Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 Next
Comments 104601 to 104650:
-
Daniel Bailey at 15:52 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: Norman (35) The point is...that climate change is measured in terms of anomalies, not temps. That is a very, very basic underlying principle in climate science. Temps are weather. The trend in temperature anomalies over a long enough period of time to be statistically significant is called climate. Here is the change in the global temperature anomalies over 1980-2010 vs the 1951-1980 baseline in degrees C (multiply by 1.8 to convert to F). Please note the graph of zonal mean by latitude at the bottom of the linked page. Mean anything to you? No cherry-picking of stations, no focus on individual years or temperature not contextually similar to other temps due to seasons, locations, etc. No detrending of temps to hide the inclines. Just the good stuff: all of the data for a 30-year chunk of time relative to another 30-year chunk of time. So, your eyes show you that, considering all the data, the world is warming. Polar amplification is taking out the multiyear ice in the Arctic. Put aside your cognitive bias and first prove the globe is not warming. The Yooper -
Artful Dodger at 15:52 PM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Daniel: Here's a sobering read "A World without Ice", Henry Pollack (2009). This could be like quaffing Jaggie and Red bull after a Spartans game! But what a head-ache the day after... -
Norman at 15:36 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Asking the Experts. I still am not convinced the high surface temp of Venus is caused by "runaway" Greenhouse. I am looking for a IR spectrum of CO2 at Venus pressure and concentration (it seems certain some lab has run it). Does CO2 begin to absorb more of the IR spectrum at elevated pressure? Under normal conditions of 100% CO2 it absorbs at two bands that do not cover much of the total spectrum. I am not sure it is not the highly reflective clouds that retain the radiation. It would seem that if not for the highly reflective clouds, IR would be pouring out of Venus at all bands not absorbed by CO2. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:34 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: Bob Guercio (15) Big Tobacco had a hand in many pies. For example, Winston was a sponsor of the Flintstones at one time (ah, the days of the old B & W TV's...). The Yooper -
Artful Dodger at 15:30 PM on 11 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Karamanski: Here is Wang and McPhaden (2000) "The Surface-Layer Heat Balance in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean. Part II: Interannual Variability." This paper discusses the surface-layer heat balance on interannual timescales in the equatorial Pacific to determine the processes responsible for sea surface temperature (SST) variability. This seminal paper has been cited in 79 Articles published in peer-reviewed Scientific Journals, including 10 in the last year. -
Norman at 15:28 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Even though an expert in a given field will possess a greater amount of knowledge than a non-expert, it will still not prevent human emotion from bias. Climate science is very complex. Any system with numerous variables and a chaotic connection between them can easily allow human bias (the desire to be right, ego) to paint a picture favorable to ones preference (be it Warmist or Denier). It is not a simple hard science like measuring gravitational attraction. Much more wiggle room. Here is an example. Antartic temps. What is the temperature of Antartica? I sent a link with current Antartica temps. The range is around 100 F. If my current belief was that the World was warming and Antartica was warmer, I could prove this by rejecting a few of the lower temps from the group and coming up with a slightly warmer temp. Likewise if I felt the Earth was cooling, I would be inclined to think Antartica was cooler and I could throw out few of the warmer temps. Both calculations will give and average temp of Antartica and neither are false. They will be different. The point is that with the Earth's large daily temp range (about 200 F) you can find a 1 or 2 F trend going up if you want. Is it real? Maybe. No matter how many web sites I visit. RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Science of Doom I still have not seen definate proof for AGW. -
scaddenp at 14:39 PM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Well to be honest, I have actually had some input into science education. My beef is that it is too easily (and usually) taught as natural history. Its scientists that learn the observe-model-predict-observe cycle and disciplines to try and avoid fooling yourself. I'd like that to be taught early, to everyone. Learn to use scientific method as BS detector (Sagan's "candle in a demon-haunted world") - but this is something of a digression from this thread... -
Daniel Bailey at 14:20 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Re: Norman (55) This page. By taking the underlying signal (Figure C) out of the data, you homogenize (Figure D) the data. When you take the pits out of the cherries, is what is left really a cherry? Let me ask you this, Norman: Post-1976, what forcings other than CO2 have had any significance on global temperatures? Simple question, right? The Yooper -
