Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 Next
Comments 115801 to 115850:
-
scaddenp at 11:40 AM on 8 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Johnd, you have lost me. How do the methodologies "predetermine" that they will find a warming trend? If the world was actually cooling, are you implying that the measurements methods would still claim it was warming? If you are looking for regional scale examination of the temperature proxies (and the pattern which any model for climate must be able to reproduce), then surely this was the point of Mann 09? -
Jeff T at 10:43 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Following on from my previous comment: Select two days (perhaps, one in April and one in October) that have equal average temperatures at some latitude. Divide the temperature difference (zero) by the insolation difference (not zero). By Eschenbach's method, the sensitivity is zero at that latitude. By choosing dates carefully, you can get any sensitivity you want with Eschenbach's method. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:02 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
MattJ... I believe that is what fig. 2 is about. -
MattJ at 09:51 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
How can the Earth "store heat in summer, losing it in winter", when half the Earth is in winter when the other half is in summer??? -
Tony O at 09:48 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility II
I take it Knutti's figure is for the fast feedbacks not the slow feedbacks. Has anyone calculated an estimated sensitivity implied by the orbital cycles (ie including the really slow feedbacks)? -
Jeff T at 08:57 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Select a day in March and a day in September that have equal solar insolation. The temperature difference is particularly large at high latitudes. Divide the temperature difference (not zero) by the insolation difference (zero). By Eschenbach's method, the sensitivity is infinite. -
johnd at 08:53 AM on 8 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Peter's reconstruction is a determination of how temperature has changed over time, and not about why it may have varied. Thus the basic outcome was predetermined, ie the planet has and is in a warming trend. The data utilised is subject to the same limitations as most other proxy data, biased representation of NH over SH, error ranges, so it is reasonable to expect that the results will resemble most other reconstructions. All that could have changed is the timing of any changes, and the magnitude of any short term changes, however the long term trend is built in. It does not allow for what factors may have resulted in any change in trends within the overall longterm trend. That is a different issue and the one that is really relevant. Perhaps then, adjustments can be made to the reconstructions just as adjustments are made to the instrumental temperature records to account for changes in circumstances. I earlier used the example of testing blood and urine samples and skywatcher suggested collecting and testing multiple samples. That actually helps make my point. Collect samples from the entire population and have them all analysed by every laboratory, the results should all come out the same, because the chemical analysis is already predetermined by the biological functions of the human body. There will be variations within individual samples, and perhaps groups of samples, and they generally will fit with the "normal" range or within the error bars, but nothing is going to change the final outcome. Irrespective of where any researchers take the samples to study, as long as the samples are representative of the general population, the results should be the same. If they differ then either the samples are not representative, of the laboratory methodology was wrong. Perhaps studying human growth may be a better example. Humans are measured from the moment they are born, perhaps even earlier, and then through their entire lives. Weight and height are recorded throughout. Any study that examines human growth patterns is going to come to the same conclusion, weight and height increase during the growing period and then declines. There will be exceptions amongst individuals and groups of individuals, but it is predetermined that growth occurs. Examining the reasons why it may vary, increasing in trend, or decreasing, even halting, are completely different issues. -
witsendnj at 07:58 AM on 8 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I have always likened that "CO2 is good for plants" notion to the idea that extra calories are good in the human diet. How about those diabetes and heart attack epidemics? It might be good in the short term to pack on extra weight, but in the long run, it's deadly. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:38 AM on 8 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Plevy asks "How many practising academics (mathematicians or otherwise) were involved in assessing subprime mortgages?" A number of them and many did not see anything wrong, because they didn't want to. However, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Benoit Mandelbrot (his teacher) looked at these financial models and didn't like them one bit, especially after 1987. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/psolman_10-21.html -
