Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 Next
Comments 108451 to 108500:
-
Doug Bostrom at 13:25 PM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
A little more on LA: The mercury hit a blistering 113°F (45.0°C) at 12:15 pm PDT yesterday in downtown Los Angeles, making it the hottest day in Los Angeles history. It may have gotten hotter, but the thermometer broke shortly after the record high was set. The previous record in Los Angeles was 112°F set on June 26, 1990; records go back to 1877. Nearby Long Beach tied its hottest all-time temperature yesterday, with a scorching 111°F. And Christopher C. Burt, our new featured blogger on weather records, pointed out to me that a station in the foothills at 1260' elevation near Beverly Hills owned by the Los Angeles Fire Department hit 119°F yesterday--the hottest temperature ever measured in the Los Angeles area, tying the 119°F reading from Woodland Hills on July 22, 2006. Jeff Masters "The thermometer broke"; if only it were the old movie gimmick, featuring an exploding liquid thermometer. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:21 PM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
"The poor coverage over 2005-2010 doesnt tell you much - for all we know even more heat might have gone down rather than less." Anything's possible. If you closely look at figure 3, however, the P18 data which appears to be the only data that even vaguely covers the period in question shows the same thing as the rest of the upper ocean. That is that between two points during the period 2005-2010 there is very little warming. -
barry1487 at 13:18 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
"I wonder which 'skeptics' web site you found those 239 contradictory arguments?"
A pretty safe guess, with so many contradictions, would be that it is the most prolific skeptical web site. I can tell you from experience that posts listing the contradictions don't make it through. They swerve too far off-topic, of course, so it's doubtful the point could ever be made there. :-) -
TimTheToolMan at 13:10 PM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Nice graph Doug. What exactly does that blue line represent? -
KeenOn350 at 12:57 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
All very nicely put, but makes me wonder about the "science" of it. You try to be very specific: "...an analysis of a single "skeptic" website reveals 239 such contradictions. 239 instances in which apples were said not to exist but then happily grow on trees. 239 clear indications that this so-called "skepticism" amounts to little more than muddled mutterings." but only in a vague way - no sources! - I think you probably should specify the website, why you chose it, and give some idea of how you count the 239 instances - perhaps even be a little more approximate ("over 200" maybe?) From Albatross #10 - I like the references to both consistent and coherent, with their very brief and clear definitions. -
Shirley_Rocks at 12:49 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
I just started on my Master's in geology/paleoclimate (as I turn 40). I'm focusing on LIA, and Ljungqvist wasn't on my radar. So, I hit the e-journal database for my school, and the record I found shows this as a 2009 release FWIW. I didn't find a 2010 record at all... sometimes journals release articles early in electronic format before they hit print, so perhaps that's the discrepancy. It's a minor point, but I figured I'd bring it up, since it's now my job to be extremely pedantic ;) Thanks for the article, though - it should be useful in a presentation I have to give next week. -
Albatross at 12:47 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Awesome, thanks Barry. -
John Brookes at 12:16 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Nice post. To some extent you can distinguish between a genuine skeptic and denialist by asking them where they disagree with the AGW hypothesis. The only place left for genuine skeptics is feedbacks - their sign and magnitude. True denialists won't concede anything. The shop keeper in the dead parrot sketch is a denialist - the worst sort, because he knows he is lying. -
scaddenp at 12:10 PM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
But I see you how your complaints apply. The OHC problem is that energy inbalance as measured by Argo array. The S&J shows evidence of heat going into deep ocean over its period of measurement that would not have been counted EVEN if Argo had been in place since 1980. It provides evidence of where some of the missing heat might be. The poor coverage over 2005-2010 doesnt tell you much - for all we know even more heat might have gone down rather than less. -
barry1487 at 12:07 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Albatross, as far as I know, M&M only ever did a reconstruction from 1400AD. Dunno if it's useful to you, but it's on page 765 [p. 17 in Acrobat] in their 2003 paper. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf No other reconstruction puts 15th century temps at higher than modern. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:06 PM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
