Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Next
Comments 100601 to 100650:
-
RW1 at 05:24 AM on 25 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
chris (RE: 217), "But we've already seen that contemporary (20th century) warming is entirely consistent with a climate sensitivity in the range 2-4.5 oC. Since we've already had virtually the warming expected from a climate sensitivity of 2 oC, even without factoring in the inertia in the climate system and the counteracting effects of man made aerosols as described here, and here, and here. The empirical data are simply incompatible with your model and it surprises me that this doesn't concern you." How do you figure we've had all the warming of a 2 C sensitivity? As stated earlier in the thread, we've already reached 75-80% of the intrinsic forcing from a doubling of CO2 and we've only seen about 0.6-0.8 C of warming. Even if all of the warming was attributed to CO2, that translates to only about a 1 C sensitivity. Also, I don't think you understand the model I've laid out. It's not a representation of all the things that can affect climate and temperatures - it's just a representation of how much can be expected to be added on top of natural variation from 2xCO2. The amount of warming we've seen so far is perfectly in line with about a 0.6 C upper limit from a doubling of CO2. "That's simply not true. It's worth familiarising yourself with the large body of data that informs us about likely ranges of climate sensitivity, ranging from empirical analyses to modelling." I'm aware of it. My point was the model estimates are not derived from first principle physics or empirical observation of how the system responds to changes in radiative forcing. Also, the model estimates are way outside the bounds of how the system responds to post albedo power from the Sun. "As for the analysis of seasonal temperature variations, which seems to play a large part in your argumentation, I think it might help if you were to consider more carefully why the Earth is overall warmer at aphelion (July) and cooler at perihelion (January)." I addressed this. That the earth is cooler at perihelion despite higher insolation and warmer at aphelion despite lower insolation totally fits with the numbers I've presented for sensitivity. The reason for this is the albedo is greater in January than it is in July (*do you want me to run the numbers again?) How about you explain why the sensitivity numbers I've put forth fit very well with the temperatures differences at perihelion and aphelion and why the sensitivity numbers for a 3 C rise do not fit and are much too high? -
NETDR at 04:40 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Re moderator response. I have rebuttals for each of the objections you raised but they are O. T. for this thread. I have never seen a thread on the sine and ramp theory as I call it and it is a fairly prevalent theory among skeptics. There is one on sine only and it points out correctly that there would be no warming overall.The ramp might be because of CO2 but at 1/2 degree per century it is manageable. I just doubt the catastrophe. -
dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Very good article. I'd been thinking about writing one on the risk assessment perspective myself, but you beat me to it, and probably did a better job than I would have. In the environmental field, we don't mess around with risk. If there is even a chance that a chemical is carcinogenic, we regulate it. We don't say "oh well there are some uncertainties, it causes cancer at high doses in some animals, but maybe it's fine in humans, so we'll just keep releasing it into the environment and see what happens." But that is the global warming 'skeptic' approach. They want to just wait and see what happens because there is uncertainty. There will always be uncertainty, but from a risk assessment standpoint, you don't mess around with public health. You err on the side of caution every time. But that's not what we do with the climate. Rob Honeycutt @ #20 is also correct. In the USA we have the FDA which ensures that the food we consume is safe. When unsafe food gets through, it's a major scandal. Most of us don't just go out into the woods and eat whatever mushrooms or berries we find in the hopes that they won't kill us. In most cases we err on the side of caution to protect public health. On the climate, we're failing miserably to protect our health in the same manner. From a risk assessment standpoint, it's really quite appalling. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Ken Lambert @15... Regarding inconsistencies in AGW theory. Yes, there are aspects of AGW that are not yet explained. There are aspects of gravitational theory that are not explained. Vast parts of the big bang theory can not yet be explained. But each of these are accepted because the preponderance of evidence shows they are most likely accurate representations of reality. Small unexplained elements of a theory do not undermine a theory. In order to prove a theory wrong you need to have a competing theory that fully explains all current observations. And it needs to explain them BETTER. -
Fred Staples at 03:52 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
