Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Next
Comments 100451 to 100500:
-
NETDR at 07:26 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
When I worked for defense contractors we were a "team" defending our nation against the Soviet Union, and making 6 figure salaries [in today's dollars] doing it and having fun. [The type that only engineers can understand] Anyone who correctly predicted that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger and would soon collapse would have been treated as a pariah and shunned like the plague. Many in the climate industry are genuine team members working for a cause they believe in. Are they evil ? No. Are they wrong ? I believe yes. I thought even when the Soviet Union collapse that I was so valuable that i would be assigned other important work and didn't need to fear losing my job. I was wrong just like many people who study climate change are wrong. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#32: "the consensus view is under serious attack from the skeptics" That's almost funny. If you want to see the actual condition of this 'serious attack', look at The value of coherence. Perhaps you should look at IPCC is alarmist. In the meantime, you've been doing a good job demonstrating this author's point: In typical paranoid style, they are forced to extend the net of their fantasy further and further, so that not just some scientists, but almost all of the world’s climate scientists, scientific organizations and governments are in on the fraud. -
hfranzen at 07:23 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Another comment regarding #8. The CO2 in the atmosphere in GWPPT6 is based only on what is observed and reported in the Keeling curve. There is no need to consider CO2 cycles or individual losses in determining the GHG effect of CO2 so long as we have the Keeling data. On the other hand comes the question, what is the source of the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere?. I say in GWPPT6 that I see no reaonable alternative but to ascribe the CO2 increase to human consumption of fossil fuels, but that could a limitation on my part. In a way I am saying if you have a better idea please let me know, However in my experience the usual deniers claim is that it comes from the oceans and the second power point on my web site, CB with Buffering (charge balance with buffering) points out some very serious restraints on the reactions of CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate in the ocean. Those who wish to have the oceans supplying CO2 to the atmosphere must explain the driving force causing the CO2 to evolve. The only reasonable possibility that I can see is temperature, and if this is claimed to be the cause then those who claim it must find the equilibrium constants at the elevated temperature and then calculate the amount of CO2 that evolves. Not a totally arduous task but one the results of which,from my calculation, they will find fall far short of what they are claiming. Finally, the equations of CB with Buffering are for the average temperature of the earth so if the partial presssure of CO2 increases in one place it will decrease in another and there will be no net change. As a long time professor of chemistry it seems to me the deniers have simply not done their homework. -
rocco at 07:14 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt: this link has a lot of data about the geothermal flux, if you are interested: http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html As Bibliovermis notes, the amount of energy (~40TW) is too small to make difference globally. Also, I'm not sure about the "sloughing off" question. Are you suggesting that atmosphere loss plays a role in global energy balance? -
johnmacmot at 07:14 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR, you have misquoted Schneider. What he said, in full, was: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need, to get some broad base support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." That passage was selectively quoted, in the form you have used, by journalists, and has been repeated frequently since. You will notice the difference in meaning and intent when everything he said is included. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
nerndt>There is a greenhouse effect on the moon due to the surface and subsurface lunar regolith (soil) , which has the property of absorbing and storing the incident solar radiation. This isn't a greenhouse effect at all. The surfaces of the earth and moon both have the ability to absorb solar radiation, if they didn't they would appear transparent. In fact, the key to the greenhouse effect is that CO2 doesn't readily absorb solar radiation, but does absorb infrared. You should read up on the greenhouse effect and thermal radiation. -