No TTTM, you've been vague and nonspecific in your complaints about P&J. The more you've talked, the farther into the counterfactual you've veered. Counter: We have a better picture now of the oceans than we've ever had. You dont seem to have a problem believing the warming "observed" when we haphazardly sampled small areas of the ocean via XBTs. Now that we're sampling far better with the 3000 strong purpose built Argo array, woah! The warming just isn't there. Factual:
Trenberth 2010
-
Joe Blog at 11:56 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Tarcisio José D'Avila at 11:37 Yes, but evaporation is also increasing the opacity of the atmosphere, what altitude the water condenses matters, and time frame its in its vapor state(turnover) etc... a very interesting subject, but one i will not be forming a concrete opinion on anytime soon... but a few good threads over at "the science of doom" on that subject. -
Albatross at 11:56 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Stephan, good job. The scientist in me gets a little uneasy with your narrative, but that is not important-- it is resonating with people and pointing out to them the logical fallacies, contradictions and circular reasoning invoked by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. The only real consistent (i.e., no flip flopping), coherent (i.e., multiple independent lines of evidence) picture emerging form all the data and science is one that is consistent with the theory of AGW. You might want to ask WHY someone is telling you that the price of sheep is unknown but to buy some b/c that they are cheap.... I think an obvious point that may need to be highlighted is that by throwing so may ideas out there, regardless of how incorrect they are, it acts to create the impression of debate, the impression of doubt or uncertainty. When people are confused or in doubt they tend to be reluctant to take action. I'm hoping that we can figure out a way to counter that. I wonder which 'skeptics' web site you found those 239 contradictory arguments? I'm hoping that you will let us know in good time ;) -
TimTheToolMan at 11:47 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
I have already made my specific complaints re the paper. But it relates more to the conclusions others have drawn from it particularly regarding the implications of the recent (2005-2010) inability to balance the OHC budget. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:42 AM on 29 September 2010French translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
Glad you had a good time JM, the South is where my dad lives. -
Tarcisio José D at 11:37 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Joe Blog #5 "I have no time for emotional arguments, facts are what count. Wherever they happen to lead. For AGW, there is enough evidence to convince me we are effecting climate through co2 emissions." AGW só é verdade por que o termostato do clima esta quebrado , não consegue reagir às emissões de CO2. Se houver água no solo para evaporar, o mecanismo convectivo se encarregará de levar o calor acima da influencia do AGW apresentando o feedback negativo que tanto se procura. AGW is true only for the climate that the thermostat is broken, can not react to CO2 emissions. If there is water in the soil to evaporate, the convective mechanism will be in charge of taking the heat above the influence of AGW presenting both the negative feedback that is sought.(google tranl.) doug_bostrom #8 Se jogarmos a parcela de ar que se aqueceu pelo contato com o solo para além doa 10000 metros ele estará acima do acolchoado do efeito estufa e não mais retornara ao solo. If we play the part of air warmed by contact with the ground beyond it will donate 10,000 meters above the padding of the greenhouse effect and not returned to the soil.(google tranl.) -
Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
TTTM - your statement "Alternatively the heat simply isn't there and the theory is deficient and isn't taking into account negative feedback sufficiently" is simply, as pointed out, wishful thinking. Purkey et al 2010 makes some clear measurements of the deep ocean, far below the ARGO array, and finds a fair bit of heat down there. We have a really good idea of how much heat the oceans should be accumulating given current conditions; the ARGO arrays weren't showing it over the last few years, so this new evidence indicates where some of it may have gone. Perhaps deep water circulation has increased recently, pushing some of the heat accumulation to the depths? This is something well worth studying. Now, if you have actual complaints about the Purkey methodology, please feel free to voice them! If you instead make unsupported claims contradicted by the evidence, well, then you're not discussing science, but rather your personal opinion. One that's not realistic in terms of the actual world. -
