Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 Next
Comments 103851 to 103900:
-
Ken Lambert at 00:06 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Original Post Another apologia intended to rationalize the clear meaning of 'hide the decline'. It means what it says. Jones mindset was simply that tree ring data which ran contrary to the theory (which means generally warming) would simply be hidden. Tricks, techniques, massaging; whatever - the intent was to hide the decline. The worth of the tree ring data was dubious in any case - and the bizarre antics of 'our man in Siberia' about payments reported in the NP articles is more Gilbert & Sullivan than Jones & Briffa. -
damorbel at 00:01 AM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re 4 Marcus, which "double standards" are you referring to? Fine that you should doubt dendrochronology as a climate change indicator but it was accepted by the IPCC which clearly does not share your doubts. I have never seen a reasoned analysis that isolates dendrochronology as a reliable indicator of CO2 based climate change from other possible causes, instrumental record, being essentially sparse and subject to many inaccuracies, is certainly no better. -
damorbel at 23:35 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #3 "rather than continuing to concentrate on this sort of thing?" I'm not concentrating on "this sort of thing" at all! I am responding to the assertion by James Wight that the CRU scientists have been cleared by the Muir Russell Review.Moderator Response: The inquiry criticised a single graph on the cover of an obscure report few had heard of before the release of the CRU emails. As I explain above, the Review found nothing wrong with the overall picture painted in the literature or in the IPCC. - James -
Marcus at 23:21 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
For the record, James, I was under the impression that the divergence was the result of increasingly common drought conditions over the last 30-50 years. The whole point of tree-rings as proxies is the assumption that "warmer temperatures equals thicker tree rings". Of course prolonged drought will cause significantly smaller tree rings-no matter how *warm* it is-& so the reliability of tree rings as a proxy becomes less certain. That's why its always good to have past rainfall data to cross-check your tree ring data to! -
Marcus at 23:18 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Me personally, I feel that they *should* have retained the divergence in full-to back the argument for the need for more proxies in determining climate change *before* direct measurements were available. Of course, we have those tools at our disposal now (like Ca/Mg ratios, Hydrogen & Oxygen Isotope Ratios, changes in plant seed types, boreholes etc etc) & they all say the same thing-that NH temperatures over at least the last 1300 years were almost certainly *cooler* than they have been over the last 30 years. Nothing the Contrarians say can alter that simple fact, yet still you here them parroting the phrase "Hide The Decline", instead of actually *thinking* for a change! -
Marcus at 23:12 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel, are you aware that John MacLean recently released a paper in which he "Hides the Incline" in global temperatures-by splicing together the temperature anomalies for weather balloons & satellites (which operate off a different base-line: 1961-1990 for weather balloons, & 1979-2000 for Satellites) without informing the readers that he had done so. Yet still skeptics hold up this paper as "proof" that global warming is simply the result of ENSO. Funny the double standard they apply. What matters here is that the decline in temperatures supposedly "revealed" by the Tree-ring data says more about the unreliability of dendrochronology-alone-as a determinant of past climate change (as tree rings can be impacted by things *other* than temperature). It most certainly shouldn't supersede the direct measurements we have at our disposal-from both ground based & satellite sources-all of which are telling us that the planet is warming at an *accelerated* rate! -
CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, essentially you are saying that because all the indicators we are currently able to track to a relatively high degree of accuracy indicate human driven global warming they must all be wrong and we need to use a different indicator... which would require a new network of global monitoring stations to be installed (which 'skeptics' will simultaneously fight against as part of the evil scientist conspiracy to get research money by lying about 'global warming') and then take a few decades to gather enough data to show a trend. It should be obvious that this is an unreasonable position, but in any case... atmospheric heat content HAS been examined (as noted by others above). We don't have a global monitoring network, but general trends can be determined from satellite readings. This data supports human driven global warming too... so if you really want to lobby to spend the money needed to get precise totals of global atmospheric heat content all you will achieve is further confirmation of AGW. So please, by all means... push for massive increases in funding for climate research. I'm all for it. -
Dan Olner at 22:39 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel: just supposing for a moment that you're right - do you not think your energies might be better spent pursuing some of the massively misleading misinformation about climate science that's been put out over the last year, rather than continuing to concentrate on this sort of thing? -
JMurphy at 22:29 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
fydijkstra wrote : "The S&B paper was the first in a series of papers that questioned the attempt by the hockey team to rewrite history, denying the Medieval Warm Period. In 2003 that was so shocking for the climate community that six editors of the journal resigned." I see you have resorted to desperate, illogical and unsupportable assertions like the rest of the so-called skeptics here. What is going on ? Are things really that bad a year after 'climategate' ? You were hoping that the emails would reveal the final nail in the coffin of AGW - and now you have to admit that you have nothing but interpretations of emails and scientific papers ? Oh well, just in case anyone else is interested in the facts, the MWP is shown in :
Both of the above contain Mann reconstructions. Does anyone notice anything about the MWP, i.e. that it is warmer than any other time apart from the most recent period ? Not very well hidden, is it - just not contemporaneous in all areas at the same time, which is what the so-called skeptics would like to believe.
