Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 Next
Comments 107101 to 107150:
-
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 14:47 PM on 11 October 2010Temp record is unreliable
Using only station records when there are two versions of satellite data available is a form of cherry picking. Since those are limited time wise, I propose that a compromise set be used. This is the set I will use from now on for the instrumental period. It is a merged set that uses the CRU, Hadley, UAH and RSS. Details are available on my site as well as the file. No set is perfect, but I hope that using a set like this is acceptable, more reliable and reduces the complaints from each side of the debate on which set of data they use. http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/what-global-te…rement-is-best/ John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
pdt at 14:43 PM on 11 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
I like it. -
DarkSkywise at 14:19 PM on 11 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
Slight aestethic problem here ... in the Arguments, the light red boxes, light green boxes, images and text all used to have ± the same basic width and now they're all different, which looks a bit like the pages aren't fully done yet. :') Or are we still looking at a Work in Progress?Moderator Response: If you're using Firefox (like me), hold down the left SHIFT key and hit your browser refresh button to fix. Mine was looking funky until I performed that action. -
Joe Blog at 13:38 PM on 11 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
James Wight at 13:35 PM Mine was too... now its fixed :-) -
James Wight at 13:35 PM on 11 October 2010SkS Housekeeping: right margin
The new design isn't displaying at all well in my browser. I don't know how to paste screenshots here, but the header image is not long enough and repeats on the right side of the screen. All the text is centred which looks really garish. The thermometer is not displaying properly either - the bottom is sort of separated from the top.Response: That would be because your browser is loading the cached version of the style sheets. I've renamed the style sheet filenames to sidestep the whole caching issue - should be fixed for you now. -
Joe Blog at 13:01 PM on 11 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Phil at 22:23 PM says "Firstly the Sun emits little or no IR radiation; photosynthesis absorbs a lot of visible light (not green, obviously!). Subsequent processes such as respiration convert that energy to vibrational (IR) radiation which the atmosphere can absorb." Taken in the context it was written that makes sense... but it does also come across as a little misleading, as in it implies that IR is the result of biological process's. I know thats not what youre meaning. Radiation is a product of the temperature of its source. Shortwave from the sun is coming from 5800k, red light is the longest visible wave length to our eyes(think red hot iron etc) , infra red is longer than red light, and thus has come from a source cooler than this, a longer wave length than is visible to our eyes. But its a product of the temperature of the source material(emissivity pending) , on earth, the absorption of shortwave, by materials opaque to its wavelength... earth/ water/ rock etc. I know you were talking specifically about biological endothermic/exothermic process's... but i can see that being misinterpreted. -
michael sweet at 12:53 PM on 11 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Even water can be a pollutant, although that is not usually the term used for water. My next door neighbor has a dam that causes flooding on my property-it is pollution to me. The government has rules controlling how this water can be discharged, unfortunately for me I have to clean up their mess. Where I live in Florida there are constantly problems between neighbors caused by water diverted from one property to flood another- pollution is a suitable term for these problems. Because water is easy to clean up we don't worry about long term consequences like we do for CO2. The disaster in Hungary is terrible, but the floods in Pakistan, likely caused at least partly if not completely by AGW have killed many more people. The defination of pollution has not been blurred by this action. Pollutants were defined by the act decades ago and now business and deniers want to change the defination of pollutants so that CO2 is not included. The court ruled that that is illegal. Tetraethyl lead was not immediately toxic, it was the long term accumulation and exposure that was bad. Freon also caused no measured problems at the time it was banned. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:52 PM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Re: Tom Loeber Take this to heart: the only reason you have comments deleted is because you don't adhere to the comments policy. Period. Don't ascribe to malice on others what is more appropriately due to non-compliance on your part. You control your posts being moderated. No one else. If you don't want to abide by the same rules that everyone else does, then perhaps (in the final evaluation) you are banning yourself. The Yooper -