KR at 04:46 AM on 8 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Looking at my previous post I realized I had left something out - using exponential fitting to align different trees into a single record looks like it might wipe out absolute differences. You get (as I understand it) absolute growth differences by comparing the thickness of equivalent rings (say, the 15-year ring) on trees of different eras, and by scaling the entire record according to lifespan overlaps and relative thicknesses at those overlaps. -
Phila at 03:51 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
#8 philipm if there is a serious case that the science is flawed...why do they entertain this sort of drivel? I think you just answered your own question. This is all they've got. -
Alden Griffith at 03:50 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
RE #17: Berényi Péter at 01:45 AM on 8 July, 2010 It depends on how much "forcing" comes from CO2, which in turn depends on the sign and strength of water vapor + cloud feedback. It seems that Eschenbach is assuming 'interchangeable' forcings in terms of Wm-2 values - he's assuming net effects with feedbacks included (although he seems to only believe in negative feedbacks anyhow...). Case in point: he uses a strictly solar forcing to estimate a strictly CO2 forcing. Using this net forcings approach, one can simply convert the CO2 sensitivity to its degrees C / Wm-2 value (0.014). Hence the whopping forcing required to come out of an ice age. -
Alden Griffith at 03:38 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Earth Sciences 101 – Final Exam QUESTION: Willis Eschenbach recently estimated the Earth’s climate sensitivity by examining winter vs. summer temperature and insolation at different latitudes: “My insight was that I could compare the winter insolation with the summer insolation. From that I could calculate how much the solar forcing increased from winter to summer. Then I could compare that with the change in temperature from winter to summer, and that would give me the climate sensitivity for each latitude band.” From this estimate of climate sensitivity, Eschenbach concludes that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is approximately 0.05 degrees C. This is in contrast to the IPCC climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 degrees C. Explain why this is NOT an informative way to estimate climate sensitivity. ANSWER: The main flaw in Eschenbach’s analysis is that the time period over which sensitivity is calculated (6 months) is too short. Thus, there is not nearly enough time to reach equilibrium (this is especially important given that the IPCC presents sensitivity at equilibrium). The heat capacity of the Earth is far too great to allow much of a temperature response over such a brief period. In contrast, if the Earth stopped orbiting the sun and the seasons remained fixed, then there would eventually be enough time to assess the equilibrium temperature response to such a large solar forcing. The equilibrium response would likely be very large indeed, yielding a much greater sensitivity value. However, this would still underestimate the true sensitivity because of teleconnections in the climate system, i.e. the Northern and Southern hemispheres are not isolated from each other in terms of energy flows. Energy from the summer hemisphere flows to the winter hemisphere and would reduce the apparent climate sensitivity. A comparison with the planet Mercury is useful. On Mercury, there is very little heat capacity (e.g. no oceans, no atmosphere) and virtually no teleconnections (e.g. no oceans, no atmosphere). Thus we would expect its temperature to respond far more rapidly to changes in solar insolation (as it does). Eschenbach’s analysis of climate sensitivity based on seasonality might work for Mercury, but it is fundamentally inappropriate for Earth. Beyond examining the assumptions of Eschenbach’s analysis, it is also worth examining its implications. A sensitivity of 0.05 degrees C to a doubling of CO2 is equivalent to 0.014 degrees C / Wm-2. This value suggests that the ~7 degree C change between glaciations would require a forcing of 518 Wm-2. This is greater than the average solar insolation of the entire planet (342 Wm-2)! This simple examination reveals that Eschenbach’s sensitivity is far too low to make any sense – the result of the extremely short time period over which it was calculated and the unaccounted for heat exchanges between hemispheres. In short: Eschenbach takes an extremely large forcing (summer versus winter insolation), assesses the response over an extremely short period of time (summer to winter), and comes up with an extremely low sensitivity. What you put in is what you get out. Tada!A+ -
Berényi Péter at 01:45 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
