Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 Next
Comments 111801 to 111850:
-
chris at 07:04 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
batsvensson at 06:05 AM on 24 August, 2010 "A "balance of evidence" or the "holistic view" consist of the evidence, that a) climate model shows that CO2 is the only thing that we can think of that can reproduce the current warming trend in conjunction with that b) no other credible cause has been identified. A "consensus" in climate science is an interpretation of, or a conclusion from, evidence that fits into the theory in such way that it helps explain observations with out contradicting any part of the theory." Those are unnecessarily cumbersome definitions batsvennson. Remember that words/definitions are shorthand signifiers for the things they describe. They are not the thing itself, and are used to communicate ideas and information. If we’re interested in what climate scientists consider to be the case concerning a specific issue (say the origin of increasing atmospheric [CO2]), then we might be happy to know that there is an essentially overwhelming consensus that the rise in [CO2] is a result of anthropogenic oxidation of fossil fuels. However we may be interested in the origin of this consensus and then we would wish to consider the evidence. This is pretty obvious if one considers real world examples that we might encounter on a personal level. If you return to the doctor following tests to examine the cause of deep chest pains combined with fatigue and recurrent bouts of bronchitis, and he tells you that (a) the balance of evidence indicates lung cancer, and (b) that he’s sent your X-rays to 6 specialist lung cancer oncologists, and had your tissue biopsies examined by three oncology labs, and that the consensus is that you have got lung cancer, you’d most likely take his views seriously. However, most likely you’d wish to see the evidence for yourself. Now I would say that the notions of “balance of evidence” and “consensus” in this example are essentially the same as when used in climate science, or indeed any scientific subject. I wouldn’t say that “consensus” is used when there isn’t “hard evidence”. Of course it depends what you mean by “hard evidence”! I would say it’s more likely to be used when there is strong evidence, but this evidence may not be immediately communicable to a layman. The term “consensus” is also used when a subject is reviewed to address the evidence base and the interpretations that are drawn from this. So going back to your definitions reproduced at the top of my post, “balance of evidence” has nothing necessarily to do with climate models, or things we can think of, and “consensus” has nothing necessarily to do with any particular theory. In climate science an interpretation based on the “balance of evidence” is something like: “an interpretation that considers all of the evidence that bears on a subject, and which is supported by each of these, not contradicted by any evidence at hand, and more strongly supported than other possible interpretations”. And a “consensus” is something like: “a strongly dominant expert interpretation based on a well-informed and thorough examination of the evidence”. There’s no reason why a consensus need support a theory, although if it doesn’t, there’s obviously strong grounds for considering the usefulness of the theory! -
robert way at 06:52 AM on 24 August 2010Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions?
Anyone wanting to see the open passage can look here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png -
batsvensson at 06:50 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
"It [Consensus] refers to an expert interpretation based on a well-informed assessment of the evidence that bears on a particular issue." I recall an incident when I did my military service as a kid, we was training in doing visual range observations, and the Lt. asked use about the range to various object in the terrain. One guy started out "I guess...", the Lt. immediately interrupted and roared "Hold! We never guess - we estimating distance. Continue... ". -
muoncounter at 06:47 AM on 24 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
#34: "With no other 'anthropogenic' forcings in 1750AD - and excluding volcanic effects, was the Earth warming or cooling in 1750 - or was it in 'balance'?" Based on data presented here, it appears that 1750 was slowly warming. Looking at the rising peaks on the sunspot graphs above and extrapolating TSI backwards to match (if that's a legitimate thing to do), that would suggest TSI was gradually increasing as well, albeit on a shorter period. Does the quantitative aspect of your question suggest that you feel earth temperature should match solar irradiance - volcanic effects exactly? If the 'natural climate cycle' is one that slowly oscillates on its own, what is the value of equilibrium, other than as a midpoint of the normal oscillations? Isn't it more significant to understand what causes the departure from that equilibrium condition? -