You should try reading the Wikipedia page on SB03. It includes the following :
According to the climate skeptic Andrew Montford, the paper had little impact on the prevailing scientific opinion that the Medieval Warm Period was primarily a regional phenomenon and was a "huge disappointment" to the climate skeptic community.
Can you confirm that the quote is from his book ?
Looks like you are in a dwindling band of those who still see what they want to see, unfortunately. Not good for your reputation, especially on here.
-
damorbel at 22:23 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
In paragraph 23 of the Executive Summary of the Muir Russell Review (section 1.3.2 - p13) it is written:- "We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text." Since the decline was neither "made plain" nor "clearly described in either the caption or the text", it is clear that the Russell review concluded that the opus in question was misleading because it did not reliably present the evidence derived by the investigators researches. -
Dan Olner at 20:55 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
I think I've uncovered evidence of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to rob the public of taxes and impose a world government. A quick search on Web of Science reveals HUNDREDS of articles using the word 'trick' in the title. A random sampling from a broad range of disciplines produced a 357-long list - here are just a few. So see - everyone from mathematicians to physicists to doctors are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. WAKE UP SHEEPLZ!!! [I'm particularly alarmed by 'a very simple trick to control CO2', number 11... :) ] 1. G Yoneda, H Shinkai, and A Nakamichi, “Trick for passing degenerate points in the Ashtekar formulation,” PHYSICAL REVIEW D 56, no. 4 (August 15, 1997): 2086-2093. 2. DV Vassilevich, “The Faddeev-Popov trick in the presence of boundaries,” PHYSICS LETTERS B 421, no. 1-4 (March 5, 1998): 93-98. 3. DR Chen, “On the splitting trick and wavelet frame packets,” SIAM JOURNAL ON MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS 31, no. 4 (April 4, 2000): 726-739. 4. V King and M Thorup, “A space saving trick for directed dynamic transitive closure and shortest path algorithms,” COMPUTING AND COMBINATORICS 2108 (2001): 268-277. 5. E Dumas-Gaudot et al., “A technical trick for studying proteomics in parallel to transcriptomics in symbiotic root-fungus interactions,” PROTEOMICS 4, no. 2 (February 2004): 451-453. 6. S Echterhoff and I Raeburn, “The stabilisation trick for coactions,” JOURNAL FUR DIE REINE UND ANGEWANDTE MATHEMATIK 470 (1996): 181-215. 7. EB DAVIES, “The Twisting Trick for Double Well Hamiltonians,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 85, no. 3 (1982): 471-479. 8. KS SARKARIA, “A One-Dimensional Whitney Trick and Kuratowski Graph Planarity Criterion,” Israel Journal of Mathematics 73, no. 1 (1991): 79-89. 9. B Scholkopf, “The kernel trick for distances,” ADVANCES IN NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS 13 13 (2001): 301-307. 10. TG Erler and N Mann, “Integrable open spin chains and the doubling trick in N=2 SYM with fundamental matter,” JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS, no. 1 (January 2006) 11. H FIRKET, “A Very Simple Trick to Produce Controlled Co2 Concentrations in Gas Phase Overlying Cell Cultures,” EXPERIENTIA 25, no. 6 (1969): 671-&. 12. AR Champneys and WB Fraser, “The 'Indian rope trick' for a parametrically excited flexible rod: linearized analysis,” PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES A-MATHEMATICAL 456, no. 1995 (March 8, 2000): 553-570. 13. D Vorwerk et al., “A simple trick to facilitate bleeding control after percutaneous hemodialysis fistula and graft interventions,” CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY 20, no. 2 (April 1997): 159-160. 14. Y Fu et al., “Exploiting the kernel trick to correlate fragment ions for peptide identification via tandem mass spectrometry,” BIOINFORMATICS 20, no. 12 (August 12, 2004): 1948-1954. 15. J KURCHAN, “Replica Trick to Calculate Means of Absolute Values - Applications to Stochastic-Equations,” Journal of Physics a-Mathematical and General 24, no. 21 (November 7, 1991): 4969-4979. -
tobyjoyce at 20:48 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
@fydijkstra, Here we go again ... "Many other papers, books, reports and political inquiries later, there can be no other conclusion than that S&B had a valid point with their pioneer work: the MWP cannot be denied and the current warm period is less exeptional then the IPCC wanted us to believe" The Medieval Climate Optimum or the Little Climate Optimum was known and written about in the 1970s. No one denied that there was a period of relative warmth about the 11th century, in which the Norse colonised Greenland. But there is no historical or archaeological evidence that it was warmer than the present. We have written annals from the period. I notice you use the "Many other papers .." defence, without reference. See: Medieval Warm Period -
fydijkstra at 19:57 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