NETDR at 06:58 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Several posters have made the point that claiming consensus is not the best way to obtain funding. I disagree and have some experience in a similar situation. I worked for several defense contractors. When the Soviet Union cease to be a threat the company I was with closed a division and laid off thousands and I was one of them. How many people now do what I used to do ? About 25 % but that is just a guess. Some have been reassigned to new threats like roadside bombs and IED detection but it is a shell of it's former self. I ws paid a hansom salary and know nothing about IED detection, so hiring a young cheap engineer who also knows nothing about IED detection makes business sense, but it is hard on my wallet. The point is the required skill set is different. Sure there were other defense related business but it was a game of musical chairs and I was without a chair. I retrained into IT and survived but many didn't. That is what would happen if it were proven beyond a doubt that CAGW was not true. If it were proven to be absolutely true and undeniable vast amounts of resources would be put into mitigation studies, and determining exactly how big the problem was. Since the consensus view is under serious attack from the skeptics it is in the best interest of the climate community to reduce the uncertainties and dot the I's and cross the T's. It is such a complex subject that almost unlimited funds could be spent. I have no doubt that there are many honest sincere researchers who believe in the C in CAGW and thin it is in mankind's interest to exaggerate the problem somewhat to get the public's attention, like Stephen Schneider who said: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Is that an invitation to a conspiracy of silence concerning unfavorable data or results ? I think it is. -
hfranzen at 06:55 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
The most important spect of the oxygen to carbon dioxide conversion is that oxygen is infrared inactive - the GHG's are tri-and higher atomic molecules with infrared actives modes. Secondarily, (but given the first not really imortant) the percentage of oxgen involved in the formation of CO2 is miniscule i.e. the rate of formation of CO2 through combustion of fossil fuels is about 3+ ppm per year whereas the air is 200,000 ppm in oxygen. Thanks to Bibliovermis for the core energy loss - I knew it was small, but not how small. -
meerkat at 06:43 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Chris Briefly, because we're going rapidly off topic, wrt to normal/revolutionary science you're overemphasising the positions Kuhn took in his debate with Popper in the 1960s and overlooking his later, post 1962 publications. Continue on hopos-l if you want, but pls. tone down the snarking! Meerkie -
Bibliovermis at 06:40 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Nerndt, Our planet's core radiates about 0.01% of the energy in comparison to what we receive from the Sun. I apologize for not providing references as this is being tapped out from my phone. -
Paul D at 06:19 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Nerdt, why would nitrogen, oxygen or water be removed as a result of CO2 being added?? The addition of CO2 in itself is a complex business, with some being removed from the atmosphere by sinks and some being added by sources. The 'addition' is the result of these processes. On the Moon the surface temperature swings to extremes of hot at day to cold at night. -
nerndt at 06:19 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Info on the moon's temperature: As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it. The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy! But the moon, since it doesn't have this blanket, gets much colder than the earth and much hotter than the earth. On the side of the moon that the sun is shining on, the temperature reaches 260 Fahrenheit! That is hotter than boiling. On the dark side of the moon, it gets very cold, -280 Fahrenheit. The moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised by argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. There is a greenhouse effect on the moon due to the surface and subsurface lunar regolith (soil) , which has the property of absorbing and storing the incident solar radiation. This is the reason by which scientists are considering that the greenhouse effect on Earth depends more on the surface and subsurface regolith (soil) than on the Earth's atmosphere. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/ Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_on_the_moon's_surface#ixzz18xpvUOerModerator Response: [muoncounter] There's no need to past extensive quotes from an external website. A key point or two with the link is sufficient. However, the paragraphs above your NASA LADEE link do not appear in that page. Please cite more carefully. -
nerndt at 06:13 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Question: what effect does the earth's core have on the surface temperature compared to that given by the sun? -
muoncounter at 06:12 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
26: "What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”." Perhaps, but you should provide some evidence of this if you want to be taken seriously. However, compare the scale of the interest groups: Some university profs and government researchers vs. the Koch Bros. et al in their lobbying effort against California's Prop 23 is a good example. From the money spent, it's obvious who has the bigger self-interest and thus by your logic who's “invisible hand” is bigger. -
