Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 Next
Comments 110751 to 110800:
-
Tom Dayton at 03:09 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd, the energy needed to convert CO2 and H2O from liquid or solid to gas is not relevant to the greenhouse gas feedback versus forcing topic. What is relevant is that in the conditions present on Earth (versus, say, Mars), there are vast pools of liquid water ready to go into the air as soon as the air's temperature is high enough to hold more water as vapor. And there are vast numbers of particles in the air, ready to be nuclei of water vapor precipitation. In fact, both mechanisms operate continuously even while the air's temperature and therefore water vapor capacity are constant, because individual molecules of water continuously swap positions with other molecules among liquid and gas communities. What stays constant with a constant air temperature is the overall average water vapor concentration. In contrast, there are no pools of liquid or solid CO2. And the Earth's air temperatures are far too hot for CO2 to precipitate. Low air temperature is not a limiting factor on CO2 concentration in the air. -
VeryTallGuy at 02:40 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Berenyi Peter, If you look at the graph, it's impossible to miss the noise; ascribing the accuracy you do to a single quarter's information is laughable. gpwayne I think the explanation is good, but I'd suggest not quoting Pielke in the opening paragraph; it sets up the piece as ad-hom rather than pro-science (I know that's not the intent). HumanityRules I guess whether or not 7-8 years is a trend depends on the signal to noise ratio of the data as well as the time period. I've no idea what the GRACE data looks like personally.Moderator Response: [graham] Hey VTG - nice to see you! I know what you mean about the quote - see below for link to Pielke's response, characterising it as an ad-hom - but in truth all these 'basic' rebuttals are being written to be consistent with the intermediate versions. John Cook chose to use the quote as a fair representation of the overall skeptical argument, and I don't believe it is inappropriate. In fact, reading Pielke's defence rather confirms my point - but see what you think for yourself. -
johnd at 02:32 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 01:41 AM, neither CO2 nor water vapour can have any effect whatsoever without the thermal energy each absorbs. Without absorbing sufficient thermal energy CO2 would not even be able to be present in the atmosphere, so it is no different to water vapour in that respect. So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. Thermal energy must be available from other sources before either can become part of the atmosphere, thus both are solely in the atmosphere as feedbacks before any follow on effects can be determined. -
Tom Dayton at 02:07 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Galloping Camel, water vapor's level in the Earth's atmosphere is limited by temperature. Putting more into the air merely causes an equivalent amount of water vapor to precipitate out. Removing more merely causes an equivalent amount to evaporate in. So the temperature cannot be "forced" higher or lower by using addition or subtraction of water vapor as the primary forcer. As Michael Sweet wrote, the water vapor level reacts to an increase in air temperature that itself has any cause. An example of such a cause is forcing of temperature to be higher by humanity's injection of CO2. Water vapor level increases as a feedback from the increased CO2 level, through the intermediary of increased air temperature. But you are correct insofar as the additional water vapor due to the increased temperature does in turn increase the temperature, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But that increase of temperature is strictly limited; it does not run away. And the initial temperature increase that started this chain of events cannot be due to water vapor, as I explained in my first paragraph. That's why water vapor is not a "forcing," but only a "feedback" from some other forcing. -
johnd at 02:03 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 10:42 AM, Phil, you are getting it all back to front. I am trying to explain to you something that you don't understand. Or perhaps you do, as rather than concede it you skirt around it by not actually referring to the specific point. that being what a nett loss of heat, in this case 66, really means in terms of heating and cooling. Thermal energy, heat, is radiated of from the water and thermal energy, heat, is radiated back to the water by the atmosphere, the amount radiated off dependent on each of their relative heat contents, or temperatures. As the diagram shows the heat radiated off 390, is greater than the heat radiated back, 324, from the atmosphere. Thus due to the absorption of solar energy, converted to thermal energy, the water is warmer than the atmosphere to the extent that the difference, 66, is a nett loss of heat from the water to the atmosphere. That is clearly a transfer of energy that cools the water. It is simply is not logical to claim such loss of heat is a warming effect on the body losing the heat. Perhaps you are confusing the rate of heat loss with direction?? -
Berényi Péter at 01:48 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Levitus 2009 is bogus anyway. They suppose a large jump in OHC at the turn of 2002/2003. It is about 7.3×1022J during the forth quarter of 2002 and the first two quarters of 2003.