Tom Loeber at 12:36 PM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Yeah. I think banning me from that other thread led to a cross post here by another other than me wanting to continue our discussion. Me thinks the moderators screwed up and essentially messed up two of their own offerings. Try to take it easy there mods. The heavy handedness is not what makes the best theories.Moderator Response: There is no mechanism for banning any user from a particular thread. What you're seeing is more than likely a bug relating to the site (either HTML or PHP related). -
kdkd at 12:02 PM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP #105 Accelerated sea level rise seems unlikely from the graph that you present there, but that's only a part of the story. I was just explaining one way of doing the job properly from empirical data. Note this thread is about "falling sea levels" and there don't seem to be claims about accelerating sea level rise. I suspect that we aren't really able to think about global warming caused accelerating sea level rise on an empirical basis yet, although it's quite possible that there's theoretical support for the idea. Again BP, you should use the above to guide the way that you make conclusions from a scientific approach to this topic. You'll note that it's a much more measured, conservative and balanced approach than what we usually see from you. -
Karamanski at 11:17 AM on 11 October 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Roy Spencer classifies the PDO index as a radiative forcing, because he claims that changes in the phase of the PDO are significant enough to cause a change in global cloud cover which alters the absorption of sunlight and escape of heat. Does this hold up to scrutiny? -
Charlie A at 11:04 AM on 11 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Climate scientists are able to work wonders with numbers. In spite of the wild variations without understandable reason, Syed & Famiglietti were able to extract highly significant trends (actually 3 trends for each parameter..... One for an early period. A second trend in the opposite direction for the a later period. And a third trend for the entire period. 7 of the trends were p<0.001, 2 of the global precip trends were only signficant to p<0.01) for each of the parameters. This is amazing for those parameters which are small differences of large quantities with significant variation and errors. For example, the discharge (R) is the (delta in ocean mass) + (global ocean evaporation) - (global ocean precip). It is also striking that Syed and Famiglietti were able to detect trends much smaller than the variances between the multiple observational datasets of the same parameter, such as the global ocean evaporation (HOADS, SSM/I, and OAFlux). (See table S1). As I noted above, the discharge (R) has both an upward trend in the first 4-1/2 years, then a downward trend in the last 7 years, and an overall trend over the entire period that is upward. The summary below only lists the overall 1994-2006 trends, although Syed and Famiglietti show 3 significant trends for each parameter in Figure 2. Discharge (R) Mean 36;055 km3∕y Std dev 16;164 km3∕y trend 540 km3∕y2 Evaporation (E) (SSM/I, OAFlux, & HOAPS) Mean 409,152km3∕y std dev 10;236 km3∕y trend 768 km3∕y2 Precipitation (P) (GPCP & CMAP) mean 374;220 km3∕y std dev. 14;221 km3∕y trend 240 km3∕y2 Global-ocean mass change (ΔM∕Δt) (GMSL minus steric sea surface height) mean 1;044 km3∕y std deviation 14;328 km3∕y trend 23 km3∕y2 -
muoncounter at 10:41 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
#22: "not just years or tens of years or even thousands of years, we should also consider hundreds of thousands of years" Nice. You went from worrying about daily lows at LAX to glacial cycles, which have nothing to do with the current situation. Isn't that called obfuscation, a tried and true denier tactic? "at times experts have been quite mistaken in a major way" Sure. But do you drive over bridges? They fall. Fly in airplanes? They crash. The work of experts is all around us; we can't live buried in the suspicion that they are all in cahoots and out to get us. I spend far too much time reading papers and looking at publicly available data; I am glad to read an expert analysis to help me digest it all. The point is, I am willing to incorporate into my evaluation the analysis of someone who knows more than I do. "Always realize we can only hold onto an opinion." Well, as the saying goes, you're entitled to your opinion. But you aren't entitled to your own facts.Moderator Response: It's time to take this discussion to a more relevant thread. Anybody who wants to continue, please use the Search field to find posts about "consensus" and pick the one of those you think is most relevant. -
Albatross at 09:51 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
"No amount of statistics would turn a curve like this into an accelerating one, you know it as well as I do." Aah, but BP, some cherry picking and inappropriate data manipulation can change it into a slowing trend or even a decreasing trend ;) Again, I must politely ask you to please reply to my questions posed earlier at #89. They are relevant to this thread. Thanks. -
Berényi Péter at 09:31 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#101 kdkd at 08:29 AM on 11 October, 2010 Well strictly speaking you're making that conclusion due to a limitation in the methodology of regression (see this post which demonstrates the staggering lack of power in these univariate not-corrected for the limitations of time series procedures). Come on, get real. No amount of statistics would turn a curve like this
into an accelerating one, you know it as well as I do.
