Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 Next
Comments 117401 to 117450:
-
chris at 19:24 PM on 15 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:46 PM on 14 June, 2010 With respect Arkadiusz, you're missing the point. Mr Monckton in his presentation used the Powerpoint slide in Figure 2 of the top post as a "front" to his assertion that: "....the Medieval Warm Period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. That is the scientific consensus....." This immediately preceded (and followed) by unpleasant segments in which Monckton accuses the IPCC of attempting to make the MWP disappear and that the scientists involved effectively told lies about their data. So we are addressing Monckton's assertions in the light of the evidence he shows to "support" these assertions and accusations. We find in fact that (a) the IPCC didn't attempt to make the MWP disappear since it is there in all their reports and the saupporting published papers, (b) the scientists involved didn't lie and misrepresent their data (Monckton shows no evidence for this creepy slur), (c) that of the data sets he shows at least 6 do not support his assertions at all (see Abraham's and my previous, and others posts on this thread), (d) that there is no evidence to support the assertion that the MWP was warmer than now (the evidence, even Monckton's examples, supports the opposite conclusion), (e) that there is little evidence that supports the assertion that the MWP was contemporaneously global (the evidence as it stands supports the opposite interpretation), although this remains to be established one way or another, and (f) that taken together (a) to (e) are a more faithful representation of the "consensus". Now you may want to hunt around for bits and pieces of data than might or might not support alternative interpretations (about the global homogeneity of the MWP). No one has a problem with that; scientists are doing this as we speak. But there are thousands of man hours of efforts of scientists that have the tools to address these questions properly. If one wishes to make conclusions about the homogeneity of the MWP (say) then the proxy data needs to be addressed en masse. These analyses give us the information (see Figure 1 of Dr. Abraham's top post) that allow these questions to be addressed scientifically. Scratching around at this or that bit of individual data isn't going to add very much to our understanding....that's not to say it might not be fun if you like doing that sort of thing. However you should be a little clearer about what insight you consider you'll gain from this... -
James Wight at 17:16 PM on 15 June 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I’ve noticed some more errors in the Resources section that you should know about. Probably the most important is that the resources pages for “It’s the Sun” and “It’s cosmic rays” no longer seem to contain any links! But there are supposed to be hundred of them – where have they all gone? (This problem may extend to other pages, but I haven’t checked them all.) Another thing I’ve noticed recently is that the lists of Pro-AGW resources for each argument no longer include the corresponding Skeptical Science pages (though the SkS pages do seem to be included in the tally of Pro-AGW links displayed in green on the main Resources page). Did you intentionally remove them? (And why isn’t there a tally of Neutral links as well as Pro-AGW and Skeptic?) When you view an argument’s “peer-reviewed resources” page, there is a link at the top saying “View peer-reviewed papers only”. Shouldn’t this link direct the reader back to the full list of links?Response: Okay, realised why some pages weren't showing all the links - it's because I limited each page to only 25 links which means the arguments with lots of pro-AGW links used up their allotment before they even got to the neutral or skeptic links.
The link to the skeptical science rebuttal of each argument was missing because of a stupid error in my code. Took me a while to discover the error, took even longer slapping myself in the forehead for making the error then only a second to fix it.
The link saying 'view peer-reviewed papers only' is meant to show only papers for that argument. I added it because I personally found it annoying having to go back to the main directory, select 'peer-review only' then go back to the argument. I wanted immediate satisfaction.
Why isn't there a tally of neutral links? Meh. Who cares about how many neutral links there are? Well, I'm sure you do, James :-)
BTW, as always, many thanks for the feedback and helping keep the ever expanding and bloating website in some semblance of order. -
Bern at 14:16 PM on 15 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
deconvoluter at #62: thanks for that, it looks like a nice concise summary of the relevant equations. As I mentioned, I only googled for three seconds, so I obviously only found the basic radiative heat transfer equations. Reality is much more complex, as your link shows, when you throw an absorbing/re-radiating atmosphere into the mix. I would think, though, that a quick search for papers discussing heat transfer through the atmosphere would get you there a lot faster than three months! Or perhaps it took three months to find some equations that gave answers Monckton liked? It's a shame physics doesn't work that way, or we'd have free energy, anti-gravity, hyperdrives, and colonies in other star systems already! -
Doug Bostrom at 13:26 PM on 15 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
The Ville if you're looking for informed commentary on the reporting itself you could do worse than regularly checking the Knight Science Journalism Tracker. KSJ Tracker is a service for science journalists, created and funded by the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and launched in May 2006. We believe that if science reporters and editors have convenient and timely access to the work of peers across the country, they can better evaluate and improve their own performance. Our goal is to provide a broad sampling of the past day’s science news and, where possible, of news releases or other news tips related to publication of science news in the general circulation news media, mainly of the U.S. Our goal is to have a new batch of posts up each day of the work week by 2 pm Eastern time. -