Phil at 06:46 AM on 24 August 2010The main culprit in mid-century cooling
I have posted a rebuttal to http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html in this thread. -
David Horton at 06:44 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
"That's a difference many seem to forget: the big-picture rate of change of recent temperature anomalies is much too fast to be 'natural'. " YES. And it is linked to ever growing CO2 concentrations resulting from increasing industrial activity relying on coal fired power stations (and massive volumes of cars). This blind spot about recent temperature rise always stuns me. If we had, a few hundred years ago, decided, as a planet, that we would only industrialise using renewable energy, and had kept CO2 constant, and we had still seen a slow rise in temps in recent times comparable to the MWP then, while we might be curious about the underlying mechanisms, and might also be concerned about the effects of a temp rise on a planet of 9 billion people instead of a few hundred million, we wouldn't be concerned about the longer term prognosis of temperature rise. That deniers don't appear to recognise that we are not in that latter fantasy scenario is evidence of a rigid mindset determined to prevent any action to save this little planet. -
Phil at 06:43 AM on 24 August 2010Greenhouse effect has been falsified
In this thread user miekol is asked by the moderator to post a question about this article in this thread. I thought I'd "jump the gun" and post a rebuttal now! The article states that O2 and N2 are, despite claims by "warmists", Infra-red active and links to some IR plots. These plots are, in fact all due to molecules made up of different isotopes. Thus there are plots for 16O-17O, 16O-18O and 17O-18O and one for 14N-15N, but none for the symmetric counterparts. Note that for some of the plots the isotope details have been removed. Because these isotopic variants are very nearly symmetric, the absorption is weak (see the very small numbers on the vertical axis). So these isotopic variants make up a tiny percentage of the gases, and the small percentage that do absorb only very weakly. Moreover the O2 and N2 absorptions don't match the frequencies that earth emits at, so there is nothing in "earth-light" for these gases to absorb. Later in the page they state that because O2 and N2 melt at a lower temperature, they are "most sensitive to heat absorption". This is completely incorrect. The melting points of substances relate to the strength of the forces between molecules, which ultimately comes down to the distribution of positive and negatives charges within the molecule. H2O has a negative "end" (the Oxygen) and a positive "end" (the Hydrogen) and this makes a powerful attachment between the molecules. Symmetric molecules like O2 have much weaker attractions and so take less energy to melt and vapourise -
Tom Dayton at 06:41 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
No, batsvensson, consensus is not invoked only in the absence of hard evidence. Scientific consensus is used constantly, even when there is "hard evidence." Consensus is needed to determine whether purportedly "hard" evidence really is hard. No matter how "hard" it seems to be. For more reading on the role of consensus in science, click the links in this comment of mine. -
muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
The graph shown above (Figure 1) is remarkable. The data are available in the download link on this page. Moberg provides a low frequency component (labeled LF in the data file). It really didn't appear to be that low, so I created a really long period filter and plotted the original data, Moberg's LF (pink) and the long period curve (dark purple) in the graph below.
Click for full size
Moberg's data ended in 1979. Tacked on to the end is GISSTemp from that point forward (red), adjusted slightly down to merge.
This really puts the MWP and LIA into perspective: Yes, there is an underlying long term 'natural cycle', with an apparent period of 1100 years. And yes, we started on the long, gradual upswing after 1650 or so. But the graph of temperature anomalies from 1850-2009 looks nothing like the natural cycle.
That's a difference many seem to forget: the big-picture rate of change of recent temperature anomalies is much too fast to be 'natural'.