DSL at 14:19 PM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Hey now, muon--why single out the humanities? High school "poets" may not be the most critical of critters, but of the vocal "skeptics," I'd wager most are engineers and business types--Ayn Rand-reading folk who understand enough science to make them confidently dangerous. -
scaddenp at 14:11 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, thank for that. Now to why I wanted it. Firstly, the claim that 1981-2005 represents a unique new trend is Climate4you, not IPCC. The text never uses the word unique. There is no argument easier to demolish than a strawman. Note how John does it here? He quotes the skeptic claim verbatum with pointer to source of origin. What DOES the IPCC paragraph claim. 1/ The earth is warming, stratosphere cooling in accordance with models. 2/ It details the nature of the warming. 3/ It outlines the basis of the measurement 4/ It notes the consilience of measurements with sea-level rise, glacial melt etc. It also claims that the temperature rise is consistant with modelling of known forcings (GHG, aerosol). As to climate4you's claim that he/she has shown CO2 is not the dominant factor since 1975, as noted above in posts, he/she has only shown a misunderstanding of the actual climate predictions - trying to demolish what the physics doesnt claim. -
Norman at 14:04 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#44 Tom Dayton Thanks for the link to the posts concerning Outgoing Longwave Radiation. I am reading through the posts working to understand the content. I do love learning. -
Norman at 13:54 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#37 Daniel Bailey at 07:28 AM on 10 November, 2010 Re: Climate4you stuff Went to Norman's website source for his graph & poked around a bit. On this page I noted that: 1. All data is in absolute temps, not anomalies 2. They establish the post-industrial runup in the temperature trend and use that trend to de-trend the signal in the data. I.e., they "hide the incline" in the 20th Century temperature data. 3. They attribute 100% of CO2's effects on temperatures when comparing the CO2 rise to temps, showing that since temps don't rise in lockstep with CO2 levels it can't be the CO2 affecting temps 4. They use a paper by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu as a basis to say that any warming since the LIA is just a reflection of the Earth returning to "normal" and that it's a natural cycle. Trenberth demolished Akasofu here. The whole site is a bait-trap for the unwary. The Yooper Not sure what page you looked at. They have several graphs using anomalies. He did not claim CO2 did not effect temp...Direct quote from the page. "Consequently, the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2. Clearly, the potential influence of CO2 must be subordinate to one or several other phenomena influencing global temperature. Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor." -
muoncounter at 13:50 PM on 11 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
#3: "indicates more total energy in the system." More energy? Perhaps stated another way: the measure of the total energy of this type of system is ... temperature? -
Norman at 13:39 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#50 scaddenp The actual wording in the IPCC report is "Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater,indicating accelerated warming." Link to source: IPCC page used in the Climate4you section. Quote from the Climate4you web page: "From the text above the period 1981-2005 is identified by IPCC as being unique, representing a new trend characterised by an accelerated temperature rise. The accelerated temperature increase is suggested to be caused by atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, assumed to dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s. -
Artful Dodger at 13:36 PM on 11 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Wang and McPhaden (1998) discuss these effects in this paper, "The Surface-Layer Heat Balance in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean. Part I: Mean Seasonal Cycle" There is a complex interplay between vertical mixing, seasonal surface winds, and meridonal transport (N-S ocean currents). Overall, the ENSO cycle seems to be accelerating, which indicates more total energy in the system. -
adelady at 13:29 PM on 11 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
I'm not a scientist but that's the way I read it. La Nina is the absorbing phase, el Nino is the releasing phase for heat exchange between the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:10 PM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Re: Artful Dodger (56) Sounds like time for a beer then. Because the world is going to find out what the loss of the Northern Hemisphere's refrigeration system is going to mean. Didn't think it would happen on our watch. The next melt season will be fun, though. The Yooper -