So, in your view of applied science we must test every bridge to destruction before we build it. We must switch from coal to nuclear, because the former may be dangerous but the latter is perfectly safe (Chernobyl, Three Mile island, irradiated fuel storage, plutonium proliferation). We must rely on renewable energy, whatever the resulting energy shortage does to the developing world. And we must stop the industrial revolutions in China and India because their cheap and abundant energy is dangerous. And we must persuade America to go back 100 years and give up air conditioning You call for a sceptical experiment. One is underway. It is universally accepted that, if increasing CO2 has any effect on climate, it is logarithmic. In other words it is the early increments that matter most. Starting at 280 ppm, 395ppm of CO2 will do more than half of whatever it is that doubling pre-industrial CO2 will do. Look at your own temperature charts. Starting from the depths of the Little Ice Age (to where they had fallen from the Medieval Warm period), temperatures peaked in 1940. From there, during a period of maximum CO2 potency, they have risen at a rate of 0.64degrees C per century, and currently show every indication of slowing down. Nothing to worry about so far. Science (and engineering) works on established theory and practice, while keeping a wary eye open for contrary indicators. Nothing is better established than basic thermodynamics. If we can clear up the confusion between heat and energy that permeates popular AGW theory we would eliminate 90% of the current theories (there are many more than one). All we need for a simple demonstration is to accept that the ability of energy to do anything – raise temperatures or produce work – depends on its surroundings. Heat is the ability to do these things. It is, by definition, the net energy transfer between regions at two different temperatures, from the higher to the lower. It is uni-directional, and depends on a function of the temperature difference, ie f(T2 –T1). For radiative energy it is actually a function of the difference between the fourth powers of the temperature, but we can ignore that qualification for the sake of this argument. Consider a bare earth heated by incoming energy from the sun and radiating W watts per square meter into space. T1 s zero, so the radiated energy, W = f(T2). Now surround the pare earth with an absorptive layer of gas which permits the incoming energy to continue to heat the earth, and which absorbs all the outgoing energy. The atmospheric layer must now radiate W to space, and must rise to a temperature T2 in order to do so. Butt he earth must radiate W to the atmosphere, and to do so its temperature must increase to T3 so that W = f(T3 – T2). Now what will happen if the absorptivity of the atmosphere increases again? Nothing will happen. If the atmospheric temperature increased, the outgoing energy to space would be greater than the incoming energy, and it would promptly cool down again. The trick here (to use a climate science term) is that once all the energy from the earth is being absorbed, further absorptivity will make no difference to the temperatures. This saturation effect was demonstrated in the laboratory by Angstrom (he of the unit) 100 years ago. You can see it again here: http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_overview.htm And for anyone who wishes to identify back energy radiation in this model from atmosphere to earth, it is the negative term in the heat transfer equation. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:50 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
cloa513 @ 1... Just last night we had a prime example of how you are wrong about food. My family went for a walk in the local park after a long week of rain. We found tons of mushrooms everywhere. A couple of large ones I picked looked particularly interesting and I thought might be edible. I came home and tried to look them up. None looked exactly like what I picked so we opted to throw them away. I also had emailed a friend who is knowledgeable. He wrote me back this morning to say they looked like they might be part of the amanita family, likely very deadly. My assumption, in the face of an unknown, absolutely HAD to be that the mushrooms were unsafe until proven safe. Your food analogy is wrong because you are comparing risk factors that are not equal. Food as you purchase it in the store has already been through a risk proposition many times over. You are not eating completely unknown foods. You are eating foods that are known to be safe. There still is a very tiny element of risk but the risk is so small as to not be of concern. -
Bibliovermis at 03:15 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
There is no 60 year temperature cycle. The was no ice age scare in the 70s, except for a few sensationalist popular media pieces. Using the strongest El Nino event of the 20th century for the zero point of a linear analysis to declare that warming has "gone sideways" is a prime example of cherry picking. The original instance of CAGW that I know of is the Oregon Petition, which was a duplicitous sham. The global climate models are actually showing to be too conservative. Please respond to those points on their respective pages on this site. Your arguments are #5, 7 & 8, which are linked at the top of the left column. All you have to counter the published & independently validated empirical research of the past century are your beliefs based on misunderstanding and misconception. Rather than learn from what is available you resort to conspiracy notions of incompetent self interest and academic inertia. Academic inertia is overcome with new research or new interpretations of old research that provide a better fitting description. It is not countered with "you just can't admit you could be wrong and are protecting each other's funding." -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 03:06 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Correction - my reference was to #14, not #15. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 03:01 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I have to say that if getting out of bed in the morning is the most risky thing that some people do (re #15 Mizimi), it's no wonder they are so paralysed with fear of global warming that they flat out refuse to accept it :) And science can tell us in broad terms the likely effect of doubling C02 over a short period by looking at the past. It would be a hot and rocky ride! It's bad enough increasing CO2 by 44%, as everyone should have noticed by now. And there are economically viable alternatives to fossil fuel for energy. Initially some renewable energy is costing a bit more in dollar terms, but as time goes on the cost reduces so that in a short while it will cost much less than dirty energy. Certainly a lot cheaper than trying to live in a world with climate disasters. How many people only ever buy the cheapest of everything, especially when the cheapest product is so much more harmful? If that were the case we'd still be driving with leaded petrol. No-one would ever buy a car with safety features. (No-one would have a car at all - horses and buggies were cheaper.) Organic food would not be fashionable. etc etc -
Ron Crouch at 02:56 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
As far as the planet itself the answer is yes as the planet's relentless geological march will correct our mistakes over time (most likely long after we disappear). Whether it might be safe or not for the wellbeing of humans and other biota is another matter all together. Some here might even live long enough to witness first hand which side of the issue is correct. I know I have. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:55 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Ken Lambert @15 You're right. But contrarians need to understand that pointing out aspects which are not yet properly understood does not mean that the theory is invalid or that the scientists cannot be taken seriously. It simply means that, as in any scientific theory, more work needs to be done. -
NETDR at 01:46 AM on 25 December 2010Conspiracy theories
First let me say what my beliefs are. I believe in AGW but not CAGW. The “C” sands for catastrophic. I think there is a constant ½ degree warming with a 60 year sine wave [from ocean currents] superimposed. This has recurred 3 times since 1860. There is warming but it is slow and easily managed. When the cycle is low we get predictions of an ice age [about 1978] and when it is high [about 1998] we get predictions of CAGW. Since 1998 we seem to be going sideways soon to be cooling, if the theory is right. #46 Phila. You state It's fine to talk about "self-interest" within a competitive field, but you also need to consider how rewards and credibility actually accrue to individuals within that field, because this determines which tactics are available to them. This is true in my field of electronic engineering because from conception to final test and delivery it is less than 3 years. Incorrect beliefs are punished swiftly. In climatology things happen so slowly that incorrect beliefs aren’t punished for 30 years or so and a long successful career can be had even if you are wrong. Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looked pretty good until 2007 when it departed from reality. It looked in the rear view mirror and projected the past on to the future. The sine wave went sideways and the model was wrong. You have a good point and I wish it were true. Going along with the consensus is the best career choice in climatology. In a field like Astronomy which hasn’t been heavily politicized coming up with a new theory of “dark matter” [which may not be matter and it might not be dark] would get you fame and advancement, no one would accuse you of being in the pay of big oil ! Who cares, truth is truth but could you stand your reputation being trashed for 30 years to prove it ?Moderator Response: You are incorrect that an ice age was predicted around 1978; see the post "Ice age predicted in the 70s." You are incorrect that warming stopped in 1998; see the post "Global warming stopped in1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????." You are incorrect that Hansen's 1988 model was incorrect; see the post "Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong." If you wish to discuss any of those three items further, please do so on the relevant thread, not this one. -
Ken Lambert at 01:45 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Original Post The general point that skeptics must offer alternative models and research is bogus. Pointing out inconsistencies and weaknesses in AGW science - does not oblige the critic to offer a whole new theory. It does oblige the purveyors of the AGW theory to explain the inconsistencies if they are to be taken seriously. Here are a few 'inconsistencies' to consider: Deep mixing of the ocean layers is inconsistent with suface layer acidification. Flat or slight increase in OHC content from Argo is inconsistent with a steady or increasing TOA forcing imbalance. The mix of SLR (steric and mass) is inconsistent with the energy balance. Three more important 'inconsistencies' I cannot contemplate. -
Mizimi at 01:38 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I have to disagree with the base assertion that all things are considered unsafe until proven safe. Nothing is 'safe'. Getting out of bed in the morning is (so we are told) the most risky thing you can do. Everything we do has some kind of risk attached to it and thus nothing is 'safe' Risk assessment is just that - making an objective assessment of the risk and then deciding whether the benefits derived are sufficient to warrant taking the risk. Thalidomide was considered 'safe'. Cars are definitely 'not safe' in many ways. Potholing/sailing/sex/alcohol are full of risk. ( I don't do any of them...well, maybe one) Life is about risk management, not risk avoidance regardless of the cost - the Nanny State Syndrome. Is it safe to double CO2 concentrations over a 200yr period is an unanswerable question - we simply do not have the means to accurately predict the effect on climate, but we can predict the effect of reducing FF . Modern society, like it or not, relies heavily on cheap electricity generation so maybe the question ought to be - what are the risks if we restrict FF usage without first having economically viable alternatives ?? -