muoncounter at 11:36 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#105 "both SST history and satellite temperatures are consistent with GHCN derived series. If trend in the latter one is decreased by 45%, they become inconsistent." Extraordinary. Three independent datasets agree, yet one may have a theoretical inconsistency, so they all must be wrong? That's bass-ackwards. Especially when you add in the other datasets that tell the same story. For example, here's a snippet from a report of the Meteorological Service of Canada in 2000, which used 210 stations scattered across Canada: "the area with significant upward trend has expanded from the Prairies to include northern B.C. and Manitoba. The greatest warming during spring is well over 2 deg C for the 1900–1998 period in the Prairies." From the prairies to northern BC and Manitoba? Let's look at Manitoba, as an example, where the 20th century population growth looks nothing like the GISS temperature record. BTW, Manitoba has an area of approx. 650000 sq km with a 2006 population of 1.15 million (same reference as 'population growth', above). How can urban heating be responsible for 2 deg C in 99 years in a place as un-urban as Manitoba? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 15 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
FACT: Arkadiusz should know that Haas' take on the Maxwell Bay sediment core does not agree with the work of other researchers. The snarky tone combined with the superficial look at the existing science on the subject could lead some to suspect that Arkadiusz might be misrepresenting the science by selecting only one article that supports his view. To avoid such suspicion, it may be wise for Arkadiusz to dig deeper and stay away from the snarky tone. First, before Maxwell Bay, there was Palmer Deep, which yielded a lot of useful information and has a number of significant differences compared to Maxwell, especially the length of the Holocene Optimum (the difference may be up to 3500 years according to Klein). The 108 meters core obtained by the SHALDRIL (Maxwell) project was used by a number of teams to look at Holocene climate in Antarctica. Besides Haas et al, there was also Milliken's team. Milliken has done extensive work on Antarctica's reconstructions and his take is quite different: "High-resolution Holocene climate record from Maxwell Bay, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica." Milliken et al, 2009. http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/11-12/1711 Excerpt: "The highest resolution Holocene sediment core from the Antarctic Peninsula to date was collected during the first SHALDRIL cruise (NBP0502). Drilling yielded a 108.2-m-long core (87% recovery; site NBP0502–1B) from Maxwell Bay, South Shetland Islands. This high-resolution sediment record comes from a region that is currently experiencing dramatic climate change and associated glacial retreat. Such records can help to constrain the nature of past climate change and causal mechanisms, and to provide a context for evaluating current climate change and its impacts." Further, it reads: "Minimum sea-ice cover and warm water conditions occurred between 8.2 and 5.9 ka. From 5.9 to 2.6 ka, there was a gradual cooling and more extensive sea-ice cover in the bay. After 2.6 ka, the climate varied slightly, causing only subtle variation in glacier grounding lines. There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay. The current warming and associated glacial response in the northern Antarctic Peninsula appears to be unprecedented in its synchroneity and widespread impact." Allison Klein did a thesis on the SHALDRIL core and the most she will say is this: "Productivity slowly decreases from 6500-2000 cal yr BP with increasing sea-ice cover (Milliken, 2008 - Chapter 1), after which it begins to remain relatively stable until present day with a slight increase 900-700 cal yr BP, perhaps a signal of the medieval warm period (Figure 19)." A far cry from Haas' sweeping statements. Klein's thesis is available as a pdf: http://dspace.nitle.org/bitstream/handle/10090/6428/s10geol2008klein.pdf?sequence=1 I don't have access to the Haas paper so I don't know why he believes that he can be so affirmnative in his MWP/LIA statements, but certainly his conclusions are not shared by the other teams that have worked on the SHALDRIL core. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:30 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
FYI... You can actually see the ASOS station in the google image. It's just to the left of the little club shaped thing on the opposite side of the airport from town. It's at the end of a small road. -
Stephen Baines at 07:55 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
@johnd 103 I believe the difference in temp increase between the Northern and Southern hemispheres is because a much larger proportion of the surface area in the southern hemisphere is ocean. Of course, the ocean has a much higher heat capacity, so the same amount of heat results in a smaller temperature change. -
citizenschallenge at 07:50 AM on 15 June 2010Podcasts, interviews and Monckton bashing
As one of those who had a post deleted though 'I' didn't think it was that bad - I say thanks to the moderators - after all, none of us is the best judge of our own writing. Stick to your guns folks. PS. the proof is in the puddin: "This has to be one of the most on-point and focused comment threads I’ve ever seen in an energy and enviro discussion." (Lou Grinzo) Awesome website! peter -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter... I just looked at a more recent google map satellite image of Barrow and there is virtually no change in urbanization in Barrow since this 1997 image you're posting here. I'm not the expert here but I don't quite understand where the UHI effect is coming from.
-
MattJ at 07:18 AM on 15 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
Phila makes a very important point: these false arguments never die, no matter how much they deserve to die. And lack of critical self-examination certainly has a lot to do with the reason they never die, but the deeper reason is even worse: when we get right down to it, the so-called skeptics (and their paymasters) really do not care that what they are doing is so destructive. So of course they avoid the hard work that is "critical self-examination" -
Riccardo at 07:13 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter, do you want me to believe that being in an open space at least hundreds of meters away from the village or in between walls much warmer than air is the same thing? -
Berényi Péter at 07:01 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#102 Riccardo at 03:34 AM on 15 June, 2010 The metereological stations, on the contrary, are outside the village, at the airport for a while Come on. That's how far away is the airport from Barrow.