dhogaza (#49): What planet do you live on? The S&B paper was the first in a series of papers that questioned the attempt by the hockey team to rewrite history, denying the Medieval Warm Period. In 2003 that was so shocking for the climate community that six editors of the journal resigned. Many other papers, books, reports and political inquiries later, there can be no other conclusion than that S&B had a valid point with their pioneer work: the MWP cannot be denied and the current warm period is less exeptional then the IPCC wanted us to believe. The S&B-paper was no scandal at all. The real scandal (maybe 'tragedy' is a better word) was, that 6 members of the climate community could be so shocked by reading the truth. And, by the way, with respect to this topic the Climategate e-mails have shown many interesting things about how the hockeyteam was thinking. -
terrarossa at 18:39 PM on 22 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Philippe Chantreau "I am subsidizing the use of inefficient vehicles by paying a price higher than it would be without the artificially high demand." Not too sure about this. The price of pertol/gas is mostly market driven and rises as demand rises (production being limited). Your demand, however minimal, also helps push the price up. The problem with allowing market forces to control the price is that the price is currently far too low for something we cannot replace and currently use profligately. A scarce and non-renewable resource should be used very sparingly or be rationed. At least a higher price will encourage alternatives to be developed and used. Related to this - Economists need to open their eyes and see beyond their growth mantra. Reasonable people can see that continued growth cannot be sustained in a finite world. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 18:06 PM on 22 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Ken @ 139 So you have read Kevin Trenberth's papers? Great. Then you will be aware than using his email to suggest he wouldn't agree with the statement "The evidence for human caused global warming is as solid as ever" was not consistent with his views. Aside from his published work, another easy way to "ask" him is to check his website, where he says of the email you quoted: "In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability." (bolding is my emphasis) So no Ken, I don't think you are a dunce, but when it comes to the meaning of Kevin Trenberths' papers, I'll stick with what Trenberth says he means, not what others claim he means. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:56 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate a year later
Re: Albatross (60) I think we all know the answer to that. :) Our usual coterie of "skeptics" were conspicuous by their absence during the recent thread hijacking by The Contrarian. Their typical case of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose. Interesting to see if Congress opens up a can of whoop-a** on Wegmangate... The Yooper -
Albatross at 15:49 PM on 22 November 2010Climategate a year later
kdkd @59, Thanks for you post, it nicely summarises what seems to be going on here. I wonder what KL et al. think of the revelation that Wegman deleted emails? Note the difference between threatening to out of pure frustration after been harassed and actually doing so. Joe Romm has the juicy details at ClimateProgress. I eagerly await KL et al. condemning the scientific misconduct by Wegman et al. in the strongest terms possible. -
Albatross at 15:42 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, Again with the obfuscation. RH is a very unreliable measure of atmospheric moisture content, because it is a relative measure of moisture, not an absolute measure. Dessler et al. and others tend to look at the mixing ratio, or even better the specific humidity when tracking moisture. Globally, the specific humidity in the troposphere is increasing in response to the warming. -
The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn - See Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, also Urban Heat Island, and Are surface temperature records reliable. These issues are rather obvious, and have been addressed by the research. Your objections are quite simply not valid, but rather contentious, and do not reflect you reading any of the links that have been provided. -
Albatross at 15:37 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn, This is silly. Your argument is a strawman-- you originally complained that "temperature, by itself, as a measurement of heat of the atmosphere." I suggested that other metrics, you asked for examples and I and others have answered-- your question has been answered. Also, temperature, like other metrics, is not considered alone, but represents part of a bigger picture. Other metrics are used,there are multiple, independent sources of data which are used to to track heat (and heat balance) in the climate system and they are in very good agreement with the thermometers and observed temperature trends from thermometers. Please go back and carefully read the literature referenced in the links that I and other have provided. Murphy et al. (2009) would be a good start, as well as some of Trenberth's recent work. What to do your questions have to do with the "human fingerprint in the daily cycle"? I know, nothing. Rather it seems an attempt to derail the thread and obfuscate. If you have issues with the temperature record, please take it to the appropriate thread. And you still have not answered KR's questions @33...very telling. -