#1 Icarus at 09:12 AM on 7 July, 2010 Wow indeed. According to Willis's value for climate sensitivity, the ~7°C rise in global average temperature at the end of the last glaciation must have been caused by a whopping 560W/m² change in forcing. It depends on how much "forcing" comes from CO2, which in turn depends on the sign and strength of water vapor + cloud feedback. As the water cycle is pretty fast (average residence time of water in troposphere is ~9 days, in stratosphere less than a month), the parameters of the water feedback can be determined from short term studies. Neither 30+ year "climatologies" nor computational climate models are needed. Proper measurement of atmospheric water response to seasonal changes of insolation (& SST) should be sufficient. NH continental glaciation is a different matter. In that case most of the positive feedback comes from mid-latitude surface albedo changes, which is a slow process, on the order of millennia. -
chris at 00:39 AM on 8 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert at 23:43 PM on 7 July, 2010 I deal with highly non-linear larde deflection FEA analyses every day. Many engineering relationships are non-linear, much of nature is non-linear - so what is this big deal about statistical linearity? We can fit the sea level data how one wishes. The extant fact is that the satellite data fits closely to a linear trend (somewhere around 3.4 mm.yr-1 over the whole period). We can fit the data to a quadratic. If one does this the quadratic fit is essentially the same as the linear fit. The reason is that the third term of the quadratic is as close to zero as makes no difference. The reason a linear fit is appropriate is that it allows one to address a very simple and pertinent question namely: ” Given the variability in the data is the sea level rise consistent with a linear progression in time, or is it accelerating or decelerating?” Cutting through all the flak, I think we've established that the sea level data conform rather closely to a linear fit (or a quadratic with an essentially zero "acceleration term"!), that there is no justification in the data to infer that the rate of sea level rise is slowing down or speeding up, and that there is no basis in the data for insinuating "offsets" in the merging of sea level data. So some progress I would say! -
KR at 00:31 AM on 8 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
thingadota - Seriously, that's quite the laundry list of "maybe/coulda/might have" issues with dating analysis. Every scientist in every field looks at their calibration issues - whether it's O2 isotope analysis, tree rings, core sample microbe prevalence, boreholes, etc. A random list of possible mistakes just indicates that you haven't dated the samples you're complaining about. And metamorphic rock changes are hardly an issue when examining proxies for the last 2000 years! For those who are interested, I previously posted something on tree ring analysis on the Kung Fu Climate thread. There are some very straightforward ways of correctly overlapping tree ring datings to extend the timeline past an individual tree lifespan, and given some knowledge about how the studied species responds to temperature, sufficient data to average out/correct for variations in water levels, insolation, etc., you can examine the temperature effects over time on tree growth. -
Paul Daniel Ash at 00:15 AM on 8 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Ignoring it is not working. Fighting mere credulousness with rational argument is a bit like fighting fire with oatmeal, but until anyone has a better idea, what can be done must be done. -
Ken Lambert at 23:43 PM on 7 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris #136, kdkd various, JMurphy I deal with highly non-linear larde deflection FEA analyses every day. Many engineering relationships are non-linear, much of nature is non-linear - so what is this big deal about statistical linearity? I think the point is made about the large uncertainties in OHC and lesser but definite uncertainties in SLR particularly in the proportions of ice melt and steric rise. As for other explanations of Trenberth's missing heat, one that comes to mind is that it was never there in the first place. And for Chris - mate - you led with your chin so don't complain when you suffer a 'correction' -
Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 7 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Peter Hogarth #137 Reasonable comment Peter. One of the key points I highlighted from this excellent blog and Dr Trenberth's analyses, is that TOA energy flux imbalance must show up in OHC somewhere, sometime due to two factors - the relatively tiny storage capacity of the atmosphere, and very small absorption of heat in melting ice in global terms compared with the integral of the purported TOA imbalance. Really accurate OHC measurement is the key to measuring the extent of global warming. -
JMurphy at 23:12 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
On a more tangential note, it's good to see that yet another enquiry (The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review under Muir Russell) has exonerated the scientists and the science. I'm sure thingadonta will join us in congratulating Phil Jones and the rest of the team. Shame the so-called skeptics have already decided this would be a whitewash - like every other enquiry they don't like the result of... -
Peter Hogarth at 23:06 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
