Recent Comments

Prev  2350  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  Next

Comments 117851 to 117900:

117851. Doug Bostrom at 05:29 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Disregarding some insubstantial quibbles Monckton's objections seem to be centered entirely on the manner and style of Abraham's work, not the content. Even his complaints about form seem rather empty, as well as inconsistent. Monckton chides Abraham for not following proper academic form in preparing his response, yet clearly Monckton's lecture circuit is not an academic enterprise, rather it's more of a traveling road show or the like. Thus it seems entirely appropriate for Abraham not to treat this a as an academic dispute and to use a popular venue for his deconstruction of Monckton's lecture. As well, it seems pretty clear Monckton feels free to attack a broad swathe of researchers without bothering to contact them prior to adding to his show material criticizing these people. Monckton ought to stick to substance not style if he cares to rebut Abraham.
117852. MarkR at 05:19 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Dr Abraham, I appreciated your presentation, but I believe contacting Monckton beforehand would only have been fair. We live and learn, eh? I'd request that every time you write something back that you really do stop, take a breather, and remember to stick to the science. This 'trading' of credentials is just the sort of mud slinging Monckton and his ilk want you to engage in. Monckton has massively misrepresented the projections of the IPCC (I particularly liked his modified 'IPCC projections'), repeatedly makes silly mistakes (like how 'cooling since 2002' is valid), and misrepresented the results of a series of academic papers such as from Johannesen. Please get him to see that (heh, fat chance) or when he doesn't, just keep making it clear to everyone what he's doing. He's a very skilled ideologue, please don't get dragged down to his level of mud slinging.
117853. Riccardo at 05:16 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        john, what it's surprising is the shift of the attention as convinience dictates. Indeed, the errors bar relevant to the left figure are not those of submarines data. Having said this, you may have noticed that my comments started saying that determinig ice volume from that satellite images was inappropiate. I didn't see you criticise that. ICEsat determines thickness directly through laser altimetry; there are errors, quite large indeed, yet it's better and gives significant thickness reduction. In the absence of better measurements we all would like to have, a models like PIOMAS are probably better still. As repeatedly said.
117854. tobyjoyce at 05:11 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        @John Russell, It is manifestly false that Monckton has "succeeded in reducing those who have commented down to his level". The fact is that Monckton's response, if written directly here as a blogpost, whould have been taken down by the Moderator as being excessively vicious and ad-hominem. The comments above are mild in comparison. They either state facts, or express rational opinions. Monckton could not hope to be popular for most commenters here, but a thoughtful, graceful response by him would have received more responses in kind.
117855. johnd at 04:53 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Riccardo at 00:17 AM, the only error bar shown was on right hand graph, and then on the thicker ice. The error should be proportionally larger on the thinner ice. From the error bar that they do show, note that the uncertainty of the submarine data is almost larger than the range of nominal thickness for the entire 30 years of data, and exceeds that of the ICESat data. If included on the thinner ice, or included on the left hand graph then it would be more obvious just how significant the errors are compared to the calculated values, and just how careful one needs to be when drawing conclusions on trends. I do note that throughout the whole climate change debate little is made of the range of uncertainty inherent in any of the data referenced, and little appreciation of such uncertainty by those who debate values and trends as if the values quoted are 100% rock solid. The uncertainties or range of errors are there for an obvious reason. As an analogy, if the value of ice thickness data collected by submarine indicated by the blue line in the right hand graph, instead represented the thickness of sheet steel, say 3mm thick, with the indicated accepted error, over the years any steel mill could have supplied me with steel that varied as the graph indicated and rightfully claim that it is still the same nominal thickness.
117856. Paul D at 04:47 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Has anyone counted the number of ad-hominem attacks Monckton has made about Monbiot and John in that article? He uses the word 'Venomously', sounds very appropriate for what he has written.
117857. Riccardo at 04:41 AM on 7 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        Berényi Péter, read again the post and look at the graphs, it's about CO2 and fig 3 adds methane. That's all it's said.
117858. Berényi Péter at 04:30 AM on 7 June 2010
        On temperature and CO2 in the past
        #33 Riccardo at 16:55 PM on 5 June, 2010 If nothing can be calculated using known physical laws we can have no CO2 nor temperature reconstructions Who said nothing? It is paleo TOA net radiation budget that can't be calculated using either known physical laws or otherwise. Fossil cloud cover data are nowhere to be found, for example.