If it were true, this energy had to come from somewhere. As the oceans have by far the largest heat storage capacity in the climate system, no internal heat reservoir can supply this heat, it can only come from outside. To support this sudden OHC increase, there should have been a transient drop of 6 W/m2 in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), but nothing like that was seen by satellites.
6 W/m2 is huge and there is no way to miss it. It is equivalent to a 1.6°C drop in the effective temperature of Earth as seen from space.
-
michael sweet at 01:41 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
GC: Both CO2 and H2O absorb IR and are greenhouse gasses. Because of its short 1/2 life in the atmosphere, H2O responds to other forcings. When CO2 causes the temperature to rise, H2O responds by increasing (it is a feedback). If the Milankovich cycles caused temperatures to decrease H2O would decrease. H2O does not force (cause) the initial change in temperature, it responds to changes caused by other forces. Because humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 is forcing (causing) the temperature to increase. In natural cycles, CO2 responds to other forcings (it is a feedback). In the current, human caused change, CO2 is a forcing, not a feedback. It is a little confusing because CO2 can be both a forcing or a feedback. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:09 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Re: davidwwalters (54)"Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers."
Here's some resources I've found helpful in providing visual documentation of climate changes: Double Exposure Extreme Ice Survey Swiss Glaciers On-line James Balog's Glacier Melt Video Mauri Pelto's Glacier Change Blog Mauri Pelto's Glacier Website US Scientific Assessments of Change (with links to IPCC versions of same) Sea Level Rise Maps (you can play with various levels of rises in various places to visually see future inundations) Websites (brief list - I'm leaving out literally dozens of favorites here): Arctic Sea Ice - Neven's Blog Climate Charts & Graphs Climate Progress Deep Climate Open Mind OSS Foundation Real Climate - Start Here Scott Mandia When I get the time, I'll post a more comprehensive listing on my (very rudimentary as yet) Typepad blog. Hope this helps, The Yooper -
Gordon1368 at 00:50 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Well, whatever the direction of the last couple years, it is very clear to me why Pielke did not use 2001 as the starting point for his claim. -
Berényi Péter at 00:20 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find (Source: Levitus 2009) No, we do not. There is a revised and updated version at the NOAA Global Ocean Heat Content page by the same authors.
The main difference is that the updated version in 2006 starts to diverge from the published OHC reconstruction. Now it is decreasing slightly instead of the former increasing trend. The difference is about -1022 J in less than 2 years.
