Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 Next
Comments 107501 to 107550:
-
CBDunkerson at 02:00 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
Ken #629: "By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700." As has been explained to you before, a 'forcing' is a CHANGE from the baseline value. If 1880 is the baseline then BY DEFINITION the forcing in 1880 is zero. Has to be. That's what the words MEAN. -
skywatcher at 01:58 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
nice ranting there Ned! I particularly like your point about questioning the intellectual honesty of skeptics who hold to a position after they have been shown time and again that their position is in blatant contradiction of the evidence. I've had arguments with a number of skeptics on a different site where I point them to papers very clearly showing their position to be in error, say, lack of empirical evidence for CO2-driven warming, or 'it's the Sun', or 'it's natural cycles/ clouds' kinds of arguments. Often I point them to articles on this excellent site where nearly all the information you could need is in one handly location! But what I have often found is that the more stubborn of these skeptics will steadfastly continue to hold their incoherent views, and will repeat the same fallacies over and over again. At that stage I wonder if they have lost the capacity to learn... @TIS: you do seem to hold incoherent views. On CO2, you could do worse than read Chris Colose's post from February "Greenhouse Effect Revisited". He specifically plots the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion effect for 50ppm, and very neatly demonstrates that the effect does not stop even though the central band becomes saturated (absorbtion line broadens after that point), and plots the spectrum for 390ppm, and even 10,000ppm. If there's further discussion of this, maybe it should move to an appropriate thread. But on topic here, TIS, now you have been shown rather strong evidence (and more at scienceofdoom) that your 50ppm claim is wrong, will you now cease holding on to that claim?Moderator Response: Yes, further discussion of CO2 absorption must be done on a more appropriate thread. There are several, but the most appropriate probably is "The CO2 Effect Is Saturated." -
Ned at 01:57 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The Inconvenient Skeptic writes: This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. Fair enough. Obviously, I haven't seen your line of reasoning to support that idea. However, I'd just caution you that there are good a priori reasons to assume that it's probably wrong.[1] Thus, while working on the article, it would probably be worth your while to step back and take an extremely skeptical approach toward your own argument. Also, not to be repetitively redundant, but if you haven't done so already, spending some time perusing Science of Doom would probably help you hone your argument. ----------------------------------- [1] An examination of the historical record would probably show that for every case where a widely held scientific consensus is overturned by the work of an outsider to that field, there are several orders of magnitude more cases where the would-be Einstein turns out to be mistaken. Thus, without knowing anything about your argument per se, from a Bayesian perspective the odds are against it. -
michael sweet at 01:49 AM on 7 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP, It is distracting when you make comments like "is the EPA going to ban Coca-Cola?" Of course the EPA is not going to ban food. The EPA is concerned with large emissions of fossil carbon. Please limit your comments to real concerns if you want to be taken seriously. -
It's the sun
One side note - the previous posting included a graph that only runs to 2000, not up through 2010. -
It's the sun
Even more interesting in that NOAA/IPPC article you referred to, Ken, 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Chapter 6 Paleoclimate, is this graph:
What's illustrated here are the various forcings on climate, temperature reconstructions (gray bands covering uncertainty ranges on lower graph), and multiple climate model runs with and without anthropogenic forcings. Looking at the lower right of the bottom graph you can see matched color traces with/without GHG additions.
It's clear that without the GHG forcings (but with the solar forcing) none of the models can match the current temperature trend. They all predict temperatures going back to levels of the early 1800's. Add the GHG forcings back in, and voila - all the models track measured temperatures fairly closely.
It's not the sun.
