number (5) is where I have a simple opinion. Climate is aggregate measurements (statistics) of temp and precip, maybe a few other odds and ends like hurricanes. Climate change is the change in those statistics due to long term changes like solar, GHG, etc. Weather can impact climate, for example what happens with weather will help determine the amount of amplification of CO2 warming if any. Weather is mainly the chaotic dynamics but also the cyclical changes, so multi-year ENSO cycles are weather, along with day/night and seasonal change which are sometimes loosely referred to as climate. So while measurements of weather over time are climate, those measurements have to be statistically valid (properly aggregated over sufficient time to determine the long term non-weather changes).
99642. Bibliovermis at 14:39 PM on 2 January 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Please refer to argument #31. Then refer to argument #1 because "other planets are warming" is just an indirect way of saying "it's the sun".
99643. Marcus at 14:33 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       memoryvault. (1)If I can measure the weight of the rain-drops, though, & *prove* they were heavier on average than last year, then I'm off to a better start than the guy who, without evidence to back him, says they're not. The problem with Fox is they give MORE weight to those who claim Global Warming isn't happening-even when they have NO PROOF to back that claim-than to scientists who can PROVE that global warming is occurring & why its occurring. That's not balance, that's BIAS. (2) Refer to (1). Most of the "experts" they rely on actually have NO EXPERTISE to speak of. Those who do often present hypothesis as fact (as per Lindzen & his supposed warm-biased thermometers). Again, why are these people given more weight than those who have more than 80 years of climate records to back their position? (3) That one is simple. If you get a single Summer's day that's colder than the Winter Average, then does that mean Summer ceases to exist? Yet what you're suggesting is equally ridiculous. A year's worth of weather is worth more than a day to a month, & a decade's worth of weather is worth more than a single year. To be statistically significant, though, a trend requires at least 20 years of combined weather events. Even with the cold December of the Atlantic Coast last month, global temperatures for 2010 were still +0.66 degrees above the 1961-1990 average-making it the hottest year since records were first taken. 2000-2010 is also the hottest 11 year period in the last 130 years, in spite of being dominated by the lowest sunspot numbers in a century. (4) Well that's just straight up ad-hominem. You want to provide PROOF, not just more baseless allegations? The fact is that no climate scientists have been found guilty of wrong doing-in spite of the Witch Hunt waged by the anti-AGW crowd, & I've yet to see the anti-AGW crowd provide a single shred of hard data to show that the science was "crap". Meanwhile, all your mates have provided as an alternative is, at best, pseudo-scientific rubbish &-at worst-ludicrously convoluted conspiracy theories that would make the most ardent tin-foil hat wearer blush.
       Moderator Response: Watch the all-caps, please.
99644. ghornerhb at 14:28 PM on 2 January 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Hasn't climate also changed, (warming) on other planets and moons at the same time as the earth? Plenty of studies seem to show that to be true. AGW believers then search for any reason they can find to say "yes, but it's happening at the same time for different reasons"... what a coincidence!
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then you should have no difficulty providing links to those peer-reviewed studies then. We're waiting... And respond on the more appropriate thread "Mars is warming," after reading that post.
99645. ghornerhb at 14:15 PM on 2 January 2011
       There is no consensus
       I wonder if the "consensus" among AGW supporting scientists is the basic need for government subsidized studies of the supposed "problem?"
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please refrain from expressions of ideological bias; stick to the topic of the post. Off-topic comments will get deleted. Thanks for your compliance!
99646. memoryvault at 14:07 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       Actually thoughtfull 1) Debating "climate change" is like trying to debate the wetness of raindrops. Were last year's raindrops wetter than this years? The "debate" is and always was about Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW for short. And the opposite of AGW is NON Anthropogenic Global Warming - ie - warming caused by something else. So the BS award #5 goes to a news editor who dared suggest his reporters point out that some people don't agree with the "anthropogenic" part when reporting on possible causes of "climate change". How dastardly of him. 2) Straight ad-hom - "my expert is bigger than your expert nah nah nah". 3) "thinking that individual weather events make a tend" ??????. So, how many "individual weather events" like progressively colder, snowier Northern Hemisphere winters does it take to establish a "trend"? Let me know and I'll watch out for it. "You could look at the number of cold records vs the number of warm records (although better to do that for 30 years or so . . )." Whoever claimed it hadn't been warming? How would this prove the "A" in AGW? And why 30 years - why not 60 years so it takes in the natural cooling cycle that preceded this perfectly natural warming one? Or 600 years so we can take in the longer wave approximately 300 year oscillations that gave us both the MWP and the LIA? "One theory is because the world is warming due to human activity". Yes, a "theory". There are others which fit the observed facts far better that AGW. The best fit to date is the 25 - 30 year alternating warming - cooling cycle overlaid on a longer 300 year alternating warming - cooling cycle. 4) No the wrongdoing on the part of climate scientists HASN'T changed the "climate science" in any way. It was total crap before, during and after the wrongdoing by "climate scientists". In fact the "wrongdoing" was an attempt to hide the fact that the "science" was crap. Go read the HARRY_READ_ME file. 5) I'm sorry, but if medium to long term trends in "weather" are not "climate", then what the heck is "climate"? Enlighten me please?