muoncounter at 11:21 AM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
How could I have missed that? And to think, all those years studying sophistry at dear old More Science High, wasted. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:19 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Tarcisio I ran the Google translator on your description and I see your plan is to push energy into latent heat but where does it go from there? -
Joe Blog at 11:17 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
archiesteel at 11:09 I dont disagree with you, there is nothing wrong with talking about possibilities and probabilities, and there are always exceptions to rules. Im talking about emotive reasoning, rather than passion i suppose. But with probabilities and possibilities, it pays to state them as such. But there are people who talk planetary extinction in 50 years etc... this is not informed opinion. And this is from where im drawing parallels. -
archiesteel at 11:12 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
That's the whole point (which you keep missing): ARGO doesn't go deep enough to provide a complete picture of ocean depths. Hence the P&J research. You're still trying to weasel out of admitting you were wrong about this. Typical. -
archiesteel at 11:09 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
@Joe Blog: I disagree. Being passionate does not a priori mean that one will be irrational. Sure, it often does, but you can't use someone's passion as a reason to dismiss their arguments; rather, the latter need to be judged independently in order to assess their validity. Not many people claim there is going to be a catastrophe with absolute certainty. Instead, you have quite a few people who are (rightly) concerned about the risk of catastrophic consequences. Ignoring a threat just because it might not concretize with absolute certainty is not a good survival strategy. -
TimTheToolMan at 11:08 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
We have a better picture now of the oceans than we've ever had. You dont seem to have a problem believing the warming "observed" when we haphazardly sampled small areas of the ocean via XBTs. Now that we're sampling far better with the 3000 strong purpose built Argo array, woah! The warming just isn't there. That represents a significant problem to AGW theory when that theory suggests heat must be accumulating in the oceans. -
Joe Blog at 11:03 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
A lot o peoples decision making, is emotional... Emotion dosnt necessarily have anything to do with logic, and its not restricted to one view point or another on a subject... it is a human condition. Passionate people cant be trusted to make rational decisions is what it comes down too. Their viewpoint will be the result of their upbringing. Not necessarily their IQ. But as i said, this is not restricted to one view point or the other in any subject! How can a scientist be religious? It happens, and it dosnt mean they are stupid. I have no time for emotional arguments, facts are what count. Wherever they happen to lead. For AGW, there is enough evidence to convince me we are effecting climate through co2 emissions. As to the extent, that is why im interested in the subject, id like to have an informed opinion... And from what i have read on the subject, this is still a bit o a grey area, as far as water vapor feedback go... so someone passionately preaching catastrophe falls into the same category to me, as those you call denialists... passionate people ;-) -
archiesteel at 11:02 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
@TTTM: wishing it won't make it so. Some of heat *is* there, there's no reason to believe there isn't more in other abyssal depths and such. What we know is that we don't have an accurate picture of the entire oceans as far as temperature goes - yet contrarians and deniers have no problems affirming there's missing heat, which in their politically-motivated minds means AGW is no longer happening. As we've shown, the P&J paper remains unscathed by your criticism. Now would be a good time to admit you were wrong and move on. -
eostrom at 10:53 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
This is some funny and insightful commentary on the psychology of global warming denial. That said, my reaction while reading it was something like this: "I know the 'skeptic community' puts forth all these contradictory arguments, but is it really true that any one individual will say that the earth isn't warming *and* that it is warming naturally?" I was relieved when I read that "an analysis of a single “skeptic” website reveals 239 such contradictions" - but where's the link? I can easily imagine that you analyzed such a site, but I can also imagine that it's a site comprising many individual viewpoints - 239 of them, even - but that none of them are themselves incoherent. If that's the case, that's fine, it still demonstrates that the denialist movement is incoherent, but it kind of undermines the "your resident skeptic" piece of the essay. Anyway, I'd be happier if I knew who or what you were talking about and could assess the claim for myself. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:47 AM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