-
davidwwalters at 00:18 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
michael sweet, >>On the other hand, all these effects are anthropogenic changes in the Earth weather system. In the end the sum of all changes is what matters.<< -That's kinda what I was thinking, I was just unaware of how UHI effect compared to other AGW causes. I appreciate the help. As for Dr. Hanson, -just read "Storms of my...." Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers. -
gallopingcamel at 00:07 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp (#12), you stated: "TOP - the point about water vapour is that it is a feedback not a forcing." Though we often disagree, you generally make sense. However, I am scratching my head over this one. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb Infra-Red radiation. -
Mikemcc at 23:52 PM on 6 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
The acceleration of Greenland ice loss is NOT based purely on the records from GRACE. There are records going back to the 1950s. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-rising-faster-as-ice-loss-accelerates.html -
HumanityRules at 22:48 PM on 6 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
•that one symptom is indicative of the state of an entire malaise You don't really state the importance of OHC. From memory 80-90% of the energy in the system is entering the oceans. You really need to quantify the importance of that symptom. This isn't shortness of breath, this is a shadow on an x-ray. •that one can claim significance about a four year period when it’s too short to draw any kind of conclusion On this website I see no such reluctance to call accelerating Greenland ice loss on the basis of a 7-8 year GRACE record. Consistency across all metrics would be a good start. •that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone I'd go back to my first answer. If we could get this right it would probably be the best measure of heat build up in the system. It seems well worth making this an important metric.Moderator Response: I think the acceleration is rather different. In the first place, I've been following the GPS studies (embedded in bedrock), physical studies, satellite data and other sources for a while now, so it is not just the Grace record we're looking at. And an 8 year acceleration is a very clear signal. What it means overall needs more time to get a better and more appropriate trend line, but it is pretty indicative of one thing - that negative mass balance has been consistent and growing over most of a decade - and longer when you look at other records. But mainly, my point would be that I'm not attaching claims to the mass balance record, merely reporting the data. Pielke takes a single short period and pronounces AGW not happening. He does it again in a little defence he's written (link is below). You say "global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone" and I agree. Evidently, Pielke thinks differently. And one other thing - if the oceans have not been warming, what is causing all the Arctic ice to melt? -
Ken Lambert at 22:40 PM on 6 September 2010Sea level rise: the broader picture
DW #79 We can agree on the most important point then: Its unlikely that the 'missing heat' has found its way into the deep oceans quickly with no known mechanism. -
Hareton at 21:41 PM on 6 September 2010iPhone app version 1.1 - now with search, image viewer and Twitter!
What a great idea and a great app. Deniers like to use ridiculous oversimplifications (like - "it snowed today so global warming isn't real"), but the real world isn't so simple. This app presents real facts, and gives detailed explanations, so you are informed. Every denier should have to read through this app, which debunks every one of their unsubstantiated arguments. It has helped me in many situations when I didn't have quick internet access to use search on mp3 or any other SE. The information is kept up-to-date and is easy to read and understand for most people. I like how both sides are presented... what the skeptics claim and what the science actually says. Nice work! Too much of the American public is pretty ignorant of science and this app helps with the task of hopefully educating the masses! -
chris1204 at 19:58 PM on 6 September 2010Spanish and Catalan translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
I laud the use of Catalan - they are a proud nation who would be pleased to have their separate linguistic needs recognised. However, I note the language denoted as Spanish is in fact 'Castilian' which is but one of several languages spoken in Spain - Galician is a notable example. Moreover, the 'Spanish' of the Iberian peninsula differs in significant aspects from Latin American Spanish. Many a war has been fought over lesser slights! As Ambrose 'Bitter' Pierce famously said, 'A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.' ;-) -
James Wight at 15:47 PM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
CBW, I’ve taken out the part about the stratosphere – it doesn’t really matter because I do mention it in the “It’s not us” rebuttal anyway. I’ve left point #1 as is because I think that structure works. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:55 PM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
