Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 Next
Comments 108501 to 108550:
-
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
gallopingcamel writes: Good post! Thanks! You say: "It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935)." This is clearly not the case as Mann's original Hockey Stick denied both the MWP and the LIA. "All the reconstructions" refers to all the reconstructions shown in Fig. 2 and discussed in the post. Rob Honeycutt writes: it just seems to me that what is important is that current warming is unprecedented no matter how many crooks the handle has. Yes, exactly. A lot of "skeptics" seem to have some kind of gut-level impression that if they can just keep pointing to evidence for a MWP the case for AGW will magically evaporate. But our confidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are responsible for modern warming doesn't rest on the question of how much warmer it is today than during the MWP. The reasoning here isn't "Gosh, it's much warmer now, must be due to all that CO2!" Wally Broecker made the case that AGW was a threat way back in 1975, at a time when temperatures had been more or less flat for a couple of decades. The idea that the existence of previous "natural" climate change would somehow disprove the existence of AGW is very poor reasoning. Does the fact that some fires are caused by lightning mean that some other fire couldn't have been caused by arson? Plus, of course, there's the fact that Ljungqvist 2010 is a mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. We know perfectly well the MWP and LIA were prominent in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Albatross writes: Also, the MWP and LIA are both indications that climate sensitivity is not as low as the "skeptics" would like think, b/c fairly large temperature departures in the past were invoked with very little forcing. Yes, that's a very good point. If the MWP turned out to be a large amplitude and globally synchronous event, it would be cause for serious concern. The logical implication would be that climate sensitivity is higher than we think, and therefore the projections for warming in the 21st century should be increased. Alden Griffith writes: I adjusted Loehle, Ljungqvist, and HadCRU instrumental values to the base period 1850-1899. I then plotted the reconstructions with the land / land&sea instrumental values (using the same level of smoothing as the reconstructions), using global or hemispheric datasets where appropriate. Hey, very nicely done. I was hoping that by starting this thread I would provoke other people into doing their own comparisons. (At the time I started writing this, neither Tamino nor Zeke had yet posted anything, so there wasn't really anything out there yet aside from Loehle's own spin over at WUWT). apeescape writes: It's interesting how Loehle (corrected paper) does the "reconstruction." It's just a simple average across years [...] maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it seems like a very weak and inconsistent way of reconstructing temperatures [...] Yes, exactly. I didn't want to get into the methodologies involved, but suffice it to say there's a reason why Loehle 2007/2008 was published in E&E. The methods used are absolutely atrocious. Frankly, the wonder is that the results of the reconstruction look as reasonable as they do. There are a lot of different ways you could do a hemispherical/global reconstruction. You could use regression (like in the figure in apeescape's comment) or you could spatially weight the proxy temperature records so they're representative of the region, etc. Lots of different possibilities. But just picking a bunch of time series (virtually none of which are in the Southern Hemisphere), averaging them, and calling it a "global temperature reconstruction"? As I said, there's a good reason it was published in E&E. Shirley_Rocks writes: the record I found shows this as a 2009 release FWIW. I didn't find a 2010 record at all You might be looking at a previous paper: Ljungqvist, FC. 2009. Temperature proxy records covering the last two millennia: a tabular and visual overview. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 91(1): 11-29. That was basically an article describing the proxy records that would then be used to create the reconstruction in this year's paper. The new paper, with the reconstruction, is by the same author and in the same journal: Ljungqvist, FC. