Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 Next
Comments 116601 to 116650:
-
Neven at 09:03 AM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. My analysis indicates the highest late summer extent since 2006. And then finally 2 days ago: I’m forecasting a summer minimum of 5.5 million km², based on JAXA. i.e. higher than 2009, lower than 2006. For a timeline of WUWT antics, read my blog post over at the Arctic Sea Ice blog. -
Berényi Péter at 08:51 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Well, one thing you should be aware of. Really high CO2 partial pressure levels in oceans come from below, not above. These are upwelling areas and life just loves it. It's like an oasis in desert. Limnol. Oceanogr., 55(1), 2010, 239–248 Ocean acidification hotspots: Spatiotemporal dynamics of the seawater CO2 system of eastern Pacific coral reefs Manzello, Derek P. "During upwelling in the Galápagos, mean pCO2 [...] at five different sites ranged from 53.1 to 73.5 Pa" (524-725 ppm) This water comes from the abyss, has seen surface a long time ago. The same for California Undercurrent. Upwelling water pCO2 is 800 ppm.
-
VoxRat at 08:13 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
GeoGuy (#27) – "the operative word you use is “Dissolved”. Not all CO2 entering the ocean gets dissolved." Actually it is, *by definition*. Unless it's entering a s macroscopic bubbles. "Here is a sketchy outline of the process... [clipped misguided elementary chemistry lesson]" You've described a chemical equilibrium: CO2(aq) + H2O <-> H2CO3 ... but you've neglected the fact that - *in the ocean* - there's a further reaction: H2CO3 + OH(-) <-> HCO3(-) + H2O. So as fast as those CO2's react to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3), they soak up one hydroxide ion (OH-). That's acidification - it has exactly the same effect on the pH as does one half the number of sulfuric acid molecules: H2SO4 + 2OH(-) <-> SO4(2-) + 2H2O -
Doug Bostrom at 08:01 AM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Omnologos, are you getting your information second-hand by any chance? One could write anything if one does not bother to do fact-checking. Revkin: - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the full slate of 831 authors for its fifth assessment of the causes and consequences of climate change, due in 2014. There are many names familiar to Dot Earth readers. The panel made a point of noting its effort to include a wide range of views. Have a look around the working groups (links to lists) and discuss notable participants. - A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences attempted to sort hundreds of publishing climate scientists into two categories — those convinced and unconvinced of the basics on human-driven global warming — and found nearly all of those with long, heavily cited publishing records were convinced. Not surprisingly, the study has been embraced by proponents of swift action to curb greenhouse gases and attacked by skeptics. More surprisingly, at least a few seasoned climate researchers who are eager for action on emissions also found the work wanting. In a comment following a post by Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado describing the “black list” effect of such labeling efforts, Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington and contributor to the Realclimate.org blog, criticized the paper’s methods and intent, saying he was “totally appalled.” Where do you find Revkin's comment? Meanwhile, given Steig's contribution to RealClimate today (which I'm guessing you've not actually read) I'd say it's likely he's taken a closer look. Maybe Revkin should ask again. As to Pielke's "blacklist" it's a silly canard and seems accepted as such outside of WUWT. It's clear this paper touched a nerve in a painful way, hence all the squeals of outrage and references to Nazis etc. -
Chris G at 08:00 AM on 25 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Regarding public debates, if Bohr and Oppenheimer had a public debate on some aspect of nuclear physics, how the heck would the average person have been able to determine who's argument was better? It's the same thing with climate science. Actually, there already is a forum for public debate of climate science. They are called research journals, peer-reviewed ones at that. Anyone who thinks that only staid agreement occurs in these publications hasn't followed any lines between dissenting researchers. Lindzen appears to be the most worthy champion of the no-problem camp. But then, if he is correct that earth's climate is self-regulating, how does he explain the large range of climates in earth's past? -
VoxRat at 07:55 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