Muoncounter, no, absolutely there's no way to have too much water. Witness Stanislav Lem's character Ijon Tichy: ...Tichy has to escape from a planet whose government has legislated that all of its inhabitants shall henceforth breathe underwater. The citizens sing patriotic anthems about fish and humidity, and learn that in a future paradise all shall become "gwats" and "sunkers," idealized water-breathing forms. Debates rage over whether gurgling is allowed. Perhaps pro-fossil fuel lobbyists are bureaucrat emissaries from another planet, tricking libertarians here into joining their submarine totalitarian aquatopia? -
Tarcisio José D at 10:42 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
"The beauty of this is that you don’t need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be confident that it is wrong." I'm sure, widout of peer-reviewd science, bat "greenhouse effect,the bigger the better" because it's no water in the soil for to control the temperature of the enviroment. It's easy to see at www.scam.com.br/tjdavila/solo/pesquisa.html Very nice post Mr. Stephan -
Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
It depends on the diagnosis, Ken. There'd probably be a second opinion from an expert, but if both experts concluded the same thing, and it was bad news, then the patient would probably . . . go looking for people who would tell him/her exactly what he/she wanted to hear. And if such a person was readily available--indeed, if many such people were being paid to be readily available--then it would be all too easy to jump on the bandwagon. At the funeral, many people would lament and blame everything on the liberal media. I appreciate the thorough debunking of Monckton, but it appears that the surface of the earth would have to be scoured of life before he admitted only to being wrong. As for the admission of deliberate disinformation, it'll never cross his lips, even if he were waterboarded. At most, confronted with the outcome of the disinformation campaign, he'd say he thought he was doing the right thing--the noble excuse of the ignorant wealthy. -
David Horton at 10:35 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Nicely put Stephen. Wait for the flood of angry denials from, well, denialists, that there is anything contradictory or incoherent in their objections. And I think, in most cases, genuine denials. These people it seems to me live for the moment. A scientist makes a finding on, say, Greenland ice cover, or coral bleaching, or storm frequency. It is a single finding but it is consistent with all the thousands of other findings on global warming in the last thirty years. A scientist reading it will say, "oh, that's interesting, that matches what we know from x", or, "I wonder why the minor inconsistency with y". A denialist reading it has quite a different reaction. For him, or occasionally her, this finding is another threat to a world view in which global warming is not happening, can't be happening, so it must be met with an instant rejection. Greenland was once green, for example, or coral has bleached before, or there were more storms in 1750. Doesn't matter, the important thing is to find a way of denying this single finding, of creating an illusion that a contrary view is not only possible but far more likely. In doing this the denialist has no memory of what he said the previous day or week or year. and little interest in other rejections of the finding. A denialist lives for the moment, sufficient unto the day is the current rejection. We, looking objectively from outside, and not having the amnesia so typical of deniers, sees that all these "answers" are contradictory, can't all be true, wonder why the deniers can't settle on, say, "yes, global warming is happening but it isn't anthropogenic" OR "global warming isn't happening, the models/instruments/proxies are faulty" OR "global warming is happening and has happened before, often (as the models/instruments/proxies tell us) ", rather than trotting out whichever of these suits the purpose on a given day. But if they were to do that they would be thinking in scientific terms (hypothesis/experiment/revised hypothesis) and that isn't what is going on here. The denialist sees himself as at war with the scientific establishment/Greens/UN/socialism and will say whatever it takes to keep winning that war, one battle at a time. And if in doing so they contradict themselves, well then, they contradict themselves. -
muoncounter at 10:32 AM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
#27: "no deleterious effect on human culture, regardless of the exact manner of distribution." Curiouser and curiouser. I thought there was ample precedent for problems caused by an excess of rain. -