-
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 01:33 AM on 7 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@Ned, I like your posts very much. I agree that skeptics should hold other skeptics accountable. There are coherent arguments to being a skeptic. This is not the forum for a detailed view of why 50 ppm is important, but I will be putting together a simple article on it. It is based on the opacity of CO2 in its absorption bands. It could be wrong. I accept that. If I find sufficient evidence that it is, I will change my views. So far I am not convinced otherwise. One thing I have found is that most people have very little grasp of the science behind AGW. I am very intentionally writing simpler articles first to build into more complex ones later. I do hope to have many fruitful discussions here. If I link an article I do it because that is a much easier. The level of the discussion needs to be elevated. I am hoping that we can accomplish that. -
It's the sun
Ken - Thank you for that chart, it's very interesting:
It also clearly shows my point. Given that the chart I linked from GISS shows deltas from 1880 (not 1750), and in agreement with your chart indicates a TSI delta over that time of ~+0.4W/m^2, while the "All other forcings" in both charts from GHG's sum to ~2W/m^w at the current time, I fail to see any disagreement in our data.
The slight rise in TSI seems to be important ('tho not overwhelmingly so) in the early part of this century, warming was damped by high aerosols mid-century, and in the 70's (accompanied by the Clean Air acts and aerosol reduction) GHG forcing became the very dominant factor.
Now, as regards to ...setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880"", Ken, you still appear to be suffering from some misapprehensions regarding what delta (anomaly) baselines are used for. The chart I linked from the CO2 is not the only driver of climate looks at deltas since 1880, while the one you linked from NOAA/IPCC (here's the article link backing that chart) looks at deltas since ~900AD.
Was the climate at equilibrium in 900AD? No. Was it in equilibrium in 1880? In 1750? No and no. But we can certainly look at changes in forcings versus changes in climate, and determine from magnitude and correlation which forcing changes are the dominant drivers of the current temperatures.
And, given that information, it's clear that it's not the sun driving late 20th century temperature rises. Nor, for that matter, is it a badly mis-measured TSI at the start of any of these time periods, integrated over the period, as that would show up as a monotonic temperature change over the period of mis-measure, a difference in slope between TSI and temperature. That simply isn't present; there is no unmeasured offset.
-
Ned at 01:03 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Doug, I agree completely. Somewhere along the line our educational systems are failing to help people learn how to handle scientific uncertainty. There are lots of consequences of this, but unfortunately those related to climate change are among the most pernicious. -
Doug Bostrom at 00:58 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Yes, GC. I think I said it here earlier, the Royal Society notably fails to bother providing readers of their update with a useful education on the notion of scientific uncertainty itself. Considering that the entire reason they're revisiting the topic is what's been described as poor communications about uncertainty, that's a bit sad. It's also a shocking waste of an opportunity to use wide press notice to help the public. -
Ned at 00:44 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
Ken writes: the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. "Since about 1700"? Ken, on the IPCC graph you link to, the black line is well below 0.3 until the 1930s. It never rises as high as 0.5. It also turns downward after 1975. Looking at the period since 1750 to the late 20th century, solar forcing goes from about 0.15 to 0.45. Over the same time period, GHGs go from 0 to over 2.5. So yes, solar irradiance does account for a large part of the warming from 1750 to 1900, and a smaller part of the warming from 1900 to 1940. It accounts for very little of the warming post 1940. Both KR's graph and the IPCC one you link to show this. -
gallopingcamel at 00:31 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom (#123), Thank you for your kind comment. You make an interesting point about Lindzen. He seems to be very careful in what he says. For example, when asked what the future holds he says the temperature "may go up or may go down". The Royal Society has adjusted its position to reflect more uncertainty too. -
Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 7 October 2010It's the sun
KR #623 kdkd #624 There is no way that the above chart could allow Solar forcing to be dominant in the first half of the 20th century as concluded mostly correctly by kdkd. By setting the Solar forcing to zero in AD1880, when all other forcings except the volcanic aerosol (mainly from Krakatoa) are in fact zero or negligible in order to measure 'differences' ignores the fact that the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig613.png There is a major dip in Solar and huge Volcanic cooling around AD1815 coinciding with Tambora, but the Solar forcing curve is positive and increasing in the 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m range up to the present. If you agree that the areas under the curves represents the energy attributable to each forcing, then there is positive area under the Solar forcing curve since AD1700. -