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 92(3): 339-351. It's new, so perhaps the database you were searching hadn't listed it yet? CoalGeologist writes: The court is now convened. [....] Heh. Very clever! I like the respective sentences... Baz writes: Ah, I get it now! I forgot about different baselines. Thanks. No problem. Dealing with differing baselines for temperature anomalies trips everybody up sooner or later. fdijkstra writes: The red curves in the reconstruction graphs should be omitted, because the instrumental data are not comparable to the proxy records. Using non homogeneous data is an unsound scientific practice. I don't agree. We know (from instruments, and other lines of evidence) that it is much warmer now than it was during the final years of Loehle's reconstruction (1900-1930). Ignoring that fact would be misleading. When these red curves are omitted, Loehle is right, that Ljunggqvist confirms his results. No, actually. The amplitude of the MWP-LIA difference in Loehle is anomalously large, particularly for what is allegedly a "global" reconstruction. The presence of a smaller MWP-LIA amplitude in Ljungqvist's extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction does not "vindicate" Loehle's reconstruction. There's also the issue that, whatever you may think of his results, Loehle's methods were exceptionally poor. ---------------- Whew! Did I miss anyone? -
ginckgo at 22:12 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
I predict that the 'skeptic' websites will proudly proclaim that there are no contradictions, they are just showing on how many fronts climate science is wrong: temperature record is wrong AND the temperature record shows cooling AND the warming is natural! Everywhere you turn AGW is wrong! That's the beauty of being a 'skeptic', you can have your cake and dring the lemonade, too. -
Roger A. Wehage at 22:07 PM on 29 September 2010Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
RSVP@25 "The question is whether it is happening as much as people need to be concerned, or is this just a merry go round type convenient political distraction?" Ned@26 "Fresh water is less dense than salt water,..." No. Here is an example where too much of a good thing isn't good. Cold fresh water from melting glaciers is denser than returning warm salty ocean water, so it sinks way up north and flows south along the ocean floor, gradually rising on its way down to the equator and mixing with the warmer salty water, to eventually flow back north along the surface. But if the amount of cold fresh glacial water becomes too great, it can't all sink to the ocean floor, so more and more of it will start flowing southward closer to the surface. This surface flow of cold water will have two main effects. First, it will oppose the flow of warm salty water coming up from the equator, which had been tempering the air, and second it will further cool down the air above it. These two factors will work together to keep northern land masses near the ocean from being warmed by the ocean air currents, which may be a temporary respite from global warming for some unlucky folks. -
Doug Bostrom at 21:47 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Fydijkstra is apparently suggesting that only one proxy may be used at at time, each presented in separate graph, by extension implying even that each proxy should only be treated in separate publications, presumably authored by different researchers as to do otherwise is "unsound scientific practice." His conclusion is that Loehle, Ljunggqvist, all meta-analyses of proxies are wrong. Nice to get that sorted out. Time to move the conversation. -
kdkd at 21:35 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
fydijkstra: It seems that you are arguing that we should not be using the modern instrumental record at all? Or should we just refuse to countenance comparing it to the proxy record? Or is there some other subtlety I'm missing about your argument? Because my two interpretations seem to suggest that your position is pretty absurd. -
fydijkstra at 21:30 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
The red curves in the reconstruction graphs should be omitted, because the instrumental data are not comparable to the proxy records. Using non homogeneous data is an unsound scientific practice. When these red curves are omitted, Loehle is right, that Ljunggqvist confirms his results. Moreover, Mann's hockestick loses its blade and there is no need for him to hide any decline. -
We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
cruzn246 writes: Prior to 1880 it was averaging well under 1335 for sure for over 500 years. Er, no. Not even remotely. Did you miss this graph?
Figure 1: Reconsructed total solar irradiance (Delaygue and Bard 2010)
Note the Y axis.
The running mean of solar irradiance (after smoothing out the 11-year cycle) has varied by less than 1 W/m2 over the past 1300 years.
If it had actually dropped by 30 W/m2 for "over 500 years" we'd have glaciers running amok all over the place.