-
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley, others - As an additional note on this thread, which is also relevant to the Are surface temperature records reliable: I wrote this a while back on the topic of proof and disproof. You cannot disprove global warming by pointing out what you perceive as flaws in individual lines of evidence. That only impacts that line of evidence, not the theory. If you want to disprove global warming, you need solid, reproducible data contradictory to global warming - and I've seen nothing of the sort. If John O’Sullivan or Charles Anderson have something worth saying (I read their articles, and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet), they should write it up along with their data for a peer-reviewed publication. Not blogs. -
batsvensson at 06:22 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
chris, at 05:31 AM on 24 August, 2010 ok, thank you, my current understanding is that the concept of a consensus is invoked when there is no hard evidence (i.e. observations) to point at and that it is used losely (maybe even to losely) in many different context. That is, it nobody knows what it means until it gets defined. -
batsvensson at 06:05 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
In 1995 IPCC wrote: "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate changes are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system is reduced." and "No study to date has positively attributed all parts or parts of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." This has been changed to "The balance of evidence suggest a discernable human influence of climate". Another way to put "balance of evidence" it to say "holistic view" which is a phrase that is in popular use at skepticalscience.com - or at least was until it was replaced with consensus. Now, I don’t have a problem with people using all kinds words in any kind of ways as long as it can be precisely define what it is meant with the usage. Since no clear definition exists of these phrases I would like suggest such a definition in two step manner: A "balance of evidence" or the "holistic view" consist of the evidence, that a) climate model shows that CO2 is the only thing that we can think of that can reproduce the current warming trend in conjunction with that b) no other credible cause has been identified. A "consensus" in climate science is an interpretation of, or a conclusion from, evidence that fits into the theory in such way that it helps explain observations with out contradicting any part of the theory. I suggest a definition similar to this because I dont like the idea of every researcher "agreeing with each other". The definition at least leave it open for research to fully hearted disagree with each other with out causing a consensus to be false. -
OPatrick at 05:47 AM on 24 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
"As someone who has far more expertise about weather than anyone here says ... Interview with forecaster Piers Corbyn” Good to see people maintaining a sense of humour in the face of these catastrophic events. The Disasters Emergency Committee is a great way of donating in the UK. -
chris at 05:31 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
batsvensson at 05:12 AM on 24 August, 2010 Your first point is correct. One needs to be explicit about exactly what one is referring to in relation to any particular consensus. "And again I repeat my question – by who (and when) was "consensus" introduced in science?" Consensus is an obvious and straightforward concept with a very long history. One only needs to refer to the scientific literature of the 20th century to see this. It refers to an expert interpretation based on a well-informed assessment of the evidence that bears on a particular issue. For example: Hoffmann E (1913) Contagious period of syphilis and the consensus in light of new research DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 39,14-17 Watson JB, Lashley KS (1920) A consensus of medical opinion upon questions relating to sex education and venereal disease campaigns MENTAL HYGIENE 4, 769-847. ....and 1000's of other papers that address various specified consensus's during the last 100 years of scientific enquiry.... -
Kernos at 05:17 AM on 24 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
"So no, killing off a million Pakistani farmers doesn't help stop global warming at all." Just as I said, but killing off a few thousand million would. -
Ned at 05:13 AM on 24 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Let's see, on the one hand we have actual data from three different sources (surface stations, infrared measurements of SST, and microwave radiometers) that all tell us the world has warmed by about 0.6C in the past three decades. On the other hand, we have a blog comment by BP who sees something in a citation of a 1974 paper by Schneider & Dickinson that contained a reference to another 1974 paper by Schneider & Coakley which in turn referred to a 1967 paper by Manabe that, BP assures us, must imply that the world has actually only warmed by 0.2C. Righto, I'll put that on my list of things to look into. :-) -
batsvensson at 05:12 AM on 24 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
The problem with the word consensus is that nobody knows what it is a consensus about unless precisely defined. Is it 1) "CO2 operates as a green house gas" , 2) "man made CO2 causes global mean temperature to increase" or 3) "in 2100 sea levels is predicted to be NN meter high", etc, etc. Is there a consensus about all of it, most of it, some of it, or what? Doing a (scientific) literature search definitely not strange the idea of a consensus of all of it (and that make me confident they actually are doing science research else I would ask what kind of science climate science was...) I would say we have "consensuses" about 1) as this can be validated by observation (i.e. is confirmable), and very good reason to believe 2), however the last one. 3) is a more slippery one, this is not based on any observation but model predictions, and therefore it can not be a scientific statement, even less a scientific conlusion, and absolutely not a scientific consensus. (Whether these model prediction is made on super computers with climate models or some calculations made by hand based on some field observations doesn't matter – they are still unobserved predictions). I also acknowledge the fact that it is not pedagogical possible to try to explain for some of the audience why this is as long the ideas remains that predicting future climate is in principle the same thing as calculating planet orbits. And again I repeat my question – by who (and when) was "consensus" introduced in science? -
MattJ at 04:08 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
The use of the phrase "faulty notion based on rhetoric" is itself a faulty notion, and one based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'rhetoric'. The phrase would make much more sense if it read, "faulty notion based on empty rhetoric'. Not all rhetoric is empty, after all. -
dhogaza at 03:52 AM on 24 August 2010Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions?