gallopingcamel at 00:18 AM on 7 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Daniel Bailey (#83), Several staff members at NCDC have agreed to meet me and I expect to learn more than can be achieved through written communications. If my business takes me anywhere near Penn State I will certainly try to meet Richard Alley. -
Doug Bostrom at 00:17 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
No need to apologize GC. We shouldn't really have to fact check everything we read. Doing a quick search for "richard lindzen nobel" and glancing at article teases etc., one could easily conclude he was a recipient. Unlike Monckton, if Lindzen's actual bio page is any guide the man himself is being very scrupulous not to convey the wrong impression, whatever his relationship w/the IPCC award may or may not be. -
It's the sun
kdkd - I'll take a look at your recommended book; if it's as good as their one on genetics, which I've given or pointed out to a number of people, it should be excellent. I can certainly supply some naive if you'd like! -
CBDunkerson at 00:06 AM on 7 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Ken #153: "I have noticed that when an argument gets hot and running - and the counter punches are telling on the non-skeptics" So, that'd be... never? Oddly when I look at the "It's the Sun" page I don't see any comments from YOU... and comments directed TO you, such as this one, seem to have gone unanswered. Perhaps you put something up which was removed for violation of the comments policy? In any case, I think the non-existence of any posts from you on that page is a more likely explanation of a failure of people to reply than your theory that redirecting discussions to the appropriate page is an attempt to hide an inability to refute your claims. -
gallopingcamel at 00:01 AM on 7 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom & scaddenp, You may be right about Lindzen's Nobel. I can't find specific information on the web. I got the idea from the BBC overseas service but on returning to the site today could find no reference to a Nobel prize. Next time I will do more checking. Please accept my apologies. -
Roger A. Wehage at 23:33 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Ned, I like your rant. Maybe answers to some of your questions would be forthcoming if intelligent people could only answer the question of why so many intelligent people still insist that the earth is 6,000 years old, when evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming. -
Doug Bostrom at 23:26 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Well said, Ned. You've lent coherence to a number of related thoughts sloshing around in my wetware. -
Ned at 23:14 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I haven't visited John Kehr's website, but Philip64 quotes that site as follows: If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, the earth would be ever so slightly cooler, but barely enough to notice. Once there is about 50 ppm in the atmosphere, any additional amounts do not matter. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not true. Much of it is summarized on this site (e.g., here or here); much more can be learned by careful perusal of the excellent site Science of Doom, particularly the series of posts on CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas (note the particular discussion of "Saturation" in Part Eight). -
Ned at 23:01 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I wrote: OK, epic rant over. Sorry! Actually, not over. I'm feeling a bit cantankerous this morning, so let me just add a bit more. (This is freely self-plagiarized from something I wrote on another forum ... it's not open-access, or I would just provide a link rather than restating it). Is there really anything wrong with a person offering contradictory (or incoherent) alternatives to someone else's theory? Let's say you're a chemistry professor and one of your grad students comes to you with some results that seem to contradict some fundamental aspect of basic physical chemistry. You know their results are probably wrong, but you don't know exactly why. So you suggest that maybe they used the wrong materials, or they measured something incorrectly, or they failed to maintain the proper temperature or pressure, or they recorded the data incorrectly, or they forgot to add the catalyst, or ... whatever. Obviously, all of these explanations are contradictory, but that's OK because what you're really doing is proposing a range of alternatives that need to be considered rather than proposing a single coherent argument of your own. In essence, the burden of "coherence" is on those who are actively supporting a specific theory, e.g. the mainstream view of anthropogenic climate change. Our theory only works if CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and we really are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the assortment of positive feedbacks is strong enough to yield a climate sensitivity > 1 C or whatever and the economic/environmental impacts of climate change are negative enough to worry about. The skeptics' advantage is that they "win" if they can break any one of the links in that chain. Our advantage is that it's a very strong chain; the first two links are rock-solid, the third is at least close to rock-solid, and the fourth is pretty