GeoGuy (#27) I stand by my numbers: The following links indicate that the pH of sulphuric acid and carbonic acid are 0.7 and 5.65 respectively. " Whatever those links say, your statement makes no sense. The pH of a solution of sulphuric acid can be anywhere from <1 to 7, ***depending on the concentration***. You ***seem*** to be thinking of pKa, not pH. But, as I explained, if the solution your putting the carbonic or sulfuric acid into (in this case the ocean) is at a pH substantially above either pKa, both carbonic and sulfuric acid are going to be contribute comparably to acidification. (They'll differ by a factor of 2, since sulfuric produces two hydrogen ions for every one produced by CO2. "The premise is also based on the concept that pH approximates the negative Log 10 of the molar concentration of dissolved hydrogen ions." I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a doctorate in biochemistry GeoGuy. I really don't need you to explain how pH works. Believe me. You're wrong on this. -
Chris G at 07:24 AM on 25 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Here's an article that might be relevant. http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/usda/climate-change-comes-to-your-backyard Those who say that an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in agricultural productivity are basically saying something along the lines that currently farmers have optimized their production for a different zone from the one in which they live, that all plants have the same requirements for temperature and water, or that there is no cost and no loss of productivity associated with retooling to grow a different crop. Maybe parts of Canada and Siberia will be able to support growing wheat where they weren't before. So what? Open Google Earth and compare areas where wheat is grown with tundra regions. Wheat growing regions have roads, railways, and towns with shops, hospitals, and schools every 20-40 miles. How many people think you can put those into new regions at no cost or loss of productivity? -
omnologos at 07:24 AM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Given what Schmidt, Steig, Revkin and even Slate have been saying in the past couple of days, can we all agree that in this case John (Cook) should have shown at least some hints of "healthy skepticism" about the PNAS paper? Otherwise, one could write that Skeptical Science vigorously criticises any evidence against man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embraces any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that supports global warming. As per the end of the Slate article, "Hyping this paper [...] simply reinforces the dangerous perception that climate activists will credulously push any news that might further their case. For those who care about this issue, that's tragic." -
pdjakow at 07:22 AM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
@dhogaza "Earlier Goddard had said it would "recover" to the 2006 level, 5.8+." Source? -
Doug Bostrom at 07:03 AM on 25 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lifted from Michael Tobis' blog: "The system of scholastic disputations encouraged in the Universities of the middle ages had unfortunately trained men to habits of indefinite argumentation, and they often preferred absurd and extravagant propositions, because greater still was required to maintain them; the end and object of such intellectual combats being victory and not truth. "No theory could be too farfetched or fantastical not to attract some followers, provided it fell in with popular notions..." --Charles Lyell in "Principles of Geology" (1830) Except, Lon, we're not in the Middle Ages. Most of us, anyway. For that matter you're not even arguing. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:55 AM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
In the way of progress on the central issue Anderegg's paper addresses, that of the disproportionately loud voice of often unfounded dissent, the AGU makes this announcement: Climate experts available to answer journalists’ science questions WASHINGTON-A growing number of climate scientists are signing up with the American Geophysical Union (AGU) to serve as sources for the news media of accurate scientific information about climate. So far, more than 115 climate specialists have volunteered for AGU’s new referral database. The database will enable AGU staff to readily match questions from reporters to experts in relevant disciplines. All of the scientists who have signed up to date are members of AGU, the world’s largest organization of Earth and space scientists, which has 58,000 members. AGU is establishing this new service in order to better address journalists’ needs for accurate, timely information about climate science. This initiative follows another effort that was conceived of and organized by AGU members last December around the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. That project brought together journalists