TimTheToolMan at 10:32 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Alternatively the heat simply isn't there and the theory is deficient and isn't taking into account negative feedback sufficiently. -
muoncounter at 10:27 AM on 29 September 2010A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
#19: "they may contribute to explaining the fact that clouds are often charged on their top and bottom surfaces as GCR's may ionise existing droplets." Glenn, Interesting post. Looking at the abstract of the GRL article cited in the New Scientist post you mention, I don't see any specific mention of GCRs as opposed to solar cosmic rays: Cloud edge droplet charging is expected from vertical flow of cosmic ray generated atmospheric ions in the global electric circuit. Its long been known that solar cosmic rays (mostly muons - my personal favorite), are ionizing. The origin of cosmic ray research was an effort to explain why charged, shielded electroscopes spontaneously lost their charge. Solar cosmic rays are vastly more abundant than GCRs and thus would be more likely candidates for 'cloud edge droplet charging.' -
Doug Bostrom at 10:20 AM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
Yes, muoncounter, more precipitation seems to be the inevitable outcome but the assumption is apparently that it will have no deleterious effect on human culture, regardless of the exact manner of distribution. Meanwhile, there will never be a shortage of arguments. We are nothing if not ceaselessly inventive. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:15 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
TTTM, I think you've been led into making incautious statements about P&J's paper by my remarks on attention being focused on missing OHC by flattening temperature increases over the past 5 years. In point of fact, the bit of OHC considered sufficiently solid to include in IPCC syntheses has been deficient for some time prior to 2005. See ARG WG1 5.2.2 Ocean Heat Content There's nothing in P&J's paper not included in the abstract for you to argue with. Read carefully, starting with the first sentence: We quantify abyssal global and deep Southern Ocean temperature trends between the 1990s and 2000s to assess the role of recent warming of these regions in global heat and sea level budgets.We compute warming rates with uncertainties along 28 full-depth, high-quality, hydrographic sections that have been occupied two or more times between 1980 and 2010. Nothing about 2005-2010, yes? Meanwhile, I think your attention was seized by my sentence: The main reason for lamentation of "Trenberth's Travesty" is the declining upward pace over the past 5 years of the portion of ocean heat content (OHC) we're readily able to measure. I could have said that better. I could have said, "The main reason for recent increased attention..." or words to that effect. Unfortunately I've thereby tempted you into making some rather incautious and wrong flings against P&J. Sorry about that, I'll try to do better next time. What P&J have done is to have formed this conclusion, which will stand until somebody (not you I suspect) shows otherwise: Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas, the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (±0.009) W m–2 applied over the entire surface of the Earth. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0.068 (±0.062) W m–2. The abyssal warming produces a 0.053 (±0.017) mm yr–1 increase in global average sea level and the deep warming south of the Sub-Antarctic Front adds another 0.093 (±0.081) mm yr–1. Thus warming in these regions, ventilated primarily by Antarctic Bottom Water, accounts for a statistically significant fraction of the present global energy and sea level budgets. They appear to have identified a substantial portion of "missing heat," which has been understood by most people for a long time to be missing not in the sense of absent from existence but missed from our ability to confidently measure. I've got maybe a touch of overenthusiasm for locating this heat. I suspect it'll mostly be found in dribs and drabs, in the manner of P&J, with ultimately some under or overshoot that's going to be increasingly difficult to resolve from sensitivity estimate errors, ultimate measurement limitations, etc. The capacity of the ocean is such that the remaining gap may be breathtaking in absolute terms but small in proportion to the total load we're taking on. -
muoncounter at 10:13 AM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
#25: "some skeptics are recently touting increased convection" Seriously? Are they running out of arguments? From MIT's Center for Global Change Science: But convection has two competing effects: increased convection forces increased subsidence in the environment of clouds, which is a strong drying effect; but increased convection also increases the rate at which water vapor from near the Earth's surface is transported to higher altitudes. However the bulk of this water vapor condenses as it rises and falls out as precipitation leaving open how much is actually available to moisturize the atmosphere. Doesn't that suggest that increased convection -> more precipitation, just like the events you describe? -
