Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 Next
Comments 104651 to 104700:
-
Temp record is unreliable
KirkSkywalker - Thinking back, I recalled something like this before. Googling a bit, I found that you had posted the same error about ice cores here, on Oct. 23. And had received the same reply from me. Are you reading this website (the point of a discussion is to, in fact, discuss), or just posting and walking away?Moderator Response: KR, thank you for your vigilance in noting that the same point is being raised in multiple threads. The thread where you responded to KirkSkywalker's comment last month (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?) is probably a better fit than this one for discussion of ice cores. Let's have any further discussion of KirkSkywalker's claims about ice cores take place over there. -
Bern at 01:46 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Ok, I just had a quick look at that article. The "1000W/m2" figure is arrived at by assuming a 15m thick seam of very high quality coal, and looking at the area required to generate power each year. So, over a nominal 30-year plant life, that 1000W/m2 area impact is looking closer to, what, 33W/m2? And that's assuming 100% efficiency in extracting the coal (i.e. the total mine area is exactly equal to the area of coal seam extracted). In my experience, it's probably closer to 50%, so we're looking more like 16-17W/m2. All of a sudden, that coal-fired plant doesn't look ten times better than solar in terms of land usage. And that's a best-case scenario, with coal conveyored from mine to plant, and fly-ash dumped in the old pit (doubt you'd be able to manage that with strip-cut mining - the pit is needed to dump the spoil from the next strip). If we look at a power station with remote mine, then we're looking at numbers the same, or worse, than that solar plant in Ontario. I guess that highlights why John wants to try to stick to peer-reviewed sources, even when looking at mitigation approaches. It makes the numbers a whole lot less rubbery, as both sides of the argument have been known to massage the figures a bit... -
Tarcisio José D at 01:40 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
scaddenp @ 45 "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate. What have got for a competing theory? That somehow physics is all wrong and some deep unexplained phenomena is responsible instead? Any other aspects of your life where you would take kind of bet?" Yes, the physics is wrong for do not consider the evaporation of water from the soil. By failing to analyze whether the soil has enough water to control the temperature of the planet. By leaving all the control of evaporation to the oceans. While the weather is wrong just by analyzing the air temperature at two meters tall, as if the ground was not part of the climate system. -
Temp record is unreliable
KirkSkywalker - Your referenced web page is mistaken. CO2 is not retained as dry ice in ice cores, but rather as gas bubbles (little icy air tanks). Since that's the only argument presented on the page, I find it lacking content. To include the quote from that page: “A single fact will often spoil a most interesting argument.” –William Feather -
Norman at 01:31 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#46 scaddenp, "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate" Have you looked at the posts on this webpage about Climate Models. Your statement: "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate." Seems many do not agree with this and do have valid counter points. "As for cycles, of course there are cycles, with real physical causes, not some mystery" Do you have links to sites that have solved the cause of the cycles with some actual proof? I have not found any. The basic one is planetary wobble and orbit combo that effect how much solar radiation regions of Earth receive. -
KirkSkywalker at 01:19 AM on 12 November 2010Temp record is unreliable
ice-core samples are WORTHLESS EVIDENCE, as proven at http://GlobalWarmingTruth.webs.com . And since this Global Warming has only this physical evidence (witll all else being ambiguous), then their argument FAILS.Moderator Response: Please be sure to review the Comments Policy before posting. In particular, we ask that you refrain from posting duplicate comments in multiple threads, and avoid the use of ALL CAPS. -
Riccardo at 00:57 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Eric (skeptic) we al know the heat budget is not (yet) closed, but ... the current estimate of TOA imbalance is 0.85 +/- 0.15 W/m2. The upper 700 m of the oceans contributes 0.64 +/- 0.11 W/m2. The abyssal oceans adds some 0.1 W/m2, explicitly excluding Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas which we know are warming, so this is a lower bound. Add other smaller contributions, like land, ice and atmosphere. Do you really think we are that far away from closing the budget? Or, following Tremberth's call, we need a better measurements network? -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi - Given the obvious biases of the fossil fuel oriented blog you referenced, I find it difficult to take their numbers seriously. Do you have any less biased references for these comparisons? Anything peer reviewed would be nice, but something other than a blatantly tilted perspective would be nice; perhaps a survey document from energy planners or something? -
Daniel Bailey at 00:16 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
@ Eric (skeptic): P & J 2010 do not rule out more of Trenberth's "missing heat" yet being found in the oceans deeps...or in the Argo/XBT errors. This is not yet a closed chapter. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:01 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