thingadonta at 20:28 PM on 7 July, 2010 Metamorphism over past 2000 years in sediment cores? please, I have some hands on experience and knowledge of Geology and GeoPhysics, and so do many people analysing core samples. "I am not a tree ring specialist", agreed, this is clear, (neither am I), but you could improve your understanding by reading the references, finding more, or asking intelligent questions rather than framing whimsical questions which demonstrate your own bias. -
plevy at 23:01 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
And another thing, thingadonta... do you really mean "Tree ring data is handed over to mathamaticians", or is it really handed over to statisticians? There's a big difference. Also, your remark about subprime mortgages is, as far as I can see, completely irrelevant. How many practising academics (mathematicians or otherwise) were involved in assessing subprime mortgages? -
chris at 22:10 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
thingadonta at 20:28 PM on 7 July, 2010 thingadonta, your post says essentially nothing about this subject. Note that "radioactive decay" certainly doesn't "reset with metamorphism". If one uses a radioactive dating technique like potassium-argon dating where analysis requires measurement of trapped gas (e.g. argon) in rocks, then the dating "clock" is reset upon metamorphosis (the gas is released when the rock melts). But that's of little relevance to paleoproxy analysis covering the past 2 millenia. In that case radiocarbon decay is likely to be used. Metamorphosis in the geological sense isn't relevant to dating on the millenial timescale Metamorphosis in the sense of conversion of carbon to graphite or charcoal, doesn't perturb the dating analysis. If one considers longer timescales (e.g. uranium-thorium dating of speleothems/stalagmites or coral), the question of metamorphosis is likely to be of little relevance since the intactness of the coral or stalagmite can be assessed by inspection. The same applies to cores. Otherwise your list is simply a set of "what if's" that the scientists engaged in this research will certainly have considered. Indeed, one could take your approach to any topic. For example I might display some skepticism over your suggestion that you are going to drive to the seaside this weekend: Here are some suggested problems with your trip from an interested onlooker, just off the top of my head. Are any of the following true I wonder? - Your car might be out of petrol. For example even though you filled it up yesterday, someone might have siphoned your tank during the night. - Someone driving carelessly might have ripped off one of your wing mirrors. - You might have a flat tyre and your spare may be bust. - You may be unable to find the way. Even 'though you think you know the route there have been some changes in the roads, and there may be some unexpected diversions. - You have to go over a couple of bridges on the way to the seaside and one of these might be closed, or may even have fallen down. etc. etc. ad nauseum And no doubt you think we should make an effort to find imaginary flaws in the findings of heart surgeons, or scientists trying to understand the genetic basis of Huntington's disease, or nanotechnologists, or cancer researchers etc. because: Researchers who study these things are a small nit[*] group who are almost exclusively looking for a story. (Research bias) small "nits" thingadonta? Were you thinking of head lice.....? -
JMurphy at 22:06 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
thingadonta wrote : I know from my field, that radiaoctive decay resets with metamorphism, and there are also problems with data collection and verification. It gets worse in disturbed terrains, and in older rocks. And yet most rocks are dateable, aren't they ? Or are there areas of the world that cannot be dated because of the problems you mention ? I'm sure Creationists could come up with lots of arguments about problems in dating rocks but surely you would be able to show them that, in the main, dating techniques and interpretation are correct ? -
skywatcher at 21:58 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
It's enough to make your brain melt in despair! But always good to push back against the bad science. I can't work out the figures, but it looks a bit to me like the values are merely reporting the relative proporions of land and sea at the different latitude bands - ie most in the NH mid-latitudes, least in the SH mid-lats. But of course you'd expect that for differential rates of heating/cooling over an annual cycle! -
thingadonta at 20:28 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