archiesteel at 10:10 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
@TTTM: What is your obsession with the 2005-2010 period, anyway? From the paper's abstract: "We compute warming rates with uncertainties along 28 full-depth, high-quality, hydrographic sections that have been occupied two or more times between 1980 and 2010." Who said that readings had to be limited to 2005-2010 to be useful. Oh, right: you. You seem to believe that readings have to be in that period in order to be significant, but that misses the whole point. This paper is not specifically about that period, but rather seeks to show how heat fluxes through the abyssal oceans. I'm sorry, but you simply have failed to challenge the science contained in the P&J paper. They have enough data to show a significant heat movement below 4,000m, thus giving a clue as to the true nature of the apparent hole in the global heat bugdet. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:06 AM on 29 September 2010A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
Interesting article in this weeks New Scientist about possible links between the Solar Cycle and climate. The mention Svensmarks theory and that it has issues, but also mention another mechanism where GCR's may have more impact. Rather than creating CCN's to seed cloud formation, they may contribute to explaining the fact that clouds are often charged on their top and bottom surfaces as GCR's may ionise existing droplets. Speculation is that this could impact on the lifetime of a cloud, precipitation rates from a cloud etc. Certainly a more plausible then Svensmarks more convoluted mechanism. But these may not be the only impacts of Solar variability. Possibly variations in solar wind and magnetic field strengths could impact on the rate of deposition of cometary and meteoritic dust from space, another source of CCN's. Preliminary evidence suggests that although TSI only varies by about +/- 0.1% over a solar cycle, the Ultraviolet component of this may vary by as much as 1-2%. Ultraviolet is preferentially absorded in the stratosphere by ozone, but in addition UV is also part of the cycle vy which Ozone is actually created and destroyed, as well as the processes by which CFC's are destroyed, all of which can impact on climate. Also the stratosphere is where methane is converted to CO2 & Water so changes in the chemistry up there due to Solar cycle influences could impact on levels of Methane. Interestingly, Methane levels in the atmosphere plateaued for much of the 2000's, only to resume rising towards the end of the decade, roughly in line with the 'It hasn't warmed since 1998' period. Coincidence? And there may well be other mechanisms yet to be found by which different components of the solar system that vary with the solar cycle may have climate impacts - UV, Solar wind, Magnetic Field strengths, Simply correlating just GCR's to Atmospheric Temperature variability alone and implying a single major forcing here is stretching too long a bow. I suspect we will find a range of different mechanisms, caused by different phenomena associated with the solar cycle that each make modest contributions to climate variability. This doesn't in any way detract from the central theories about AGW that are based on solid radiative physics. Rather these would be simply additional secondary mechanisms that contribute to climate variability. Put simply, AGW currently describes the physics driving underlying trends. A range of other factors, including but not limited too solar cycle factors probably explain shorter term climate variability that is overlaid on top of the underlying trend. And periods such as a decade of lesser warming is still just short term variability.. Never forget, to produce his graph correlating GCR's with temperature Svensmark not only removed the impacts of ENSO, Volcanoes etc to reveal the residual impact, but also he had to remove a .14 DeC PER DECADE TREND as well. AGW due to GH Gases AS WELL as Solar Cycles influences. Not INSTEAD OF. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:04 AM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
To interject a bit of humor you might add that only in quantum mechanics can the apple both not exist and be natural. ;-) -
apeescape at 09:23 AM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
It's interesting how Loehle (corrected paper) does the "reconstruction." It's just a simple average across years of all the (smoothed & anomalied) proxy series instead of any regression-based method (maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems like a very weak and inconsistent way of reconstructing temperatures even if the proxies are chosen carefully). Anyways, another way to compare to the instrumental data is to actually do a regression-based proxy reconstruction. So I calibrated the mean data vs. the CRUTEMP3v data using simple linear regression, and used those parameter estimates to project them back.