Camburn at 15:31 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
rh=realtive humidity. -
Camburn at 15:31 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
KR: Temperatures as presented ARE part of the data. My point is....once again......they are NOT a good measure of HEAT content. WE have the tools at hand do we not? Let's use those tools. We all know that urban island heat effect is real. What we don't know, because of the lack of incorporation, how much actual heat is retained by the micro climate because we are NOT using all the tools available. And some cities are so large that "micro" climate really doesn't apply. There have been papers published about this exact thing I am talking about. There has been no attempt to incorporate the knowledge from these papers...one referenced above...to improve the data. -
The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn - Rh? Do you mean "pH"? (I actually have a personal connection to the soap opera mentioned in that link...) The pressures are known, so are the temperatures. I still fail to see your issue with long term, highly sampled, multi-decade surface temperatures (air and ocean) as at least part of the data for tracking climate changes. Please point out what temperature records you feel are unreliable. You have yet to clearly state why you doubt temperature records are poor indicators. -
Camburn at 15:05 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross: I am not worried that warming is happening. That is a given is it not? I am not even worried that it may be partially co2 related. The climate sensativity to co2 will be in question for 10-20 years at least, and potentially longer. My point, once again is: Temperature, as in a mercury bulb reading, is a poor metric of climate heat of the atmosphere and even of the ocean as heat content is relative to water pressure as well. -
Camburn at 14:56 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
KR@33: With the tech we now have available to us, I would like to see heat content rather than temperature as the metric. We should be able to measure rh and temp, and yes pressure, and extrapolate the heat content. The anomolies should reflect heat content as that is a true constant within verifiable metrics. -
Phila at 14:48 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
Nevertheless, this example shows, that there was at least one event that can be considered a conspiracy. Yeah, the theft of the e-mails and the well-orchestrated blitz of accusations against honest scientists. The "skeptics" in this thread are really grasping at straws. Being confused about the science is understandable and forgivable; taking Climategate seriously, at this late date, is an act of sheer self-delusion. -
Albatross at 14:48 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn @25, Sorry for the late response, have been busy. After reading your response to others who have answered your question, I have reason to suspect the sincerity of your question, but for what it is worth I will also do so. Please read the following and references cited therein. Specifically, the ones found: here, here, here, and here. A consistent and coherent story. -
The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn - Any reply to my questions here? You've responded to several others since then... -
adelady at 14:34 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
camburn 41. Surely if the records are kept night and day, spring to winter, el Ninos and La Ninas, rain and shine, high tide and low tide, these variations in humidity or insolation or precipitation or whatever are all taken into account. We've been measuring what we can. We've got more and more sophiticated and getting more and more measurements and at working out what those measurements tell us. But for global warming, what we do know is that there's a certain amount of energy delivered by the sun and we can measure that precisely. We also know how to measure what's being released at the TOA as outgoing radiation. What you're worrying about is where the energy that's not escaped through the troposphere is at particular moments. Most of it's in the oceans and we're doing our best to catch up with measuring that. What's in the atmosphere is measured pretty well in the large scale and over longer lengths of time. You're just asking for day by day accuracy and precision that just isn't yet available from the systems we've got. But we don't need that level of accuracy. My mum and her peers were able to produce perfect roasts, cakes, bread and scones with wood stoves that had no measuring devices at all. Most of us don't need the baby health nurse to tell us that our precious little one is gaining or losing weight. We can make perfectly reasonable judgments and decide on appropriate actions without pinpoint accuracy all day every day. -