Yes, keep the post in the context in which it was written by using absolute dates. Not only is the NW Passage open, but so is the Northern Passage (the other side of the Arctic Basin). The Russkies just passed a 100,000 ton tanker through it with icebreaker support, while there's a norwegian team trying to circumnavigate the arctic. They've already passed through the narrowest point (from the ice cap to land) and are working their way over to the NW Passage, and barring mishaps should get there in plenty of time to sail through it before it begins to refreeze. That would be a first ... -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:43 AM on 24 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
The UHI effect on record temperatures is very real, see http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amet/2010/230365.html for example. I read a study a few years ago (unfortunately cannot locate) where the author did consider the UHIE and determined that the upward trend in high temperature records was larger than could be accounted for by UHIE (that made sense to me). My question is to what extent the chart in the head post is affected by UHIE. The author did not mention it in his paper. -
Berényi Péter at 02:20 AM on 24 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
#37 Ned at 01:30 AM on 24 August, 2010 0.2 C warming since 1979 also is inconsistent with other land surface temperature data sets, with thermal infrared satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and with the microwave lower troposphere temperature trends. Do you mean the radiative convective model of Manabe and Wetherald Schneider and Dickinson based their 1974 understanding of the climate system was faulty? Exactly what made it off the mark by a factor of 3? -
Tom Dayton at 02:18 AM on 24 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
No, theendisfar, please do not complicate the discussion. Just answer my most recent question first, with a simple answer. -
theendisfar at 02:11 AM on 24 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Not sure if the post is closed or just taking some time to update, but I believe I have an exercise that will help clear things up. Let's follow the energy. From the Sun to the Earth's surface and back out to space. Toma et al seem to think that where energy is a particular time is irrelevant. Let's follow the energy and see. -
CBDunkerson at 01:50 AM on 24 August 2010Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions?
I'd agree that date wording should be absolute rather than relative (e.g. 'August 2010' rather than 'this month'), but including the latest data and studies in the 'Basic' versions would seem to make them more precise than the 'detailed' copies in some cases. Thus, I'd suggest keeping the same charts and references until it is possible to update all copies. -
Ned at 01:30 AM on 24 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Berényi Péter writes: That translates to 0.195°C warming of the troposphere since 1979. Unfortunately it is inconsistent with the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis which shows about 0.6°C for the same period. 0.2 C warming since 1979 also is inconsistent with other land surface temperature data sets, with thermal infrared satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and with the microwave lower troposphere temperature trends. -
Ned at 01:24 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
fydijkstra writes: On the basis of Loehle's reconstruction we must conclude that the medieval period very likely was hotter than today, as was the Roman period and the earlier Holocene optimum. "Today" in the Loehle reconstruction isn't actually "today", it's 1935 or so. As you can see, things have warmed quite a bit since then:
Figure 2: Loehle 2008 temperature reconstruction with Hadley instrumental record.
Aside from that, the Loehle reconstruction is really only a northern-hemisphere reconstruction (only a handful of SH proxies were included, as discussed by chris in this comment). If you compare current NH temperatures to Loehle's reconstruction, things are quite a bit warmer now than at any previous time.