and climate scientists, via email, so that reporters covering the conference could get climate science questions answered around the clock. The new referral service will receive journalists’ questions and other queries via emails or phone calls to AGU’s press office staff, who will then pass queries along quickly to appropriate scientist-volunteers. This new service will match scientists to reporters’ queries primarily during business hours (East Coast USA) and will be ongoing. ... Questions should focus on science, not on policy, and should include a deadline so that responses can be returned with appropriate speed. Answers to questions will reflect the responding scientists’ knowledge and research and do not represent official positions of the AGU. More -
Lon Hocker at 06:30 AM on 25 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
e: The satellite measured anomaly is not the same as El Niños/La Niñas. CBDunkerson: Thank you for your strangely illogical comment. I found it amusing. As with e, I see little hope in helping you. Doug: Stop picking on e and CBDunkerson! -
Doug Bostrom at 06:29 AM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Gavin Schmidt and Eric Steig have posted a useful discussion of this paper at RealClimate. There is a lot of discussion this week about a new paper in PNAS (Andregg et al, 2010) that tries to assess the credibility of scientists who have made public declarations about policy directions. This come from a long tradition of papers (and drafts) where people have tried to assess the state of the ’scientific consensus’ (Oreskes, Brown et al, Bray and von Storch, Doran and Zimmerman etc.). What has bedevilled all these attempts is that since it is very difficult to get scientists to respond to direct questions (response rates for surveys are pitiful), proxy data of some sort or another are often used that may or may not be useful for the specifics of the ‘consensus’ being tested (which itself is often not clearly defined). Is the test based on agreeing with every word in the IPCC report? Or just the basic science elements? Does it mean adhering to a specific policy option? Or merely stating that ’something’ should be done about emissions? Related issues arise from mis-specified or ambiguous survey questions, and from the obvious fact that opinions about climate in general are quite varied and sometimes can’t easily be placed in neatly labelled boxes. Given these methodological issues (and there are others), why do people bother? The answer lies squarely in the nature of the public ‘debate’ on climate. For decades, one of the main tools in the arsenal of those seeking to prevent actions to reduce emissions has been to declare the that the science is too uncertain to justify anything. To that end, folks like Fred Singer, Art Robinson, the Cato Institute and the ‘Friends’ of Science have periodically organised letters and petitions to indicate (or imply) that ‘very important scientists’ disagree with Kyoto, or the Earth Summit or Copenhagen or the IPCC etc. These are clearly attempts at ‘arguments from authority’, and like most such attempts, are fallacious and, indeed, misleading. They are misleading because as anyone with any familiarity with the field knows, the basic consensus is almost universally accepted. That is, the planet is warming, that human activities are contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (chiefly, but not exclusively CO2), that these changes are playing a big role in the current warming, and thus, further increases in the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are very likely to cause further warming which could have serious impacts. You can go to any standard meeting or workshop, browse the abstracts, look at any assessment, ask any of the National Academies etc. and receive the same answer. There are certainly disputes about more detailed or specific issues (as there is in any scientific field), and lots of research continues to improve our quantitative understanding of the system, but the basic issues (as outlined above) are very widely (though not universally) accepted. It is in response to these attempts to portray the scientific community as fractured and in disagreement, that many people have tried to find quantitative ways to assess the degree of consensus among scientists on the science and, as with this new paper, the degree of credibility and expertise among the signers of various letters advocating policies. The post has numerous embedded links, discusses methodological problems w/Anderegg et al and how significant those may be. Well worth reading the whole thing.