-
kdkd at 08:57 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP: The above (posts #101-103) is indicative of how one goes about producing measured conclusions to a set of information. This is as compared to the approach that you take of taking a single piece of information and then over-extending your conclusion to fit your preconception (which is indicitative of confirmation bias rather than of the mechanism under investigation). -
Phil at 08:53 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
JMurphy @25 asks of Tom Loeber How do you trust even your own conclusions ? I was wondering why Tom trusts the advice of David H. Freeman. How do we know that Mr. Freeman is not one of "the experts that keep failing us ?" Then my head started to hurt... -
kdkd at 08:51 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Finally, the nature of the variable(s) that caused this heteroskedascity would be strongly suggestive, but not proof of some kind of causal relationship. -
johnd at 08:49 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber at 07:22 AM, what I think it actually comes down to is a persons ability or otherwise to think laterally. Many of the examples in your links are of people demonstrating inability to think laterally. Whilst most people like to think that they are lateral thinkers, unfortunately the education process most people pass through tends to reinforce the logical thinking processes, some institutions I have observed even actually discourage lateral thinking. At lot depends on the staff at the institution, there are only so many "inspirational" educators around, many are the tried and proven "sloggers" that follow the logical processes that teaching by the book demands. The climate change debate is an excellent example where the reliance on peer reviewed papers and the necessity for all processes to be reduced to an equation to explain the physics involved leaves little room for lateral thinkers, especially amongst those who are students of the subject. -
Berényi Péter at 08:44 AM on 11 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
If anyone is interested in how real pollution looks like, watch this: In an industrial disaster 700,000 m3 of highly alkaline (pH 13, powerful lye) heavy metal laden red mud (waste product of aluminum manufacturing) flooded several towns, rivers and the countryside, seven killed, hundreds injured with next to lethal burns. Takes a year to clean up, for plant life if ever, several decades to recover, townships destroyed can never be rebuilt at the same place. Liability insurance of the company responsible for it covers $50,000 in damages, its capital is also negligible compared to losses and expenses in life, health and property (up to a hundred million dollars). Therefore it will be payed for by taxpayers' money, what else? As soon as the stuff dries up, it turns into wind-blown fine powder, difficult not to inhale. The problem with calling CO2 a pollutant just like any immediately dangerous stuff is it makes impossible to enact compulsory liability insurance policies covering all possible damages for corporations trading in potential pollutants. This is why blurring the legal notion of "pollutant" by including harmless substances by sweeping generalizations is prime interest of corporate lobby groups. Here, in Hungary we have 50,000,000 tons more of this mud stored in aging repositories, declared safe for the time being, nevertheless property prices in those areas are plummeting like stone. Relief donations can be sent to: National Saving Bank, Budapest IBAN: HU7511702036-20707637-00000000 SWIFT: OTPVHUHB -
kdkd at 08:44 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
So what I might do by way of attempting to demonstrate a change of the rate of change would be to do some multiple regression modeling until i got a reasonable and valid fit. Then I would start entering and removing variables from the model to see if the predictive power changes. Specifically I'd examine the residuals of the model and look for systematic changes in heteroskedascity at the end of the time-series when omitting key variables. A specific pattern of residuals will indicate an acceleration of the line of best fit gradient. Three problems here: Firstly the effect size may be too small over a short period of time relative to the other signal, and noise in the data for this approach to be worthwhile. Secondly this is a quantitative social scientist's approach to what is a physical problem, so there may be better approaches more well suited to this domain. Three, this would be a day or two's work at least, after curating the data (so give it a week) so it ain't going to happen in a science blog. -
kdkd at 08:29 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP #97 "Departure from a linear trend may not be significant, but it is not accelerating either." Well strictly speaking you're making that conclusion due to a limitation in the methodology of regression (see this post which demonstrates the staggering lack of power in these univariate not-corrected for the limitations of time series procedures). In order to demonstrate a change to the rate of change you have to use more sophisticated methods than simple two variable regression. -
JMurphy at 08:13 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber, so some people made daft comments in the past (going back to Columbus's day), therefore you don't trust anyone ? How do you trust even your own conclusions ? -