-
Stephan Lewandowsky at 21:13 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Mythago, would prefer for this to remain limited in circulation till reposting of final version next week (Wednesday, together with podcast on RTR at the same time). SL -
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Ah, I get it now! I forgot about different baselines. Thanks. -
Mythago at 20:35 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
PS Good article Steve, which is worth spreading around. Is it okay to post this to the greater population now or would you prefer that it remain here until the minor technical errors in the text are remedied? -
Mythago at 20:33 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
To add to what Dave Horton said about all the bits of 'Findings' its almost like an archaeologist who discovers a shard of pottery in one dig which looks similar to a shard in another dig. Put all the shards from one dig together (when they have been found) and you may construct the major part of a pot. Do the same in the second dig and you may well not only have the major parts of a pot but the proof that it is from the same tribal culture that existed at the first dig site, proving that they migrated and occupied a large area (subject of course to the relevant distance between the two dig sites). Now what has this got to do with Dave's posting? Its that all the evidence is on its own not proof of anything until it is put together to form a coherent image, situation, process or fact or a million other possible constructs that could be produced or proven from these associations. So science is right. Coherent arguments devoid of contradictions are the only really conclusive path that we can walk down. As for the conclusive nature of the non-contradictory science? Well that all depends on these incontrovertible 'Theories' which people still think are mere 'Ideas' instead of 'Proof' of a particular process......like gravity. 'In the end even the dust will settle to the bottom of the jar and a clearer understanding will become apparent to all'. Kev Coleman.aka 'Mythago' September 2010. -
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Baz, the instrumental data were recentered to match the reconstructions, which have different baselines. The specific values of the numbers don't matter; just look at the relative differences between different periods (e.g., the LIA was ~0.6C colder than the MWP; modern temperatures are 0.5 to 1.0C warmer than the MWP depending on whether you look at land-only or land+ocean temperatures). -
Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
RSVP, no, you've got it backwards. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, so a sudden inflow of fresh water (e.g., from a collapsing ice cap) is hypothesized to reduce the velocity of the "conveyor belt" because it doesn't sink. -
RSVP at 18:58 PM on 29 September 2010Is Greenland losing ice? (psst, the answer is yes, at an accelerating rate)
If cold water pouring into the North Atlantic below Greenland is supposedly the motor that drives the ocean's conveyor belt, accelerated melting should favor this mechanism, which I assume helps the Gulf Stream, which I assume means warmer temperatures in New England and Northern Europe, which I assume will convince people that global warming is really happening. The question is whether it is happening as much as people need to be concerned, or is this just a merry go round type convenient political distraction? -
HumanityRules at 18:30 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
The problem I see here is that climate science doesn't just offer us the few choices this article suggests we have. You can take the 20th century temperature record as the best data set we have while still highlighting the limitations in it. You can have greater faith in the last 50 years of records because of the multiple improvements in the measurement network while worrying about how well we are comparing earlier data to this improved system. You can have even greater faith in the past couple of decades because the data is confirmed by independant satellite measurements. You can enjoy greater certainty in saying that the past decade has been fairly flat because of the satellites. You can even accept the whole data set and still question what is causing the warming. I was just skimming through the Journal of Climate Early Online Releases and came across A Significant Component of Unforced Multidecadal Variability in the Recent Acceleration of Global Warming Timothy DelSole, Michael K. Tippett, Jagadish Shukla Which suggests that the acceleration in warming during 1977-2008 is a consequence of natural variability. I think I've read on SkSci (a Dana1981 comment I think) which suggested all of the recent warming was a product of AGW. -
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Ned, I should explain that the highest TA at CRUTEM that I can see is 1.026. Thanks. -
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Can Ned or someone please tell me why the red line in Figure 2 achieves a TA of 1.3? I don't understand. I've visited the link for CRUTEM but cannot see where this has come from. Thanks. -
tobyjoyce at 17:22 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
Science uses inductive logic i.e. enumerating instances and making inferences. When there are more than one possible inference, the most plausible explanation will be chosen. "Plausibility" demands the internal consistency that Steve is talking about. Clearly, a theory that accounts for many diverse phenomena has stronger explanatory power than one which does not. Newton amazed his contemporaries by not only explaining the orbit of the Moon, but the reason why there are 2 tides every 24 hours. Evolution by Natural Selection is another excellent example - "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution" as one great biologist put it. Philosophers of science call this mode of reasoning "Inference to the Best Explanation" (IBE). Inference to the Best Explanation One could argue that the danger of simple overarching explanations is that they lay themselves open to the charge of being "religious beliefs" or held on faith only. It is not surprising that the same charges are often laid against both Evolution and AGW. -
