Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 Next
Comments 106251 to 106300:
-
archiesteel at 11:24 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop." False. Check this article here on why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming. "If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming" No. There's no "unknown mechanism" stopping the warming. The warming stopped because the system reached an equilibrium, i.e. the sum of all forcings and feedbacks was matched by the amount of energy lost to space. "If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise?" That's because CO2 isn't the only driver. "Main" vs. "only"...do you understand the difference? We can assume that, in those cases, some other forcing (such as aerosols, or lower TSI, etc.) caused temperatures to decrease even though CO2 levels were still high. There's lot of good information on this site. You should start reading the articles before trying to challenge the current theory. -
mistermack at 11:12 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Archie, there is so much wrong there, I don't know where to start. If CO2 were the main driver of climate, the "feedback loop" with rising CO2 would never stop. Even the IPCC don't claim CO2 drives climate, they say it amplifies the effect of the Milankovitch cycles, via a feedback loop. If you look at the ice-core graph above, you will see that "some unknown mechanism" did exactly that, stopped runaway warming, at this point in the cycle, four times in a row. It's there for all to see. If co2 was the main driver then, why did temps reverse as co2 continued to rise? -
archiesteel at 10:53 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
@mistermack: I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief." So, in essence you're arguing that, even if there's a 10% chance current AGW theory is real, it would still be too much of a risk? :-) "The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess." You need to learn about statistical trends. "The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays." Actually, we have no reason of believing it can't - and yet you seem ready to gamble on the fact it might not. If you're going to err, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? "The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age." Exactly, so why would you expect the result to be the same if the parameters are so different now? You're not making logical sense. -
archiesteel at 10:45 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "The earth may well have a mechanism that stops it getting hotter, once it reaches the tipping point of the spikes on that graph." So, you want us to forget all we know about climate science in order to entertained the unresearched hypothesis that some "unknown mechanism" is responsible? mistermack, your question has been answered, and I'll you've been able to produce as counter-arguments is that we "don't know for sure." Well, we sure know a lot more about the Greenhouse Effect and other forcings than we do about your mysterious mechanism. Sure, the CO2/temperature graphs don't match perfectly, becaue the Earth is a complex system, but the correlation between the two is striking. All the available evidence points towards CO2 being the main driver of climate, and CO2 concentrations have not been that high in 600,000 years. If you're going to challenge this, you have to bring your own scientific explanations, and they need to be as solid as the ones presented here. You have clearly failed to do this. -
mistermack at 10:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
Bibliovermis, I'm not mocking, but you made me chuckle there. I would't board the plane if it was the other way around, and there was a 10% chance of coming to grief. Or even 1%. I'm not sure how that affects AGW though. The truth is that the 90/10 is just someone's guess. The reality is that CO2 has some affect, but we don't know if it can push temperatures significantly higher than todays. The 90/10 is not based on experience of previous events, we haven't had this level of co2 during an ice-age. -
archiesteel at 10:24 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: what is your obsession with melt season data? Why exclude data from the rest of the year? It seems to me (and others, apparently) that the goal of this exercise was that there is an overall cooling trend - at least that's what the comment you posted in that article tends to indicate. As for the data, I was asking about the data you used to make your graphs. Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear, so let's try to establish a few things. Since you're a busy man, I'll try to keep it to yes/no questions: Do you agree that, overall, the Arctic has been warming up over the past decades? Do you agree that, despite alleged discrepancies in summer temperatures, yearly figures from both the GISS and DMI provide the same temperature increase, and as such are both useful when trying to determine overal warming trends? Did you produce the graphs on your site, and if so do you still have the link to the official data you used (not a link to a file hosted on your own server - I mean the original data from the DMI)? I still think the science on your site is shoddy compared to what's found here, but of course that is an opinion. Feel free to disagree with it - after all, we are all entitled to our opinions, aren't we? -
mistermack at 10:19 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, I posed a good question. I got no answer. To be fair, you are the only one who attempted one. I think my comments about the insolation graph were fair. They weren't just debating points. When the insolation at north iceland (67N) is high, it's going to be low at north Atarctica (67S), cancelling each other out. I don't see why they chose that graph at all. It's bound to give a false impression of reality. -