Artful Dodger at 13:04 PM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Too right, Daniel. In 2007 persistent winds herded Sea Ice into an anomalously small Extent, but the resulting compaction actually preserved ice that would otherwise have melted earlier. In 2008, -09 and -10, spreading sea ice resulted in dramatic melt, as measured by Volume. We have perhaps only 2 or 3 years until all the multiyear sea ice in the Arctic is gone. -
alan_marshall at 12:52 PM on 11 November 2010Skeptical Science moving into solutions
There are pros and cons which need to be carefully considered. My own web site, www.climatechangeanswers.org, presents both the science and solutions in a way that is generally well received. However, my site is not a forum, and I agree that www.skepticalscience.com needs to keep focused on a job it currently does very well. Of course, with the follow-up to Copenhagen in Mexico in just two weeks time, and most nations accepting the science, we all need to start thinking about solutions. Contrary to the perceptions expressed by some above, the amount of solid academic material on solutions to climate change is huge. It also occurred to me that venturing into solutions might best be done through a sister site, but that may not be practical given the current site is already stretching John. Provided the structure of the site around skeptics’ arguments and rebuttals remains unchanged, articles on solutions might be accommodated as periodic guest posts without adversely affecting the site’s reputation. On my own site I divide solutions into technological, economic and political pages. That is probably the logical order of progression, so if this site moves into solutions, the technological area is probably the best place to start. Proposals would need to be first shown to be scientifically feasible, and subsequently shown to be economically feasible. -
muoncounter at 12:43 PM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
#56: "What the hell are they teaching in science in schools?" Now, now, scadden, every school must have its top-of-the-class and those who major in 'Rocks for Jocks' or 'Science for Poets' or even 'Computers for Poets'. The good news is that these bottom-dwellers can find full employment -- as yes-men to the Watt$ of the world. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:35 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: PaulPS It's been my experience here, first as a longtime lurker, then an occasional questioner to someone now able to answer most questions without shooting myself in the foot (well, mostly), that all posing questions framed honestly are treated with respect and dignity. Which reflects the majority of questioners. I have been known to spend several hours researching the answers to questions put to me. As have others here. But at the same time, we're human. And it does get exasperating to answer the same questions from the same questioners for the umpteenth time. And to rebunk the same debunked zombie memes over and over again. Sometime from the same poster. And sometimes people get personal here. Hence the need for the Comments Policy. It IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Most of the time, the sub-thread involving KL would not have gone far, as the Mods do a pretty good job catching the egregious comments. But sometimes, as evidenced by John's in-line comment, some bad ones slips through the cracks. Which is why, in this case, I advocated for it to be left as a teaching moment (rather than deleting a bunch of comments). For most people, being polite and courteous comes naturally. And enhances the learning potential for everyone reading. So we (I) look forward to trying to help answer any questions you may have here. Honestly, and politely. Like the Boy Scout I was raised to be (OK, never made it to Eagle Scout...but I was a Boy Scout). The YooperModerator Response: Thank you for encouraging politeness and reminding us all about the Comments Policy. Now let's see if we can get this discussion back on topic. -
PaulPS at 11:47 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Phila at 11:39 AM on 11 November, 2010 Other than the implied assumption I might do that, thanks for the advice. -
Phila at 11:39 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
PaulPS @31: However, if I ask a question or bring up a controversial point, I'd prefer not to get the Ken treatment! Fair enough? As long as you don't go out of your way to be offensive and insulting, and can refrain from accusing thousands of scientists you've never met of being dupes or frauds without offering any evidence whatsoever, I think you're very unlikely to get the "Ken treatment." -
Karamanski at 11:37 AM on 11 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Since La Nina cools global surface temperatures by cooler water upwelling from the depths to the surface and absorbing heat from the atmosphere, wouldn't La Nina accelerate the warming of the oceans by increasing the transfer of heat from the atmosphere into the oceans? -
Marcus at 11:22 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Bern @ 87. The best *commercially available* solar panels have a conversion efficiency of 24%-& it would be hard to find one with anything less than a 16% conversion efficiency. There are models in the Lab which currently get greater than a 40% conversion efficiency. All of this progress is being made on, virtually, the "smell of an oily rag"-in terms of R&D funding. -