Re: chriscanaris (10) People that live in the Upper Peninsula (the UP) of Michigan are known as Yoopers. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is connected to the Lower Peninsula of Michigan by the Mackinac Bridge, a 5-mile long suspension bridge. Yoopers refer to those from the Lower Peninsula as Trolls, as they live "below da bridge". Ethnically, most are from Finno-Scandinavian stock, with some German and Cornish (England) thrown in. If you've ever seen the movie Grumpy Old Men than you've seen a typical Yooper, both in attitude and accent. Few Yoopers my age or older will be found on Internet science commenting sites (because that takes away time from deer camp), so I'm comfortable with the tag "The Yooper". Probably more than you ever wished to know, eh? ________________________________________________________________ Re: VoxRat (5): I well understand flippancy and it's twin sister snark. And have dated both frequently. :) ________________________________________________________________ Nice job, James. I second CBW's comments, as that will aid in clarity. The Yooper -
chris1204 at 14:08 PM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
Off topic, but I don't want to die wondering: What does 'The Yooper' signify? -
gallopingcamel at 14:04 PM on 6 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
Living in Florida as I do it is clear that the Pew Center's plot of hurricanes is a case of torturing the data to suit an agenda. Thank you Berenyi Peter (#16 & #27) for injecting some facts into the discussion. -
michael sweet at 11:55 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
David, Go to the link at post 39 for a recent summary of UHI data compared to rural stations. The whole paper is available (free) at Dr. Hansons web site if you want to read it. It appears that UHI was overestimated 20 years ago. The adjustments made for UHI probably resulted in underestimation of the warming to date- the opposite of what the deniers claim. Current data indicate that the UHI effect is small. There are significant heat budget changes due to albeido effects when forest is changed into farms. These exceed UHI because farms are much bigger than cities. On the other hand, all these effects are anthropogenic changes in the Earth weather system. In the end the sum of all changes is what matters. The IPCC considers all known changes in its reports. -
EOttawa at 11:31 AM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
Since satellite measurements don't actually cover all 50 years, I think it would be safer to mention radiosondes in #4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by radiosondes (weather balloons) for around 50 years and satellites for around 30 years -
scaddenp at 10:59 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
I make no bones about where the energy for evaporation comes from - solar radiation but largely by atmospheric radiation (back radiation). BOTH heat the water - the water molecules dont care which is which. At the fundamental level, evaporation depends on a/ partial pressure water in atmosphere, and b/ temperature difference. Evaporation takes energy away, cooling the water - but not much. The water must radiate according to its temperature (much of which comes back as back-radiation). Radiation and evaporation are both temperature-dependent phenomena and its best to think of them in those terms. Consider what happens when you reduce GHG. Less back-radiation so temperature drops, so it radiates less till new equilibrium found. Cloud cover etc are dealt with in diagram in terms of average global cover. -
michael sweet at 10:42 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd: Carefully read the chart and the paper. Do not try to explain to me something you do not understand. The chart clearly shows that 168 w/m2 arrives at the surface from the sun. 324 w/m2 arrives at the surface from back radiation. The surface radiates 390 w/m2 as IR. 78 w/m2 is removed from the surface by evapotransportation (evaporation of surface water and the subsequent release of energy in clouds when the water changes back to liquid). 24 w/m2 is removed from the surface by thermal transportation. Total arriving = 168+ 324 = 492/m2 Total leaving = 390 + 78 + 24 = 492 w/m2 The energy to evaporate the water comes from the sun and the backradiation. What is so hard to understand?? The amount of water evaporated is determined by the temperature. The temperature is a function of the backradiation, caused by greenhouse gasses. The energy balance in this example is closed. There is no imbalance in the radiation budget as you suggest. The amount of energy radiated greatly exceeds the amount transported by evaporation and thermal transfer, although those processes are important. As greenhouse gasses increase, the backradiation increases and that heats the surface. Cloud cover has been considered in making the chart. -