nerndt at 06:01 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
First I want to say this is one of the best articles on this forum in a while. Very impressive. I'm hoping someone can explin the questions I have below: Shouldn't the energy from the core of the earth somehow need be taken into account into the temperature increase calculations caused by higher levels of CO2? Is there an assumption made that for every CO2 molecule put in the atmosphere, is a Nitrogen or Oxygen or Water molecule removed? If so, shouldn't the change in radiative effect be used istead of just the addition of the CO2 effect? I've been told that solar radiation is constantly sloughing off part of the atmosphere (more during solar flares or bursts). How does that fit into the puzzle? A real puzzling question I have: On the moon (virtually no atmosphere, no heated planet core), how quickly does the temperature change from hot to cold as the planet surface goes sunlit to shaded? On the earth, what is the time period of sunlight to cooling in the atmosphere? Is the real reason the air temperature does not hit the extremes due to the radiated heat given off in the evenings from the oceans, planet core and land mass? I feel all of these effects and temperature fluctuations must be taken into account and modeled to better understand the overall effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. -
Bibliovermis at 05:58 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR, Misconceptions of the scientific community (such as "global warming research would be curtailed if it was natural") and misunderstanding of the observational records (look at argument #7, at the moment, in the top left column) are prime examples of contrarian self-interest under the guise of skepticism. -
Albatross at 05:47 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
John Cook et al., You could also use GrADS to process the GRIB or NetCDF data. I was using GrADS to look at the ERA-interim data a few months ago. I think that GrADS may be able to process the GRIB data and write it to an array in ASCII format, or one could perhaps even calculate the global mean SAT and output those data. GrADs is free and can be run on a Mac or Windows machine. -
Phila at 05:25 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Also, NETDR, this makes no sense: If global Warming were to be found to be entirely natural, funding and staffs would be drastically cut. Why? If global warming were natural, it would still be a good idea to study it, wouldn't it? Wouldn't we still want to know how hot it was likely to get, and how fast, and where? Wouldn't polar melting, drought and wildfires still be a concern? Wouldn't governments and the military be interested in the implications of natural warming for agriculture, weather patterns and the potential for regional resource wars? Wouldn't investors be interested in this information? And even if scientists en masse were afflicted with the weird complacency that natural warming seems to inspire in "skeptics," wouldn't they still be interested in studying it for its own sake, just as they study other natural phenomena? I really don't think you've thought your claims through very carefully. -
Phila at 05:13 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR: What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”. It is to the best interest of all climate scientists for enough plausibility be found in Global Warming AKA climate change AKA climate disruption AKA weirding weather to keep the lights on and their paychecks coming in. If global Warming were to be found to be entirely natural, funding and staffs would be drastically cut. Actually, claiming that the science is settled is not the ideal way to secure funding, for obvious reasons. If I wanted to keep the lights on and the paychecks coming in, I'd probably want to downplay the consensus. Arguably, if anyone has kept money flowing into the pockets of climate scientists, it's the people who are manufacturing doubt about their findings to such an extent that even century-old science is somehow up for debate. Beyond that, most of your claims are entirely speculative, and draw heavily on a longstanding complex of paranoid political scenarios for which there's never been much evidence (old John Birch Society tracts notwithstanding). As this post says, "we should believe a conspiracy theory only when there is strong evidence to support it." In short, anyone can throw prejudicial words like "mafia" around. How about addressing the science, instead? -
keithpickering at 05:11 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
ECMWF global temperature data comes in two datasets: the 40-year reanalysis, covering 1957-2002, and the "interim" re-analysis, covering 1989-present. While the data is available online, it is gridded, making retrieval in this form difficult at best. However, a graph of ECMWF global temps can be found here: LINK This looks quite similar to GISS, in that the 1977-2010 slope is roughly .18 K per decade, and in that the 1998 peak has been surpassed 4 times (and essentially tied twice).