"I have not seen many smeared tree rings or stalagmites or sea bed cores." I know from my field, that radiaoctive decay resets with metamorphism, and there are also problems with data collection and verification. It gets worse in disturbed terrains, and in older rocks. I am not a tree ring specialist, but sometimes an outsider might spot a few issues that insiders might take for granted. Here are some suggested problems with tree rings and T reconstuctions from an amatuer in another field (geology), just off the top of my head. Are any of the following true I wonder? -There isn't always a one-to-one correlation with tree ring width, colour, mineralogy etc; and temperature. (Big red flag number one). -Trees are selected which are by nature robust over long periods of time to begin with (so they can show very long time periods), and are therefore not sensitive to small-period fluctuations. This is a sample selection problem. That is, if a tree is highly sensitive to small T changes, it dies and produces no tree rings, and therefore will not show up in the data-result is you get smoothing of data the futher you go back in time, and the more robust trees become over-represented. -Volcanic events, fires, bugs, human settlement, slash and burn, and changes within the tree itself, alter the shape and nature of the rings with time. Ie. Earlier rings get metamorphosed with time, both by internal tree factors, and external factors. Again, age makes it worse. -Researchers who study tree rings are a small nit group who are almost exclusively looking for a story. (Research bias) -Access to tree ring data, (as is usual for academics still living in the dark ages), is not available. Requests are ignored. (Research bias). -Tree ring data is handed over to mathamaticians who have no understanding of these sort of issues and massage the data, thinking its all the same anyway, and will average out, just like sub prime mortgages. - -
John Russell at 19:43 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
To me, the following very innocent comment cut and pasted from 'Larry L' on the WUWT thread is very revealing of the feeling within the denier blogosphere of 'not wanting to accept'. It sums up a feeling of helplessness really exquisitely. I guess Larry is a typical example of the vast majority of denial followers. There's no equivalent amongst -- as they like to call us -- 'the warmists'. /"Sometimes this sort of back of the envelope analysis is more powerful than sophisticated modeling because it is based on the real physics even if we do not understand all the physics we know the results are real."/ -
Peter Hogarth at 18:58 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd at 08:10 AM on 7 July, 2010 I believe proxies are calibrated for offset and scale, but I don't think they are de-trended. I agree tree rings are relevant, but I disagree with your summary “The Briffa tree ring reconstruction began to diverge” etc. The divergence "problem" has been known for a while. It is important to resolve it. Buntgen, Esper, and other researchers have responded to this head on with new work, new evidence and more comprehensive data, which is the way things should work. Their new evidence moves on from the divergence problem, and addresses the issues leading to it arising in the first place. Please read the references below. If your current position is as you state, then it is probably time to modify it in the light of new or emerging evidence. Perhaps you may even be surprised. Science moves on. On recent work on proxy tree ring data showing no divergence Buntgen 2008. On new research into altitude related growth patterns, Moser 2009. On the divergence problem specifically Esper 2009 and for an updated analysis which specifically addresses contentious Siberian tree ring data, Esper 2010. -
skywatcher at 18:58 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd, I can only repeat what KR has said - you are utterly incorrect if you think I was saying the same thing as you. The samples are independent - think lots of different urine samples, to use your analogy. Processed by different methodologies, depending on the type of urine sample (OK I have to stretch it here, wee is just wee), but in a standard manner for the relevant methodology. This leaves bags of room for all sorts of results. Wildly varying results with no consistent conclusion - definitely not the case here. How about a consistent conclusion that bears no resemblance to either the instrumental record and previous palaeo-reconstructions? No again. How about a record that is relatively consistent, and bears a resemblence to such records, as Peter has neatly shown. There is no pre-determined outcome. As Donald Lewis says, if you doubt the original data (the individual wee samples), then go and get your own samples and show why the original samples are pre-determined to give a result. If the methodology pre-determined the result, there would not be curves like #2 (Lake Toskaljavri) or #17 (Lake Flarken), which don't show the bent 'hockey stick' of Peter Hogarth's analysis. -
MarkR at 18:03 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
RE #5: I had some spare time and through checking this I found some papers that I thought were pretty interesting: I plan to include them in the next part. I've been internet chatting with people who wave this around like a banner. I know they'll never accept any physics or evidence that goes against what they believe, but other laypeople who'd otherwise fall for Willis' sleight of hand might do so. I hope this would help them. It's also a cautionary tale for any estimates of climate sensitivity from regional methods: including Lindzen's estimates of climate sensitivity from top of atmosphere tropical radiation. -
John Brookes at 18:01 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