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:27 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Geo Guy I think what you're suggesting is that we can't reliably attribute pH changes to C02 because there's a possible confounding influence from anthropogenic H2S04. It's possible to attribute pH changes to a particular source without reference to others. For instance, as a simple example let's say you have a container of water and two containers of sulfuric acid. Adding each container (slowly, of course!) of acid will change the pH a certain amount independently of the other. The situation of C02 and oceans is more complicated, of course, because the transport mechanism of C02 into the ocean and the associated chemical circus is more intricate than simply pouring acid into water. To figure out how much pH change can be exerted by a particular source one has to resort to models whether the source is C02 or H2S04. Given that pH changes from H2S04 will be additive with changes from C02, it's not strictly necessary to isolate H2S04 contributions; improving confidence in attribution to C02 can be done by improving the models used to calculate those contributions, coupled of course with direct observations. For those of us (me, for instance) who need some reasonable amount of information on the topic here's a useful paper that describes in detail accessible to us how atmospheric C02 interacts with the ocean: Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (pdf, Royal Society, Raven et al, 2005). Digging down, here's a really terrific paper describing the development of a model and providing some rich detail (including a fairly comprehensive table of equilibrium reactions) on how these processes can be modeled: Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry (pdf, JGR, MZ Jacobson, 2005) -
DarkSkywise at 05:06 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Geo Guy #26 - Unfortunately, there's no such thing as "the pH of sulphuric acid and carbonic acid". As in the links you've provided, the pH is not only dependant on the strength of the acid (the pKa), but also on the concentration. The sulfuric acid pH example has a concentration of "0.1 mol dm3"... if there would be enough SO2 in the atmosphere to reach such levels, you and I wouldn't be typing this. ;) -
Geo Guy at 04:13 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
VoxRat # 19 – the operative word you use is “Dissolved”. Not all CO2 entering the ocean gets dissolved.. Here is a sketchy outline of the process. As with the O2, the CO2 must cross the surface of the liquid: CO2(g) CO2(aq) It's a little easier for the CO2 to do so than for oxygen, because the oxygen ends of the molecule have a partial negative charge are better able to hydrogen-bond to the water as a result. The CO2 rather slowly acquires a shell of water molecules. A fraction of these hydrated carbon dioxide molecules react with the water to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3): CO2(aq) + H2O H2CO3(aq) -
Geo Guy at 03:59 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
VoxRat # 17 – I stand by my numbers: The following links indicate that the pH of sulphuric acid and carbonic acid are 0.7 and 5.65 respectively. The premise is also based on the concept that pH approximates the negative Log 10 of the molar concentration of dissolved hydrogen ions. http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/sulphuric_acid.htm http://www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html -
Geo Guy at 03:48 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
GaryB # 15 – I never implied we shouldn’t, however 100% of the focus has been on Anthropic CO2 which is incorrect – a factor that continues to be characteristic of the debate. In order to determine the real effect of CO2 on ocean acidity, we need to factor out all of the effects of alternative sources that contribute to a rise on ocean acidity. -
Geo Guy at 03:44 AM on 25 June 2010Ocean acidification
Doug_bostrom # 14 – while you raise some good points, I believe that given the location of many coal fired generators in the US (east coast) it is likely that much of the exhaust finds itself falling directly into the ocean. Estimates for a linger time vary from 2 to 5 days – certainly enough time for the westerly winds to transport the SO2 and associated pollution over the Atlantic. Similar situations exist in Asia. Another factor to consider, as I pointed out, is the exhaust from ships using bunker oil which falls over the ocean as well. The point I was trying to make is that sulphuric acid is so much stronger than carbonic acid that once you factor in all of the relevant parameters, in my view it is difficult to attribute increased acidification of the ocean strictly on increased CO2. -
CBDunkerson at 03:16 AM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Considering how low the ice concentration looks as compared to prior years I'm gonna be bold and guess a new record low at 3.9. Frankly, from that map, it looks like everything could melt out except a roughly triangular blob anchored across the northern edge of Greenland and Ellsmere Island and stretching northwards towards Severnaya Zemlya. -