TimTheToolMan at 07:17 AM on 11 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@adelady My bad on understanding your analogy then. Having said that, the paper did get values for the skin temperature with varied downward LW radiation though. I offer the following chef analogy. A chef is asked whether he can cook for large groups and he says sure and cooks a single plate to "prove" it. The point of this is that he has shown he can cook the meal so its almost certain he could cook 50 of them...but can he do it fast enough to be successful? -
JMurphy at 06:18 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber wrote : "I find at times experts have been quite mistaken in a major way, a majority of them." Do you indeed ? Care to name a few of those times ? Tom Loeber wrote : "I think more important than depending on hear-say and the like, attempt to get a grasp of the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. Quite right, partly, I think. Don't rely on hear-say, definitely (and that includes media reports, etc.) - rather, rely on the experts, the expert studies and the science. Draw your own conclusions if you wish (and there are many so-called skeptics on here who certainly do !), but don't think that your conclusions are as valid as anyone elses, especially if your conclusions go against the conclusions of the science. -
Albatross at 05:08 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP, Please respond to the questions that I posed to you at #89. Thanks. And your reference to Church is a red herring, and I would argue that you are misrepresenting their findings with the quote that you chose to produce here. How about we quote the relevant part of their abstract? "While sea levels have varied by over 120 m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geological and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sealevel rise. Recent satellite-altimeter data and tide-gauge data have indicated that sea levels are now rising at over 3 mm year-1. The major contributions to 20th and 21st century sealevel rise are thought to be a result of ocean thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Ice sheets are thought to have been a minor contributor to 20th century sea level rise, but are potentially the largest contributor in the longer term. Sea levels are currently rising at the upper limit of the projections of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (TAR IPCC), and there is increasing concern of potentially large ice-sheet contributions during the 21st century and beyond, particularly if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated." Also, Church did not, as far as a can see, simply extrapolate a linear line to estimate sea levels circa 2100. The sea-levels circa 2100 were based on model projections with and without dynamic processes. Their Fig. 6 shows that sea levels are rising faster than predicted in TAR. Actually, it seems that each time the estimates are updated for sea levels they are higher , not lower, then previous projections. For example, the recent projections made by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). Let me remind you BP, as far as changes in SL goes, it is still very early days, and the rise is not going to suddenly stop circa 2100. -
Albatross at 04:47 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
kdkd@91, Sorry for the confusion. That is entirely my fault kdkd. I messed up when I was calculating the regression models and requested that the moderator remove the erroneous information. Time is an issue-- having to look after the little ones today. But I promise to get back to you ASAP. In the meantime, I have plotted the residuals and I cannot see anything that justifies using a quadratic model versus a linear model. -
Tom Loeber at 04:28 AM on 11 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
In the July 2003 pdf Doug Bostrom linked to, "Are Noctilucent Clouds Truly a 'Miner's Canary' for Global Change?"
it is stated "Unambiguous observations of NLC go back to the summer of 1885,when NLC appeared above western Europe with a brightness and latitudinal extent which has never been reached again." As far as I can tell from the NASA graph I post above, their first siting was surpassed in the 1950s as well as the 1960s for the extent of that graph. Why does the pdf misrepresent the situation? How come it only considers its hypothesis that noctilucents play no role in climate change on less than a third of the time they have been observed? Isn't the fact that there is no record of them being observed prior to the industrial revolution of significance? -
Kooiti Masuda at 04:20 AM on 11 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Syed et al. say that the trends of global mean discharge are statistically significant. It is surely true. But, the values they obtained for different periods vary wildly without understandable reason. As I look at their Fig. 2A, my impression is that there is no consistent trend. The part of year 1993-2005 of the figure which Charlie A quoted from Trehberth's paper is similar in a sense that there is no obvious trend, though its year-to-year peaks and valleys do not always match those of Syed et al. On the other hand, my impression of Syed et al.'s Fig. 2B is that the global mean evaporation from the oceans has a consistent positive trend in the 1993-2006 period, though I am not sure if the trend is attributed to enhanced greenhouse effect or multi-decadal variability. Evaporation from the ocean is a dominant part of the global total evaporation, which represents the largest scale of the global water cycle. On the other hand, the global total river runoff represents the partition between land and ocean -- one step smaller scale than the global mean. It seems (to me) that the trends in the actual water cycle is simpler in the global scale than in more detailed scales. -