I have an idea that John Cook might like to follow up in relation to silly arguments like Willis' above. Can we establish a list of things which both sides of the debate agree on? Because I think the more sensible sceptics will agree with quite a lot, and if they do, then their less knowledgable(how do you spell it?) followers might stop coming up with stupid arguments. We could start with very simple things, like what the earths temperature would be if there was no water or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. -
Donald Lewis at 17:05 PM on 7 July 2010Kung-fu Climate
Just read your piece, and none of the comments. Bravo! Very nice. -
Donald Lewis at 16:55 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
@Johnd and others Peter has provided an independent and idiosyncratic analysis of published data. That is a meaningful and a helpful contribution to understanding the data. If your complaint is with the data, go get some of your own that meets your standards. Then present your analysis of it. Perhaps then those results will "surprise" you or not. I doubt Peter was aiming to surprise anybody, I suspect he was trying to understand the data in his own terms. That is a human virtue, I think, and I am glad he shared his experience. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:36 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Fair enough Rob, but let's not call this science, because it is as far from it as can be. It falls in the "so bad it's not even wrong" category. -
Donald Lewis at 16:26 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Nice romp Peter, thanks. -
SNRatio at 16:22 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Thanks for the link, philipm! For the record, I paste the basic "definition" here: "The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish." It's sad. but ignoring such bullshit as Willis E's last groundbreaking research results altogether can only make things worse. So I think we should rather take this more as entertainment. And we should be aware of the Gish Gallop phenomenon, and try to develop simple and efficient counter rhetorics against the denialists. As for the sensitivity issue, I think it is wise to be very careful and rather use very conservative estimates. The full sensitivity can only be assessed after several hundred years, when the system has reached a new equilibrium, and in the meantime, the people who shout "hey, the observed sensitivity is less than you said" will be kind of right. In the transition, quasi-periodic phenomena may also crop up and confuse a lot. -
philipm at 16:08 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
In a moment of weakness I went and read all the comments. Crazy stuff. Apparently climate sensitivity and the propensity for the earth to be in 1 of 2 states, glacial and interglacial, are totally orthogonal concepts. -
philipm at 15:16 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
For those who want a better handle on the real science, RealClimate has recently posted a nice article aimed at the scientifically literate non-expert. Meanwhile Gish is galloping once again... As you say, Mark, a simple thought experiment suffices to show this one's ridiculous. Why can't regular readers of WUWTF (spelling intentional) see through this for themselves? I mean, really: if there is a serious case that the science is flawed (and I've been looking hard for a few years in the faint hope that things aren't as bad as I fear they are), why do they entertain this sort of drivel? -
Albatross at 13:59 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
I am honestly at a loss of words! -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:38 PM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Philippe... As awful as it is, it's important for science to address things like this. It's worse to ignore it and think it will go away. Every time bad science like this comes up in the media it's important to address it so that at least some people will understand that it IS bad science. Even if a post like this only has the effect of altering a few people's opinion on climate science, those few people could, in the long run, be extremely important. You never know. -
robert way at 12:31 PM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
I'm kinda opening up this question for anyone here. How does one calculate anomalies if considering multiple records which do NOT ALL or mostly cover the anomaly period? Kinda working on something and having a trouble figuring it out myself -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:10 AM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Really, should any attention be paid to that kind of nonsense? It's not like there is a shortage of interesting papers to look at. -
Paul Daniel Ash at 10:50 AM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Mercy. The comments thread reads like the "Royal Society minutes" from Stephenson's Quicksilver:"Dr. ENT speculated as to why it is hotter in summer than winter. Mr. WATERHOUSE read a letter from a PORTUGUESE nobleman, most civilly complimenting the society for its successes in removing the spleens of dogs, without ill effect; and going on to enquire, whether the society might undertake to perform the like operation on his Wife, as she was most afflicted with splenetic distempers. Mr. WALLER mentioned that toads come out in moist cool weather. The president produced from Sir WILLIAM CURTIUS a hairy ball found in the belly of a cow. ..."