johnd at 09:05 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp at 07:04 AM, you are also avoiding the original point. That was where energy required for evaporation originates from, and thus how this affects the amount of water vapour that enters the atmosphere driven by factors that are not driven by the temperature, but instead are the primary drivers. All you have shown so far is that of the solar energy that has been absorbed by water as thermal energy in the case of evaporation, some of it is transferred into water vapour by the evaporation process which requires an energy input, and some is radiated off into the atmosphere, two completely different processes. It should be obvious that if thermal energy is being radiated off, it is not being utilised for evaporation, nor is it adding to the heat content of the water, it cannot be assumed to be in different places at the one time, or being used by concurrent processes. Radiation only occurs when an actual transfer of energy occurs, which in the case of water, any energy content of the water will be reduced by an amount that is the difference between outgoing and incoming thermal radiation as shown on the budget chart. It is already clear that what is radiated off is energy that is not being used in the evaporation process so why would the evaporation process then be able to utilise the lesser back radiation when part of the solar radiation is required to add additional energy to the outgoing radiation leaving even less energy available to drive evaporation. Varying cloud cover has an direct effect on evaporation, and even in an environment of above average air temperatures, evaporation will fall below average levels as cloud cover increases above average levels, not just at any particular point of time, but as a general response over a period of time. -
kdkd at 08:04 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Ned #46 Fair enough. However I will note that BP has posted here since I flagged his cop out in #42, and since then I've decided that it was worse than a mere cop out. So I'd figure I'd flag him to follow it up properly when he's back, or ignore it at his peril. -
dana1981 at 07:36 AM on 6 September 2010Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming
Fair point Chris. I started out writing about correct climate model predictions, but most of them turned out to be anthropogenic signals, so I switched gears. But you're right that several of these are *consistent with* AGW rather than "fingerprints". I'll adjust the rebuttal accordingly. -
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd- as we continue to tell you - the surface is radiated by both the sun AND the back radiation. Once you get this, then you really understand the greenhouse gas effect. While you continue to misunderstand this, then you continue to talk nonsense. Take a while to understand that whole chart. Read the paper. -
scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Whoops, "decreases it locally" it should say. I would have to say that I am assuming that UHI is largely air heated by dark surfaces rather than waste heat. -
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Well as is usually the case, the IPCC WG1 has a good index to the data and literature. Overall though it appears that land use change is (eg forest to farm) increases albedo though urbanization with it asphalt surfaces obviously increases it locally. Some discussion -
davidwwalters at 06:23 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
michael sweet, -you're probably right. was just wondering, and where can i find some data on this particular subject (UHI)?Moderator Response: One relevant post you can find by typing "It's Waste Heat" into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
johnd at 06:18 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 04:37 AM, I think it was clear that the discussion was focused on back radiation and the evaporation process, not the whole energy budget. Perhaps read back through the thread and pick up on that particular theme again instead of diverting away from it. In the meantime, regarding how the energy radiated from the surface can be larger than the energy from the sun alone, in forming a budget it is the nett result that determines a surplus or a deficit. Clearly the combination of radiation and back radiation shows a nett deficit, which is a cooling process, not warming. If that process is unable to sustain itself, losing energy, how is it able to give up energy to drive evaporation? If it hasn't been given up to evaporation when the water releases it as thermal radiation, a lesser amount of returning thermal radiation is not going to provide extra energy to drive a process that required more energy than was available originally. Evaporation releases excess energy over and above what is being lost by thermal radiation. -
tobyjoyce at 05:14 AM on 6 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
thingadonta wrote: A completely opposite way of looking at it (the skeptical one, by the way), is that you should actually never 'cast aside' one's 'doubt of climate science'; such is the road to ideology, blind faith, and false certainty as a means to social power and control. The Aztecs and Mayans discovered it, and now 21str century ‘scientists’ have discovered it (but not the sceptical ones). The pre-Columbian peoples of America did not have "blind faith" in their religions - they followed them because they seemed to work. They offered sacrifices, the Gods responded with rain, good crops and victory in war. A year of drought could be cured by more sacrifices, and the Gods would be appeased. Unfortunately, the series of good years were accompanied by expansion in populations and farming (slashing and burning hill areas, for example) that were unsustainable in prolonged periods of drought. These were followed by revolutions, overthrow of the city elites, population collapse, desertion of the