Tom Loeber at 04:11 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
I quite agree muoncounter. In considering climate, not just years or tens of years or even thousands of years, we should also consider hundreds of thousands of years as necessary because it shows a repeated oscillation that if not considered could lead to missing cues for worthwhile strategy determination. I find at times experts have been quite mistaken in a major way, a majority of them. I think more important than depending on hear-say and the like, attempt to get a grasp of the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. Always realize we can only hold onto an opinion. Socrates is quoted as having said "True knowledge exists in knowing you know nothing." Thank you for the reasonable comment moderator. I will attempt to post to that other thread again the egregious false claim made in the paper posted on down-playing noctilucents again. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:36 AM on 11 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
I'd be interested in seeing a guest post by a skeptic only if it was rooted 100% in peer reviewed literature, assiduously written to claim nothing not found in conclusions directly traceable to peer reviewed work. That or if it was written by someone in a very narrow bracket probably best characterized by Dr. Roy Spencer. The last thing we need is to hear yet another bunch of disconnected opinion. Failing that, we'd be seeing a replication of ill-conceived fairness as practiced by newspapers and the like. Monckton redux. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:28 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Excellent, looks as though there's broad agreement that sea level is increasing. Except... BP, my point about tide gauges is rooted in the observation that the gauge network has been heavily skewed in density toward stations located in upper latitudes of the NH, for cultural reasons. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from tide gauges as a statistical population need to account for this. You say that sea level rise is not accelerating, but does your assertion take into account the density distribution of the gauge network? I think we can dismiss the "all continents are sinking" concept, unless we can posit some enormous addition of mass occurring simultaneously on all continents. Strictly speaking, as we're not speaking of falling sea level but rather accelerating increase of sea level, probably further exploration of this ought to take place at the conveniently named How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century? -
Berényi Péter at 03:12 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#89 Albatross at 10:04 AM on 10 October, 2010 extrapolating that polynomial curve out to 2100 was a poor joke It was. But it's not a poorer joke in any way than the conclusion of Church 2008. "In situ and satellite data indicate an increase in the rate of rise since 1870 and that the sea level is currently rising at a faster rate than at any time during the last 130 years. The sea level is projected to continue to rise at an increasing rate during the 21st century."
The reality is that although there is a considerable interdecadal variability in the rate of sea level change, it has not accelerated in any meaningful way during the last century. So even if sea level is projected to continue to rise at an increasing rate, this projection is not based on empirical evidence, but something else. Whatever this something else may be, it is surely incompatible with the time tested scientific method.
And while we are at it, "projection" itself as it is used here is not a traditional concept of natural sciences and as such, has an ill-defined meaning. Therefore it should never be used in scientific papers. One is either able to predict what would happen or not. In the latter case it is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable scientific position to express it as we do not know.
On century scale linearity and interdecadal variability of sea level change see:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, 2007
doi:10.1029/2006GL028492
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate
"Based on a selection of nine long, high quality tide gauge records, the mean rate of sea level rise over the period 1904-2003 was found to be 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr after correction for GIA using the ICE-4G model and for inverse barometer effects using HadSLP2. The mean rate of rise was greater in the first half of this period than the latter half, though the difference in rates was not found to be significant."
"it is found that the high decadal rates of change in global mean sea level observed during the last 20 years of the record were not particularly unusual in the longer term context"
"The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (-1.49 mm/yr)."
Departure from a linear trend may not be significant, but it is not accelerating either.