From Purkey & Johnson 2010, table 1, there is 0.1W/m2 of heat being stored in the deep ocean. The current TOA imbalance is 0.9W/m2 (Trenberth 2009). So only 11% of the extra heat is being stored in the deep oceans. The rest of the heat should already be noticed in the sea surface and atmosphere, but it's not (unless sensitivity is much lower than claimed). Related: my CAGW incoherence claim was never responded to (search for coherence, post 77). -
Riccardo at 23:19 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman somewhat offtopic here. Disproving the real science is not as easy as you (and many others) apper to think. Look here for some problems related to ISCCP cloud data. Be carefull and, if in doubt, rely on the published litterature. -
Berényi Péter at 22:07 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#94 The Ville at 21:35 PM on 11 November, 2010 You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. Look again. Under #70 I have provided a link where the question is discussed at length. Power Density Primer: Understanding the Spatial Dimension of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part II – Coal- and Wood-Fired Electricity Generation) by Vaclav Smil May 10, 2010 "In order to provide a useful approximate bracketing we might thus conclude that, depending on their specific circumstances, most large modern coal-fired power plants generate electricity with power densities ranging over an order of magnitude, from just around 100 W/m2 to 1,000 W/m2." -
Paul D at 21:50 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter: "Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010." Agreed, it uses the latest Thin Film technology with an efficiency probably between 8 and 9 percent. Which means your 2.25% figure is misleading. It should be pointed out that the older technology is more efficient but more expensive. Berényi Péter: "However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc." That is irrelevant unless you are going to do more detailed and similar checks on land use for other options. -
Paul D at 21:35 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter: "I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included)." 1. Your calculations are dubious and clearly weighted. 2. You haven't at all compared solar with coal land use. I haven't seen any research that does. Please reference some if you have. The subject I suggest is a potential mine field and can't be simplified. You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. And lets not forget that in engineering terms coal fired power stations are no angels when it comes to real engineering based efficiency calculations (excluding land use). -
Paul D at 21:17 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
RSVP@90 You make a good point! I wasn't shrugging anything off. My comparison was with a really massive increase in nuclear energy (mainly), probably bigger than is practically or physically possible. In which case renewables are probably better because they don't add to the system, they take an existing input from a 'nuclear' source external to the Earth. -
Berényi Péter at 21:00 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#88 Marcus at 11:03 AM on 11 November, 2010 your desperate attempts to defend a dirty & inefficient source of power-straight out of the 19th century (i.e. coal)-are really quite quaint. I am not defending coal. I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included). It is a fact. Even in a worst case scenario when the plant is located far away from the mine its efficiency in this respect is more than ten times better. Of course nuclear outperforms coal by another factor of ten-to-a-hundred, so we should clearly go for it. 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. Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010. I do not think it is a bad investment either. At least as long as the public lets the Government collect the money for an expensive PR campaign of an oil company (that's what Sarnia is about), it's just a piece of cake. I mean, if you want to quibble over numbers, then I can always talk about [...] Well, there is a several thousand years old European tradition which involves extensive quibbling over numbers before making decisions called "rational" by the natives. This tradition may be fading away in Europe quickly, but during an aggressive past period of European history known as "colonization" it was exported mindlessly all over the world using transient military might and may still be practiced in backwater corners. I am glad the New World is proudly joining the fight for getting rid of this old burden. Plain talk is so much nicer and as you say, we can always do that almost effortlessly. 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 14.2 W/m2 efficiency for net panel surface claimed by Enbridge is not much less than that. However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc. BTW Sarnia is not so poorly lit as you claim. In June it gets 24% more power flux at TOA than the equator and even the annual average is only 24% less here than there. The atmosphere may be a bit more transparent in arid or semi arid regions (except for airborne dust), but destroying sensitive desert ecosystems by building extensive road systems there, sending in heavy machinery over large areas and turning them into tramped down construction sites (remember the meager land use efficiency) is not always a good idea. Also, large population and industrial centers tend to be outside deserts, so power transmission losses also come into play. 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. I would agree with that. Except if the technology is far too expensive for large scale installations, it is even more expensive for a distributed system. We should clearly wait until price of solar panels gets closer to that of ordinary roof tile.