BBHY at 10:18 AM on 23 October 2010It's cooling
Oh dear, selti, the link you provided shows someone attempting to refute a decades-long trend with just a few cherry-picked data points. This is either a very basic misunderstanding of science, mathematics, and especially statistics, or a very poor attempt at deliberately misleading people. When you look at the full dataset, and include up-to-date data (beyond 2008, this year happens to be 2010), then the trend clearly remains unbroken, and IPCC is fully vindicated. If Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD was intending to mislead then shame on him. If he honestly believes his presentation is an attempt at honest discourse then he should go to wherever he got his PhD and ask for his money back. -
mistermack at 10:08 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
I think that right Doug. I'm not talking to the right person. I was looking for good answers. Bye. -
David Horton at 10:07 AM on 23 October 2010Vote for SkS in the physics.org web awards
Done John, I think - what a clumsy voting system! Good luck. -
CO2 lags temperature
misterack, You are just repeating the same claims over and over without any empirical support or attempt to substantially address the counter claims. There is no point in continuing this conversation. -
LukeW at 09:52 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Sceptics have been arguing this one for a while. Surely it's about net radiation. Does a photon know which way it's going? And you can take a pyrgeometer (longwave radiometer) - into the backyard – point upwards on a cloudless night and measure the downward radiation with a pyrgeometer. So what's the back radiation doing? In fact a net radiometer is a pair of pyranometers and pyrgeometers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_radiometer So all those people doing energy balance mustn’t know what they’re doing according to the sceptics? Eli Rabbet did a nice demonstration of net radiation with his alfoil light bulb. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html Do radiation shields show that cooler can increase warmer? And it's even done commercially be Osram and GE The IRC technology used in the installation lamp (burner) contains the routing of the infrared (IR) radiation of the lamp back to the filament by means of a suitable reflecting layer mounted outside on the lamp (burner). http://www.osram.com.au/_regional_APAC/pdf/Consumer/General_Lighting/IRC_brochure_APR_lowres.pdf Although my sceptic debater didn't like the fact that it was a reflector. So I guess warming from brick walls doesn't count here then http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/02/sydneys-weather-station-150-meters-makes-all-the-difference/ An alleged refutation experiment by some is Roy Spencer's solar box - http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/ but I think the relatively small cooling actually proves the point - and note here the impact of clouds here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/ A more formal treatment of the subject at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ -
Doug Bostrom at 09:25 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Ah, you've done Weart, you've read all the literature relevant to this topic, you're here as a last resort, not to argue, mistermack. I see. I was misled when you said sensitivity estimates are "only guesswork" because that remark is on its face ill-informed and sounds simply argumentative. You also sound as though you're more prepared to reflexively disagree as opposed to listen to answers you've asked for, but again that must be a misunderstanding. My apologies. There's a certain familiar pattern to interactions here, which often take the form of rhetorical questions followed by endless refusal to acknowledge new information. Clearly this is not one of those cases. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:13 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
I missed the part where Frank answers Archiesteel's question in 124. Frank, can you provide the data you used to generate your graphs? -
CO2 lags temperature
Correction, the graduations you're referring to obviously are from the chart I posted not the paper on the model. How exactly do the gridlines "accentuate" the spikiness? The frequency of variation is clearly much higher than the temperature trend. You're really reaching here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:59 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Tarcisio, I have not the faintest idea of what you are trying to say -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, So your claim is that "real" insolation will follow a significantly different pattern than in the diagram provided? Care to show your data, or will you continue making unsubstantiated claims? Of course the graduations accentuate the spikiness, the entire point of the model presented is to examine the theory that multiple equilibria in the climate system can accentuate the changes driven by insolation. The model was indeed able to produce an excellent reconstruction of temperature trends with insolation as the primary driver, in direct contrast to your unsubstantiated claims that such a thing is impossible. -
mistermack at 08:55 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Doug, it depends what you mean by fruitful. I don't care if the argument is won or lost. I want the answer. The correct answer, and I don't care which it is. If I learned something new from any of the replies, I would call that fruitful. It wouldn't matter where it pointed. -
Are we too stupid?