PaulPS at 11:09 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
I have been observing this site for at least a year or so to get informed, and learn a little about Climate Science from both sides. However, if I ask a question or bring up a controversial point, I'd prefer not to get the Ken treatment! Fair enough?Response: The main issue with Ken's comment was the "religious belief in alarmist AGW" comment. It was perfectly possible for him to make his scientific arguments without resorting to that ad hominem. If I'd been awake at the time, I would've deleted the comment as it violates our comments policy. By the time I woke up this morning, a whole discussion had sprung from it and in those cases, I just have to cut my losses. Note to moderators - any ad hominem comments that equate the other side to having religious beliefs should be deleted. -
Marcus at 11:03 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Wow Beranyi, your desperate attempts to defend a dirty & inefficient source of power-straight out of the 19th century (i.e. coal)-are really quite quaint. Yet your increasingly specious reasoning betrays the weakness of your original argument-that being the use of a 30 year old solar farm to "prove" that solar power is a bad investment. I mean, if you want to quibble over numbers, then I can always talk about the Transmission & Distribution losses from Coal Power stations (about 10% to 12% of total capacity in most areas), or the vast amounts of electricity generated-between 8pm & 8am-that never get used. Your claims regarding solar panel efficiency are entirely off-beam, btw. Solar panels being sold on the market at the time had an average conversion efficiency of about 10%-12% (some were even as high as around 20% around 2006-2008). This means that, even for this poorly lit region of the world-using the most inefficient solar panels of the time-should get around 16 Watts/square meter. The only thing I will agree on is Bern's point about the folly of building a solar farm so close to the Pole. In more appropriate regions (pretty much anything south of Canada), the *real* energy density of solar panels is much closer to the numbers I've previously cited-& its improving pretty much every year, whilst prices continue to drop (current US price is about $3.50/Watt). Yet, as I've said before-ad nauseum-the *real* beauty of photovoltaics is that you don't need to build them as "Solar Farms", you just build them on available roof spaces-& other vacant areas-& you can get the equivalent of a power station. For instance, the average residential rooftop in Australia can easily fit about 4kw worth of solar panels. Now even if we assume only 1 million such homes being available for fitting, that comes to 4 million KW of peak power-or about 4,000MW-the equivalent of about 4 regular sized coal-fired power stations, without displacing a single acre of farm land, national park or urban development area. Try doing that with a coal power station & see how far you get. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:26 AM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Re: Artful Dodger (52) Digested the links. Sobering. From 2004 to 2009 (using ICESAT data), 336 cubic miles of multiyear ice, or about 3 times the volume of Lake Erie (if represented as ice), has been lost to melt, not advection out the Fram or other exits. Gone. See ya, ne'er-pass-this-way-again. Finito. And under the column 'Peak year of loss' for $200? Any takers? Bueller? Nope, not 2007. 2008 lost about 50% more ice due to melt than 2007. Think on that for a minute. So much for the "recovery". The next summer with a strong Arctic Dipole sees an ice-free pole. Especially if it coincided with a strong El-Nino and/or a wakening sun. If not 2011, then 2012 becomes likely... We live in interesting times. The Yooper -
Berényi Péter at 10:24 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#48 Albatross at 05:50 AM on 11 November, 2010 Berényi Péter, Please clarify. Do you believe that the CO2 effect is saturated? Of course it is, in most of the 14 μm - 16 μm (wavenumber 625 cm-1 - 710 cm-1) absorption band. In this frequency range effective height of the photosphere (the region from where photons have a reasonable chance to escape to space) is above 20 km, well in the stratosphere. As there is a thermal inversion there (the higher one goes the hotter it gets), with increasing CO2 levels outgoing thermal radiation increases (this is why it is not shown in Harris 2001). There are two narrow bands on both sides of this range which belong to the wings of multiple absorption lines there. In these bands CO2 IR optical depth is close to unity and this is where effective height of photosphere is still below the tropopause. In the troposphere temperature usually decreases with increasing height, so at a specific wavelength more CO2 means less outgoing radiation. On the low wavenumber (long wave) side there are strong H2O absorption lines as well, so the effect only works in an extremely dry troposphere (mostly in the polar regions where low level dry-freezing occurs). Therefore stuff usually happens only at the upper edge of the 8-14 μm main atmospheric thermal IR window (lower edge of wavenumber 710 - 1250 cm-1). In this frequency region there are no major absorption lines (except O3 lines around 1040 cm-1), just the somewhat mysterious water vapor continuum. Partial pressure of water vapor decreases more rapidly with increasing height than that of carbon dioxide, so at frequency bands dominated by H2O absorption effective thickness of photosphere is much smaller. Therefore outgoing thermal IR radiation in these regions is extremely sensitive to minor variations of water vapor distribution. As atmospheric H2O distribution is fractal-like on a scale spanning many orders of magnitude, this effect is neither modeled nor measured sufficiently. -