convincing to me but probably the source of greatest uncertainty. However, what this doesn't do is free the "skeptic" from the burden of reducing her or his "incoherence" over time in response to the evidence. In my analogy above, the chemistry professor needs to drop one of her alternative explanations for the student's odd result once the student provides sufficient evidence to rule out that particular alternative explanation. Likewise, let's consider a recent example from this site. A commenter recently suggested that if there really were significant positive feedbacks in the climate system, then "any change in CO2 would cause unbounded feedback and thermal runaway." She/he then concluded (logically) that the lack of any Venusian-style runaway warming at the end of the last interglacial "is a serious problem for computer models". Now, many people have this mistaken idea (that positive feedbacks would lead to "thermal runaway", and so they must not exist). This idea has been debunked many, many times on this site, including on the page Does positive feedback necessarily mean runaway warming?. So, I pointed this out to the skeptical commenter in question. What happens next? Does she/he persist in claiming that climate models must be wrong because the Earth isn't experiencing a "thermal runaway"? That persistence would be consistent (over time) ... but that virtue would pale in comparison to the much greater intellectual sin of hanging on to false beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, does the commenter drop that particular "alternative" to the mainstream climate consensus? Logically, accepting that the "thermal runaway" thing isn't actually a sign of a problem with climate models does not force one to accept the entire IPCC AR4 in all its glory. But the point here is that while it's OK for individual "skeptics" to offer lots of disparate alternatives, they need to show some willingness to eliminate those alternatives when confronted with the evidence. Failing to do so will understandably lead to uncomfortable conclusions about people's intellectual honesty. (I am speaking hypothetically here, not referring to anyone in particular.) -
Roger A. Wehage at 22:36 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Don't tell us that there are contradictions; tell us why. Why are the messages not getting through to the public? Why would the average Joe prefer to condemn his offspring to an eternal life of suffering than to sacrifice now? It would appear that the average Joe is not taking climate change warnings seriously, so rather than worrying about whether all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, maybe it's time to start worrying about how those i's and t's are arranged within the messages.Moderator Response: Good question. There is a fairly large psychological literature on skepticism and climate change that partially answers your question. I hope to get around to doing a podcast/post on this issue in the near future. SL -
Ned at 22:28 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I will admit first off that my impression of many "skeptics" is that they will happily seize on any argument that supports their belief, regardless of whether or not it logically contradicts something else they may have been saying earlier. That said, there's nothing inherent in climate skepticism that demands this kind of incoherence, and there are people out there who have what seem to me like coherent skeptic belief systems. Most of the people I have in mind are perfectly cognizant of the basic physics of AGW, they recognize that the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, they will readily agree that the Earth is warming and that this is mostly due to radiative forcing from GHGs, but they think climate sensitivity is on the low end of the scale and/or that the mainstream view of the impacts is unduly pessimistic. These are very defensible views. I think we do everyone a disservice when we treat all climate-skepticism as if it were coextensive with the commentariat at WUWT. I do think it's not random chance that the skeptics who seem most consistent are also those whose skepticism is limited to the more readily supportable arguments. Belief in the more extreme skeptic claims (AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, CO2 is coming from the oceans, it's all a big conspiracy) is probably a pretty good indicator of fuzzy thinking in general. That said, there are a few more points to make here. First, it's easy to get an exaggerated impression of how widespread incoherence is, when you have lots of individuals on the same "side" making lots of different claims and failing to explicitly dissociate themselves from each others' claims. This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens. With almost no effort right now I could put up links to a dozen recent discussions on here where one or another skeptical commenter made breathtakingly wrong claims or howlingly fallacious lines of reasoning, and in each case it's the "regulars" on this site who show up to provide the answers or rebuttals, while the entire "skeptic" contingent basically sits on the sidelines. (Sorry if I sound a bit emotional about this, but for a year or so now I've been increasingly frustrated by what I perceive as a passive demonstration of near total irresponsibility on the part of my "skeptic" friends on this site). Getting back to the topic of this thread, another point is that it's easy to exaggerate the incoherence