-
CBDunkerson at 01:24 AM on 24 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
Kernos, global warming is not tied to population growth. Think about it. Where do you see high population growth? In poor areas with limited technology. Where do you see high CO2 emissions? In wealthy areas where population is generally stable. So no, killing off a million Pakistani farmers doesn't help stop global warming at all. -
robert way at 01:23 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
fydijkstra, You are absolutely incorrect about the Moburg reconstruction. The Moburg reconstruction uses low-resolution proxies to do the heavy lifting and uses tree rings for only interannual variations. It was in fact criticized for not using tree-ring data enough by some dendro guys. They said it showed too much low frequency changes because of it. Moburg (2008) shows they were wrong. By the way, for the record. You have been proven wrong. You said it relies on tree rings. It doesn't. That's the novelty of this reconstruction. Craig Loehle's reconstruction is a very poor quality reconstruction. He does not do any weighting based upon area which invalidates his study right off the bat. Also Loehle mis-dates several of his proxies. Loehle made a multitude of errors with his proxy selection, calibration and validation. These are all discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/ and here: http://web.archive.org/web/20071226051459/http://thatstrangeweather.blogspot.com/2007/11/loehle-reconstruction.html Energy and Environment is a crappy magazine (I won't even call it a journal)and the fact that they selected Loehle's original analysis is proof of that. Not even a map showing where the proxies were, let alone the obvious problems mentioned above. To call it the best reconstruction shows you obvious bias and lack of caring for the methodologies employed. You only support the reconstruction which follows your conclusion rather than the one which has the correct methodologies and proxies. It is a farce of you to sit here and say loehle is the best when it has so many glaring flaws. Even Climate audit admitted to many of them. -
Berényi Péter at 01:22 AM on 24 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
If you want to get a fair picture of where climate science stood in the 1970s, you should read this brilliant paper. There was not much progress in basic theoretical understanding of the climate system since then. REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 12, NO. 3, PP. 447-493, 1974 doi:10.1029/RG012i003p00447 Climate modeling Stephen H. Schneider & Robert E. Dickinson On page 487 they write: "The stratosphere couples to the troposphere through radiation and dynamic processes. For example, the radiative convective model of Manabe and Wetheraid shows that changes in stratospheric temperature (because of perturbations in the concentration of water vapor or carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations) are generally accompanied by smaller (about one-fifth as large) tropospheric temperature changes of opposite sign [Schneidear and Coakley, 1974]." Right. Fortunately we happen to know stratospheric temperatures fairly well since 1979, because they can be derived from satellite microwave measurements performed in a single narrow bandwidth channel. It is RSS channel TLS (Temperature Lower Stratosphere, MSU 4 [57,950 MHz, bandwidth 220 MHz] and AMSU 9 [57,290.344 MHz, bandwidth 330 MHz]). As lower atmosphere is pretty opaque in this frequency band and high up, where it gets thin enough to gradually become transparent, there is not much stuff between the uppermost "visible" layer (it's lower stratosphere, about 17 km high) and the satellite, one does not need a sophisticated computational model with input from multiple sources to derive proper temperatures from radiance data. Therefore I can believe satellite temperature history reconstruction for this particular layer (for lower layers it gets rather complicated).
The effect of two large volcanic eruptions (El Chichón, 1982 and Pinatubo, 1991) are clearly visible. They make the Stratosphere warmer (and the surface cooler, as Schneider 1974 states).
There is a slight cooling trend in this 31 year long record, although discounting eruptions, it is probably less pronounced than indicated in the figure (-0.314 K/decade). It is also quite interesting, that the decrease occurs in a step-like fashion, with steps coincident with eruptions, but being fairly constant in between, even increasing slightly. It suggests some connection between volcanic activity and stratospheric cooling. There may be an overshoot in the response function with a long relaxation time.
Anyway, according to Schneider 1974, whatever caused the stratospheric temperature drop, it is accompanied by smaller (about one-fifth as large) tropospheric temperature changes of opposite sign. Therefore the troposphere must have warmed at a 0.0628 K/decade rate during this time.
That translates to 0.195°C warming of the troposphere since 1979. Unfortunately it is inconsistent with the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis which shows about 0.6°C for the same period.