Bern at 10:23 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
As much as I think Berenyi Peter's arguments about facility area are specious & misleading, there does seem to be a point regarding the potential income from that plant. 120,000MWh/yr at 3.85c/kWh is only $4.6m per year in revenue, if you sell the power at prevailing wholesale rates. Not a very good return from a $300m investment (just a smidgeon above 1.5%). On the other hand, you could say that solar panels at the north pole are a poor investment, and you'd probably be right. Somewhat closer to the equator, on the other hand, the numbers might change a bit... and then there's the whole other question of "how much money is it worth spending to avoid catastrophic global warming?" Of course, we want to spend that money in the most efficient way possible. Putting solar panels in far northern or southern latitudes is probably not the way to go. The Ville @ #83: I think the 2.25% figure comes from considering the entire area of the facility, which is four times the area of the actual solar panels. Not sure where the 8.94% efficiency for the panels comes from - I thought that most panels were getting closer to 15-20% these days, but must admit I haven't checked the numbers lately. -
Riccardo at 10:21 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Thank you scaddenp :) -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:21 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
KL throws out a funny again. With UAH, the models were right and the "data" wrong. Willis ran into the same thing. Instances of model right/obs. wrong are numerous across many fields. Models based on physics should always be trusted over measurements made with sensititve equipment subject to many potential errors. It's funny how skeptics are also eager to cast suspicion on obseved data if it does not show what they want. -
Marcus at 09:43 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Yet still, at the end of the day, we're left with the fact that you *can't* build a coal power station *without* significant disruption to the landscape-whereas you can build the *equivalent* of a solar power station *without* disruption to the landscape-by using roof-top space, road-sides & other spaces in the city & suburbs that currently go unused. Heck, they're even talking about putting solar into window tinting material & just under the surface of roads! The reality is that, when you account for the power station, the coal mine & the land used to dump toxic fly-ash waste, the environmental footprint of a coal power station is *huge* compared to solar farms-even ones that use technology that was nearly 10 years old when construction began. Given recent leaps forward in conversion efficiency, we can expect the footprint of the latter technology to keep dropping-regardless of where its built-whereas the footprint of coal power will always remain very large! -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
In all fairness to Berényi, the average power in W/m^2 (not the peak power) for a wind or solar plant is one of the critical numbers, along with associated energy storage capacity, such as thermal banks for concentrated solar. On the other hand, Ville and others are correct that the surface impact of fossil fueled plants does include ongoing mining operations. This makes area comparisons difficult. -
Paul D at 08:42 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Re:Berényi Péter@81 and my last comment. Regarding area of facility. If this idea was applied to fossil fuel power stations then you would have to include the land used to store big piles of coal, the mining facilities, the roads and railway lines. eg. it is ludicrous to do a watts per square meter calculation based on facility (infrastructure) size. It is possible, but since it isn't done for fossil fuel fired power stations, it shouldn't be done for solar farms. You either have to do it for every type of generation system, or none of them, you can't pick and mix the rules. -
Paul D at 08:35 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter@81 I think it is a bit dubious to work out the 'W/m squared' based on facility size rather than panel area. If you start doing that then fossil fuels would take up a huge area because of the supporting infrastructure, mining etc. to support them. Or in other words, your numbers are fundamentally junk. The only valid figure to use is 14.2 W/m2 (assuming you got that calculation correct) unless fossil fuel use is re-assessed based on land use. I wouldn't like to work that one out. Also where do you get the 2.25% figure from? -