of one's opponents and to inadvertently minimize the incoherence of one's friends. I think there are no shortage of cases where people make incoherent arguments in support of mainstream climate science. (If people doubt this, I can go into detail in another comment). It's probably good to try to reduce incoherence and inconsistency in our own arguments, and it's occasionally valuable to point out when our rhetorical opponents are making inconsistent claims. But let's not fetishize consistency. In another thread, we've seen a "skeptic" criticizing Mann 2008 for showing greater century/milliennial-scale variability than Mann 1998. Is that inconsistency? Is it bad? Ultimately, we should only worry about being consistent in seeking to understand the truth and in using that understanding to inform our stewardship of this fine planet we've been lucky enough to inherit from those who went before us. OK, epic rant over. Sorry!Moderator Response: Well put. SL -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 22:18 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@CBD, The Arrhenius article is about the origin of the idea behind global warming. Angstrom pointed out the flaw at the time, but Arrhenius persisted and tried to ignore the skeptical view. An article is just that, it tells one tiny piece of the puzzle. That was an article on the historical origins of global warming and what it looks like if projected out. The two main ideas for "dominant" factors in climate are CO2 and 65N insolation. The question is which is dominant right now. Right now in this article I am curious as to my previous question. Thanks for you view. I do appreciate it. -
CBDunkerson at 22:06 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS #19: Having read your article on Arrhenius I can say that your arguments are certainly NOT coherent. For instance, you claim that Arrhenius's ideas were accepted basically unchallenged for 80 years... and then cite Angstrom's 'proof' to the contrary from just a few years later. Contradicting both yourself AND reality in that Angstrom's findings were widely accepted and Arrhenius's AGW theory considered incorrect for decades until it was proven that Angstrom got it wrong. Can any skeptic be coherent? Certainly... but then every remotely coherent skeptic I can think of (e.g. Roy Spencer) acknowledges that anthropogenic global warming is real and currently taking place. True skeptics (e.g. Kevin Trenberth) of course seek to uncover the details of the warming impacts by determining the gaps and errors in our current understanding. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 21:35 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
This article is about the coherence. I am trying to point out that a person can be coherent and still be a skeptic. Please re-read my statement. I am not trying to debate the entire scientific battle of global warming in a few paragraphs. The article basically states that anyone that is a skeptic is incoherent in there views. I am trying to point out that skeptics are fully capable of coherence. I do understand all the other factors involved in the science, but this specific article is about consistency in views and statements. Let me ask a question. Do any of you believe that a skeptic can be coherent as described by the article? The article concludes that it is not possible, or fairly close with "There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth’s climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world." So do any of you believe that skeptics can be coherent?Moderator Response: In principle, a skeptic position can be coherent. For example, it would be coherent to state "there is no warming and thus we need not worry about anything." It would also be coherent to state "there is warming but it is caused by XYZ not human CO2 emissions." If you look carefully, you will find that most 'skeptics' blend the two positions together, at which point they become incoherent. (As pure but entertaining speculation, I suspect this is because each coherent position is so weak on its own that they seek more argumentative force by combining them--alas, that achieves the opposite.) SL -
PeteM at 21:32 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I've looked at the contradictions. A long list- do you have any triplet states :-) Visually I'd like to see a set of points on a two axis plot. The aim would be to see if an position is easily understood to be contradictory , and/or also to understand if an argument implies multiple contradictions. I'm thinking of one axis representing the level of knowledge you'd need to understand the contradiction ( 5 year old , 10 year old , pre graduate ,...). Another (perpendicular) axis representing number of contradictions in the positioning of the argument . If it very easily understood as contradictory and there are lots of contradictions you're in the red zone (or worst cases the IR zone) ... the fewer contradictions the more orange/green you become . You could then use this to clasify a particular source of (dis)information . -
JMurphy at 21:21 PM on 6 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
johnd wrote : "With regards to the previous original reference to the JAMSTEC discussion, I provided the full link so that anyone interested could have full access to the entire discussion, as you so obviously had done, I therefore could not have been accused of being selective or cherry picking parts of the discussion to suit." johnd, I have replied to this on the 'How reliable are climate models ?' thread. -