Anyway, if you do not have local energy storage capacity, electricity generated on rooftops is not terribly useful. Of course it can be used for air conditioning, because it is sunny most of the time when it is hot, but PV panels make a low albedo (dark) surface per definitionem, collecting heat effectively and making electricity as a byproduct just to get rid of this heat using complicated machinery. Does it make sense?
Painting rooftops white may be a low tech solution compared to this, but it is much cheaper.
Pre-heating water with old style solar heat collectors to be used by washing machines, dishwashers, in shower and family pools may also make more sense on rooftops, than PV.
On the other hand, if you could store the electricity generated in sunny hours locally for later use, when it is really needed, that would be a game changer. Unfortunately current battery packs are both prohibitively expensive and are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime. Proper handling of toxic waste distributed all over the country is a real nightmare. We are clearly a technological breakthrough or two away from efficient, cheap and benign storage.
-
Paul D at 20:47 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Bern: "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.| Yes that is what I was thinking overnight (UK). That was the only explanation. That is a distinct distortion of any engineering or scientific methodology that is credible. He is mixing up economic calculations with engineering calculations, in a way misleading way. The only currently reasonable way of using watts per metre squared calculations regarding solar panels is for comparisons with other solar power stations. Once you go beyond that, and start using pseudo economic/engineering calculations to make comparisons with other options, the simple calculations break down dramatically. Even my assumption that you can reduce it to the solar panel area and compare it to a coal fired power station, is clearly incorrect, but is is less of a bodge than Berényi Péters attempt. -
scaddenp at 18:02 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, you arent going to find proof. This is science after all. There is always the possibility that human imagination will create a better model that explains all of existing observation and more. What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate. What have got for a competing theory? That somehow physics is all wrong and some deep unexplained phenomena is responsible instead? Any other aspects of your life where you would take kind of bet? As for cycles, of course there are cycles, with real physical causes, not some mystery. Now are you comfortable with 1st law thermodynamics? If some "cycle" (outside any that we know and account for) is moving energy enough to account for surface temperature trend, then where is that energy coming from? -
scaddenp at 17:49 PM on 11 November 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
"any educated person " - how about cutting the rhetoric and getting educated? Start with IPCC WG1, then come back here. "Finally, various data must be discounted due to spoliation-- particularly ice-core samples, which are completely worthless due to polar-ice temperatures ALWAYS rising above the -70C maximum required for validity." Care to give us a cite for this amazing opinion? -
scaddenp at 17:44 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman - so? So do various fossil fuel shills. Does he have any expertise in climate science, radiative physics etc? Has he published his critique in peer-reviewed journal? If you don't have enough expertise in an area to be able to evaluate competing claims, (I'm assuming you havent been able to follow the critiques above) then unfortunately you have either got to acquire the expertise yourself, preferably from textbooks and papers, or you have to rely on expert opinion from people actively working in the field with appropriate domain knowledge. Now where in physical geography do they teach thermodynamics and radiative physics? Not my idea of expert opinion. In my opinion, if you are interested in climate science, then you start with IPCC WG1. This reflects the published science and gives you an almighty index into it. You can see what is actually claimed rather than the zillions of strawmen that denialists like to doubt. You dont have to agree with the assessment but at least you get it one place. If you are looking a "skeptic" claims, then only bother with what's been published for reasons I stated earlier. -
Norman at 17:40 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#58 Daniel Bailey, "Let me ask you this, Norman: Post-1976, what forcings other than CO2 have had any significance on global temperatures? Simple question, right?" Yes and Climate4you does have an alternative forcing. If I am successful I will Post the graph. Alternate forcing that can affect Global temps. Quote from the page on Climate4you that had this graph (from the Homepage click the Climate & Clouds tab): "Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 (see diagram above), a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered" -