-
JMurphy at 01:07 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
fydijkstra wrote : "The fact that this reconstruction was rejected by GRL does not mean that it is a poor analysis. It only demonstrates that GRL is not yet open for paradigm breaking views like Energy and Environment is." I saw no facts in that sentence of yours there : only conspiracy theories, accusation of bias and dishonesty, and laughable belief concerning E & E. Let me remind you what the editor of E & E, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, has to say about her pet project : "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," she says. "But isn't that the right of the editor?" Funny how so-called skeptics see conspiracy and bias everywhere, except when it is actually stated by organisations they need to believe in. Political posturing has no part to play in science, so E & E fails as a pertinent, relevant, reliable source of any sort of legitimate science. -
Tom Dayton at 01:00 AM on 24 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
theendisfar, the only part of your reply that addressed my question was "What you seem to be saying is that the imbalance only has a Radiative means to work itself out. Completely true for the entire system." My question was specifically about the entire system--the overall balance of energy, analogous to the overall balance of money in a bank account. That is the point of the section titled "The planet is accumulating heat" in the post at the top of this page. Look at Figure 4. Ignore the breakdown of where that heat is distributed. The top of the curve, showing the total, is what is relevant here. Greenhouse gases cause that accumulation of energy in the entire system by blocking the escape of radiation energy to space, thereby causing that imbalance of energy-in-from-space versus energy-out-to-space. You seem to agree with that, as well. That is the greenhouse gas effect. So you do not really think the greenhouse gas effect is "silly." Your agreement on those points about the entire system, makes me suspect that your disagreement really is only about how that extra accumulated energy is distributed within the system. Am I correct? -
CBDunkerson at 01:00 AM on 24 August 2010Weather vs Climate: Watch the waves, miss the turning of the tides
Muoncounter, nice graph. I used the same data to run the numbers for 'hottest winter' and found similar results; New record high Winter anomalies were set in: 1882, 1889, 1901, 1914, 1926, 1944, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1988, 1995, 1998, 2002, and 2007. The data clearly indicate that new global record highs are being set with increasing frequency while there hasn't been a new global record low in nearly a century. As to UHI. No study showing that it has skewed temperature records has ever even been WRITTEN... let alone then stood up to scrutiny. Numerous studies of satellite, proxy, and non-urban temperature records have all shown results consistent with the established temperature series. In short, about the only thing which the UHI argument brings to the table is an easy way to identify people who are willing to take a claim with no substantiating data whatsoever as an excuse to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. -
MichaelM at 00:47 AM on 24 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
I've often spoke about the dangers of Averages when trying to describe a system. Where temperature is at a particular point and time is why there is such a thing as temperature. Same thing for pressure. If you averaged everything out then there is no need to measure it.
I love this paragraph. No idea what it means but I love it because of that. I suggest reading it out loud. The capitalization of Averages is genius -
Kernos at 00:44 AM on 24 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
One does not hear much about over-population, or population control today. It almost seem politically incorrect to even mention it. What research has been done on these questions? Why don't we talk about them any more? If we do not take care of nature, nature will take care of us. _______ BTW, I am asking questions, not saying what I will do for suffering people. My emotional reactions are locked in. That's not to say emotional paradigm shifts may not be best for the young and future generations. -
Kernos at 00:43 AM on 24 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
"But I try not to lose sight of the fact that the reason I care about climate change is because of its impact on humanity." But if humans are causing climate change by increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and we are, is it not logical that the fewer humans there are across the world, the less effect we'll have on the environment. Won't trying to save all the humans effected by 'natural' disasters, just increase the carbon footprint even more. Instead, should we not just let a natural, negative feedback mechanism do its work? Granted, losing a few million will not make much difference, but multiplying that by a few thousand 'natural' disasters will, unless we intervene by dumping even more CO2. The real question is what maximum population can support a comfortable technological level as a steady state and maintain CO2 levels, eg, at <350 ppm. -
skywatcher at 00:41 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Something else worth noting is that when a skeptic cites a large MWP as evidence of anything, you can always remind them that they are actually citing evidence of the Earth having a higher climate sensitivity, or warming more as a result of any given warming forcing, such as extra GHGs. That's not, I think, what they would otherwise have you believe. -
fydijkstra at 00:37 AM on 24 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
The Moberg reconstruction is mainly based on tree-rings. The width of tree-rings depends on the temperature, precipitation and carbon dioxide concentration, so they are unreliable to reconstruct past temperatures. The best reconstruction is Craig Loehle's, using only non-treering proxies. The fact that this reconstruction was rejected by GRL does not mean that it is a poor analysis. It only demonstrates that GRL is not yet open for paradigm breaking views like Energy and Environment is. On the basis of Loehle's reconstruction we must conclude that the medieval period very likely was hotter than today, as was the Roman period and the earlier Holocene optimum. This could mean that the effect of greenhouse gas emissions has only made a small contribution to the recent warming. -
skywatcher at 00:27 AM on 24 August 2010Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions?