JMurphy at 21:20 PM on 6 October 2010Models are unreliable
johnd wrote (on another thread) : "With regards to the previous original reference to the JAMSTEC discussion, I provided the full link so that anyone interested could have full access to the entire discussion, as you so obviously had done, I therefore could not have been accused of being selective or cherry picking parts of the discussion to suit." Unless the particular comment of yours, to which you are referring, has been deleted, I cannot see where you have provided that link. All I can see from you is this from your post which contained the actual quote : His details are at http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/hhendon.htm As far as I am aware, the link to the actual email discussion was provided by doug_bostrom. That is why I replied in the ways (here and here) I did. -
PeteM at 20:50 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Is there a way to clasify how incoherent a set of arguments are ? A sort of Mohs scale for invalid arguments. And perhaps there could be a simple visual representation of how certain websites are self contradictory ? Also, would be better to refer to Climate Skeptics (as in 'denialists') as Climate Incoherents .Response: We have a database of "contradiction pairs" - pairs of skeptic arguments that contradict each other. One thing I noticed about them was some pairs were more in conflict than others. I welcome any suggestions on how to rate the degree of contradiction :-) -
Philip64 at 19:21 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The Inconvenient Skeptic's site is illuminating - in that it reveals how the mythological conspiracy theory that sustains the anti-AGW industry has grown up. Two crucial paragraphs: The science of global warming, it says is "a flawed theoretical idea, even from the beginning. Unfortunately it was 80 years before it could fully be proven as incorrect and as a result the flawed idea had plenty of time to become well entrenched in the scientific community." ['Fully proven' in this case means eyeballing a non-attributed graph that bears no relationship to any actual temperature data from any reputable source.] In the many decades since Arrhenius, the site claims, the only physicists who have challenged this (mythical) orthodoxy have been ignored "much like the real science continues to be ignored today." It then sets the records straight: "If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, the earth would be ever so slightly cooler, but barely enough to notice. Once there is about 50 ppm in the atmosphere, any additional amounts do not matter." The confidence with which such assertions are made is what lies behind the credibility that sites like this enjoy in the Anglo-Saxon world among laymen of a certain political disposition. -
Anne van der Bom at 19:10 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I just can't resist to comment. My favourite Steve 'Pixelcounter' Goddard piece is his declaring Hansen's Antarctic ice predictions a failure based on recent trends. On closer examination the Hansen prediction in question appears to be for equilibrium at 2x CO2, i.o.w. somewhere around 2070. We're now in 2010. The completely uncritical reception of this story at WUWT is jaw dropping and very revealing. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:00 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
HR @47 "Truely basic thermodynamics? No assumptions about forcings and feedbacks are involved in these sorts of calculations?" At the most fundamental level, yes. Just about all the forcings and feedbacks net out to some energy flux imbalance for the planet. This energy imbalance results in a net change in Total Heat Content for the climate system of which the Oceans are far and away the dominant element, but with a long time delay. Since the oceans have such huge thermal mass they take much longer to reach a new temperature than the atmosphere. And once the difference in temperature change of the oceans vs the atmosphere grows, this difference starts to alter the energy flows between atmosphere and ocean, retarding the temperature change in the atmosphere until the oceans catch up. And note, in this argument I haven't said warming. The reasoning is exactly the same whether the energy imbalance is positive - warming, or negative - cooling. The atmosphere leads, the oceans follow more slowly, the disparity between the two then retards the atmosphere until the oceans have caught up before a final equilibrium has been achieved. Basic Thermodynamics. What is more complex, and the subject of discussion is what all the forcings and feedbacks add up to and how this balance might evolve over time. But the same basic principle would apply if the Sun suddenly changed its Heat output by 1%, or if we started using geoengineering to add aerosols to the air. Note that I have only made this argument in qualitative terms. What the quantitative analysis is I leave to someone way above my pay grade. But if the atmospheric temperature change to date is positive, then the 'in the pipe line' warming MUST also be positive unless some process suddenly reverses the net forcing. Basic Thermodynamics. As to the quantitative estimate of how much, my get feel says that 0.6 is too low. But I am not qualifed to make that quantitave estimate. The analysis of the experts probably trumps 'my gut' Consider, of the heat changes measured so far, around 90% has accumulated in the oceans and only 3% in the atmosphere. But the the upper levels of the ocean have only seen temperature change of a fraction of the change in the atmosphere so far, and the abyssal oceans virtually not at all. To use another analogy, imagine a tribe of meerkats trying to move an elephant. As all the meerkats chatter around, pushing and shoving, there is some net direction in which they are trying to move the elephant. Even so, it takes some time for them all to move the elephant anywhere. And the Oceans are the elephant of the climate system. -