dankd at 03:08 AM on 25 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Small correction- the temperature blip just after the K-T boundary is actually the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), not a result of the KT asteroid impact, but a separate event about 10 million years later. It has its own very interesting literature, and would be really hard to explain with a small climate sensitivity. See, for example Dunkley-Jones et al. (2010) and references therein: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2395.abstract -
Jim Eager at 02:48 AM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
I'm thinking between 5.0 and 4.5, maybe 4.25, bracketing 2008. Not that I can base that on anything more sophisticated than looking at the IARC-JAXA multi-year plot and the PIOMAS volume model, mind. -
dhogaza at 02:22 AM on 25 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
"Have Goddard sign up." Earlier Goddard had said it would "recover" to the 2006 level, 5.8+. Now he's saying 5.5 and is claiming he never predicted 5.8, because as he puts it, "5.5 is the first numerical estimate I've made" (i.e. saying "same as 2006" doesn't count because he didn't append " which was 5.8" to the sentence). But posters there are holding him to the 5.8 number. We shall see. -
Berényi Péter at 00:37 AM on 25 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Re: Moderator Response to #105 Geo Guy at 04:49 AM on 24 June, 2010 [...] Please continue any discussion of these topics in the appropriate threads.It would be much easier to do that if links to last several comments would be listed in left column belowLatest Posts
.Moderator Response: The last several comments already are collected together. Click the "Recent Comments" link in the blue horizontal bar that is at the top of every page. Each comment's time-date stamp is a link to that particular comment's original location. -
JMurphy at 00:30 AM on 25 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Perhaps the sparse attendance is linked to this article on Climate Progress, which points out the falling readership of anti-science blogs, particularly on ClimateAudit but also on WUWT. Good discussions there, too, beneath the article. -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
As a side note Lon, from your post: ...it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2. As others have pointed out, including John in his original post, this statement is factually incorrect. The IPCC in fact does conclude that temperature changes cause changes in the rate of CO2 accumulation (they even reference El Niños/La Niñas specifically), the topic is discussed in the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report, section 7.3.2.4.1. If nothing else, can you at least address this simple factual error? -
Berényi Péter at 23:59 PM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#102 chriscanaris at 01:15 AM on 24 June, 2010 Galileo was no diplomat (he also fudged his famous leaning tower of Pisa experiments). He published a dialogue in which he made the proponent of the Ptolemaic system appear a buffoon. Worse than that. Dialogo (published in March 1632, Florence) featured Simplicio (a convinced Aristotelian character, proponent of the Ptolemaic system) after Maffeo Barberini, his former friend and admirerer, who was the ruling pope, Urban VIII by then. As Simplicio looks rather silly most of the time, the pope was not happy at all. It was popular science, a bestseller, written in Italian, not Latin, the proper language for scientific papers. On top of that his treatment of tides (fourth day) as proof of terrestrial motion was fundamentally flawed.
First undeniable proof of Earth's motion came in 1727, almost a hundred years later, by the discovery of an unpredicted effect, stellar aberration. James Bradley was looking for stellar parallax, which was predicted since Aristarchus' time, but as usual, he has found something else. The first successful stellar parallax measurement was performed in 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel on 61 Cygni.
Science takes time.
In 1783 Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel published his paper on Solar Motion and introduced the term Solar Apex. Therefore not even the Heliocentric world view was correct, the Sun also moved (toward Lambda Herculis).
The Catholic Church was more or less up to date with science. In 1758 they dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism and in 1822 the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition allowed printing of heliocentric books in Rome.
In 1916 Albert Einstein explained God does not care. A center of your choice is as good as any other.
Then came the ultimate triumph of Geocentric World View with the adoption of WGS 84 and advent of GPS.