large cities, and (sometimes) mass murder and cannibalism. These societies were essentially conservative, led by elites who aggrandized themselves with buildings, temples, expanded populations for bigger armies and personal display. If there were a few Mayan radicals they might have said "We have enough large temples - let us build granaries to store grain and resevoirs to retain water. Let us limit our wars to defence only. Instead, we should be limiting our population growth and ensuring our agriculture is sustainable. We know from history this region endures catastrophic droughts every few centuries - let us plan to mitigate those because one will surely happen, maybe in the times of our children or grandchildren." The elites would have replied "The Gods will punish us if we do not build larger temples. Other cities will have bigger temples, and the Gods are fickle. We need a bigger population to provide us with the young men to fight and win wars to bring back slaves to build those temples. And droughts? If we please the Gods, they will not punish us with droughts. We must expand our agricultural base to please the Gods and our wise rulers." Which one was exercising "social power and control"? Which one was offering the solution most likely to work in the long term? -
ATekhasski at 05:12 AM on 6 September 2010CO2 has a short residence time
Doug Mackie wrote: "The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries." This conclusion does not follow from the presented arguments. It could be true if the bulk atmosphere is a nearly isolated reservoir. It is not. Since the CO2 is considered as "well mixed" gas, it will mix well with the atmospheric boundary layer as well, the layer which supplies the estimated source of 200GT/y. Therefore, the relaxation time of CO2 perturbation must be still the same as the turnover time, 4-5 years. This estimation of characteristic time is consistent with global observations after Pinatubo eruption. -
michael sweet at 05:07 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
david: The urban areas of the world only add up to a few percent of the earths surface. Farms, forest, wiild areas and ocean account the bulk of the surface. Careful measurement of urban effects show the effects of UHI are very small. -
michael sweet at 04:37 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd, It is you who cannot read the chart. Incoming radiation from the sun=342 reflected (sun) radiation=107 outgoing longwave=235 reflected + outgoing longwave=incoming as required by physics. The energy radiated from the surface is a combination of energy from the sun and backradiation so it is larger than either. The chart is an accurate summary of the energy balance, if you know how to read it. No energy is counted twice. Some energy is lost from the surface by evaporation and convection. Read the chart more carefully before you try to explain it to others. -
johnd at 04:18 AM on 6 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 21:47 PM, it appears that some of your points are being made without reference to the chart. On the point of back radiation, the chart clearly shows that the back radiation value is 324 whilst the value of energy radiated off is 390, a deficit of 66. Any nett loss of energy is a cooling effect not a warming, it is dissipating into the atmosphere through radiation a portion of the energy transferred to the surface by solar radiation. Now remembering that thermal radiation is a transfer of heat energy, in this situation, if it is being lost from the surface through thermal radiation, then it is simply not available to be lost to the surface through evaporation. The processes in practice are vastly more complex than the chart indicates, however the energy cannot be assigned to two different processes simultaneously or accounted for twice when compiling the budget, which is what seems to be suggested. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:04 AM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
I, for one, am happy that the Fact that our world has been warming has at last been Found. Else all the Red Herrings of the sea would disappear like Deleted Comments are wont to do. The Yooper -
Bob Guercio at 03:37 AM on 6 September 2010It's satellite microwave transmissions
For what it's worth, I was shocked to hear such a ridiculous argument for global warming! In my not so humble opinion, this smacks of desperation on the part of the skeptics. Rather than explaining the science to a contrarian who came up with this argument, I would be more tempted to laugh. Bob Guercio -
CBW at 02:18 AM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
James, good post. I agree with m. sweet's point, though. The inclusion of the stratosphere in #4 is confusing. I'd suggest dropping it from #4 and adding it as a parenthetical after the list, or as a footnote to #4. Also, I'd suggest dropping the comments about skeptics from #1, and put them with your discussion of the "bricks" at the end. If you do those two things, your list will be clean and uncluttered and pure evidence, and will serve to support your comments below. If you decide to take any of this editorial advice, feel free to delete this comment. -
CBW at 02:02 AM on 6 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