-
batsvensson at 06:40 AM on 15 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
@Doug 00:35 AM on 12 June, 2010 thank you for the elaboration reply. -
Berényi Péter at 05:39 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#100 Ned at 01:58 AM on 15 June, 2010 I stand by the comment that your proposed UHI effect (0.29C/century over land) works out to approximately 5 or 6 percent of the current global trend It is much worse than that. As it stands, both SST history and satellite temperatures are consistent with GHCN derived series. If trend in the latter one is decreased by 45%, they become inconsistent. In that case something has to be done. Computational climate models also have to be recalibrated using revised data. So if I would be right, it could get pretty inconvenient for folks involved in diverse branches of climate science. It is better to debunk it ASAP. However, not by rhetoric, but valid arguments. -
MattJ at 05:31 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Answering #61: Scientists may not have collected the data themselves, but scientists ARE responsible for a certain sort of "due diligence" to make sure the data they used are sound. That is where they did not do well here. Even if it is true that UHI has had little effect, the 'proofs' of this really do sound too much like circular reasoning. Or, if, as some seem to be doing in this forum, we insist on referring to satellite measurements to justify the accuracy of the surface measurements, then all we have really done is replaced our confidence in one measurement with total confidence in another. We may as well have skipped the one to begin with. The epistemology behind such an approach is obviously disappointing. -
Phila at 04:56 AM on 15 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
#1 Geo Guy "In the end, reliance on the IPCC reports is simply not realistic - perhaps that is why the UN has initiated an investigation into the methodology and processes used by the Panel?" Actually, I think the reason they've done this is because it's necessary in order to counter the politically motivated attacks against them, even though they've made fewer demonstrable errors in their massive documents than the average "skeptic" makes in a single 100-word blog comment, and should therefore be far more credible by the skeptics' own alleged standards. In any case, that kind of critical self-examination and self-correction is precisely what makes the IPCC process scientific. And the lack of it is exactly why "skeptical" arguments never die, no matter how many times they've been debunked (cf. "hiding the decline"). -
johnd at 04:38 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
ProfMandia at 13:17 PM on 13 June, 2010, more relevant to any comparison is that between the northern and southern hemispheres. There is a relatively significant difference between temperatures and understanding and explaining that difference would be of more value, yet it's been completely ignored in this thread. Why is that? -
Gordon1368 at 03:50 AM on 15 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
@#2 philc I think you misapprehend how the word "consensus" is used. It does not mean that the scientists agreed to agree. In this case, the consensus is a result of scientists from many different institutions and disciplines, from all over the world, competing against each other for resources and recognition, and using different methods independently coming to similar conclusions. Therefore it is a powerful indicator of validity, just the opposite of what you conclude. -
Riccardo at 03:34 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter, in line with what skywatcher wrote, I have to clarify two misunderstandings. First, I have no doubt that at high population density the UHI effect tend to saturate. Second, I do not claim that UHI is non existent nor negligibly small; indeed, all the surface temperature datasets correct for it. Go back to the figure you showed in comment #10. The problem with Specer findings (and you) is the trend in the low population density regime. It is claimed that already at 5/Km2, i.e. one family in one Km2, already produce a warming of 0.35 °C. Add three more families in the same Km2 and it jumps to 0.8 °C. This is an extraordinary claim, i'd say. You seem to suggest that the metadata define as rural sites that should not be considered as such and quoted Barrow as an example. At first I did not want to comment on this extreme cherry picking, one particular site in a particular environment and in a particular season (note that they detect a negative UHI effect in summer). But let me spend a few words just to show how far one may mislead the readers. I guess you did not read the paper nor check where the met station is in Barrow. The infamous 2.2 °C were measured by a set of ad hoc thermometers placed inside the village; they wanted to assess the problem of building stability due to permafrost melting. The metereological stations, on the contrary, are outside the village, at the airport for a while and now even further away as part of the Climate Reference Network. Should we presume that they give the same reading as the thermometers inside the village in the season of largest energy use and soil-air temperature difference? One last thing. I don't care if you may or may not do the calculations, which I consider wrong, from the data I show. What that graph shows is that when calculations are done properly and with population densities wildly different, we get an overall difference in the trends relatively small. Your try to assign the measured global warming to the UHI effect ("Not much warming is left" back in your comment #10) is unsupported. It is really surprising that you try to revive the now largely abandoned mantra of the UHI effect. -
skywatcher at 01:59 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
@97, Berenyi, I doubt anyone here is suggesting that teh UHI effect does not exist. What they are doubting is that it has changed in the way you suggest. But take that article you refer to: The UHI effect is only significant in winter, and the annual average UHI is much smaller (it's possibly even negative in summer, though the authors attribute this to other effects). But you still have the problem of assessing how, in each case (seeing as how you like the details), the UHI is able to change substantially with a rising population. The supposed relationship does not take into account any other factors, as Gneiss pointed out, and can be subjected to a more rigorous analysis. But as the UHI is clearly a local effect (your reference shows this nicely), quite how does it drive the global temperature rise as measured by satellites, or the loss of sea ice, or the retreat of glaciers, or the myriad other observed warming effects in areas far from urbanisation? That's the whole point of John Cook's post. Far more likely, given the multiple independent lines of evidence, is that your UHI hypothesis is incorrect, and you are failing to apply a 'skeptical' mind to the single blog post you're using as evidence... c'est la vie... -