-
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon I understand your post just fine, in summary: a) Rate of CO2 accumulation correlates to temperature anomaly. (I don't dispute this) b) Temperature anomaly correlates with el ninos. (no dispute here either) c) Transitively, rate of CO2 accumulation correlates with el ninos. (still no dispute here) d) El Ninos are not caused by CO2. (again no dispute here) e) You conclude from the above that the effects of temperature change are the direct source of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the final step where you have made an illogical leap. The proposition in e) simply does not follow logically from the statements above it. You cannot conclude from a correlation to rate that there exists a direct causation. Only a correlation to level can suggest that. Statements b-c are direct transitive extensions of statement a, they do not magically turn your correlation of rate to a correlation of level. The model you provided is just a quantitative restatement of your correlation to rate, it too does not magically transform your data into a correlation of level (and it also makes some ridiculous predictions). Honestly I don't have much hope left that you will understand any of this, but I can't help feeling like there exists some combination of words that will make this clear to you. -
CBDunkerson at 22:44 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Also note that these predictions will be updated monthly through the Summer. Thus, they're likely working on new results for the June 30 deadline now. I expect that means most of them will be adjusted downwards... given that we're now roughly twice as far below the long term average as we were at the end of May. -
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 24 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon #106: "I hope that helps, because I'm afraid I really can't figure out your logic." Let me simplify. Let's say the average global temperature in the UAH satellite record for January is 12 C and for July it is 14.3 C. I haven't checked to see what the actual figures they came up with are, but those are likely in the ballpark and the specifics don't matter for this explanation. A January temp of 11.42 C and a July temp of 13.72 C would then both have anomaly values of -0.58. Thus, even though the TEMPERATURE had increased 2.30 C from January to July the ANOMALY would be unchanged... and per your formula there would therefor be no change in CO2 levels. The temperature increasing 2.30 C has absolutely no impact. Only change in the ANOMALY impacts CO2 levels. Which is, of course, ridiculous... because the anomaly values are completely arbitrary. If they took a different set of years to compute the baseline average temperatures for each month you'd get different anomalies... but somehow this particular arbitrary set of anomalies is perfectly correlated to atmospheric CO2 fluxes? The formula is inherently illogical. -
CBDunkerson at 21:59 PM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
HumanityRules #18, I don't see the parallel you suggest between crop growth and ocean pH studies. The objection in the crop growth study was that they simulated the positive impacts of increased CO2, but not the (more significant) negative ones. Are you suggesting that there will be beneficial effects to the oceans from acidification which could outweigh the negative ones? If so, what are these benefits? -
Doug Bostrom at 18:14 PM on 24 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Pride is expensive. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:44 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Wilson does go a bit off the tracks, especially the bit where we learn of Destruction of nearly ALL aboveground structures North of 10 Degrees Latitude = 99% Deaths in USA, Europe, etc. within 2 years. Fortunately he only assigns a 1 in 8 chance of that happening so we'll probably make it through this year, at least. Honestly, it's a remarkable thing for SEARCH to include lay opinions, a noble impulse but one I think might get out of hand. At the very minimum we might need much wider browser windows if predictions end up numbering in the hundreds. The methods part of the collection is in fact quite interesting, a smorgasbord for sea ice mavens. -
Lon Hocker at 17:37 PM on 24 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
e: Sorry, but you clearly don't understand my post despite my best efforts. I give up, and am content to leave you with your misconceptions. Thank you for your interest. -
pdjakow at 17:27 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Wilson prediction is hmm... strange :) -
Doug Bostrom at 16:38 PM on 24 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
More observations for the Monckton Phenomenon data collection, as collected by the Guardian newspaper: Climate change sceptics last week co-opted Margaret Thatcher into their lobbying campaigns, illustrating once more the strong ideological streak that drives their efforts. Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has posted, on the blog operated by former TV weatherman and prominent "sceptic" Anthony Watts, a personal account of his influence on Lady Thatcher's views about climate change during the 1980s. Thatcher shocked the UN in 1989 with a call to action on man-made global warming, but has since made sceptical public statements about anthropogenic climate change. As we have come to expect, Viscount Monckton's recollection of events makes for interesting reading. He begins with the claim that: "I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was founded", pointing out that the prime minister's policy unit at that time had just six members and that he was "the only one who knew any science". Monckton then goes on to suggest that "it was I who – on the prime minister's behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward". This revelation might be news to Lady Thatcher. On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to "George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit". Indeed, given Monckton's purportedly crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on her years as prime minister. Viscount Monckton also modestly notes that he was responsible for bringing in "the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street", on which he "did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some 'global warming' would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb". It is perhaps surprising that this novel and important innovation by Viscount Monckton was not recognised by the current minister for science and universities, David Willetts, who was also a member of the prime minister's policy unit between 1984 and 1986. In 1986, "Two Brains" wrote a prize-winning essay on the role of the unit, but mysteriously omitted to mention Monckton's historic contribution. Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign -
Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Lon >You seem to agree that a temperature change causes a change in the rate of change of CO2. Yes, it changes the rate of change of CO2, nobody here has disputed that, you misunderstood if you thought so. However, the question of where that rate comes from to begin with cannot be answered by the correlation you found. That can only be evidenced by a direct correlation to level, no derivatives. > If I know my starting point, and all accelerations (derivative of position) thereafter, I can determine my position in the future uniquely. Ah yes, but the key here is "if you know your starting point". This is a great illustration of the problem with your conclusions re: causation. If temperature was directly causative of CO2 accumulation, you would not need to know your starting point, and you would not need to feed the results of a previous step of the model into the next (the CO2 Month(n-1) term). If such a causation existed, then you would have a direct correlation between CO2 level and temperature, and therefore you would be able to come up with an equation that directly estimates CO2 level based on temperature alone, no "starting point" necessary. It would look something like this: CO2_level_month(n) = a*(anomaly_month(n) + b) Without a strong direct correlation between temperature and CO2 level, you cannot do this. In contrast, global CO2 level and human CO2 emissions do show this correlation. In other words, based on nothing but anthropogenic CO2 emission totals, we can directly estimate the global CO2 level - no "starting point" necessary, no need to feed the results of previous steps to the following. Your model is not capable of doing this because it is not derived from the correlation that is necessary to provide evidence of direct causation. It is derived rather from a correlation to rate, not a direct correlation to level. Are you really trying to say that those two things are the same? Again, did you read my post with the skydiver analogy? It's meant as an example of how a correlation to rate cannot be used to assume a correlation to position. A skydivers surface area is tightly correlated to his terminal velocity, but should that lead you to conclude that surface area is what causes him to fall? This silly conclusion follows directly from the same logic you are trying to apply to CO2 and temperatures (in fact, you could construct a model in this scenario that calculates the skydivers position based only on his previous position and his current surface area). >Your post 108 seems to negate 107. No, post 108 clarified my point. Your conclusion about correlation of rate is fine, in 107 I am specifically critizing your conclusion about causation. To summarize: your raw calculations seem fine, your statements about correlation of rate are fine, but your conclusions about causation do not follow logically from your math. This is what everyone here has been trying to explain to you. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:18 PM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
Steve I noticed that Willis' WUWT review of observed ocean pH makes a joke, "“The reports of the ocean’s death have been greatly exaggerated.” A nice bit of misdirection; nobody has said the oceans will die and meanwhile Willis' remark suggests that all organisms living in the ocean will respond identically to changing conditions. Tease out the threads of research and it turns out that some creatures are highly tolerant of varying pH and some are not. Willis is not quite up to his usual snuff with his pH writeup, though his rhetoric is just as entertaining as always. Even though one section of his dismissal of pH as a problem depends on notable stratification and poor mixing as identified by the authors of the work he plunders for juicy bits, later he declares that because the ocean volume is so vast it's impossible for the amount of added C02 to significantly change pH. These rationales are both supposed to work simultaneously on a timescale of a handful of decades. What I find really fascinating about Willis is the punctuation mark he represents, the shift in emphasis he brings with his writing. Willis is in fact dragging a number of reluctant WUWT readers backward along the path of contrarian thinking and at the same time realigning their thinking. He's corrected some perceptual problems with attribution of increased C02 in the atmosphere and in this pH piece he is in fact conceding that we're going to add a large amount of C02 to the ocean and thus measurably change its pH value. Willis is positively progressive compared to Steven Goddard or some of the old school authors practicing at WUWT. However he's also quite gifted with writing and apparently is using his skills to build acceptance of AGW's legitimacy while simultaneously focusing on downplaying impacts. In sum his work looks like a concession and subsequent shift to adaptation, consolation and Panglossian thinking but of course Willis is just one author and presumably could be drummed out if he smashes the "Overton Window." -