Paul D at 08:05 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Interesting study suggests alternatives to fossil fuels aren't being developed fast enough, oil will run out 90 years before: News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109095322.htm Research publication (subscription): http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100730q I'm not sure whether studying markets is the best way?? -
Albatross at 07:42 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Michael @27, I'm not sure what the point of your quote is. You and/or Lindzen forget that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) affects the entire biosphere. That is why people talk about "consilience", and consequently why it involves research across many scientific disciplines. Not only that, but ACC and athro activities also affect people's health. Can I also point out the irony of Lindzen making that (misleading) assertion. Have a look at the "qualifications" (and in some cases the quotation marks are warranted) of the signatories of the Oregon petition and/or OISM petition. Dr. Lindzen does protest too much. Actually, he seems to be employing an infamous Karl Rove technique-- (falsely) accusing others of doing what you are actually doing. -
dhogaza at 07:36 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Ken Lambert spews: "So in effect what the climate science ‘consensus’ is saying is that when the observation does not match the MODEL – then the MODEL must be right and the observation is not good enough (wrong). This turns the scientific method on its head." Well, actually, when the UAH people crowed that satellite measurements showed cooling rather than warming about 10 years ago, in disagreement with model predictions ... It turned out that UAH had serious errors. When those were corrected, it turned out that UAH had ... more serious errors. Now we find that UAH is in good agreement with the models. So, no, it doesn't turn the scientific method on its head. Where there is disagreement in science, there are efforts made to reconcile the disagreement. And when models and observation diverge ... *both* are subject to scrutiny. Because observations, as well as models, are subject to error. Not that Ken Lambert cares ... -
scaddenp at 07:30 AM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
"How can anyone actually believe that an oscillation of surface temperature and pressure -- essentially a dyamic system's response to a perturbation from equilibrium -- can be a driver of long-term climate variation?" Because a lot of people who wont/cant do the arithmetic believe its all a natural cycle and temps will go down again. If you switch off from any data that contradicts this view (its all UHI, black carbon, XBT errors, satellite calibration, poorly located tide guages etc) then every La Nina looks like confirmation of your expectation - and you only look for confirmation of your beliefs, right? What the hell are they teaching in science in schools? -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Riccardo - a better link I think is Dessler & Davis 2010 ? -
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, can you please reference exactly where "The claim was made that the warming from 1981 to present was unique". I'd like to see the exact text of this supposed claim. The errors already pointed out to you dont ring any alarm bells for you? -
Michael Searcy at 07:15 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
"Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to “global warming,” any scientist’s agreement will do. The answer almost certainly lies in politics." - Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, M.I.T. Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Prominent skeptic, and OISM petition signer, 1992 -
Chad at 07:14 AM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Sphaerica at 04:33 AM on 10 November, 2010I also believe that I've read that the conversion factor is roughly 1.2, so +0.14C/decade troposphere equates to a surface change of +0.168C (pretty close to NASA GISS at +0.166C).
The factor 1.2 is the ratio of the global TLT trend/surface trend (~30 years). It can't be used to scale surface anomalies to TLT anomalies and vise versa. Sphaerica at 04:59 AM on 10 November, 2010Perhaps the difference lies in what the AMSU near surface data actually represents. I'm not well informed on that particular detail.
The near surface layer gets a lot of interference from water vapor, precipitation and ice on land and in the clouds. It's really not the best choice for temperature sounding. Albatross at 05:18 AM on 10 November, 2010The RSS page has a nice figure showing how the weighting works for different channels,I am not aware of such a figure for UAH.
Try to dig up any of the papers by Spencer and Christy. They show the weighting functions. Sphaerica at 07:59 AM on 10 November, 2010My factor of 1.54 (or 1.55) is used to convert the LT temp into a corresponding surface temp, e.g. Ts = (1.54 * Tlt) - 134.16 for 30 day smoothing, and it does so with a fairly high correlation.