-
NETDR at 05:01 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
So I posted it without caps and it was deleted anyway ? So what is up with that ? If you are discussing conspiracy theories you need to allow conspiracy theories to be discussed ! Sounds logical to me. Is global warming a conspiracy ? Did a group of scientists go to a back room and make up Global Warming to make a lot of money. Of course not. What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”. It is to the best interest of all climate scientists for enough plausibility be found in Global Warming AKA climate change AKA climate disruption AKA weirding weather to keep the lights on and their paychecks coming in. If global Warming were to be found to be entirely natural, funding and staffs would be drastically cut. Does it take a conspiracy with a central co-coordinator to assure us that human beings will act like human beings ? Many like the late Stephen Schneider think that exaggerating certainties and hiding uncertainties is justified for the good of the planet. Is the price of sugar a conspiracy or the result of thousands of people dong what they think is in their own self interest. ? The “invisible hand” works in all other aspects of human civilization, to believe it doesn’t in climate science is naïve. To be fair around 1998 when there had been many [20] years of continuous warming I can see why the climatologists were concerned. I would have been too. They projected the current temperature rise to mean 3 ° C by 2100. [They exaggerated the rate by about 3 X] They didn’t have a crystal ball to tell them that over the next 12 years temperatures would be flat or slowly fall. And they didn’t have enough knowledge of history to know this 60 year cycle was normal. Studying global warming seemed to make sense. Of course once the laboratories had been built and the scientists hired there was a “constituency “ for further research. Most scientist just want to study something and get paid for it and the best way to do that is to go with the flow. Climate change or global warming in the title of your study triples the chances of it being funded by government or Greenpeace or WWF. After you take their money you had better find serious consequences if you ever want to get any more $.Moderator Response: The offending portions of your post have been deleted. Please use this as a future reference for what is or is not permissible given the comment policy for this site.
Also note that the comment regarding warming since 1998 is addressed here. Please review the List of Skeptic Arguments prior to posting and ensure your comments are placed in the appropriate thread. -
Phila at 04:50 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat: Kuhn's question about scientific practice, which he never resolved, was what value should be placed on what he called normal science. One answer he gave was that the historical value of normal science was to throw up empirical anomalies that eventually require a new theoretical framework, incommensurate with the previous one, with stronger capacity to explain and predict. First, that's really not what's happening with AGW. There is no crisis, in Kuhn's sense, and there are no empirical anomalies — at least, that I'm aware of — that are not explicable within the standard theoretical framework. If you disagree, please provide examples. Second, I'd echo Chris at 22, and say that your view of what Kuhn thought about "normal" science isn't quite correct. You might try reading The Road Since Structure, in which he explains more clearly why he believes normal science is both valuable and authoritative, and states specifically that when it comes to choosing one theory over another, "trained scientists should be the highest court of appeal." You can also read a late interview with him here, and consider whether it supports your account of his views. I'd also echo Chris on Feyerabend, and add that Pierre Bourdieu's Science of Science and Reflexivity provides a somewhat more rigorous take on these issues (particularly the issue of "interests"), without falling prey to "the naively idealized vision of the 'scientific' community as the enchanted kingdom of the ends of reason" or "the cynical vision which reduces exchanges between scientists to the calculated brutality of political power relations." Speaking of which: "One area where I would continue to disagree with commentators is on the role of interests, which are as present in science as in any other area of human activity." The claim that commenters here are unaware that scientists have interests comes pretty close to being insulting. To an extent, it sounds like you're having the argument you want to have, rather than responding to things people have actually said. I've occasionally run into "skeptics" who have just skimmed Kuhn or whomever, and think that no one but them has ever considered the extent to which knowledge is socially constructed. It's a bad assumption to make. Of course scientists have "interests." However, one of these interests tends to be accuracy, for reasons that include grubby personal motivations but are not limited to them (Bourdieu's concept of "a regulated struggle" that takes place in "the singular conditions of the scientific field" is helpful in understanding this). Finally, the Wittgenstein quote is "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.". It's about the limits of language, and is too perfect to mess with. I'm familiar with the quote, thanks. My version was a continuation of meerkat's joke at #14. -
MarkR at 04:26 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#9 pdt : you've already been answered, but to plug an old blog article I wrote, [here] is an explanation with graphs. As snowhare explained, 133 months is a reasonable choice!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed link. -
Ian Forrester at 04:25 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Alexandre there is a short discussion on sensitivity of MSU's to ENSO at Open MindModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] See also the Rabett's comment a bit further down that discussion here. -
NETDR at 04:24 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Why are my posts being deleted ?Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your previous 2 comments were deleted as they were in violation of the Comments Policy. Specifically, this part: "Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted" and this part: "No ALL CAPS" As this is a post on conspiracy theories, a certain amount of latitude will be allowed, but be careful with any insinuations (speaking in generalities is advised). -
chris at 03:52 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat at 21:54 PM on 23 December 2010"One area where I would continue to disagree with commentators is on the role of interests, which are as present in science as in any other area of human activity."