99647. Andy Skuce at 13:55 PM on 2 January 2011
       The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
       Greg @ 10 I owe you a reply and I apologize for the delay in making it. When composing the article, I chose not to write a lengthy description of the session you were involved in but instead opted to link to Steve Easterbrook's and Steve Mosher's very different accounts. (I also added links to your website and to your open letter). My subjective impressions your contribution to the meeting tend to be closer to Mosher's than Easterbrook's and I felt obligated to say so, bluntly. (Normally, I agree with everything Easterbrook writes and almost nothing coming from Mosher.) I should have made it clear that I don't agree with everything Mosher wrote in his article and I'm sorry that I didn't do that. As you correctly pointed out in your talk, those of us who are alarmed about climate change, professional scientists and amateurs alike, have so far been ineffective in communicating the urgency of the problem to the general public. Of course, many of us who participate at Skeptical Science do so precisely because we want to improve public communication and understanding. Occasionally, that means criticizing those among us who overstate the case--thereby making it vulnerable to attack--as well as those who invite rebuke by indulging in rhetorical excess, as I think you did. This must have been a tough experience for you and I hope that you are not too discouraged by the brickbats. Articulate advocates, like you, who care enough to stand up and speak out are needed and rare. Sincerely, Andy
99648. ghornerhb at 13:52 PM on 2 January 2011
       Models are unreliable
       The "reliability" of climate models has been has never been backed up by satellite or weather balloon data. Even the UN says they are unreliable. I know this is a rather simple line of reasoning, but I'd rather not use abstract examples. Numbers can be manipulated to show almost anything, so unless the two basic forms of temperature measurement are wrong, the "unreliable" label will be firmly (and rightfully) attached to the "what if" models.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Incorrect on all counts. If you feel differently, please provide links to supporting sources.
99649. ghornerhb at 13:40 PM on 2 January 2011
       Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
       To those of you who think Plimer is "cherry picking" and his input ought to be discounted, I would ask you if you think the data collected from the Vostock ice core sample are also suspect? The data used by Al Gore (incorrectly) came from that source. The original tests were taken from 1000 year slices that seemed to back his assumption. The retest, using 100 year slices showed a much different dataset. As the new data was out in print 2 - 3 years prior to the release of "An Inconvenient Truth" Mr Gore was forced to only intimate that increasing CO2 levels were responsible for warming. Of course I'm sure all of you debaters know the data showed just the opposite. Another dataset to consider comes from Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) Particularly the 600 million year chart of both CO2 and temperature, which shows only one other period of time, when both Temp and CO2 levels were as low as they are today. This article also shows a glaciation during the Carboniferous period at a time CO2 levels were just slightly higher (400ppm) than they are today. I really believe the bulk of actual scientific studies, not computer simulations, support the position that IF humans are involved in altering climate... it would be a minuscule involvement at best.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then you should have no difficulty providing links to those "bulk of actual" scientific studies then. I assume they were all peer-reviewed, right?
99650. actually thoughtful at 12:47 PM on 2 January 2011
       The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
       MemoryVault's five fallacies 1)That balance means one page for lies to balance one page of truth. Rather balance means understanding that all stories have more than one side and finding out what the other side is. The balance to climate change is not "not climate change" - it is where is the doubt? For example, where is the heat in the oceans? Will the Arctic have ice free summers before or after 2020? Things like that 2)Assuming that someone presenting to Congress automatically is knowledgeable about the subject. Better to consider the validity of the science, or at least the scientist. 3)Thinking individual weather events make a trend. This whole line of thinking is wrong, for the most part. You could look at the number of cold records vs the number of warm records (although better to do that for 30 years or so...). The warm vs cold records is HEAVILY in favor of warm. One theory is because the world is warming due to human activity. 4)Thinking that any wrong doing by the part of climate scientists (if any) has changed the SCIENCE of the climate in any way 5)Thinking weather=climate. It never has and it never will!

Prev  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  Next