Your high R2 values may be an artifact of the smoothing process. -
Berényi Péter at 07:02 AM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#73 Marcus at 17:00 PM on 10 November, 2010 The Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada (hardly the sunniest part of the world), has 80MW of peak capacity & covers an area of around 900,000 square meters-or about 80 Watts/square meter. Come on. Peak capacity means naught. If anything, only average capacity has an economic value. Sarnia Solar Energy at a glance: Capacity peak: about 80 MW of emissions-free power Power purchaser: Ontario Power Authority Facility size: Located on 950 acres Panel surface area: about 966,000 square metres, which is about 1.3 million thin film panels (First Solar) Annual yield: about 120,000 MWh CO2 saving: over 39,000 tonnes per year Jobs created: About 800 jobs created at construction peak, as well as indirect benefits to dozens of businesses in the Sarnia area, including engineering and design firms, construction subcontractors, suppliers and service providers. Let's see. The annual yield, 120,000 MWh is 4.32×1014 J. There are about 3.16×107 seconds in a year. Therefore nominal average capacity is 1.37×107 W (13.7 MW). It is only 17.1% of peak. Panel surface area is 9.66×105 m2. That's 14.2 W/m2, a bit less than 80 W/m2. However, facility size is much larger than raw panel surface. It is 950 acres, that is, 3.84×106 m2 (3.84 km2). 13.7 MW divided by 3.84 km2... is 3.56 W/m2. At the latitude of Sarnia (43°N) average annual insolation at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) is 317.2 W/m2 (484 W/m2 in June and 138 W/m2 in December). However, about 30% is reflected back to space and another 20% is absorbed before getting down to ground level. The 160 W/m2 average left is used at a meager 2.25% efficiency (8.94% for net panel surface). In wintertime, when it is cold and dark, so energy is needed most, capacity is less than 6 MW (1.56 W/m2, 7.5% of peak). That's reality, if you know what I mean.
View Larger Map They say the additional 60 MW (peak) capacity costs US$300 million to install (they've purchased 20 MW from First Solar for US$100 million) and it's just 5$/W in investment. As we have seen, in reality it is closer to 30$/W. A 20 year contract with Ontario Power Authority to sell the power is part of the deal. Now, Average Weighted Retail Price of electricity in Ontario since Jan 1, 2010 is 3.85¢/kWh. At this price annual nominal production of 120,000 MWh in 20 years brings in a stunning US$92.4 million. US$307.6 is still missing somehow, and that's with zero operational costs. In normal circumstances only a madman makes such an investment. However, we do not know at what rate Enbridge is selling it to the Ontario Power Authority. If it is at least five times the market price, with the important provision the Power Authority is obliged to buy it not when it is needed but whenever it is available, it may bring in some profit in the long run. On the other hand of course only a madman would buy something not needed for five times the market price, but it is public money, isn't it? -
Riccardo at 06:40 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Berényi Péter update your citation database, apparently NCEP is biased. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:07 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
There's one thing it's easy to lose sight of in our repetetive rebunking of the same zombie arguments (usually from the same commenters over and over again): we are judged by more than just those we respond to. There are far more lurkers than contributors on sites like this. So comments must also be for posterity for the silent majority. I lurked here and at other sites like RC and Open Mind for nearly 2 years before finally chipping in (I remember it vividly: a question on Arctic amplification at RC)...and the realization "Hey, I KNOW this!"... -
Albatross at 05:50 AM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Berényi Péter, Please clarify. Do you believe that the CO2 effect is saturated? -
muoncounter at 05:37 AM on 11 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
#44: "I'm interested in what sort of variability the ENSO sytem introduces into that metric, " Every time one of these ENSO flaps comes up, I'm struck by the same question: How can anyone actually believe that an oscillation of surface temperature and pressure -- essentially a dyamic system's response to a perturbation from equilibrium -- can be a driver of long-term climate variation? The only clear long-term variation in the MEI ENSO graph shown by John B above is the change-over from mostly negative to more frequent positive in the mid-70s. Run the cumulative of this index and you see a strong relative minimum in 1976. After that point, it's steadily upwards. The five negative dips since then (including the current one) do not erase the long term trend. Here's an older version of this graph from an old Bob Tisdale blog:
-
michael sweet at 05:20 AM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
I agree with Daniel Bailey. It is helpful to leave these comments in. I have to deal with these types of comments every day with my students. If we just delete them we do not learn ways to address the concerns that they raise. Just because their comments are politically based does not mean that we can ignore them. We have to address every issue the skeptics raise or they will hammer on the ones we ignore. That said it is tedious to keep up the wack a mole forever.
Prev 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 Next