Crossposting with tongue firmly in cheek - We could always convert our automobiles to nuclear power, and avoid CO2 from transportation... -
Riccardo at 08:48 AM on 23 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
David Wrathall I could not find any usefull information following the EARS link you provide. They show a picture of the "Meteosat/MSG derived surface temperatures" between the 10 yearly periods 2000-2009 and 1983-1992. The MSG satellite has on board just visible and IR spectrometers; I wonder how they extracted surface temperature from them. Probably they used the GERB (Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget) instrument and measured the outgoing IR and claim that it's equivalent to temperature. It's not, of course, not even nearly so. This is what ESA says (emphasis mine): "By measuring the Earth's radiation balance on a continuous basis across day and night, from a higher orbit than any comparable instrument, GERB is helping climate scientists measure the energy source driving the general circulation of the atmosphere and assess if Earth as a whole is indeed warming up. " So, the satellite measures energy, not temperature, and not (only) from the ground. They awfully misunderstood (euphemism needed to stay in line with the comment policy :)) what's actually measured. -
kdkd at 08:36 AM on 23 October 2010It's the sun
KL #715 I can assure you that it's your argument that is unclear, and that it leads to conclusions that you do not state explicitly, but instead expect the reader to infer themselves. Not good enough I'm afraid. -
mistermack at 08:36 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
e, my point is there is lots wrong with your choice of insolation graph. Firstly, the baseline is 420, not zero. This makes it look far more spikey. Secondly, the 100,000 year graduations accentuate the spikyness. Thirdly, it's not insolation of the whole earth, it's just one line of latitude on the globe. Fourthly, it's just one day's insolation. The sun shines 365 days py. Basically, it's worthless in this context. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:27 AM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Oh, golly, decisions! Do I want the reactor ahead of me, or behind? So often the only answer is, "it depends." -
Doug Bostrom at 08:19 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Mistermack, it's probably worth pausing at this moment to evaluate whether it's worth your time pursuing an argument here, or more specifically which argument might be fruitful. In fact you might better spend time learning more about this subject before commencing to disagree because that way you could be more selective in your disagreements and be more generally useful. I only say this because your post at #156 is taking on the classic "throwing a cheesecake underwater" profile. Clouds, that's my suggestion... -
FLansner at 08:16 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
archiesteel at 07:33 AM on 23 October, 2010 "Also, you have been asked repeatedly: could you provide the data you used to generate your graphs?" Archiesteel, i have really been extreeeemly busy, so my comments here have been written in time i dont have. And i think you can see, that i have had plenty of comments that i should considder in this and other blogs. Im not sure what you look for, as my results as described on my site is not 100% accurate. Here are yearly values: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/DMIIS.xls But as i understood Peter Hogarth, he has actually got his hands on DMI numbers up to 2009 and alittle beyond. And Peter i would like very much to see those data :-) THen, Archiesteel you write: "...and yet both GISS and DMI show the same warming trend, as demonstrated above. How do you respond to this?" ?? Are you back to yearly numbers again or??? Please, I have shown trends 80N-90N in summer months DMI (ERA-40) data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig1.jpg VS GISS 80N-90N summer data: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig2.jpg So 80N-90N, summer data does NOT show a match between GISS and DMI. You must be thinking of yearly data whoch was not what my article was about. Please lets move forward now. you write "Your site is under attack because the science presented on it is of shoddy quality" Well, feel free to argument on any topic mentioned whereever and whenever you want. until then, its very easy for you just to come with claims like that out of thin air. Im in for a debate on ANY topic in the climate debate. K.R. Frank -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, Uh yeah, it comes from the 100,000 year solar eccentricity cycle. What's your point? It's not just any "single day", it is the peak insolation for the year. Again, what's your point? What I was demonstrating to you is that the "spikiness" of the temperature trend can be predicted given insolation as a primary driver, something you suggested was impossible. You're grasping at straws in an attempt to dismiss this information. -