batsvensson at 15:44 PM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
@Hypnos at 19:03 PM on 23 June, 2010 "How ridicolous can it get? If you have concerns about a growing mole do you go to an oncologist or a philosophy professor?" That is a strawman argument. If you believe I claim any man on the street can have an informed opinion then you do not believe what I believe. If you believe it matter who claims something then you believe in argument by authority. Authorities are not always right. Non authorities are wrong most of the time, but from this it doesn’t follow that authorities always are right and that non authorities always are wrong. Therefore if someone make a general sweeping claim (like the OP does in this article) that several argument made by several non authorities are wrong then one should be really suspicious about such claims and not believe in it before evaluating the dismissed claim made. -
NewYorkJ at 15:11 PM on 24 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Good to see Prall co-author this study. I've cited his work here before. It's detailed, careful, and meticulous. Tobis has a nice post on this. The disconnect with logic "skeptics" have (blacklists?) is remarkable. The charge is based on the simple fact that names of skeptics have been published. Um...they were already published in the petition(s). By such logic, skeptics have blacklisted themselves. I have zero sympathy for the skeptical types who whine in this manner. We live in a world where a scientist expressing skeptical views of climate science (at any level) becomes an instant celebrity. -
Steve L at 14:56 PM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
I have a couple of friends in the bivalve aquaculture industry. They expect 10-20 years before this seriously affects their business, but they're worried now. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is concerned about acidification causing loss of pteropods because those are a major food of pink salmon. Sorry, I don't have a schedule for how long they think it will be before it affects their catches. -
Tony O at 14:23 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Do we know when the more scientific prognostications were done. Right now an ice extent of 4 million square km looks about right, yet early May I might have guessed a higher figure. Exactly when the summer ice goes is now a matter of weather.Moderator Response: The deadline for submissions was May 31 so it's fairly safe to say the work was done in May. -
carrot eater at 14:09 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Have Goddard sign up. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:09 PM on 24 June 2010Mauna Loa is a volcano
Great anecdote. Even Willis of WUWT concedes that Mauna Loa produces good data, the idea that somehow nobody noticed they were standing on the world's largest shield volcano is perfectly diagnostic of the state of awareness of somebody repeating the error. Sadly that won't stop this idea from continuing to rattle around like some kind of perfectly elastic pinball on friction-free table. -
villabolo at 12:26 PM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
Marcus at 11:45 AM on 24 June, 2010 "Either way, it certainly looks like below average ice-cover is here to stay!" Hate to quibble about semantics Marcus, but below average ice-cover is not here to stay. It will simply disappear all together. -
citizenschallenge at 12:24 PM on 24 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
I was quite impressed with Professor Abraham's presentation. His excellent contribution deserves to be widely disseminated both for its content and for its example. I've tried to do my little part by compiling notes on all 126 slides of his presentation along with an index (weighting at 18 pages and 8,000 words) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Citizen’s Unauthorized Notes... Science On Trial. An exploration of the recent presentation: “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton” Abraham v. Monckton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If anyone is curious please visit citizenschallenge.blogspot.com -
Doug Bostrom at 12:23 PM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
What are those ideas about maintaining average ocean pH values, HR? -
Dan Lufkin at 12:21 PM on 24 June 2010Mauna Loa is a volcano
I shared an office with Dave Keeling in Stockholm in the early 1960s and can report that Dave was aware that ML is a volcano. The trade wind blows 99.9% of the time with the CO2 station well upwind. When the wind changes the CO2 goes off the chart. The nearest upwind source is about 1500 miles away. The reading stays steady for weeks at a time. -
VoxRat at 11:45 AM on 24 June 2010Ocean acidification
Also GeoGuy - that bit about only 15% of CO2 contributing to acidification - that's wrong, too. As I said, every CO2 molecule dissolved in the ocean produces 1 hydrogen ion. -
Marcus at 11:45 AM on 24 June 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
All in all, I'm not a huge fan of prognostication. I'll wait until September to see the *real* results ;). Either way, it certainly looks like below average ice-cover is here to stay!
Prev 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 Next