neilrieck at 00:58 AM on 25 December 2010A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
Oops, I should have placed the previous link between anchor tags. UCSD (University of California at San Diego) Professor of History and Science Studies "Naomi Oreskes" presented this 58 minute lecture on the History of Global Warming Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio Many viewers will be surprised to learn that the science as been settled (more or less) for five decades. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:31 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I don't understand why anyone is still denying climate change and global warming. Where I live there are an increasing number of extreme weather events signifying global warming. Record long hot drought with record bushfires, followed by record rain events with widespread flooding. From what I read, record (ie extreme) weather events are happening more and more frequently around the world with serious consequences for food production, housing and travel. And this is just the start of the global warming. If people can't recognise it's happening now, what on earth will it take? Will they be still denying it when the extreme events get worse as they will as the earth warms, if we don't do enough soon enough to curb emissions? -
Paul D at 00:29 AM on 25 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
fingerprinter: "So people should ask the skeptics their own set of questions... Why have they never developed their own climate models, and performed their own model experiments?" ABSOLUTELY! Where is the science, fullstop. Most of them seem to depend more on myth, rumour and political intrigue than any rational thought. -
chris at 23:31 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 at 15:36 PM on 24 December 2010"...but being so diametrically opposed to what is empirically measured...
But we've already seen that contemporary (20th century) warming is entirely consistent with a climate sensitivity in the range 2-4.5 oC. Since we've already had virtually the warming expected from a climate sensitivity of 2 oC, even without factoring in the inertia in the climate system and the counteracting effects of man made aerosols as described here, and here, and here. The empirical data are simply incompatible with your model and it surprises me that this doesn't concern you."However, the amount of positive feedback needed for 3 C rise is NOT derived from first principle physics or empirical observation of the system's response to changes in radiative forcing - but from model estimates that involve numerous assumptions and fudge factors."
That's simply not true. It's worth familiarising yourself with the large body of data that informs us about likely ranges of climate sensitivity, ranging from empirical analyses to modelling. A good place to start is here. As for the analysis of seasonal temperature variations, which seems to play a large part in your argumentation, I think it might help if you were to consider more carefully why the Earth is overall warmer at aphelion (July) and cooler at perihelion (January). -
Kooiti Masuda at 22:45 PM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
GrADS software is available at http://www.iges.org/grads/ . It is an open source software. On MS Windows, it requires CygWin. If you have latitude-longitude grid data of temperature and if you can read it with a variable name "TMPsfc" (for example), you can compute its global average as aave(TMPsfc, global) . -
Riccardo at 22:43 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
kdfv that's a real risk, the typical situation of a tragedy of the commons. Avoiding the unpleasant outcomes of a warmer planet stands on the ability of our societies to look beyond their backyard and further away; which, by itself, I'd dare to call a cultural revolution. -
kdfv at 22:26 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I think the problem you have is that you are trying to get people to change their whole way of life, and companies to worry about other things than their profitability. The governments of countries to carry out unpopular things. I don't think you have much chance until it is too late and the world is burning up or drowning. Here in the UK we are having a very unusally cold winter which will undermine your attempts to convince ordinary people that there is a problem. Hot dry summers here are longed for. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:21 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
@MattJ „we must” - very good - all right - but on the proper methods of risk prediction ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:17 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Sorry - I give the current link: May 4, 2010. -
MattJ at 21:14 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
The author of this article is using "null hypothesis" in a surprising sense. I am much more used to seeing it used in a somewhat different sense, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis. So is the author's sense an acceptable one, or is he misusing the term? -