Ned at 01:58 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP, my apologies, I read that sentence ("therefore temperature difference between two spots ...")carelessly and leapt to an incorrect conclusion about what you were doing. Fortunately that was irrelevant to the rest of my point, however, and I stand by the comment that your proposed UHI effect (0.29C/century over land) works out to approximately 5 or 6 percent of the current global trend, whether measured using satellites or surface observations. -
Berényi Péter at 01:50 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#94 chris at 00:06 AM on 15 June, 2010 The notion that geothermal heat flux has made a significant contribution to the recent increases in deep ocean heat content [*] isn't supportable without evidence that the geothermal heat flux has coincidentally increased enormously during the same period Yes. But geothermal heat flux is still an important driver of OHC, if not on short timescales like this. The oceans have to get rid of that heat somehow, otherwise it would warm them up at a 0.0002°C/year rate. If all the sea ice would have gone (as it was during Eocene times), surface waters got warm even in arctic seas, downwelling of water close to ice edge would stop (due to lack of ice edge), in just a hundred thousand years (which is nothing on geological timescale) even abyssal waters would warm up to 20°C. In half a million years the entire ocean would be boiling. Actually it would not. Circulation would resume long before that, at a higher than present day temperature. -
monckhausen at 01:50 AM on 15 June 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
End of Lambs T-t graph: mentioned to be around 1920. I got another value of 1905. Does anybody know the sources of the two values? -
Berényi Péter at 01:27 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#93 Ned at 23:58 PM on 14 June, 2010 Perhaps you meant to write "as the ratio of log population density is constant..."? For God's sake, NO! Do I have to explain logarithms? (logarithm of quotient is the difference of logarithms, at least last time I've checked it was that way) -
Berényi Péter at 01:16 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#91 Riccardo at 22:30 PM on 14 June, 2010 you should admit that the extraordinary conclusion is a logarithmic dependence of UHI effect on population starting already at very low values Well, you have not mentioned so far you think the logarithmic dependence breaks down for low population density values. If this is what you claim, you should also supply an alternative hypothesis about the approximate form of the function in this range. However, before you venture to do that, you may prefer to have a look at this article: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY Int. J. Climatol. 23: 1889–1905 (2003) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/joc.971 THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND IN WINTER AT BARROW, ALASKA Hinkel at al. Barrow, Alaska is a fairly northern (71°17′44″N) village, with 4581 inhabitants in 2008. As the GHCN criterion for a township being flagged "rural" is to have less than 10,000 inhabitants, it is classified rural indeed (WMO No. 70026). In spite of this Hinkel at al. 2003 have found an average winter (December-March) UHI of 2.2°C there (relative to the surrounding countryside). Therefore we may safely conclude there exists at least one rural GHCN site where UHI is not negligible at all. Data show otherwise, even when they are categorized according to population density as in the graph I showed before (didn't you notice?) You mean this figure, I suppose. I don't see how is it related to the (non)logarithmic dependence of UHI. It has two categories, less than 2/km2 and more than 500/km2, but nothing about how the distribution of stations in each category has changed over time. Without this information nothing can be calculated, therefore based solely on this graph the logarithmic hypothesis can neither be confirmed nor refuted. You may also study this one. Atmospheric Environment Volume 7, Issue 8, August 1973, Pages 769-779 doi:10.1016/0004-6981(73)90140-6 City size and the urban heat island T.R. Oke Unfortunately I have no access to it right now, but he studies settlements ranging from ten thousand to two million inhabitants and has found logarithmic dependence of UHI in this range with ΔTUHI = log10(pop) where pop is population of the city. It is equivalent to an UHIE of 0.22°C/doubling (of city population). As area also increases with increasing population, the rate of increase in population density is lower. Therefore if Oke's formula is accepted, about 70% of 20th century warming is accounted for by UHI. Of course he has not studied settlements below 10,000, but his formula still gives a 2.92°C UHI for the lower end. I guess his values are a bit high, but as the Barrow, Alaska case shows, not an order of magnitude higher than reality. A UHI of 0.16°C/doubling (of population density) still looks like a safe bet. -
chris at 00:49 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
HumanityRules at 14:25 PM on 14 June, 2010 "On changes in seasons and phenological changes it seems that species have always had to adapt to climate induced ecological change. I think it's uncontroversial to say the temp record of the 20th century is a combination of a natural cycle with a warming trend imposed upon it? I was trying to find the amplitude of that natural cycle. It looks to be ~0.3-0.5oC over 15years. So species are always having to adapt to change, in fact Darwin called it Adaption" That's incorrect on several levels: The globally averaged amplitude of natural cycles (or quasiperiodic variations in surface temperature arising from oscillations in the climate system) is likely in the region of 0.1-0.2 oC (see e.g. [*] and [**]). A recent analysis of the contributions of these natural oscillations concludes that they have made near zero contribution to the warming since the start of the 20th century [**]. Your final point confuses (i) the component of species "fitness" that encompasses somatic or phenotypic compatibility with the range of (climate) variability within their ecosystem (one could call this "adaptedness"), and (ii) "adaptation" in the Darwinian sense, which involves the (genetic) acquisition of phenotypic traits that increase the fitness of a species with respect to a particular ecosystem. There is no question that "fit" species are (by definition) compatible with the range of meteorological diversity within the particular climate regime they inhabit. The point at issue is the ability of species to adapt to changing environmental conditions as climate regimes shift rapidly under the influence of global warming. Species that are adapted to a particular climate regime with its inherent variability, are likely to be poorly adapted to a considerably different climate regime. They're unlikely to be able to acquire the adaptations by which they might retain fitness, since Darwinian adaptation is a slow process. Therefore under rapidly changing climate conditions species migrate (as is being observed in the real world) or if this is not possible, they may likely become extinct. [*] Zhang, R., T. L. Delworth, and I. M. Held (2007), Can the Atlantic Ocean drive the observed multidecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature? Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L02709 [**] K. L. Swanson et al. (2009) Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 16120-16123. -