You need to provide examples I think. "Commentators" on this thread have given examples of "interests" (corporate/political) that have resulted in misrepresenting science for self-serving purposes. These are blatant attempts (conspiricies) to skew perception of scientific knowledge, often to the detriment of the public at large, and they continue to occur, including in relation to climate science. There's no question that science, being an activity pursued by humans, is subject to "interest" (you would find the rather racy writings of Paul Fayerabend useful to explore this!). But the interests of scientists (proper scientists who make up the vast majority of scientists in the public and industrial spheres) have a strong interest in (i) making true discoveries (ii) getting it right, since the very nature of science (it provides explanations of the natural world and thus can only temporarily make excursions up self-serving false routes), means wayward approaches are found out, often rather quickly. So science creates a framework that predisposes to honesty and care. That's not to say that vanity, the desire for personal advance, and other human traits don't add a delightful frisson to the process! -
MattJ at 03:41 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Oh, yes, I forgot to add the first point I thought of! People in category 3 may deserve credit, as the article says, but people in category 4 dominate politics -- and have since long before global warming:( -
MattJ at 03:39 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
This is an impressive article. Unfortunately, in the email, the paragraph breaks were dropped, which made it unnecessarily hard to read. But I see the original on the web site had paragraph breaks in reasonable places, so yes, it is impressive and well written in many ways. But (you knew there was a 'but' coming, right?) since it is targeted for "the interested layperson", it needs more figures breaking up the text at intervals (not necessarily regular). And it really didn't need that much repetition of "trasmittance + absorbance = 1", especially not once that is illustrated (hint, hint). Finally, the "interested layperson" is not going to know what a "wave number" is, yet it it referred to w/o comment in the sole figure in the article. Normal people think in wavelength or frequency, only spectroscopists think of "wave numbers";) -
chris at 03:36 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
meerkat at 21:54 PM on 23 December 2010“Kuhn's question about scientific practice, which he never resolved, was what value should be placed on what he called normal science….
Lots of problems with that paragraph meerkat, and if you are writing a paper on this subject you should explore I little deeper I think: (i) I don’t agree that Kuhn never resolved to his own satisfaction the “value” to be placed on normal science. I’m not going to plough through his book again, but perhaps you could point out the sections in which that interpretation is apparent. My understanding is that he considered “normal science” paramount to scientific progress else scientific progress simply stops; there would simply be no empirical framework for accepting or rejecting theories and fuelling novel thought that leads to paradigm shifts. In fact although you seemingly consider with your fanciful notion (“circling the wagons” !) that strong efforts to explore and interpret the world within prevailing paridigms makes it “more difficult to achieve scientific progress”, Kuhn thought exactly the opposite, i.e. that the general community of scientists should be robust in supporting the current paradigm so that careful experimentation and interpretation will expose any flaws that exist within it, and so that any novel (potentially paradigm-shifting) ideas are given a good sceptical “workover”! (ii) In any case what does it matter what Thomas Kuhn thought in 1962?! It would be lacking scepticism in the extreme to judge contemporary science solely in Kuhnian terms, for 2 reasons: (a) because many subsequent philosophies of science likely provide a more realistic account of the nature of modern scientific progress [e.g. I would say that both Stephen Toulman and Paul Fayerabend (!) have provided more realistic accounts of the nature of scientific advance]. (b) because one can only really judge scientific progress in a Kuhnian sense from a historical perspective, and we can’t yet look back on contemporary science and consider what new paradigms arose and why. Of course we can be sure that the faux-paradigm of climate “contrarianism” will not prevail since this is neither a scientific one, nor does it have any sort of coherent framework! (iii) You need to address what you mean by “value” …. what value should be placed on what he called normal science….. As in (i) I consider Kuhn was pretty clear about the fundamental value of “normal science”; but you should really think more carefully