kdkd at 14:30 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn #41 As well as more humid air containing more heat than less humid air, I'd also expect that air at low pressure contains less heat per unit volume than air at high pressure too. Given that there's a fairly close relationship between humidity and temperature anomaly (the graphs show humidity over time, but it's worth comparing the trend to a temperature anomaly plot over roughly the same time period), then your point seems to be valid and interesting. However, the interest here is that it seems to provide a visualisation confirming that your argument is incorrect. -
HumanityRules at 14:14 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
37.muoncounter This paper seems to link UHI with water vapour and identify an urban-specific diurnal cycle (based on the abstract). I wasn't really trying to counter what was written by you, or the references, rather just point out there are other factors involved in the mix. I now notice you mentioned some of them in your following posts. I'd still like to know if the research mentioned in John's article is really specifically a human fingerprint or just the fingerprint of a warmer world? -
Ian Forrester at 13:54 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
Hot of the presses. E-mails were deleted.xxxxxx said his "email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the xxU mail server,"
Read all about it. -
MattJ at 13:50 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
This is an excellent article in many ways, but I have to shake my head when I read, "the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers." This is itself an extremely unscientific hope. Even only a cursory acquaintance with "political science" should make it absolutely clear: the public has -never- understood this -- and it has only been getting worse, not better in recent years. If we have to change this to get timely action on AGW, we are doomed. -
Camburn at 13:28 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
kdkd: You are missing my point entirely. An anomoly, even within a spatial area, using temperature is not a valid climatic heat indicator. You would have to assume that the RH is constant, which in most areas it is not. Where I live, rh can be as low as 15% and as high as 99%. There is absolutely no pattern to the rh, and is not dependant on temperature. The heat content of the air at say 30% rh @80F is a lot less than 80%rh @80F. Do you agree with me on that? -
kdkd at 13:15 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
#36 cont "When talking about climate one must think in terms of heat content. A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F." This argument is also fallacious. Aside from your clear confusion over the difference between temperature anomaly and temperature (the quote above should have referred to anomaly rather than absolute value), you are making the assumption that the temperature anomaly measured in the desert is being compared to the temperature anomaly being measured in the tropics. In fact what happens in practice is that we measure a mean anomaly for a given spatial area, and compare that at different points in time. So long as the sample of measures are reasonably consistent with each other for a given spatial area at the different times, there is nothing wrong with this. Procedures have also been developed to deal with heat island effects, and changes in station location to improve the validity of this approach. Do you have any more fatally flawed arguments for us to deal with? I'm trying to write something quite difficult at the moment, and the ease with which your arguments are demolished is nice light relief. -
kdkd at 13:11 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn #36 "by itself tho, [temperature anomaly is] a useless metric when talking about climate" A bit strong. Must be treated with caution would be a more temperate way of making your point. However (cherry picking so-called-sceptics excepted) generally we do not use temperature anomaly alone to examine climate, although it is a useful and reasonably valid measure that makes good intuitive sense. There. It would appear that as you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that your argument is not valid. -
muoncounter at 13:05 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
#36: "A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F." Just for fun, which way would heat flow: from 100F desert air to 100F tropical air or vice versa? -
muoncounter at 13:02 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
#28: "Particulate and pollution domes and changes in evaporation and hydrology processes" Indeed. But if we're looking for a human fingerprint, evaporation won't cut it. How do 'hydrology processes' know when the weekends are and what the weekday peak traffic hours are? And how does water vapor know to take Easter week off in Mexico? I had a reference that showed different weekly patterns in the Arab countries (Friday is the weekly low in urban CO2 in Kuwait City, compared to Sunday in Rome), but it has escaped my sieve-like filing system for the moment. But riddle-me-this: where does the 500 ppm CO2 from urban traffic eventually wind up? Can it be seen 'downwind'? Are there any temperature anomalies that follow that distribution? I'd love to see evaporation and clouds changing with traffic density, but I'm betting that's not happening. That's why I don't get the point of the graph you posted in 27; nor do I give what I think Camburn is hinting at -- atmospheric moisture as a 'metric' for heat content -- much credit as a 'human fingerprint'. I'll give you that particulates and NOx are probably factors, but if the folks that think the urban CO2 domes don't extend upwards more than a few hundred meters are correct, then neither do those exhaust products. I live near a freeway with heavy rush hour traffic; I have a fine coating of black dust on my front porch on a regular basis. Never had it analyzed, but I bet its full of particulates from car and truck exhaust settling out. -