-
muoncounter at 02:55 AM on 11 October 2010CO2 is not increasing
Canadell et al. 2007 document the degrading of carbon sinks since 1960: We estimate that 35+/-16% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 growth rate between 1970–1999 and 2000–2006 was caused by the decrease in the efficiency of the land and ocean sinks in removing anthropogenic CO2 (18 +/- 15%) and by the increase in carbon intensity of the global economy (17 +/- 6%). The remaining 65 +/- 16% was due to the increase in the global economy. -
Charlie A at 02:06 AM on 11 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
#2 Spencer Weart at 02:49 AM on 8 October, 2010 says "Yes, too noisy to say anything very strong about a trend; the statistics must be marginal. Too soon to declare this another sign of AGW, it would be embarrassing if a couple years from now the trend turns down... " Au contraire, the paper claims the trend is very strongly supported by statistics, p<0.001. Actually they declare not one but THREE trends, all p<0.001. You don't have to wait a couple of years for a downtrend. The paper found a downtrend for the last 7 years of the study period, with significance p<0.001. "An increase in the ensemble mean of R is evident from 199412–199906 (2,904 km3∕y2; p < 0.001), followed by a decreasing trend (−756 km3∕y2; p < 0.001) through the end of the study period (199907–200611). The trend for the entire 199412–200611 study period is 540 km3∕y2 (p < 0.001)." -
Charlie A at 01:51 AM on 11 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
The water cycle is SLOWING, not accelerating according to NCAR: http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/surprise-worlds-largest-rivers-drying-up/ "Climate change drying up world’s 925 largest ocean-reaching rivers. About 72 percent of the world’s 925 largest ocean-reaching rivers are drying up, most of them because of the climate change, according to a report by National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado." and "Annual freshwater discharge into the world’s oceans decreased during the 1948–2004 research period as follows" And here's a graph of global freshwater discharge from a 2010 study by Trenberth. It tells a rather different story than the Syad2010 that is the topic of this post.
source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/ClimateChangeWaterCycle-rev.pdf
-
archiesteel at 01:38 AM on 11 October 2010It's the sun
@Ken: "No, I hear what you say architeel - and it is wrong." You may hear what I say, but you clearly don't understand it. "So in fact for the AG forcings - the RELATIVE value IS the ABSOLUTE value because none supposedly existed in AD1750." The graph (assuming we're still talking about KR's graph at #623) doesn't show "AG forcings", it shows "well-mixed greenhouse gases" forcing. The fact that all forcings start at the same point should give you a hint that they are all relative values. Also, this tidbit after the graph is pretty clear: "This starts from a baseline of 1880 (where the "zero" is set), showing deltas (changes) from those values." What's the use of stating all kinds of numbers if you don't get simple logic? -
muoncounter at 01:23 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
#20: "Should we expect a dynamic system to respond only linearly?" Who said anything about climate responding linearly? There are multiple inputs (solar variation, GHGs, aerosols, etc) and a complicated output. Hot years, cold years, differential heating from one part of the globe to another:
Any understanding of that system requires two things:
1 - we must look at the long term trends, not the daily (or even annual) variation and
2 - we must base our understanding on the work of the scientists who are the experts in these things, not on the vaporings of those who cherry-pick data or see everything through their pre-conceived notions.
-
Ken Lambert at 01:17 AM on 11 October 2010It's the sun
CBD #651 Yeah I had read the advanced version. Where did you get the TSI in AD1750 at 1365.5? The charts show it at or below 1365W/sq.m. Dr Trenberth calculates his climate response due to IR cooling at -2.8W/sq.m based on a surface warming of 0.75degC (close enough to 0.8). He equates this surface warming increase to the increase in the radiative equilibrium temperature of the planet. This figure is then used to subtract from the AG forcings from IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 which we know are referenced to AD1750. I have made the rash assmption that the surface warmng since AD1750 is 0.75degC (0.8degC for short), otherwise Dr Trenberth would not be adding or subtracting apples from apples, would he? -
Tom Loeber at 01:04 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Yes, for sure, I see that a vast majority of records are high. I just wonder. The climate is dynamic, not linear. We are changing more than one factor, the concentrations of more than just one greenhouse gas. Should we expect a dynamic system to respond only linearly? If the posts in the URL I just gave are records for locations then why did they miss the all time record low set at Los Angeles International airport this year or the ones in San Diego county or in other countries? In that other thread my messages never post to be deleted. You can see that has led others to cross post here too. If that is not being banned from that thread then I have to seriously consider that this whole endeavor is dysfunctional, it is not working as the moderator suggests.Moderator Response: Remember that moderation is dynamical, too. Overly-tight moderation constricts the mutual discussion of the science (and provokes questions as to motivations; a no-win scenario). Under-moderation results in chaos. We're human, and as such do the best we can, making allowances for the same by commenters. Keep your comments focused on the post topic and everything should be fine. Also realize that sometimes comments are deleted within seconds of being posted--perhaps before you have a chance to see them. And be sure that after you click the Preview button and verify that your comment appears as you intend, that you then click the Submit button to actually post it. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:54 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Re: jonsblogger1980 (59) TSI is the measurement of solar activity, rising and falling with the 11-year solar (sunspot) cycle. For the 30 years or so of accurate measurements, TSI and sunspot activity are in good agreement. As such, sunspot activity is used a surrogate marker, or proxy, for TSI for periods predating the instrumental record. TSI has been static (actually, fitting a trend line to TSI levels show it declining slightly) while global temps go up. As you can see here:
This has been thoroughly discussed by dana1981 here.