Ned at 00:26 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Global land+ocean temperature trends since 1979 are +1.6C/century for RSS, GISS, HADCRUT, and NCDC (or +1.3C/century for UAH). I don't see any way that the satellite records could be influenced by the UHI effect. But in any case, even a rather inflated estimate of +0.29C/century UHI effect on land would be +0.08C/century globally (land is 29% of the world). So BP's estimate of the UHI effect would be 5% of the current global temperature trend (for RSS, GISS, etc.) or 6% (for UAH). Note that that "29% land" figure includes vast expanses of completely uninhabited areas in Antarctica, Greenland, the Sahara, etc. I'm not sure how much effect UHI has there, but that's all included in this 5% (or 6%) figure. -
chris at 00:06 AM on 15 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Ken Lambert at 23:22 PM on 14 June, 2010 "Since we are talking 0.9W/sq.m for Dr Trenberth's TOA imbalance driver of AGW, a 0.3 - 0.5 W/sq.m figure would be a significant component." It would be if it were a significant number. In fact it isn't. It's around 0.028W.m^2 globally averaged. Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801 The notion that geothermal heat flux has made a significant contribution to the recent increases in deep ocean heat content [*] isn't supportable without evidence that the geothermal heat flux has coincidentally increased enormously during the same period. Remember that the dissipation of heat from the earth interior to the surface is expected to occur at a rather constant rate given by the constant (in the 10^4-10^6 year timescale) generation of heat by radioactive decay and the temperature gradient to the surface. Globally averaged this amounts to around 0.1 W.m^2. There's no evidence that this has increased dramatically (i.e. doubled!) during the last few decades. ----------------------------------------- [*] the work of Greg Johnson and his collaborators is a good starting point; e.g.: Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614 Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375. Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363. Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244. Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834. Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601 -
Ned at 23:58 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter writes: This line of reasoning is so simple, obvious and self-explanatory, that claims about UHI not having any significant influence on historical surface temperature reconstructions should be considered extraordinary. BP, with all due respect, I have repeatedly pointed out your tendency to un-skeptically latch on to poorly tested ideas and hastily conclude that they falsify large swathes of the scientific consensus. This latest comment of yours is a case in point. It just seems so confused that one hardly knows where to begin. BP writes: UHI turns out to be a surprisingly linear function of logarithmic population density, therefore temperature difference between two spots would not change due to UHI as long as the ratio of local population density is constant between them. First, unless I'm missing something, this "turns out to be" is based heavily on one blog post by Roy Spencer. And the rest of that sentence makes no sense! Perhaps you meant to write "as the ratio of log population density is constant..."? Then there's this: With an UHI constant of 0.16°C/doubling average warming due to UHI effect in GHCN was 1.83×0.16°C ~ 0.29°C, meaning 45% of 20th century warming as measured by the Global Historical Climatology Network is due to Urban Heat Island Effect and has no climatological significance whatsoever. Where does that 45% come from? It appears to me that you're comparing your estimate of an "average" UHI effect to the 20th century global temperature trend. But 70% of the world is ocean! So even your excessively high estimate of UHI would actually account for only about 13% of 20th century warming. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:46 PM on 14 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Marcus says: "As to the methodology used-what's the accuracy? Whats the rate of deviation around the mean? So basically you're basing you FAITH in a strong MWP on a single paper, using a largely untested method focused on a single region of the Earth during the Summer months of the year. Yet you accuse *others* of cherry picking! Hilarious!" Chris, in turn, says: "It’s simply unacceptable to choose OLD papers that seem to support a position without considering subsequent work, or to pretend that a tiny set of papers that doesn’t represent the "scientific consensus", does. Ignorance [...](and contrived ignorance) is no excuse whatsoever." I have (for You)a "second cherry" ... Also very "fresh", not OLD, papers: Late Holocene climate dynamics: A high-resolution sediment core from Maxwell Bay, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica, AGU, Hass et. al. XII.2009: "Comparison with Antarctic, hemispherical, and global temperature reconstructions reveals clear signals of the MWP, the LIA and the post-LIA climate recovery. Class 1 sediments dominate the warmer MWP, Class 2 sediments dominate the colder LIA. The Maxwell Bay record shows climate signals that are partly UNIQUE to either one of the hemispheres. Thus, it RESEMBLES BEST THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION [it a propos: "methodology used-what's the accuracy"]." "Apparently, the MWP started earlier in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) than in the Northern Hemisphere suggesting that THE SOURCE FOR THE WARMING MIGHT ALSO BE IN THE SH. [...]" Well, Well ... "In contrast to the MWP the timing of the LIA appears to be largely synchronous between the hemispheres. Generally finer sediments clearly mark the end of the LIA. However no stronger meltwater influence can be detected; THE CONDITIONS OF THE AD 1970S RESEMBLE [?!] THOSE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MWP." Well, Well ... Fact: Monckton (and Abraham, Marcus, Chris too ?) should know this (and previous - von Gunten et al.) work - papers ... -
john mcmanus at 23:25 PM on 14 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
At the end of "206 Bones", Kathy Riecks urges better standard in forensics. She is especially critical of "experts" used by police and the courts with few qualifications. An anthropology survey course does not make one an anthropologist. Right Kathy, but isn't science under attack across many disciplines. Creationist are still carrying torches and looking for Darwin. Geology is denied by " young earthers". Vaccines are blamed for all sorts of problems and medical science is under attack by fringes angry about stem cell research. All Doctors are regarded as fakes by some. Some seem motivated by problems understanding and dealing with real life, but the motives of others are darker. There is money, power and fame to be had in denial. Deny evolution, open a church and the bucks come rolling in. Write that vaccines kill and your book will sell. Deny climate change and get a job on Inhoff's staff. Lies about the "trick" attract followers to your website. Surface stations to close to hot air, sell your weather services. I am sure you can think of more examples. Climate science is under attack, but when seen in light of the number of people willing to deny rather than read a single article we see the pit bulls will never be more than a loud and frustrated rump puzzled by their lack of influence. -
