Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Next
Comments 100551 to 100600:
-
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!' -
Daniel Bailey at 16:36 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: muoncounter (24) In actuality, Norman's use of 1998 as his start year is such a blatant-cherry pick it constitutes use of the two-headed coin to determine field position for the extra period... ...so much so that there's no need to bother discussing the issue of statistical significance or weather vs climate (the 30-years thingy). In your parlance from 21, Norman squibbed the kick... The Yooper -
muoncounter at 16:36 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
And very sound advice in your concluding paragraph! -
muoncounter at 16:29 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#22: "mythbusted" I don't want to be repetitive, so I ask you to please re-read #21. Or else its double overtime for sure. Your graph shows a similar 'cooling phase' between 1986-1989 and '93-94 (although that was Pinatubo-related). If we are to put any stock in these tiny wobbles within an obvious overall up-trend, then why did these two 'cooling phases' not 'bust' the myth already? Do you notice that after each one, the up-trend just kept on going? And why don't you declare the 'myth' unbusted by the distinct 'warming trend' from 2004-2006? Especially after you just said that "a decade is not long enough"!!! If you choose to believe 2-3 year blips over a 30 year trend, that's your right to have an opinion. But as they say, 'everybody gets an opinion, but they don't get their own facts.' Myth busted? Jamie and Adam wouldn't agree: "Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat absorbed by air -- confirmed." -
Daniel Bailey at 16:25 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: Norman (22) Really, Norman, you missed your calling in life! You make the cardinal mistake of climate cherry-picking: picking one of the warmest years in the instrumental record as your starting point. That is cherry-picking of the highest order! Try moving your start point back to 1997 & see what happens. Or forward to 1999. We'll wait. ( - taps foot, whistles - ) Told you so. The Yooper -
RW1 at 16:23 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 191), KR: "Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected." Forget about the gain for a minute. Do you notice that 161 + 78 = 239W/m^2 and not the 396 W/m^2 power at the surface? Using Trenberth's diagram and numbers, tell me where the 396 W/m^2 of power at the surface is coming from? Do you see what I mean about the diagram being very ambiguous and hard to follow? This can't be derived from information provided in the diagram. Do you also notice that 239 W/m^2 (161 + 78) is the albedo adjusted energy coming in from the Sun? -
Norman at 16:11 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#21 muoncounter, Thanks for explaining how the graph works. I did a trend line from 1998 to 2010 and it is actually negative so mythbusted. The satellite data does show a recent cooling trend. If this works here is the link to the graph I plotted. From 1998 to 2010 the temp trend is negative...cooling phase.Response: I know this is a somewhat futile exercise as we're talking about a short period with a very noisy signal (satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show strong variability from year to year). Nevertheless, I couldn't help noticing you had plotted the linear trend from 1998 to the start of 2010 (the purple line below):
But why exclude all the temperature data throughout 2010? The 2010 temperatures are shown above - the green line. When we plot the linear trend from 1998 through to the end of 2010 (well, to very late 2010, we're not quite there yet), we get a positive trend (the red line).