As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
It's not the sun. Further discussions on TSI should probably be carried over to the It's The Sun page. The Yooper -
Ken Lambert at 00:50 AM on 11 October 2010It's the sun
Sorry for the double post at #664 My browser was showing nothing after page 13 - so I tried again. #665 Archisteel No, I hear what you say architeel - and it is wrong. There were none or negligible AG forcings BY DEFINITION in AD1750 because CO2 levels were steady at about 280ppmv and sulphate aersols, methane etc were not changed by large human release fossil fuel burning. This would be not much different in AD1850. So in fact for the AG forcings - the RELATIVE value IS the ABSOLUTE value because none supposedly existed in AD1750. Get it - anthropogenic forcing is supposed to be a human fossil fuel burning effect. So if you then use these AG forcings to illustrate the portions of warming contributed by each - you need to compare them with the ABSOLUTE value of Solar forcing to effectively compare apples with apples. -
adelady at 00:28 AM on 11 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
OK TTTM. The analogy wasn't intended to demonstrate anything other than the problem of trying to get comparisons or measurements from a paper that intended to do neither. Sorry that wasn't clear. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:28 AM on 11 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: kdkd (94) See Albatross's comment currently at 93 above. The 2 comments were deleted by request. The 2 posts are still visible in the Deleted Comments bin. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 00:27 AM on 11 October 2010It's El Niño
#7: "I read a myriad of studies suggesting this." It would be helpful if you would provide some references, rather than just 'a myriad.' "But in recent years that trend seems to be dissipating or is too short of a time period to make any meaningful judgements?" Look at the graph in #6. What 'trend seems to be dissipating' are you referring to? Also note the 2nd and 3rd points from the Timmerman paper: - year-to-year variations may become more extreme and - with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent. Or to put it in terms of a 'forecast': Continued warming with a 30% chance of occasional heavy snow in some areas. 50% chance of record droughts and/or record flooding. 95% chance of skeptics refusing to look at the long term and seizing on minimal data to say 'No its not!' 100% chance of inaction on the part of the US government. -
muoncounter at 00:03 AM on 11 October 2010It's freaking cold!
17: "I wonder what is wrong with the data on this site that suggests all time record cold was recorded in the following countries during 2010:" Perhaps nothing is wrong with the data, but something is wrong with the approach you've taken. Refer to the key line at the top of this posting: A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. -
JMurphy at 23:58 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Any thoughts on having an Open Thread, where you can move comments that are off-topic and have no easily-identifiable thread to which they can be moved ? Or where general enquiries/legitimate moans can be posted ? By the way, I would be very surprised if any of the 'resident skeptics' ever managed to come up with a credible guest post...;-)Response: It would've been an interesting post and I was encouraging him to post it as it would've stimulated lots of interesting discussion. You never know, he still might, I expect he's reading this thread and knows what we're talking about :-) -
Phil at 23:35 PM on 10 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
The kink in the "hockey stick" graph appears to be at the end of 2009. Related to this perhaps ? -
Riccardo at 23:16 PM on 10 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
johnd in practice they work much better at sea than in a millpond, given that oceans mix much more than millponds. -
JMurphy at 22:35 PM on 10 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber wrote : "I wonder what is wrong with the data on this site that suggests all time record cold was recorded in the following countries during 2010: Cuba, Philippines, Russia, Namibia, Antarctica, Australia, Bolivia from http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm" You've virtually answered your own question there ! Those few countries had record lows in one, two or three locations (depending on which country you look at), to give a total of 13 minimum records - none of them all-time records. The rest of the list shown ('Records registered during 2010') are for maximum temperatures (I haven't counted them all but there has to be about 350 of them), and include (unlike the minimums) all-time records. Surely the difference is obvious ?
Prev 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 Next