-
TimTheToolMan at 09:09 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
I've read it Doug. I've made my point, its just that you either dont understand it or dont want to accept it. They simply dont have any data for most of their "stations" in the period of interest. They can say nothing about what the OHC is actually doing during that time as a result. Its not interpolation Doug. There is simply NO DATA to have interpolated with. Its an extrapolation from the last data point some time before 2005 through to the end of 2010. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:03 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Make your point, TTTM, I don't want to engage with you in Socratic debate and anyway your argument is not with me. You've got a lot of details to wade through starting in section 2 before you're going to make a dent in P&J beyond pointing at a single figure and hoping we'll think there's some problem with the analysis; I'm sure figure 2 is very alluring but then it's a picture, after all, doesn't pretend to describe the experiment. These "debates" are so rarely a fair fight. You're not arguing with me; I'm simply reporting findings of a team with decades of specialized training, total dedication and commitment to their subject, armed with relatively ample resources, who in turn lean on the expertise of other people with centuries of similar experience between them. You're one guy with Google who apparently can't distinguish between extrapolation and interpolation, but maybe that's deceptive and you'll make a real case against the authors. Meanwhile my only possibly useful role here in this comments thread is to point out when you're just saying "I doubt it." -
archiesteel at 08:34 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
With regards to my previous post (#55), I'd like to specify I know 5 years is way too short to establish a trend. However, since it seems good enough for NETDR, then the least I could do was show him that trends are in fact positive (even if by a very small amount). -
TimTheToolMan at 08:32 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Doug I'll ask you a simple question to prove my point. What does the data (see figure 2) for the following stations show for the period 2005 through 2010? A01, A02, A10, A12, A20, A22, I03, I04, I09S, P02, P10, P17, SR03 and SR4 -
archiesteel at 08:28 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
@TTTM: as I stated before, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. -
archiesteel at 08:27 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
@doug_bostrom: damn, I just noticed that bit at the end myself. If I'd read it first, I wouldn't have taken the time to respond to him. Hey, NETDR, this isn't a political discussion site. Cut that crap. -
archiesteel at 08:25 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
@NETDR: wow, so many erroneous statements in just a few sentences, I'm impressed! "So far the warming has been far below the 6 ° C rate the scientists want to use for a doubling of CO2." Climate sensitivity is estimated to be around 3C, not 6C. "Since we have had 1/3 of a doubling of CO2 we should have had more than 2 ° C warming we haven’t had this." As BP noted, it's much closer to 1/2 than 1/3. "0.7 ° C is the accepted value and less than ½ of that is from CO2 in the best case." Actually, it's closer to 0.9, and there's not indication that less than 50% of that is due to CO2. In fact, other factors (PDO, TSI, etc.) indicate we should be cooling, and yet temps have kept increasing. In any case, there is a lag before the full effect of CO2 warming is felt, so there's no reason the current warming is lower than what scientists estimate. "To get around this scientists have speculated that the ”missing heat” is stored in the oceans !" It probably is. "The problem is that since 2005 both atmosphere and the ocean have been cooling." Actually that is incorrect. Temperature trends since 2005 are positive. Furthermore, the point of this article is precisely that we're finding areas where some heat has gone that weren't being measured, and thus it's likely there are more of these. You should learn a bit more on the subject before posting such comments. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:07 AM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
Despite all of this “the debate is over” and we should throw ten’s of trillions of dollars at the nearest politician to make it go away. Oh, brother, didn't notice that until just now. So we're not talking science, we're talking politics? Searching for "politics" the only semi-appropriate thread I find here is Why I care about climate change. If you're here because you care about politics and climate change, try that. -
archiesteel at 07:58 AM on 29 September 2010The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
For shits and giggles, here's what NOAA (who uses the same graph from Kerwin 1999) has to say: "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years." -
archiesteel at 07:51 AM on 29 September 2010The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC
@CW: I didn't ask for references that summers were hotter and winters colder, but that the climate was more "extreme". You haven't provided this. You also seem to think the warming was global, but the reality is that the tropics and the southern hemisphere actually cooled. At around 30 degrees North, the effect wouldn't have merely been "smaller," it would have been negligible. As far as overall temperatures goes, these were lower, not higher. Not that this really matters, anyway; we have a pretty good idea what caused the HCO, and we know that's not what's happening today. Even if the HCO had been warmer (and it wasn't, as far as we can tell), it still wouldn't change the fact the current warming is very likely caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2. "But imagine winters were a million degrees colder" Absolute zero is −273.15°C. You can't get any colder than that (actually, you can't even get there).
Prev 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 Next