mistermack at 08:12 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Tom, to call it physics is stretching it. It's the brand-new science of climate prediction, that has no previous experience to draw on, and a track record of no successful predictions thus far. You are waaaay overstating the solidness of the science. If it was as straight-forward as physics, they could tell us the climate for next year.Moderator Response: Regarding success of models, you really need to comment on (after reading) the thread "Models are Unreliable." Type that into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
archiesteel at 08:12 AM on 23 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
@David: welcome to this site, you'll find a treasure trove of scientific material here. As for yuor question, there's several things to note: A 10-year old trend for HADCRUT3 NH data doesn't show a decrease, but a small increase:The second is that 10 years is much too short to derive a statistically significant trend. Otherwise, you'd be able to say temperatures have risen by 2C/decade in the Norther hemisphere since 2008... (the short blue line above). That doesn't mean much. In climate science, the longer the data set, the more accurate the trends. Finally, why only consider the NH hemisphere? The two hemispheres are part of the same system.
-
mistermack at 08:03 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Hi e, thanks for the link. But I immediatly noticed that the graduations are in 100,000 year sections, which makes it look spikey. Also, this is not "whole planet, whole year" insolation, it's one single day, at one single line of latitude. -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack, it's not valid to assume how big, or significant that would be, or that it can go past certain limits. Nobody is assuming. Predictions are made by the physical theory and tested via experiment and evidence. Inventing "limits" where the physics predicts none is certainly not valid. You seem to have a profound misconception of how climate science makes its predictions. It is not a guessing game based on historical reconstructions. It is a direct physical prediction given specific explanations of the mechanisms at play in our climate. Historical data only serves as evidence to support these physical theories. -
Tom Dayton at 07:54 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
No, mistermack, it is not "guesswork." It's basic physics plus advanced physics plus sophisticated but perfectly sensible and comprehensible models of how all that works together, validated against observations. Really, you should start reading more, because you are claiming total absence of evidence when there is a lot of evidence. -
David Wrathall at 07:50 AM on 23 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
I'm a science teacher and coordinator for sustainable development at a secondary school in England. I've been following a debate on climate change between Alastair McIntosh, author of "Hell and High Water" and Peter Taylor, author of "CHILL". ECOS Climate Change Debate It's definately worth a look; particularly the most recent post from Peter. Dr. Wilson Flood from the Royal Society of Chemistry has joined the debate and contributed a link to interpretation of data from Meteosat that shows cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since 2001. Meteosat data interpreted by Dutch meteorological analysts What do you make of this? What could have caused this phenomenon? -
CO2 lags temperature
mistermack> I have read plenty on the Milankovitch cycles, and I can assure you that there is nothing in the calculated insolation rates that could possibly cause such sudden changes. The changes in the insolation curve are plenty sudden in relation to the temperature cycles. Also, here is an example of a model that accurately recreates these temperature trends using insolation as the primary driver. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:39 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Here's a nice little analogy, rigorously tested and free of convection and other distractions: The equipment compartments are insulated by multi-layered blankets of aluminized plastic. Temperature-responsive louvers at the bottom of the equipment compartment, opened by bi-metallic springs, allow controlled escape of excess heat. Other equipment has individual thermal insulation and is warmed by electric heaters and 12 one-watt radioisotope heaters, fueled with plutonium-238. The Pioneer Jupiter Spacecraft That's a technique often used for thermal control of spacecraft: The thermal control of the spacecraft was intended to be as passive or automatic as possible. The greatest part of the heat load came from the Sun and a lesser amount from the onboard electronics