Camburn at 12:49 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
kdkd: The 2nd proposition. Temperature is not a useless metric in given circumstances. It, by itself tho, is a useless metric when talking about climate. A temperature anomoly is based on temperature data. That is a given. When talking about climate one must think in terms of heat content. A temperature in a desert, @ say 100F, is not the same heat content as a temperature in the tropics of 100F. Can we agree on that? If anyone knows of a temp base that includes heat content as part of the anomoly I am all eyes. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:17 PM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
Great piece here from Joe Romm at ClimateProgress on the Wegman Report plagiarism-thingy. Shows the lengths some went to in their attempts to discredit and smear climate science and climate scientists alike. I won't spoil your fun by quote-mining the piece... The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 12:07 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Re: Camburn I'm wasting my time with this one. He seems to be cut from the "we-can't-know-anything-so-we-shouldn't-do-anything" cloth. He's all yours, guys. The Yooper -
kdkd at 12:04 PM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn: I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that temperature anomaly is not a measure of the relative energy content of a body of matter? Or are you just complaining that its sensitivity is relatively poor. The first proposition is absurd. The second proposition is valid, but it does not make it a useless metric, just that it should be triangulated for consistency with other data. -
The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Camburn - What would you consider a reasonable metric when measuring climate? You have disparaged temperature, and changes in long term temperature averages (anomalies); what are the alternatives you propose? Top of atmosphere radiation balance? Perhaps ocean thermal content or stratospheric cooling? Or ocean acidification? Flora matter, perhaps plant zone changes? Ice balance at the poles and on glaciers (numerous links, all measures are declining, use the search box)? If you have issues with temperature, essentially stating that rising temperatures do not indicate climate change, it's upon you to state what changes you would consider valid measures of climate change. -
Camburn at 11:51 AM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Daniel: No matter how you cut it, a temp anomoly is based on temperature. Yes, it is a deviation, but the base is still the raw data. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:44 AM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Re: Camburn (29) Go here, then scroll down to number 6. Temperatures are useful to describe weather. Anomalies are used to describe climate. Did you wonder why I said climate scientists use anomalies instead of temperatures & why that is? The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 11:22 AM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Continuing #28, this page is OT but interesting. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:16 AM on 22 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
RealClimate has a new post up with a nice graphic (see here) from Jen Sorensen at Slowpoke comics which really illustrates the nature of the give-and-take present in much of this thread. Funny, too. The Yooper -
Camburn at 11:13 AM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Daniel Baily: Ref@26: A temp anomoly is based on temperature. Humanity Rules@ 27: Thank you. I was trying to lead to those studies by showing what a poor metric temperature is. It would appear that you study climate as I do. With an open mind, willing to absorb all sources of information and thought process. -
HumanityRules at 11:10 AM on 22 November 2010The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
3.muoncounter From memory there are many specific urban effects. Particulate and pollution domes and changes in evaporation and hydrology processes compared with the surrounding rural area being a couple of them. As with many aspects of the climate discussion things go way beyond just CO2. -
DSL at 10:26 AM on 22 November 2010It's the ocean
h-j-m: "KR, I checked about Bolzmann's law and failed to find any hint that it could be applied to a body surrounded by other matter. So I am rather confident that I don't have to 'overturn a lot of physics!'." You also didn't find any hint that SB only describes emissivity in a total vacuum. Have fun here.
Prev 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 Next