about what you mean by “value” in the context of contemporary “normal science”, since it seems you’re attempting to bypass objective assessment of science you seem not to like, and and “trash” this science by a self-serving interpretation of Kuhn…. (iv) ….. so forget Kuhn (you’re writing a paper after all and so you should be a little sceptical of lazy interpretations!), and explore examples of scientific advances that have arisen since Kuhn. That might help you to think about the “value” of “normal science” on more objective terms. For example: (a) The discovery of the structure of DNA (revolutionary science; paradigm shift; Nobel prize for Watson Crick and Wilkins): This discovery simply wouldn’t have been possible at that particular time without a supporting framework arising from “normal science” including knowledge of the base ratios in DNA (Chargaff’s rules), the nature of isomerisation of the bases in DNA; understanding the nature of the hydrogen bond and electrostatics; the physics of X-ray fibre diffraction and so on. I don’t think Kuhn would have considered these aspects of “normal science” to be lacking in “value”! (incidentally, one might debate whether some of these might be assigned “paradigm shifts” in their own right). I would say the discovery of the structure of DNA has strong elements of Fayerabendian philosophy! (b) The invention of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (incidentally, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “paradigm shift”; Nobel prize for Mansfield and Lauterbur). I would say that this discovery is within the realm of “normal science” ‘though one could quibble about that. I don’t think anyone would question the “value” of this invention or the contributions it has made to basic understanding in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and medicine. But it follows almost inevitably from a long series of incremental theoretical, and technical advances within the framework of “normal science” (the discovery of magnetic resonance in the late 30’s/early 40’s, and its development through the following decades, the application of spin physics to nuclear spin transitions driven by electromagnetic pulses, the invention of Fourier transform NMR methods, the development of computers with sufficient computational and storage power to collect and process the large digital datasets, the development of high field magnetic and invention of superconducting magnets, etc. etc.). perhaps you could illustrate your Kuhnian ideas with examples... -
Kooiti Masuda at 03:21 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Note that JRA (Japanese reanalysis) is a different thing from the JMA surface temperature analysis which John linked from the response to my comment 11. The GRIB format, specially designed for gridpoint meteorological data and authorized by WMO, can scale gridpoint values as integers of an arbitrary number (e.g. 11, 12 or 13) of significant bits without padding insignificant bits. This saving of storage has merit when we use data at high spatial and temporal resolution (e.g. global in 1 degree latitude/longitude grid, 30 years in 6 hour time step). (NetCDF has some capabilities of compression, but is not so strong as GRIB at compression by scaling.) When we keep monthly mean gridpoint values, probably we do not need this level of storage saving, so the most convenient format seems (to me) binary 4-byte floating numbers simply put in an array. But then we need ancillary information in a companion text file. ECMWF prefers GRIB probably because of consistency with data at high time resolution. When we want just monthly mean global mean values, probably the most convenient form will be ASCII text. -
BlueRock at 02:59 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
@32. Daniel Bailey If only all my questions were answered so quickly and comprehensively I would be a wise and wealthy man. :) Thanks v. much. David.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) You're very welcome! If only all commenters here were half so polite I would be wealthy in friends, at the very least. :) -
Jeff T at 02:51 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Many "skeptics" claim that climate scientists try to convince us that humans are causing global warming in order to advance their own career and financial interests. I consider that claim laughable. Arguing about motivations is basically a distraction to avoid arguing the facts, which support AGW. But while we're on the topic of motivations, aren't those skeptics just following their own financial interests? They believe that a response to AGW would cost them money. And they think that they can avoid the cost of slowing or stopping AGW if they can convince themselves and others that AGW is a conspiracy. -
Alexandre at 02:05 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Does anyone here know why is it so that sattellite measurements of the lower tropospheric temps are so much more sensitive to ENSO than surface temps? -