MattJ at 21:12 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Arkadiusz is misusing "peer-reviewed" as if it conferred some sort of infallibility on the authors's conclusions. Far from it. On the contrary: every "peer-reviewed" paper he cites is proof of how flawed the peer review system has become. For despite the skeptic's regular rants, there really is no logical denial of the conclusion: AGW is a serious problem, we must cut greenhouse gases immediately to avoid catastrophe. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:08 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
“Faulty Forecasting Procedures” - incorrect assessment of the risks of global warming - is a fundamental objection - skeptics - to the theory of AGW proponents. About this - not the climate - for example, often says economics professor Vaclav Klaus. You may not like: J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green and Willie Soon ..., but they have excellent academic achievements - an important peer-reviewed publications. So why did they write in their report (May 4, 2010.)?: - “Most of our findings have been published in the peer-reviewed literature and all have been presented at scientific meetings.” - „The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods.” - “As with many conclusions from scientific research on forecasting, this conclusion derives from a finding that is not intuitive: in complex situations with high uncertainty, one should use methods that are conservative and simple (Armstrong 1985; Armstrong 2001).” - “The forecasting procedures described in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting.” Atte Korhola, author important peer-reviewed paper about past climate: “Decision-makers should make sensible choices regarding the overall benefits in the environment of uncertainty. We shouldn't expect anything magical from the climate change panel that it is incapable of producing.” -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:17 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
... CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate ... - how the results from the current post, since the Ordovician glaciation in the Sun may be responsible (it could be as high as 30% weaker than it is now)? Most researchers favor a decisive influence CO2 on the current warming, but when it comes to paleo-warming, opinions are much more diverse. Let's not forget about the possible impact (Ordovician) of galactic: Figure 4., and Fig. 5. -
fingerprinter at 20:07 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
For the record. I was not stating that we historically or currently test everything we do. I am simply stating that when we do seek to apply a scientific risk assessment, there is an established methodology for doing that. We rely on this standard methodology more than people immediately imagine. Happy holidays. -
bgood2creation at 19:18 PM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
I have seen this Modtrans graph on WUWT a few times, and I was hoping someone could explain its relevance. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ Obviously this David Archibald guy is too big for his britches (I don't need help dissecting his rubbish). However, is this Modtrans graph showing actual forcing effect CO2 has on our planet (besides feed backs), or is there something missing? To me it looks like it is showing the 3.7 watts per square metre that the IPCC suggests in AR4 section 2.3.1. Thanks in advance. -
Albatross at 18:51 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?" A resounding "No!". Why are we humans so myopic? The events occurring right now (well for several years now) on the planet are evidence that tinkering with the the planet's energy budget and oceans (i.e., ocean acidification) is just not a good idea. There are warning signs everywhere, why do some insist on continuing to ignore them? -
jsam at 18:38 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
The first part of cloa513's assertion is correct. There are other facets of our lives where we seem to shoot first and ask questions later: food, banking, wars - all spring to mind. So, sadly, dumping crap in the environment without nary a concern for the effects is by no means unique. The second half, however, is incorrect. Now that we have done the deed, the studies have been done, the data has been collected and the evidence is overwhelming. -
cloa513 at 18:22 PM on 24 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Not true- Food is not proven to be safe yet we eat it (where are the studies) No food for scientists. Are we going to stop everything going into atmosphere because no studies have proven that its safe. With dynamic systems you can't stop everything and wait for the studies the beginning position is so difficult to pick. You have no scientific credibility. You will have to be covered in a hermetic sealed container until the studies are done. -
Tom Curtis at 16:28 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Eric @8, the mechanism postulated by Young et al. is that increased glaciation reduced exposed rock, thus reducing the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by weathering. With a large background vulcanism, this resulted in elevated CO2 levels. -
dhogaza at 16:11 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
"Glenn, I'm not sure that explains how we got out of the glacial conditions 400m years ago. How does warming temperature feed back to create 1000 more ppm of CO2 (i.e. where does the CO2 come from?)" If everything's in equilibrium, the oceans ... -