Ken Lambert at 23:22 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP #89 BP I found a reference some time ago (since lost) with an estimate of waste heat from industrial and domestic processes released into the atmosphere across the continental USA. From memory the number was between 0.3 and 0.5W/sq.m. (I could be wrong here) Since waste heat is a component (probably a large one) of the UHI, do you have any information on an estimate of this number? Since we are talking 0.9W/sq.m for Dr Trenberth's TOA imbalance driver of AGW, a 0.3 - 0.5 W/sq.m figure would be a significant component. Also note that I think that a large chunk (60%) of Willis' heat equivalent of 0.1W/sq.m OHC increase in the deep oceans below 700m has been found by your geothermal reference. See Post #77 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=77&&n=202 -
werecow at 22:58 PM on 14 June 2010Podcasts, interviews and Monckton bashing
I've been looking for a podcast like Irregular Climate for ages, really enjoying it. I agree that a "discussion style" podcast works better than a solo one, though, so that's a welcome addition. And it's fun to put the voice to the blogger too, John. -
Riccardo at 22:30 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Berényi Péter, we are going to be circular. Indeed you're maintaining the point you made before which, in my opinion, is untenable for the reasons said before that it's not worth repeating. Given that you talked about extrordinary evidence, you should admit that the extraordinary conclusion is a logarithmic dependence of UHI effect on population starting already at very low values. Data show otherwise, even when they are categorized according to population density as in the graph I showed before (didn't you notice?). It's pretty hard to explain how is it possible to have a diverging effects on going to lower population densities and indeed Spencer didn't even try in the blog post and you didn't question but blindly accepted it. We all are still waiting for the extraordinary evidence. -
Ned at 22:17 PM on 14 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Arkadiusz, there are essentially three large short-term CO2 fluxes in the climate system (ignoring slow processes). * The surface ocean/atmosphere CO2 flux. This is pretty well understood in its broad details (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004). There is a clear consensus that under current conditions the ocean is a net sink for CO2, not a net source. * The anthropogenic land use & fossil fuel CO2 flux. This is likewise well understood in its broad details, and we know that we are emitting an amount larger than the observed atmospheric increase in CO2. The oceans are taking up part of this increase. * The atmosphere/terrestrial biosphere (incl. soils) CO2 flux. This is the most difficult to characterize and has the most uncertainty. Much of the interannual variability in the long-term accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by variability in this flux. However, simple accounting tells us that the terrestrial biosphere has to be a long-term net sink for CO2 because we know how much we're producing, we know how much is accumulating in the atmosphere, we have a pretty good idea of how much is going into the ocean ... and there isn't any other sink. So the uncertainty in the details of how terrestrial sinks process carbon isn't really relevant to the larger topic here. If someone were to ask "What fraction of the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic sources?" the correct answer is "More than 100% of it." -
Argus at 22:09 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
Comment to sign number three: Seasons are shifting Whereas I am sure there lies an enormous effort behind compiling the report quoted (for first flowering index), I think that as support for climate warming this is third rate science. A big issue is made out of the claim that spring comes some 3 days earlier now than 250 years ago, without noticing that, within this long time period, flowering varies between day 120 and day 170! Looking at 25 year averages, there are maxima and minima that differ more than ten days from each other, but the only thing the graph is used for, is comparing the first and the last 25 year average. What I find more interesting is that the first 90 years show a trend upwards (later spring) by almost 10 days, then there is a solid trend downwards for the following 70 years (down 10 days), which is then followed by a marked trend upwards for 50 years. In the last decades the average moves down again. All this really tells me, is that the first flowering index goes up and down, as centuries pass! -
Berényi Péter at 22:03 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#84 Riccardo at 15:52 PM on 14 June, 2010 if our best estimate of the difference in the trend between rural and urban stations is 0.05 °C/century [...] there's no much room for a big UHI effect however calculated. This is what those data tell. That's not true. Those data only tell us effect of growing population density on surface temperature is similar at sites classified either "rural" or "urban" by GHCN. It tells nothing about the absolute magnitude of the effect. Population density distribution tends to be self-similar (fractal) over scales spanning several orders of magnitude.
As population density increases, this structure is expected to be approximately preserved. That is, while population increases much faster in densely populated ("urban") areas than in sparsely populated ("rural") ones, the ratio of population density between different regions only changes slowly.
Should UHI effect be a quasi-linear function of local population density, your claim ("there's no much room for a big UHI effect") would certainly be justified.
But it is not the case. UHI turns out to be a surprisingly linear function of logarithmic population density, therefore temperature difference between two spots would not change due to UHI as long as the ratio of local population density is constant between them.
The ratio of two functions being constant does not impose a restriction whatsoever on the rate of change of the functions themselves.
The only question remaining is the magnitude of the UHI effect expressed as temperature change for a doubling of local population density.
If your number (0.05°C/cy) for UHI trend is adopted, it implies a local UHI effect magnitude of 0.027°C/doubling on average, because global population density has doubled almost twice during the past century (quadrupled in 109 years).