-
KR at 10:43 AM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd - my last sentence in my previous post was stating that perhaps the similarities in reconstructions (from various sets/subsets of proxy data) indicate that they are correct. There is independence in the samples - oxygen ratios in ice cores are calibrated completely differently from borehole temperatures, from tree ring analysis (which I have worked on a bit), stalagmite growth, etc. That really invalidates your assumption of everything being calibrated to the same benchmarks, and hence suffering from a common mistake. There is sufficient independence in the sample set. -
Lou Grinzo at 10:37 AM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
If reading this treatment of Willis' post doesn't make your head explode, I suggest hopping over to WUWT and reading the comments. They are, shall we say, revealing. -
Riduna at 10:06 AM on 7 July 2010Archibald’s take on world temperatures
Arkadiusz Semczyzak at 31 Thank you for the reference. The point I was trying to make is that solar activity has been low for the past 40 years but is now showing signs of increasing. During that same period of solar quiescence, global temperatures have continued to rise and, as solar activity becomes more pronounced, we can expect global temperatures to rise even more rapidly than they have so far. This should concern, particularly to those who believe that present measures to limit rise in temperature to 2C by 2100 will be effective. They will not, certainly not in Australia or North America where there is little concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Icarus at 09:25 AM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Think that should have been 400W/m², not 560... but it still means an infeasibly huge forcing would have been needed to get the planet out of the last ice age. -
Icarus at 09:12 AM on 7 July 2010Is Willis Wrong at WUWT? or Sensitivity and Sensibility I
Wow indeed. According to Willis's value for climate sensitivity, the ~7°C rise in global average temperature at the end of the last glaciation must have been caused by a whopping 560W/m² change in forcing. Guess that means the sun must have warmed up by about 40% at that time. He should tell the astronomers, I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear that. -
Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
johnd, One of the skeptic arguments that this post is addressing is that the reconstruction data is "fudged" to produce a particular result. Peter's confirmation of the methods refutes that point. Someone holding this point of view may indeed find Peter's results surprising. -
johnd at 08:10 AM on 7 July 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
skywatcher, your parallel is virtually what I was saying. The point being that more labs coming up with the same results only confirms that the methods used to process the data only confirms that they all use the same methodology given it is all the same raw data. It really is not confirming whether the data is a representative sample or not. Thus it is no different to carrying out a reanalysis of a urine sample. Your use of tree rings as an example is very relevant. The Briffa tree ring reconstruction began to diverge where the very highest quality data obtainable was available to validate all the assumptions made and equations developed inputted into the reconstruction model. ..................... KR, your last sentence also agrees with what I was saying. Repeated processing of the same sample only provides confirmation that the methodology used to process it is consistent with all other methods that produced the same results. Peter has obviously put a lot of effort into producing the work, and my response was to his own comment, "the fact that this resembles all of the other recent published reconstructions may (or may not)be surprising" I felt that the results were not surprising and set out to explain why I thought that. Perhaps anyone who found the results surprising can explain why they found them so.
Prev 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 Next