RW1 at 15:36 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 214), I know the 3 degrees C requires positive feedback amplification. The net effect of all the individual feedbacks in the system is already accounted for in the gain, because it's an aggregate empirically measured response of the total power entering vs. the power at the surface. This is not the same as the net feedback operating on the system as a whole, which is what the 3 C rise comes from. However, the amount of positive feedback needed for 3 C rise is NOT derived from first principle physics or empirical observation of the system's response to changes in radiative forcing - but from model estimates that involve numerous assumptions and fudge factors. That in and of itself doesn't mean the models are wrong, but being so diametrically opposed to what is empirically measured, suggests they likely are. -
muoncounter at 14:36 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Going back as far as 450 mya requires that you take plate tectonics into account. Look at this map; the entire land mass was in the Southern Hemisphere and the area affected by Ordovician glaciation was the South Pole at the time. The last ice left in our world, if we ever get that far down the drain, will probably be at the South Pole. The other aspect of the distant past that some people ignore is evolutionary. There weren't any land plants. So it is the most extreme apples and oranges (except there weren't any oranges!) comparison to look at today's CO2 concentration and compare numbers with 'way back when'. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:35 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Glenn, I'm not sure that explains how we got out of the glacial conditions 400m years ago. How does warming temperature feed back to create 1000 more ppm of CO2 (i.e. where does the CO2 come from?) -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:27 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, you are right, Pe has nothing to do with "gain" in the paper in #150. It is mostly a tangent. Pe is 10 W/m^2 but the power flux from 3 x 10^22 J of seasonal OHC storage (#117) is only about 2 W/m^2 Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html. I suspect that Pe is overestimated in that paper due to problems with Pout (#208). -
Phila at 14:23 PM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Again, NETDR, everything comes down to the science, which is either largely wrong or largely right. Whether "challenges" to the conservative, consensus-based findings of the IPCC are compelling or not hinges on that point. Maybe we can discuss that, instead? As for the value of Dr. Curry's speculations on "tribalism" (which you might well reject as armchair psychologizing if she'd applied them to you, instead of the IPCC), I'm sure we can agree that even if the consensus view turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't necessarily follow that Dr. Curry was right. Other explanations are possible, so why would I want to jump to her conclusions before it's even been demonstrated that she has a legitimate grievance? What she's offering, IMO, is basically a feed-good narrative that puts a slapdash intellectual gloss on the preconceived notion that the consensus view can't be right (much like the recourse to Kuhn, elsewhere). Is there an element of truth to what she says? Sure, on all sides of the issue, including hers. Can noting this substitute for the hard work of studying the actual science, without getting sidetracked by politically charged meta-theories? I don't think so. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:21 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Eric #3 The ratio of forcing between 4000 and 3000 is roughly comparable to the ratio we see between glacials and interglacials in the far more recent Ice Core records - 100's of 1000's of years rather than 100's of millions. So the size of the forcing change is comparable. The reason it occurs at several doublings of CO2 higher in the deep past is that the Sun was several percent weaker 400 million years ago and so the CO2 threshold at which you can slide into glacial conditions is several doublings higher. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - the 3 degrees C is the result of feedback amplification, which you have not acknowledged at all (as far as I can see - I would welcome being corrected). Doubling CO2 results in about 1.2°C direct warming - the 3°C results from climate sensitivity. And the same warming (depending on what you accept as climate sensitivity) results from volcanic aerosols, solar insolation, or any change in energy. Again, your 1.6 is a result, not an input. It's a nonsense number in terms of inputs. You would be much better served to look at the temperature required to radiate a power equal to insolation. Enjoy your (solstice related) holidays. -
Phila at 13:54 PM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
NETDR: She seems to think there would be some negative fall out from challenging the IPCC ! Is she wrong ? Yeah, I think she is, to a large extent. I think plenty of people have challenged the IPCC, and far from being punished or ostracized, they've enjoyed attention and respect — especially from the media — to an extent that's not necessarily commensurate with their actual expertise and accomplishments. In fact, I might even go so far as to argue that Dr. Curry herself is one of those people. Also, when we talk about "challenging" the IPCC, we need to consider the quality and coherence of that challenge. Some people make poor counterarguments, and then scream "oppression!" when those counterarguments are debunked. Unfortunately, Dr. Curry has not always observed this distinction when defending her pet "skeptics" against AGW "tribalism." By the way...it's been said here before, but the "AGW is a religion" line is one of the oldest and silliest "skeptical" tropes. Reiterating it is a good way to be mistaken for someone who's not capable of arguing rationally or fairly. -
muoncounter at 13:53 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