With such a low UHI constant the Urban Heat Island Effect would be unobservable, even with sensitive instruments. It would simply get lost in weather noise. Your figure means if population density in city center is a thousand times more (and that's stretching the limits) than in the surrounding countryside, temperature difference between the two places (the UHI effect) would be around 0.27°C.
In fact one neither have to be a scientist to detect UHI, nor instruments are needed. It can be felt. By anyone traveling from countryside to city or back. And that means the effect is huge, at some places it can be as large as 3-4°C for population density differences considerably less than a thousandfold.
Therefore my estimate of 0.16°C/doubling is a conservative one.
World population has doubled about 1.83 times during 20th century. Those people had to settle somewhere. But it was never their priority to avoid GHCN stations at all cost. Therefore population density around some GHCN stations doubled less than 1.83 times, and more around others. On average population density has increased as the global rate even if a GHCN station happened to be nearby.
With an UHI constant of 0.16°C/doubling average warming due to UHI effect in GHCN was 1.83×0.16°C ~ 0.29°C, meaning 45% of 20th century warming as measured by the Global Historical Climatology Network is due to Urban Heat Island Effect and has no climatological significance whatsoever.
This line of reasoning is so simple, obvious and self-explanatory, that claims about UHI not having any significant influence on historical surface temperature reconstructions should be considered extraordinary.
And as we all know the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.
-
Riccardo at 21:41 PM on 14 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
RSVP, "science is about being objective", indeed. So why you ask to provide better reasons? Science gave the picture and the probable outcome, it's now a political choice to act or not. We are free to choose to eventually destroy the planet, something like 'live (we) and let die (the others)' or 'after me the flood'. It's just a political choice. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:35 PM on 14 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
"It's important not to confuse these two quite different processes." Consent ..., - but the problem of CO2 sources, strongly associated with real RF CO2 - and it is difficult to speak of even a partial consensus - that is unacceptable. - "Volcano" in 1992 / 3, shows us that this "first" RF process - caused by anthropogenic CO2 excess - may be very insignificant, as in 1992 / 3, a small amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere (circa 0, 5 -1 ppmv), and the second process - a continuous rise in temperature of land in the last decades of the twentieth century - by affecting the breathing of the biosphere - can be decisive. Simply put: 0.5-1 ppm may not result in average growth average of 2.5 ppm. They must be natural causes. My "long comment" is to show that: - Natural warming came first and is responsible for most of the increase of CO2 and start a positive feedback of "living" CO2 in the atmosphere, - Next to the ocean have a much more powerful natural sources of CO2 - which react (warming) more strongly than the ocean. -
RSVP at 21:11 PM on 14 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
Perhaps Science is failing by not providing better reasons to limit greenhouse gas emmisions. I have always felt that altering the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere cannot be a good thing, and that we should definitely do all we can to conserve nature. This wishful thinking however does not make AGW any more real, since science is about being objective not emotional. -
RSVP at 20:57 PM on 14 June 2010Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
"What is rather incredible, however, is that Theil makes his arguments without a single reference to the well funded and documented campaigns that have been launched by special interest against our scientific establishments." Yes, but sitting on one's hands (i.e. blank checks for Acedemia) could actually be more expensive and irresponsible. -
RSVP at 20:48 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
<<"Marcus at 15:45 PM on 14 June, 2010 HR, you claim that because most extinctions in Earth's history are natural, that we should simply ignore those extinctions caused by human actions.<< On the other hand, acting to conserve nature is about as unnatural as you can get. When you observe animals in nature, they are directed soley by instinct, not their rationale; and yet conservationists appeal to Man's particular faculty to reason in order to work in harmony with nature. The most natural thing would be to let this situation just "takes it course" come hell or high water. (i.e., hell in the form of global warming. High water, rising sea levels). Lurking behind AGW is this idea of a time bomb that will catch us off guard sometime in the future, and moreover, that the last thing to trust in in Nature and God's Providence. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:32 PM on 14 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
#Berényi Péter "... and up to 250 inches (6 metres) in Ukraine ..." Schlesinger 1991, Lieth and Whittaker - 1975 - Tropical rain forest, the rate of C accumulation in soil: 2-3-2,5 g C/m2; taiga - 11,7-15,3 g C/m2. The average content of organic C in soil (kg / m 2): Tropical rainforest - 10.4; grass communities: 19.2 ... Global Change: Effects on Coniferous Forests and Grasslands, Breymeyer et al. 1996: “Net annual C fixation in tropical tree-grass systems is about 7.6 x 10 Pg C yr-1, with a possible range between 3.2 and 10.8 x 10 Pg C yr -1 . This is about half of the net annual C fixation attributed to tropical forests.” “ However, with our present state of knowledge globally it is unclear whether the C stock in savanna vegetation and soil is increasing or decreasing, since opposing processes predominate in different areas of the world." However ... "The tropical savannas, grasslands and woodlands [dry] HAVE A LARGE POTENTIAL for either sequestration or release of C, depending on future land management practices, climate and atmospheric composition." -
Argus at 20:18 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
About the second point (signs of warming): Sea levels are rising Figure 3 in the post: Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise shows that, while the sea level is mostly rising, in large parts of the Pacific it is actually falling. A lake can have a higher level in the end where water runs in, and a lower level where it runs out, but how can an ocean over 15 years show rising levels in one part, and at the same time falling levels in another part? Can we trust such results? Other than for short time variations (due to atmospheric pressure) the ocean level should be one and the same, I think. Water flows until differences are evened out.Response: Ocean level isn't completely homogenous - thermal expansion means cooler areas of the ocean are lower and warmer areas are warmer. What we have with global sea levels are two independent measurements - tidal gauges and satellites - giving consistent results. -