KirkSkywalker at 17:32 PM on 11 November 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Overall: a tentative 1-degree shift over a 150-year period is hardly what any educated person might call "conclusive." Likewise, simply averaging various claimed indicators is no "magic carpet" to the truth, without weighting each according to its respective accuracy. Finally, various data must be discounted due to spoliation-- particularly ice-core samples, which are completely worthless due to polar-ice temperatures ALWAYS rising above the -70C maximum required for validity. Overall, this article simply assumes far too much-- and discounts far too *little*-- to be considered reliable in even its conservative conclusion.Moderator Response: You have posted the same claim about ice cores in at least five different threads on this site. Please do not spread discussions of a single, narrow topic across many different threads. Another commenter (KR) has already responded to your claims in the thread where you first posted this material ((What does past climate change tell us about global warming?), so it would be a good idea to respond there. Thank you. -
RSVP at 17:31 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
The Ville #78 "The solar panel would cause a delay in warming via conduction or emission. eg. if it was hundred percent efficient, eventually the energy would be converted to heat or work by the device(s) it was connected to. But this energy would escape, as it does in the natural world." It's funny you shrug off that "small" detail when in fact supposed warming due to delays in cooling brought on by anthropogenic CO2 enshrines the cornerstone of AGW theory. -
Norman at 17:28 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#57 scaddenp The person who runs Climate4you, has a lot of peer-reviewed publications. -
Norman at 17:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#38 Daniel Bailey "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." I can't prove the globe is not warming. In fact my opinion is that it warms and cools in cycles not fully understood at this time. I am sure of one thing, climate seems to cycle. More cycles. On your link it shows Siberia as one of the locations warming the fastest. This is the claimed proof of AGW as CO2 warms polar areas devoid of water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) and also is at a temp where the IR spectrum peak is closer to the 15 micron wavelength maximizing CO2 GH effect. Here is a link that questions the warming of the Siberian region. Questions the Global anomaly of Siberian Temps. -
Norman at 16:37 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#40 Daniel Bailey I have read Goddard's report (I visit WUWT as often as these sites). I was not sure how his idea worked. If a gas is compressed it will heat up, but then it will give up its heat to it surroundings. It will not stay hot. -
Norman at 16:34 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#39 Tom Dayton I have already been there and posted some questions. I posted at Venusian mysteries part-two. -
Phila at 16:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
PaulPS: Other than the implied assumption I might do that, thanks for the advice. I'm very sorry I gave you that impression. That wasn't my intention at all. The point of my comment was simply that the "Ken treatment" resulted from an approach that was insulting and — as JC notes above — totally unnecessary. I certainly didn't intend to cast any aspersions on you.Moderator Response: This is not targeted at either Phila or PaulPS, just a general request: No more discussion in this thread of who may or may not have insulted whom, please. The comment that started this all should never have been posted, and nothing more needs to be said about it. Thanks! -
Daniel Bailey at 16:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: Norman (37) Um, you haven't been reading anything by Steve Goddard have you? Full discussion of the Venus Syndrome here. The Yooper -
Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, there is an excellent series of posts about Venus on the Science of Doom site Venusian Mysteries. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:59 PM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Thanks, Dodger! Busy day on tap tomorrow, but I'll check that out tomorrow night. Looks cool (sorry)! BTW, my wife and son went to the MSU:UM game this year (I had to work on getting ready to move into our new house out of the old one). Lucky buggers. The Yooper -
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.
Prev 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 Next