equipment, the latter also being among the most heat-sensitive components. For passive control, materials with different absorption and emission properties were used to radiatively balance the heat within the spacecraft. In addition, one of the six [25] boxes around the hexagonal structure was fitted with louvers activated by a temperature-sensitive bimetallic element. If temperatures within the box rose too high, the louvers opened to radiate the heat to black space; when temperatures were too low, the louvers closed to keep in the heat generated by electronic components. SP-480 Far Travelers: The Exploring Machines: Creating an Exploring Machine Were these louvers cooler than the spacecraft? Were they heating the spacecraft? CO2, water vapor. Louvers. -
mistermack at 07:38 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
It's valid to assume a greenhouse effect for CO2, it's not valid to assume how big, or significant that would be, or that it can go past certain limits. Take the example of heating a nail in a flame. It's dead easy to take the chill from the nail. It's harder to get it very hot, and harder still to make it glow red-hot. This is because hot surfaces radiate heat faster. The earth may well have a mechanism that stops it getting hotter, once it reaches the tipping point of the spikes on that graph. You can point to hotter times millions of years ago, but we are now in an ice-age. It's different now. There's no evidence for or against warming with co2 levels as high as they are now, with global temperatures as they are now. You are assuming current levels of co2 can push it higher. There is no previous circumstance to base that model on. Fair enough you can "claim" that the extra co2 we have now will have the power to push it past previous limits. But that's all it is, someone's guesswork. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Small amusement (if the moderators let this by) - here's a nuclear powered car. No CO2 contribution at all, although I'm not fond of the idea of riding in front of a hot neutron source...
Moderator Response: That would be a perfect fit in the "Are we too stupid" topic. :-) -
archiesteel at 07:33 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Also, you have been asked repeatedly: could you provide the data you used to generate your graphs? Thanks. -
archiesteel at 07:32 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
@FLansner: "As I see it DMI data, mostly ERA-40 data shows that GISS data over the Arctic are not accurate." ...and yet both GISS and DMI show the same warming trend, as demonstrated above. How do you respond to this? Your site is under attack because the science presented on it is of shoddy quality. You were right before caving in to peer pressure from your friends, who were wrong on the science. Here, however, is a lot of scientific literature about the subject. I suggest you stop posting and start reading instead. -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - As a thought experiment, consider a world where all of our power came from non-CO2 sources (Nuclear, perhaps?). Change in regards to radiative forcings (energy input) is formulated as: dT = λ*dF Where dT is the temperature change, λ the sensitivity, and dF the radiative forcing change. Given an anthropogenic heat flux of 0.028 W/m^2, and a climate sensitivity of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ, you can calculate that: The expected equilibrium global warming contribution from AHF would be 0.01512°C to 0.0336°C. That amount is totally lost in climate noise. We've seen a change of 0.8°C in just the last 40 years, and we're far from equilibrium. AHF contributes, but it's only a tiny contribution. It's not the dominant cause by two orders of magnitude. -
archiesteel at 07:26 AM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: "When this post got started, the reason AWH was being ignored was due to numbers, now it appears to be impossible according to what you are saying in 277." Actually, that's not what he said at all. He specified it does have an effect, but such a small one it would get drowned in the noise. -
FLansner at 07:24 AM on 23 October 2010DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
Ok, Bikliovermis, it was just not my intension to do name calling. Skeptics are called skeptics, but what can we call the other fraction? I have seen "Alarmists" , "warmies" etc etc, but whats is the correct term?? "Conspiracy": I think that some people in good intension has exaggerated. But im not allowed to say more here. Antarctic: I was asked about how/why i turned skeptic, and Antarctic was a key explanation here. And im just not used to blogs so strict on the topic. And then is would like to defend my site hidethedecline that is under attack in coments, but its outside this blog. So back to the subject: As I see it DMI data, mostly ERA-40 data shows that GISS data over the Arctic are not accurate. My original article also showed that GISS temperatures projected over ocean matches Hadley SST poorly. Any objections when all comes to all? K.R. Frank -