RSVP at 18:31 PM on 6 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
KR #98 That is the most perceptive remark on this thread. The fact that ozone in one place is "pollution" (i.e., harmful), and in another not only beneficial, but pretty much vital to life on Earth. To what degree this is actually true for CO2 is literally "up in the air". :) As with freon, the next question, is the EPA going to ban Coca-Cola? -
HumanityRules at 18:31 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
44.Glenn Tamblyn Truely basic thermodynamics? No assumptions about forcings and feedbacks are involved in these sorts of calculations? -
HumanityRules at 18:28 PM on 6 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
#40 scaddenp Another favorite paper on this website, murphy et al 2009, seems to to balance the energy budget without resorting to "missing heat". This suggests an inconsistency between Hansen 2005 and Murphy 2009. A new paper in press from Knox and Douglass suggests Hansen has got it wrong, questioning the TOA measurements. I realise that this part of the paper is very brief but the comment comes about from the fact that their finding seem to be moving in an opposite direction to what Hansen would like to see. And in a roundabout way this new paper on indirect aerosol forcing, Ruckstuhl et al 2010, which if accurate suggest IA forcing may be around 0 rather than -0.7W m2 assumed by the IPCC. Given this large potential error then my guess is the assumptions behind Hansen (and others) calculations need to be constantly re-assessed. (I'm happy to here how I've mis-interpreted these papers) -
adelady at 17:54 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
thingadonta, your argument about economics is sort of irrelevant to this particular issue in science and coherence versus incoherence. The big difference with the coherent science and the incoherent opposing arguments is the *strength* of the scientific coherence. The calculations about CO2 in climate science are entirely consistent with the calculations about CO2 used in lasers. It doesn't matter that these calculations are done within models you don't like. If they were done in pen and ink on parchment by 100,000 mathematicians in cubicles, they'd still have that irreducible core of coherence with the physics used in laser technology and any number of fields I couldn't pronounce the names of, far less spell. Disprove climate science? Go right ahead. The first thing you have to do is prove that it is *possible* for CO2 to have different radiative properties in atmosphere compared to exactly the same molecules in a laser. Once that's done, I'll leave you or your team of Nobel Prize winners to come up with the next step. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:55 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
No doubt, thingadonta. Why not get it over with all at once and give mathematics a good stirring? Who cares whether or not multiplying and dividing from different directions gets us to the same place? As the fellow said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." If we're orbiting satellites and they're not quite behaving correctly, there's absolutely no reason why people doing orbital mechanics and other people researching mascons should care if their findings agree, it simply doesn't matter. Oh, wait, I just noticed. No matter how hard I frown, regardless of whether I buy or do not buy "white goods," Big G stays the same. Oops. -
Bibliovermis at 16:55 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
The stockmarket is no more coherent than people. It is a social phenomenon. The basis of science is not a social phenomenon. > non-verifiable theories Please read Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and comment there. -
archiesteel at 16:52 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@thingadonta: "I suppose you would also say the stockmarket would only be correct, or useful, or practical, if it was coherant." Why would anyone say that? You're comparing a chaotic transactional system with argumentation about a scientific theory. You're not just comparing apples and oranges, here, but apples and screwdrivers. By the way, the field of Economics dates from the 18th century. I fail to see how getting "coherance" (sic) out of it could have taken "several thousands of years." I'm puzzled by what you're trying to say. Are you arguing in favor of incoherence? -
kdkd at 16:50 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
thingo #11 So what you're saying is that one of the assumptions surrounding economics is that it doesn't have to make sense, and consequently the same should be true of science. There's a reason that economics is called the "dismal science". Alternatively there's the old joke: Why did god invent economists? To make weathermen look good. With respect to the stock market, it tracks money, which is an abstract construct created by humans. It's reality is internally generated (which is why insanities like refusing to price externalities exist in that field). Natural sciences on the other hand exist to explain phenomena that usually have some sort of existence outisde of human concerns. As a result, your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. -