Riccardo at 17:07 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
The coherency problem described in this post should sound very familiar to any of us. If skeptics here had an alternative picture, we should disagree on something not all of the many aspects of the science of climate. If, say, I believe it's cosmic rays, we should agree that the temperature record is reliable, surface temperature is rising, ocean is warming too and is acidifying anyway, ecosystems are shifting, ice is melting, sea level is rising, etc. Why on earth we can never agree? -
gallopingcamel at 15:52 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Albatross (#21), Ned did not mention those old papers; I was just trying to make sure that everyone here remembers how wrong they were. It is great to see the LIA and MWP emerging, albeit somewhat attenuated compared to Hubert Lamb's work but let's not forget that sites like Climate Audit played a part. It is no longer possible to get away with reconstructions that ignore history. What I like about Ljungqvist 2010 and most recent papers is that the data is easily accessible to the general public. This represents a sea change compared to the stonewalling and resistance to FOI requsts that were common in this field. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:48 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
CoalGeologist: "Let all the ants be well stirred..." -
CoalGeologist at 15:35 PM on 29 September 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
The court is now convened. Judge: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a verdict?" "We have, your honor". "And what say you?" "In the matter of Scientific Method v. Loehle and Mann, we find: "On the charge of having incorrectly depicted the significance and magnitude of 20th century warming, we find Dr. Loehle 'Guilty' and Dr. Mann 'Not Guilty'. On the charge of having incorrectly depicted the significance and magnitude of the Medieval Warm Period, we find Dr. Loehle 'Guilty', and Dr. Mann, 'Guilty'. (A stunned murmur ripples through the courtroom.) On the charge of having incorrectly represented the impact of anthropogenic forcing on climate change, the jury finds Dr. Loehle 'Guilty', and Dr. Mann 'Not Guilty'. On the charge that these inaccuracies were premeditated and intentional, the jury was unable to reach a verdict." Judge: "In consideration of the jury's decision, I sentence Dr. Mann to serve 20 years of community service, in addition to the 15 years he has already served. And I sentence, Dr. Loehle to life without parole publishing his findings in Energy and Environment. Bailiff, you may release the defendants on their own recognizance." Members of the jury, the Court thanks you for your service. You are dismissed." -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:18 PM on 29 September 2010A detailed look at galactic cosmic rays
muoncounter @20 I wasn't aware of the distinction between the two sources of Cosmic Rays. Do you know whether the underlying fluxes of SCR's from the Sun are constant; as distinct from the levels reaching the Earth which are influenced by Solar cycle influenced shielding of the planet? Or do the raw fluxes vary with the Solar cycle? -
jyyh at 14:43 PM on 29 September 2010A detailed look at the Little Ice Age
Oh, but it is there, sorry. -
jyyh at 14:42 PM on 29 September 2010A detailed look at the Little Ice Age
Good job, in the decrease of human population, one could add the decline of native americas due diseases, as their farmland got regrown this could have had an additional cooling effect. -
adelady at 14:37 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
That 'd.....' word. Not appropriate for this broadcast, but one day someone should do something on denial as the first of the stages of grief. Realists seem to switch between the other four stages depending on the topic of the day. The deniers seem stuck in a loop between denial and anger. -
Matthew at 14:19 PM on 29 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
How would 2010 be if we had the same El nino and solar pattern as 1998? 1998-2004 had a solar max that had 140-150 sunspots to 20-30 sun spots and predictions of 50-60 for the peak within the next few years...Take off .1c? Now onto the El nino-1998 based on this map had 2.8c at 3.4, but 1.8c during January 2010. That is 1c difference.
This is more support for a 2.8c over 3.4 in 1998.
This is only one part of the world, but a huge part of the world and would very likely make sst's number one by a large margin if it was occurring now. So all together you bet we would be warmer and no one would be able to cover it up either. I will guess .2-.3c over 98 for such a year. Do you think that is close?
-
cruzn246 at 13:39 PM on 29 September 2010We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
Is there a tipping point with solar values? In other words, once they exceed a certain value warming will continue regardless of whether it is increasing? I would think so. It has average above above 1366 for well over 5 decades. Prior to 1880 it was averaging well under 1335 for sure for over 500 years. Think of this. I a semi-closed system, which we have, there must be a point where you will keep warming as long as you are above a tipping point. Who is to say that we, being at the highest average solar output in over 2,000 years, have not passed that tipping point? No one can say. We do not know where that point is. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:33 PM on 29 September 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
What exactly does that blue line represent? You say you can out-think myriads of oceanographers, TTTM, I'm sure you'll have no problem figuring it out. Visit the reference if you can't deduce it by eyeball. Ciao for the time being. We're wasting our time. -
Albatross at 13:26 PM on 29 September 2010Blog review of scientific coherence
That was my guess as to the likely web site in question too Barry ;) -
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.
Prev 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 Next