Daniel Bailey at 01:48 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: BlueRock (31) Short answer: Convention. Habit. Longer answer: The first global datasets used 1950-1980 as their reference period. It is also the reference period most familiar to the majority of people as most were alive for at least a portion of that period (at the time the convention was adopted). And that's how the first anomaly temperature graphs were shown. Since then we've added the capability to extend global datasets into the deep paleo record via proxies and other means. So the use of a baseline reference period in the middle of the graph was retained, even though the specific reference period might have been different due to a different dataset being used. Graphs can be constructed any which way. But we tend to retain the familiar forms so as to retain context over time, to make the changes more pertinent to us. Good question. The Yooper -
BlueRock at 01:37 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Could someone tell me why all (??) temp. anomaly graphs show negative values on the y-axis? Why not just start at zero for 1890? -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#17: "circling the wagons around a particular paradigm" Perhaps you've missed an important point. Perhaps AGW is the new paradigm, one that must replace the 'we can do anything we want and never pay for it' attitude that, left unregulated, led to acid rain, ozone holes, super-fund sites, medical waste in the ocean, etc, etc, etc. Then your 'skepticism' becomes the act of circling the wagons around the old paradigm. A notable example: "failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena". AGW skeptics cannot explain the observed phenomena without resorting to more convoluted, self-contradictory (and eventually irrational) arguments. There are dozens of examples of defense of the old paradigm in the pages of SkS: It's warming, it's cooling, it's not us, it can't be measured, yada, yada, yada. -
SoundOff at 00:38 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Trying to ascertain a trend for a short period (e.g. a decade) is largely a futile effort for two reasons, at least: 1 - ENSO episodes happen at irregular intervals of 2–7 years and they endure for nine months to two years. Opposite phases are not usually equal in intensity or length so it's not a true cycle, it’s more like frequent positive and negative volcanoes erupting. And ENSO episodes don’t follow in a “one El Niño then one La Nina” pattern, which further complicates any trend. The ENSO pattern for 1950 to present is something like this LELELELELEELELEEELELEELELLEEELEL (depending on how boundaries are defined). A short trend can be especially distorted by a single large episode, for example, the hot 1997-98 or cold 2007-08 episodes. ENSO episodes can cause global temperatures to vary by more than the GHG warming rate expected over an entire decade, that's a huge rate swing within a single episode. Several cycles must be measured to ensure the signal is not being influenced by these factors. One full ENSO cycle is long and asymmetric and would occupy most of any short period, distorting the trend into nonsense. 2 – A short period is likely to be fully within the wavelength of the 11-year solar oscillation, which causes global temperatures to vary by more than half the GHG warming rate expected for a decade and the effect of this cycle is continuous for years at a time in one direction. Any short trend is just picking up some part of the solar cycle oscillation and can’t be projected into the future. Therefore, we have 2 short term climate factors equalling up to 150% of the GHG warming rate over a decade. That’s why GHG warming rates must be measured over decades, no matter what skeptics claim. We have no idea what we are measuring with shorter periods. -
Paul D at 00:29 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Thanks Hugo. I really nice piece of writing. -
snowhare at 00:12 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
> #9 pdt: Maybe this is covered somewhere, but why 133 months? Because the solar cycle is roughly 11 years long on average (minimum-to-peak) (11 years -> 132 months) and because an odd number of months means that there are an equal number of months before and after the date for the moving average (132 months -> 133 months) thus keeping the average centered on the date. It helps make the temperature signal clearer by tending to average out the 11 year periodic solar variation as noise from the long term signal. -
Alexandre at 23:23 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hugo, Very nice work. That's something I've been trying to assemble for some time, and could only achieve some fragments. It will definetly be a resource I'll use for reference. It's a set of equations the interested layperson with a minimum background (say an engineer) can understand and verify. This kind of informed person can be a valuable means to spread knowledge and hence influence public opinion. Thanks. -