I'd agree with Robert's comment on using the latest data. At least you should swap the "A few days ago" to "In April 2010", so that the post remains relevant when people are reading in in weeks, months and years hence. Showing the latest PIOMAS volume anomaly data is also instructive. When the anomaly hits -13.4 in September of any year that means there's no ice left that September. This year the anomaly is currently (in August) just above -10, or off the bottom of your chart above. You can spread 6,000km^3 of ice to cover a remarkably large area of ocean, but you cannot spread 0km^3 to cover the same area... -
theendisfar at 00:07 AM on 24 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
Tom, The distribution of that energy, and even its form (e.g., sensible heat versus latent heat) is irrelevant to that accumulation that results from that imbalance of in versus out. Do you agree with that? Not a chance in this universe. The distribution of heat is extremely important to the overall heat of the system. And BTW - The imbalance you are talking of gets works out as quickly as nature can muster. 2nd Law. What you seem to be saying is that the imbalance only has a Radiative means to work itself out. Completely true for the entire system, however Temperature by definition is LOCAL. I've often spoke about the dangers of Averages when trying to describe a system. Where temperature is at a particular point and time is why there is such a thing as temperature. Same thing for pressure. If you averaged everything out then there is no need to measure it. Is there much more heat at the equator than at the poles? Yes, but the overall heat of the entire system is the same. Why is the heat at the equator sent mostly to space rather than to the poles? Because space is closer and colder than the poles. The average heat of our solar system is far hotter than it is here on Earth. The distribution is not only relevant, it is more important than any imbalance because it tells you where the imbalance is likely coming from. Since no one can find any flaws with 107-110 I feel safe in continuing with the availability of convection and the elasticity of the atmosphere as a mechanism to deal with the 'Imbalance' locally within the Troposphere. -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
As a followup to my previous post - if the claim is that the earth is warming, but not at unusual rates, stating that there are no reliable temperature records doesn't disprove recent fast warming; it just removes surface temperature records from the list of supportable data. In which case we're back to other evidence: Arctic melting, TOA radiative differences, growth zone movement towards the poles and increasing length of growing seasons, the physics of IR absorption tied to the ~40% increase in CO2 concentration over the last 150 years, several thousand temperature proxies, etc. - all of which indicate recent warming at unusual rates. -
muoncounter at 23:56 PM on 23 August 2010There's no empirical evidence
#157: "the effect of gravity and the resultant pressure play a bigger role than GHGs in accounting for this discrepancy. That is what my physics textbooks tell me." I'd suggest some new textbooks, although if you have one that mentions greenhouse gases, that's not all bad. My textbooks clearly state that PV=nRT applies to a gas in a closed system. As we said earlier, not the atmosphere. But that was your move to take this off topic. I provided some empirical evidence (Spencer); you have yet to reply to that. As far as a totalitarian scientific technocracy is concerned, I can't wait. For the rest of your rant, see the comments policy. -
Paul D at 23:50 PM on 23 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
kamilan: "So even if the forcing was reduced, there'd be warming for potentially 90 years... Seeing as the temperature fell or remained stable while solar activity increased between 1940 and 1960, and a reduction in CO2 now would see continued warming, it suggests that temperature doesn't directly correlate (temporally) to the forcing." No it means that you appear to need some lessons in the use of language?? The words 'CO2 emissions' were used, not 'reduced atmospheric CO2'. For someone that wrote such a long comment I would expect a better understanding of issues. -
Ken Lambert at 23:40 PM on 23 August 2010What caused early 20th Century warming?
muoncounter #32 Without an equilibrium baseline TSI for the pre-industrial earth system, the magnitude of Solar forcing and energy added/subtracted over time cannot be accurately calculated. All the IPCC anthropogenic forcings from Fig 2.4 of AR4 are those of the year 2005 referenced to 1750AD. So is the 'natural' Solar forcing of 0.12W/sq.m. from that chart. As you know from elsewhere 70% of the TSI divided by 4 enters the Earth system. This implies a TSI difference of 4 x 0.12/0.7 = +0.69W/sq.m. higher in 2005 than 1750. With no other 'anthropogenic' forcings in 1750AD - and excluding volcanic effects, was the Earth warming or cooling in 1750 - or was it in 'balance'? If it was 'in balance' the equilibrium TSI should be roughly 1366.3 (TSI in 2005) minus 0.69 = 1365.6W/sq.m (TSI in 1750). My question is therefore - what is the equilibrium TSI of the Earth system with no 'anthropogenic' forcings excluding volcanic effects? -
Paul D at 23:39 PM on 23 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
Good grief, you have a really distorted view of what I have written Eric. What I have clearly stated is that you are the problem not the science! -
robert way at 23:38 PM on 23 August 2010Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions?