archiesteel at 07:17 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "According to the models, 800 years of steeply rising co2 should cause at least 750 years of more temperature rises, not a steep plunge." Check out CO2 is not the only driver of climate change for more details on how temperatures could have started to decrease even though CO2 concentrations were still near the high "normal" range (again, much lower than current CO2 concentrations). -
archiesteel at 07:12 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
@mistermack: "Thanks archiesteel, but you're using your conclusion in your argument there." No, I'm not. I'm basing my argument on established science, i.e. the greenhouse effect. Are you going to argue the greenhouse effect isn't real? I remember another skeptic in another thread who recently said "no one disputes the greenhouse effect..." "Why did an obvious violent feedback mechanism suddenly stop, and go into equally violent reverse?" If you're speaking about Young Dryas specifically, it seems the lingering Laurentide ice sheet played a major impact in it. As far as the glacial/interglacial cycle goes, Milankovitch cycles are primarily responsible for that. BTW, CO2 is not a feedback, it's a forcing (though heating does release some CO2 from the oceans, so I guess it's both, ultimately). "Until you can answer that, it's surely unjustified to claim that the warming that's happening today won't meet the same "barrier" that warming did in the past." It won't meet the same barrier because CO2 concentrations are much higher today than they've been throughout the current Ice Age. -
Adam C at 07:05 AM on 23 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I like the description of the blanket analogy in #3 better than in the post. It seems to me important to point out that the blanket makes you warmer despite the fact that the blanket is colder than you are. By denialist logic blankets also violate the 2nd Law. -
RSVP at 07:03 AM on 23 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR #277 "You've long since left the realm of scientific discussion." Since you seem to know so much, I would ask if you think it even be possible for anthropogenic waste heat to cause global warming? Not the amount that we are currently putting out, but some other larger amount. When this post got started, the reason AWH was being ignored was due to numbers, now it appears to be impossible according to what you are saying in 277. Which does it happen to be, or does the reason change with the zodiac? -
Doug Bostrom at 06:43 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
BTW Mistermack, it would be helpful if you could confirm you have noticed the difference in CO2 concentration between the graph above and today. -
Tom Dayton at 06:38 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
mistermack, there is a condensed list of claims with their certainties on this EPA page "State of Knowledge". If you are unhappy with the lack of detail there, then look in the IPCC Working Group I Summary for Policymakers. If you are unhappy the lack of detail there, then dig into the body of that IPCC report. You might also want to ask for a copy of the content of a poster presented at the AGU conference in 2009, by Martin Vezer, titled A Defence of the AR4's Bayesian Approach to Quantifying Uncertainty. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:25 AM on 23 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
Mistermack, when you speak of models being wrong, do you mean somebody has attempted to model past glacial episodes and has failed? As to sensitivity being "guesswork," the largest ball of uncertainty remaining in the air and the one most people studying climate agree is most likely to surprise is the role of clouds. Characterizing sensitivity as guesswork is a departure into hyperbole. Specific discussion of uncertainty might better be conducted on the What is our planet's climate sensitivity?" thread. -
Bibliovermis at 06:25 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
If there was a 90% certainty, based on scientific analysis, that a given model of plane would fall out of the sky, would you board that plane? Or would you dismiss those claims because there is still quite a lot we are missing in the study of aerodynamics? -
Tom Dayton at 06:19 AM on 23 October 2010The science isn't settled
mistermack, that "90% certainty" is for a very particular claim. It's not just for the non-technical masses. Other claims have less or more certainty. I suggest you read a January 2010 article by Trenberth, "More Knowledge, Less Certainty", about the lower certainties that will come along with the IPCC's next report's projections.
Prev 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 Next