#5: "maybe not the higher temperature -> more CO2 part of the feedback" That part is cryptic; presumably you mean CO2 released from warming oceans? Every time I hear that assumption, I have to ask 'if there is a net increase of CO2 coming from the oceans, why are the oceans acidifying?'. We have an excellent thread on that topic. -
RW1 at 13:46 PM on 24 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric and KR, Despite my efforts, I still don't think either of you understand what the gain is representing. The gain is the net result at the surface from the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which makes the surface warmer that it would be without it. KR, I know the gain isn't a constant, but an average. It fluctuates somewhat, but the range of fluctuation doesn't go anywhere near 8 (or 4) that is necessary to amplify 2xCO2 to 3 degrees C. Eric (RE: Post 211), That the gain is increasing as solar power is decreasing and vice versa has nothing to do with excess energy being stored. The ocean heat content is included in Pe, which is the power coming in and out of the Earth's thermal mass. If more power is arriving than leaving, Pe is a positive number; if more power is leaving than is arriving, Pe is a negative number. The averages are virtually zero, with power out being slightly more (0.1 W/m^2 higher on average). Also, the gain decreasing as radiative forcing is increasing - both hemispherically and globally, demonstrates negative feedback to increases in radiative forcing; meaning any small rise in surface power would be opposed rather than reinforced. This contradicts the AGW theory of large positive feedbacks greatly amplifying the small instrinic increase in radiative forcing from 2xCO2. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:46 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
So the more CO2 -> higher temperature part would work, but maybe not the higher temperature -> more CO2 part of the feedback cycle? -
hfranzen at 13:45 PM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Realizing that I did not give my rationale for the proceding, it is: I assume that when averaged over a year and over the whole surface the flux into the eath's surface will equal that exiting from the surface. The rationale for this assumption is that if there is an imbalance the earth, if it is at a higher temperature than this steady-state temperature, will have a higher out-going than in-coming flux and the opposite is true if it is at a lower temperature. Imbalances will occur at various places over the surface and at different times but the average over a year and the earth's surface will yield the balance energy in = energy out. Actually there is a slight imbalance due to the increasing greenhouse gas effect, but that can be calculated with even greater precision than has been achieved in GWPPT6. The fact that the increase in the earth's temperature is essentially what is calculated for the increasing GHG effect of CO2 means that the mentioned energy balance is a reality for the earth in the absence of astronomical effects such as the Milankovich cycles (which result from perturbations of the earth's orbital eccentricity and the angle of its axis to the orbital plane and are very well understood to occur on time scales very much greater than those concerning us in the current increase in the GHG effectI. -
muoncounter at 13:44 PM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#47: "She seems to think ... " You won't get any mileage quoting J. Curry around here; this isn't 'climate-skeptic'. You haven't responded to questions here, here and here, among others. Your rhetoric is escalating again; words like 'CAGW' (whatever that means), 'glaciers in on the conspiracy', 'blinders', 'dogma', 'religious importance', etc. are the usual clues to an impoverished argument. I suggest a radical change in tactics; learn something about what the science has to say and you might be able to mount a credible argument. Now that would be an interesting change! -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - "Can you give me the power in = power out relationship between the numbers in your post #196": For the surface, I did. In post #196. Keep in mind that Trenberth's numbers split the Earth system into three layers - surface, atmosphere, and space. If you add up the numbers for any one of the three layers (interacting with the other two) the sums match up to zero. He explains the derivations and evaluations of these numbers in Trenberth 2009. As I said before, if you have issues with any of the Trenberth numbers, say so, and specify which, with some justification as to why. You have not done so to date. -
Bibliovermis at 13:36 PM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Many people, including some regulars to this very site, make the claim that the world isn't warming. The #4 skeptic argument is currently "It's cooling." Yes, Judith Curry is wrong. Dismissing independently validated empirical observation and scientific theory as a religion is a good indicator of ideological "blinders". What would you think about that quote if the subject were evolution through natural selection rather than anthropogenic global warming? -
muoncounter at 13:33 PM on 24 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
#3: Eric, a doubling is a doubling; ln 2 is still 0.693 regardless of the level. The difference is that there are more ppm between 2000 and 4000 than between 280 and 560, so it may take longer for subsequent doublings to occur (depending, of course, on how fast CO2 is being put into the environment). The sensitivity, ie the constant of proportion between delta T in degrees and delta F in W/m^2, remains the same. If you are familiar with music, an A = 110 hz & A = 220 hz & A = 440 hz & A = 880 hz & A = 1760 hz etc.
Prev 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Next