I'm thinking that this post should be revised to show the most recent data (you're missing a massive dip in ice volume) and WUWT is no longer arguing we are recovering but just that it won't be the least on record. An interesting link to see is here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png The Northwest passage is officially open. -
robert way at 23:34 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Woops, I misread humanity Rules statement. I apologize for making an incorrect response. But my findings are still robust I think. Most have argued the NH was warmer during the MWP than the SH. Therefore the most important relevance is showing the NH temps now are above (which they are). SH is not irrelevant but is not as important in this particular argument. -
robert way at 23:32 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
First of All, you cite a non-peer-reviewed article to illustrate your Grand Maximum theory. If this were in fact the case and we were currently in a grand maximum that explains climate change then I am sure that the authors will be publishing their results in a reputable journal. Perhaps journal of climate, nature geoscience, science, GRL, international journal of climatology, climatic changes, climate dynamics…etc… rather than the 1st issue of a solar magazine for solar enthusiasts including amateurs (as indicated by the website). Secondly, I understand there are different cycles which operate within the system and can likely explain some of the current warming. Viau et al. 2006 very much talks about this and shows a 1050 year cycle which can explain some of the warming. The conclusions though, are that those very same cycles CANNOT explain the amount of late 20th century warmth and can at the most explain 0.2-0.3 °C of the 0.8 °C warming. Thirdly, Most of Antarctica is not cooling. See Steig et al. 2009. Most is in fact warming. Fourthly, the MWP in the NH was not much warmer than today. Moburg et al. 2006, Viau et al. 2006, Mann et al. 2008, Mann et al. 2009, Kaufmann et al. 2009, and D’Arrigo et al. 2006. Lets see a peer-reviewed regional reconstruction which does not show warmer temperatures in NH late 20th century than during the MWP? Loehle 2008? Energy and Environment is not a real peer-review journal. GRL rejected his analysis immediately realizing it was poor quality. In summary, there are no hemisphere wide reconstructions which show greater warm. And even local reconstructions in many areas show that the MWP has been surpassed. Buntgen et al. 2008 is a good study for that which shows the European alps much warmer now (Tree-rings don’t diverge till after 2004 making it a landmark study). Fifth point, When the models overestimate warming then it can’t be GHG but when they underestimate then it can’t be GHG either? Lets be honest, you’re just a contrarian who will take any evidence you can and try and find a way to massage it to fit your idea that AGW is a fraud. Finally, No one argues there aren’t natural contributions. You can find it quite clearly on this website. The important delineation is that we have empirical evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. Until you can disprove physics and direct measurements you have no case. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley - I find the juxtaposition of your two statements, "Nowhere in that comment to which you link have I said that global warming, ice cap melting or ocean acidification isn’t happening" and in the same post "There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times...", clearly contradictory. No basis for claims that the Earth is warming at unusual rates? But not claiming that global warming isn't happening? I suspect I'm not the only person who sees a conflict there. -
Ned at 23:16 PM on 23 August 2010Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science
Robert Way writes: For the record also, notice many of these are hemispheric reconstructions and i'm sure you are mistaken in saying 6 points were used for a recent global reconstruction. I think HumanityRules was specifically referring to the southern hemisphere ("... as little as 6 data point for the whole of the SH ..."). -
Rob Painting at 23:13 PM on 23 August 2010Pakistan flood: many more will die unless more aid is delivered quickly
Adelady, I agree with you, climatologists of all people should understand the trouble ahead for humanity. A carefully considered response to reinforce the message that these extremes will become common place in the not too distant future, will at least be a step in the right direction.
Prev 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 Next