snapple at 20:12 PM on 14 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
I don't really understand how to submit articles, but the Telegraph had a real sour-grapes article. Mostly, Gerald Warner predicts that the e-mail Review is about to be published, but he also makes snide, ignorant remarks about "hide the decline." Here is the article: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100043200/third-climategate-report-imminent-expect-a-shortage-of-whitewash-in-stores-this-weekend/ He got his scoop from a blog, but the Review said they would report in the spring, and it is almost summer. I wrote my opinion here. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/uktelegraph-predicts-that-independent.htmlResponse: I'd already added this one. Would be really great if you could submit articles - what is it about the submission form that you don't understand? -
Ned at 20:02 PM on 14 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Arkadiusz, thanks for the long comment. However, everything you discuss under your point (2) above is about carbon cycle climate feedbacks (involving the biosphere, soils, etc). The sentence that you quote ("This conclusion would be rather startling ...") refers to anthropogenic CO2 added directly to the atmosphere acting as a climate forcing not a feedback. It's important not to confuse these two quite different processes. -
Argus at 19:35 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
I have a problem with some of the points at the beginning of this post: The first one: Ice sheets are melting In the link we are presented with graphs that show that both polar ice sheets are melting. They cover the period 2002-2009. This is a little confusing to me: I thought discussions about long term climate change ought to be based on considerably longer observation periods than 7 years. What am I missing here? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:28 PM on 14 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
J. Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingprinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting, and he has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on forecasting. (Armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu) Kesten C. Green of the International Graduate School of Business at the University of South Australia is a Director of the International Institute of Forecasters and is co-director with Scott Armstrong of the Forecasting Principles public service Internet site (ForPrin.com). He has been responsible for the development of two forecasting methods that provide forecasts that are substantially more accurate than commonly used methods. (Kesten.Green@unisa.edu.au; and Willie Soon ...: "Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department’s Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation. As a consequence, alarming forecasts of global warming are merely the opinions of some scientists and, for a situation as complicated and poorly understood as global climate, such opinions are unlikely to be as accurate as forecasts that global temperatures will remain much the same as they have been over recent years. Using proper forecasting procedures we predict that the global warming alarm will prove false and that government actions in response to the alarm will be shown to have been harmful. [... !!!]" -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:15 PM on 14 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
1. I disagree with Hocker (and agree with Paul W) - only the solubility of CO2 in the waters of the oceans - it's too simple. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is far more closely related to temperature over the lands than the temperature of the oceans. Compare the size of annual increments of CO2 in the atmosphere from land and ocean temperatures. For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/images/nature06591-f1.2.jpg (CO2 annual - ENSO); with http://global-warming.accuweather.com/julyall-thumb.gif (temperatures in July - the oceans and land). Here we see indeed a significant correlation with El Nino, but ... after each major volcanic explosion (1963, 1982, 1991) is a sharp drop in the number accumulated in the atmosphere of CO2. Moreover, as the temperature drops and the (parallel) accumulation of CO2. Cooling of the ocean? In the years 1982-4 ocean SST (July) - as opposed to the land - almost did not fall. Responded only to strong cooling of the land. The largest difference concerned the year 1984 / 5. Conclusion: The land temperatures are much better (than the oceans) correlated with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. 2. "This conclusion would be rather startling if it were true, since the scientific CONSENSUS is that CO2 is currently acting as a "forcing" that warms the climate." Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks, Heimann & Reichstein, Nature, 2008: - "There is ample empirical evidence that the terrestrial component of the carbon cycle is responding to climate variations and trends on a global scale. This is exemplified by the strong interannual variations in the globally averaged growth rate of atmospheric CO2, which is tightly correlated with El Niño–Southern Oscillation climate variations. Many lines of evidence show that the variations in the CO2 growth rate are mainly caused by terrestrial effects, in particular the impacts of heat and drought on the vegetation of western Amazonia and southeastern Asia, leading to ecosystem carbon losses through decreased vegetation productivity and/or increased respiration. These interannual variations reflect short-term responses of the carbon cycle to climate perturbations, however, and cannot be expected to hold over longer timescales." However, ... The temperature dependence of organic-matter decomposition—still a topic of debate - Miko Uwe, Franz Kirschbaum, 2006: "Despite the continuation of much further experimental work and repeated publication of summary articles, there is STILL NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS [!!!] on the temperature dependence of ORGANIC MATTER DECOMPOSITION. It is likely that this lack of consensus is largely due to different studies referring to different experimental conditions where confounding factors play a greater or lesser role." In my opinion: ENSO significantly only through its impact on the system: heterotrophic bacteria breathable - phytoplankton; influence of CO2. Conclusion: (Reference No. 7 of the official - rather skeptic - position of the Polish scientists: Attitude of the Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences to the question of impending of global warming): "Warming of the oceans reduces their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide whereas a smaller area occupied by permafrost INTENSIFIES DECOMPOSITION OF ORGANIC MATTER IN SOIL and therefore, stimulates increased emission of greenhouse gases." I remember: Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Bond-Lamberty B, Thomson A, Nature. 2010: "The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10-15 percent higher than previous measurements [...]."
Prev 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 Next