anticlimate at 22:41 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"300 hundred" intended to be "300" originally :) sorry -
anticlimate at 22:39 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#11 (Phila): I have to admit, I haven't read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The Grist article you linked claims that Kuhn is often misrepresented, but does not elaborate. Or is the misrepresentation the fact, that climate skeptics (/-denialists whatever) don't have their own sound theory to counter the current one? Or is there anything else? #17 (meerkat): If you really look for a new paradigm what about one which modifies the current economics consensus that financial self interests are the strongest incentives which can be usefully exploited? I mean, the spectacular scientific development of the last 300 hundred years was driven by the scientists' quest for fame and recognition. And the scientific organizations during this time (and today) remind me more of guilds than modern corporations. -
XPLAlN at 22:16 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Norman, I was driving back down south for Christmas and halfway along I drove over a mountain pass. From this I have concluded that driving south is all downhill. -
meerkat at 21:54 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Hopefully can cover most of the points raised. Kuhn's question about scientific practice, which he never resolved, was what value should be placed on what he called normal science. One answer he gave was that the historical value of normal science was to throw up empirical anomalies that eventually require a new theoretical framework, incommensurate with the previous one, with stronger capacity to explain and predict. By circling the wagons around a particular paradigm - "there is nothing to debate" - it becomes more difficult to achieve scientific progress. I can understand why this is happening in climate research, which is why the debate is fascinating. I am currently researching a paper provisionally called AGW skepticism - citizen science, tea party tantrums, or both? I should have moderated my language about the end of the world and panic. I'm sure no one on this list thinks that. I admire the approach taken on Skeptical Science and I apologise for my unbuttoned wording. I have been much affected by the stupidity of the 10:10 blow up film, and have been re-visiting the theory of moral panics for said paper. One area where I would continue to disagree with commentators is on the role of interests, which are as present in science as in any other area of human activity. Finally, the Wittgenstein quote is "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.". It's about the limits of language, and is too perfect to mess with. -
macwithoutfries at 20:00 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Good job mr. Franzen! And I believe that your detailed calculations (properly peer-reviewed) should also find a place somewhere in the argument from http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - 40 W/m^2 passes straight through the atmosphere in the 'IR window'. 30 W/m^2 is thermally emitted by clouds. Your statement "30 W/m^2 is passing through cloudy sky unabsorbed" (emphasis added) indicates to me that you do not understand Trenberth's diagrams. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Yes, I do notice that 161 is the incoming energy from the sun. Once it arrives, however, we're in the thermal IR realm, not the visible light realm, and the visible light albedo is no longer relevant to IR. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Let's see. Surface incoming: 161 solar, 333 backradiation. 494 total. Surface outgoing: 17 thermals, 80 latent heat, 396 IR. 493 total. Difference: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, leading to global warming. This adds up to me. This is extremely clear.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:11 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Hey, at least it wasn't SG's CO2 snow... Not-Even-Wrong comes to mind, though. "1998"...to think I was heading to bed when I re-freshed...just...one...more...time. Be seeing that in my sleep, now. Norman, in case you're still reading this, you really should read this to get a better sense on why 1998 is such a climate faux paux. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 16:43 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#25: 15 yard penalty on the kicking team: Cherrypicking? Or would it be a 5 minute major in the NHL because it was blatant cherrypicking? Red card in the other football. I don't know the rules in the games our down-under friends play, but someone should cry 'Foul!'
Prev 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Next