It bears mentioning that neither trend are statistically significant. It's a very noisy signal and we're looking at a short period. The lesson here is the danger of drawing solid conclusions from short periods. You assume a cooling phase when you plot the trend to December 2009. But you find a warming trend if you extend it to November 2010. You need to look at longer periods to get a result that is statistically significant. -
muoncounter at 16:06 PM on 23 December 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
More news of the weird in Texas; 80+F yesterday and today (and its winter). Perry Issues Disaster Proclamation Over Wildfires The proclamation covers 244 of the state's 254 counties. Perry says lack of precipitation has dried grass and other vegetation across the state. He says the "significant fire danger" is expected to continue. And the reason 244/254 counties are in drought conditions is ... fill in the blank or see comment #5. -
Norman at 16:00 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hugo Franzen Your mathematical work is very detailed. Thanks. -
muoncounter at 15:56 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#19: "to just plot 1998 to 2010" When the graph page opens, to the right of the graph are series 1-4. If you click under 'processing steps', you can choose how you'd like to slice and dice the data. Be aware that most of the datasets are monthly averages, so that a mean of 132 samples represents 11 years. "I agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present... " The kick is up... "but in the decade of the 2000's... " Ohh. Wide to the right. Guess we go into overtime, folks. If, as you say in the immediate parenthetical, "a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change", what do you expect that looking at only the most recent decade will tell you? -
Ron Crouch at 15:49 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
The graphic looks very similar to the one in Hansen et al 2010 page 23 where 60 month and 132 month running averages are expressed using two different data sets. -
RW1 at 15:47 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 191), KR: "Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise." Again, the diagram is confusing. In his diagram he is denoting that 40 W/m^2 is the amount passing through the clear sky unabsorbed and 30 W/m^2 is passing through cloudy sky unabsorbed for a total atmospheric window of 70 W/m^2. -
Norman at 15:36 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#16 muoncounter In your link, how do you get the graph to just plot 1998 to 2010? I will agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present (and a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change) but in the decade of the 2000's I still do not see a warming signal. -
RW1 at 15:20 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
muoncounter (RE: 192), I used Trenberth's number of 70 W/m^2 for the transparent portion of the atmosphere and got 52.5% up and 47.5% down for the absorbed portion of the atmosphere. That's pretty close to 50/50. That it's over 50% going up with his 70 W/m^2 suggests the actual transparency number is higher (more like a little over 80 W/m^2 for 50/50 up/down). If you missed it, here it is again: At a temperature of 288K, the surface emits 390 W/m^2. With a gain of 1.6 at the surface, the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and sent back toward the surface is 152 W/m^2 (238 W/m^2 from the Sun + 152 W/m^2 from atmosphere = 390 W/m^2 at the surface). To calculate the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and directed up out to space, we need to know how much of the surface power passes through the transparent window of the atmosphere totally unabsorbed. If we use Trenberth's 70 W/m^2, we get a total of 320 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere (390 - 70 = 320 W/m^2). 320 W/m^2 total absorbed - 152 W/m^2 directed downward back toward the surface = 168 W/m^2 upward out to space, which using Trenberth's numbers at least, is actually about 52.5% up and 47.5% down. 168 W/m^2 + 70 W/m^2 going up = 238 W/m^2 leaving and 238 W/m^2 arriving. Do you see how that for power in = power out, half of what the atmosphere absorbs has to be directed out to space? -
muoncounter at 15:00 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#189: "I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half ..." No, you didn't show it, you decreed it. Refer to comment #7 for the first time someone said 'not'. We are going in circles over this. You've made your point to the best of your ability. As others have made theirs. Perhaps you could contact Dr. Trenberth directly and demonstrate to him exactly how he is incorrect. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - First, I'm glad you're responding. You did not to the last 2-3 posts I made on this thread. - Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise... - Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected. - 3.7 W/m^2 change in top of atmosphere (TOA) forcing per doubling of CO2. Yes, in a single layer model (not realistic) that's 7.4 watts absorbed in surface layers. If you want details, follow the multiple links to MODTRAN models folks have pointed you towards - which you have apparently not followed. If you won't, and haven't done the work, well then, don't argue with it. - You have repeatedly asserted that cyclic variations (orbital distances, seasons) somehow affect the global energy balance differently than CO2 forcings. You are incorrect - they all affect the global energy in the same fashion. It's just that long term trends in averages will change global climate, whereas balanced cycles will not. - muoncounter - Thanks, a sinusoid does average to 0.707 peak to peak values. I'm not sure that it's a pure sinusoid; given that perihelion orbital velocities are higher than aphelion, but that sounds about right. It's certainly not the peak-to-peak values RW1 asserts. - If you know that lower atmosphere absorption is ~twice what gets blocked at TOA, why are you claiming that the 3.7 gets halved?!? That's halving twice! -
RW1 at 14:41 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Disregard the "I know" at the end of post 189 - it was leftover from 188. -
RW1 at 14:39 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." OK, show me the power in = power out radiative budget calculations that prove this. I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half the the power absorbed by the atmosphere (for GHGs and clouds) is radiated up out to space and the other half is radiated down. I know. -
RW1 at 14:34 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom Dayton (RE: 186), Tom: "Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics." I know. -
RW1 at 14:27 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations." No, the gain of 1.6 is a global average calculation. It is simply the global average emitted surface power divided by the global average albedo adjusted solar power.
Prev 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Next