thingadonta at 16:37 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
I suppose you would also say the stockmarket would only be correct, or useful, or practical, if it was coherant. It took several thousand years to get this nonsense about 'coherance' out of economics, and I suppose it's goung to take several thousand years to get this nonsense about 'coherance' out of fields of science which deal with projections and non-verifiable theories. -
Albatross at 16:15 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIC, Sigh. You say " I am told that CO2 is the main forcing factor in climate," You are getting confused between the relative contributions of different forcing mechanisms, and the time scale involved. Moreover, you seem to be confusing different eras and forcing mechanisms, and also seem to misunderstand the importance of rate of change. For some time now, anthro GHGs have been a significant forcing mechanism (they are of course not the only forcing mechanism, that is why the global temperature has not been increasing monotonically), and that forcing will increase continue to increase with time anthro CO2 and other GHGs concentrations continue to rise (not to mention increases in GHGs from feedbacks as the permafrost melts, for example). You also fail to propose a physical and realistic natural mechanism which explains the the recent warming. Not only that, but one which explains the distribution of the warming around the globe (i.e., polar amplification), timing of warming (i.e., evening temperatures warming faster than day-time temperatures and most pronounced warming in winter), as well as the vertical profile of warming (warming of troposphere and cooling of stratosphere). Now there is a well-established and tested coherent theory which can explain all that, and it is not natural..... Many of the misconceptions and myths surrounding anthropogenic climate change are addressed elsewhere on this site. I really do recommend you read them and the literature cited therein. Let us cut to the chase, because this is what it ultimately boils down to, and this is where the uncertainty lies: 1) What do you understand equilibrium climate sensitivity to be without feed backs for doubling CO2 (or CO2 equivalent)? 2) What do you understand equilibrium climate sensitivity to be with feed backs (positive and negative) for doubling CO2 (or CO2 equivalent)? Thanks. -
Dan Moutal at 16:07 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Bringing back the discussion to this podcast (still can't find the RSS feed to subscribe to the podcast), I think the topic of coherence is essential to repeat often. Someone doesn't have to be an expert to understand that incoherent explanations have problems. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:52 PM on 6 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC, why don't you contact Alley himself at Penn State? The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 15:48 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Re: The Inconvenient Skeptic (1, 3) I looked at your Taylor Dome link. What I see is a graph with trend lines fitted...with no real analysis, no discussion of the radiative physics involved; in short, no evidence that you possess a substantive understanding of what you are trying to debunk. Climate Science is an extremely complex subject. Unless you have a multi-disciplinarian background, playing with data sets to create graphs reveals no insights into the underlying processes involved due to the lack of context and understanding. For example, your statement: "The Taylor Dome shows 4 warming periods comparable to the current." is rebutted by a layman's discussion here. I second everything archiesteel said in his most excellent comments above (except for #6). ;) You really should try to gain a greater understanding of the role of CO2 as the Biggest Control Knob. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 15:46 PM on 6 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
As well, it's worth remembering that the Nobel Peace Prize is not really intended in the same way as a Nobel for physics, or chemistry: “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics ...” versus “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” as the categories are somewhat weirdly presented at the Nobel Prize website. -
bgood2creation at 15:43 PM on 6 October 2010CO2 effect is saturated
A few of your links are not working, but I think I found them. Griggs 2004 http://rose.bris.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf Philipona 2004 http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2004/2003GL018765.shtml However, I could not find the Chen 2007 article. And thanks for the informative article. Blessings,Response: I've updated the links (and tracked down Chen 2007). Many thanks for the URLs - let's hope they stay active for as long as possible :-) -
archiesteel at 15:43 PM on 6 October 2010The value of coherence in science
TIS, you may want to have a look at this to get a sense of proportions with regards to temperatures during the last millennium.
Prev 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 Next