First, why is anyone taking thingadonta seriously? Come on, people. Climate scientists are the equivalent of Aztec or Mayan priests sacrificing thousands of people? The goal of climate science is world domination? It's funny. Second, why didn't the moderator delete that post? It has zero science content, is off-topic, and entirely political. If it's real, it's evidence of a paranoid psychosis, and if it's fake, it's pure trolling. Either way, it has no place here. -
CBDunkerson at 01:40 AM on 6 September 2010New presentation debunking Monckton's critique of IPCC predictions
Roy #7, you've just done the same thing Monckton does... rewrite things to a false narrative which you can 'disprove'. The "refutation of Monckton" in the linked video and writeup is that he took a formula for "long term" warming for a given rise in CO2 and treated it as IMMEDIATE warming once that level of CO2 was reached. He calculated that an assumed level of CO2 at 2100 would result in the formula's warming result immediately in 2100 (thereby misapplying the formula) and then took a linear slope towards getting to that point over the past ten years (thereby ignoring that warming is predicted to be, and thus far has been, increasing in rate, rather than linear). The rest of your analysis is equally inaccurate, and if you are really going to argue that a seven year 'trend' means anything in the face of a hundred year trend in the opposite direction on either side of those seven years then this stops being about any kind of reason. -
davidwwalters at 01:40 AM on 6 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
uh, i'm no scientist, but if you have a world full of "urban heat islands", wouldn't that in itself warm the earth? -
Tom Dayton at 01:22 AM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
VoxRat, the IPCC has a good explanation of choice of baseline in the Working Group I report from the TAR back in 2001. Sorry I've not got a more recent one; I'm lazy, and that popped up at the top of a Google search. -
VoxRat at 00:19 AM on 6 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
"BTW, what exactly did you mean with your use of the word "halcyon"?" Sorry. It was a flippant allusion to the notion that there was once a Golden Age, when the climate was what it's "supposed to be". And I understand the concept of "anomalies"; I'm just curious as to what the (arbitrarily chosen) baseline period is in each of these cases; whether it's the same in each; and if there's any particular reason for choosing one period over another. (And, BTW, I share your enthusiasm for this site as a great resource.) -
Rob Painting at 00:12 AM on 6 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
gpwayne @ 42 - "As mentioned in the post, models predict a reduction in frequence but increase in energy. This will lead to greater landfall if correct." Is that true?. The graphic above, indicates the more intense hurricanes seem to have less likelihood of making landfall (well major land masses anyway). Granted, it's only "eyeballing" & I've only skimmed through a handful of papers so far.Moderator Response: [Graham] - check out the intermediate, the paper is referenced there. (As I understand it, the argument is that greater intensity will lead to increased duration, so more will make landfall before blowing themselves out). -
Rob Painting at 00:07 AM on 6 September 2010How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
GC @ 58 - "it is nonsense to suggest that CO2 is driving global temperatures over the periods of time covered by the ices cores." I agree with you. Cavemen, woolly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers did not drive SUV's and build industrial smokestacks. Given the limits of scientific certainty that is. No, back then, CO2 acted as a feedback, responding to the temperature change, caused by changes in the Earth's orbit -out gassing from the oceans as the Earth warmed thereby amplifying the warming effect, then being absorbed back into the oceans as the Earth cooled. This was all in the "argument" I referred you to earlier. -
Daniel Bailey at 23:58 PM on 5 September 2010Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
Re: VoxRat (3) In any trend analysis one has to deal with noise in the datasets. In climate science, anomalies are used to reduce noise in the data, enabling better discernment of whether or not there is change in the data. See here. Reference baselines typically consists of periods of 30+ years for statistical robustness. BTW, what exactly did you mean with your use of the word "halcyon"? If you genuinely seek to improve your knowledge, or have knowledge you wish to share here, that is why John created this resource for all. As far as coffee, my preference is Papua New Guinea, fresh roasted and ground. Cheers, The Yooper -
gallopingcamel at 23:38 PM on 5 September 2010How we know an ice age isn't just around the corner
Dapplewater (#54), Thanks to much improved time resolution, the Vostok ice core studies convincingly demonstrate that temperatures lead atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is nonsense to suggest that CO2 is driving global temperatures over the periods of time covered by the ices cores. However, the hypothesis that falling global temperatures are associated with increasing glaciation, falling sea levels, reduced precipitation, widespread arid conditions and falling CO2 concentrations looks plausible.
Prev 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 Next