117859. chris at 04:26 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Berényi Péter at 03:16 AM on 7 June, 2010 Yes I know of Ramanathan's papers Peter ("Dr." or "Professor" Ramanathan rather than "Mr." - he's not a surgeon!). I was referring more specifically to the analysis of of soot and sulphur in Greenland cores for a more direct assessment of its possible contributions to 20th century forcing of Arctic temperatures. In fact I found it; it's: McConnell et al (2007) 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing Science 317, 1381 - 1384 abstract So there may have been a significant contribution from black carbon to early 20th century Arctic warming. Likewise there's good evidence for enhanced greenhouse forcing and a small solar contribution to the early 20th century warming which we're "released" after a period of volcanic suppression of Arctic (and global) temperatures. Of course it's silly to fiddle about with graphs or mumerology to assess attributions when this has been done properly elsewhere (e.g. here). Your comments on the Kaufman 2009 Arctic temperature reconstruction. Of course there's always a question about the accuracy of paleoreconstructions (after all we weren't there with our thermometers 1000 years ago!). However the proxy has decent skill in matching the direct temperatures and captures around 0.8-0.9 oC of warming during the period of overlap in your blow-up. So it seems to do quite well. It doesn't capture the full late 20th century and contemporary warming determined from direct temperature measurements. There are several reasons for this including (i) the proxy data set doesn't extend temporally as far as direct measurements, (ii) decadal averaging of real or proxy data results in suppression of amplitudes during periods where the parameter is changing quickly, (iii) quite a few of the proxies used by Kaufman et al (2009) don't extend to the end of the 20th century for various reasons. You should have a careful read of Kaufman et al (2009) to look at this in more detail if you're interested. I'm not going to comment here on your last paragraph since it's illogical and construted around a false premise. However I will comment if you wish...
117860. Manwichstick at 03:56 AM on 7 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        @ Marcus #91 regarding discussion with "theendisfar". In the youtubian sphere, I occasionaly find myself arguing with people like the "theendisfar" and I have found many of your posts in this dicussion a bit clarifying. To characterize their position, I would suggest a Lindzen-type professor, sitting in a comfy chair, laughing at the idiocy of connecting CC/GW with any one cause (CO2) as laughable since it is such a complex system. They appear, to me, to hide under the complexity blanket - pointing out errors made by others (sometimes rightly so) but never really dealing with the issues of what the models are saying etc.(as an example). They claim CC is a "soft" science, citing what is unknown, -the lack of a simple/testable model- but do not contribute any new knowledge. And they certainly don't publish meaningful alternatives with any explanatory power. I like how your harped on the greenhouse gas basics in your posts in this discussion - something it, appeared to me, that theendisfar failed to answer. They seem to focus on all the reasons for doubting AGW, while the evidence for it is dismissed out of hand - almost as if by principle - on scientific grounds. Am I wrong in this?: If their claims were correct, wouldn't they have a lot more to publish about in the journals? Their arguments seem primarily focused on discussions in the blogsphere and media worlds rather than where the real scientific showdowns occur - in the periodicals.
117861. chris at 03:36 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Monckton at 02:39 AM on 7 June, 2010 Mr. Monckton, it's obvious that the problem with your presentation is not the absence of academic references, although it is a common courtesy to properly source the data that one presents, for example on a Powerpoint slide. The problems relate to a generalised misrepresentation of the state of scientific knowledge on important issues of climate science. For example there is very limited grounds indeed, in current scientific understanding for asserting that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer (hemispherically or globally) than current temperatures. Rather the scientific evidence supports the opposite conclusion. To give a more specific example from your presentation, you show data from SP Huang et al (1997) as part of your discussion of past temperatures in which you assert that the MWP was warmer than now. However Huang has made it very clear in his subsequent work that his 1997 paper (not "Huang 1998" btw as in your presentation) has nothing to say about the relative temperatures during the MWP and now, since essentially all post-19th century data from the borehole datasets were omitted due to concern over non-climatic contaminations. This is very well documented, and an audience of whatever form shouldn't be presented with data that is a misrepresentation of the subject (in this specific case borehole analysis of paleotemperatures relative to contemporary temperatures). We all recognise that your presentations are not academic or scientific presentations. However one should still make an effort at a basic investigational rigour when addressing issues of science. Otherwise it's perfectly appropriate for very obvious and fundamental flaws to be highlighted by others.
117862. citizenschallenge at 03:28 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        In regard to Monckton’s long standing use of manipulated graphs may I direct your attention to a very interesting article in the Salt Lake Tribune dated 4-9-10 by Judy Fahys: “Debate on climate heats up online - BYU » Skeptic is no member of the House of Lords, prof says.” The story reviews a recent spat between Monckton, one Barry Bickmore and the Brigham Young University. Barry Bickmore went on to investigate Monckton’s graphs producing a paper that is available as a PDF titled “Monckton Mystery Solved” Barry Bickmore April 6, 2010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ From the conclusion: “Lord Monckton's famous graphs have been puzzling me--especially the strange graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentrations that he shows at his presentations. I already posted an article from Science that said (at the time of publication) the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was a little above IPCC projections. However, Monckton's graphs showed CO2 concentrations below the IPCC projections. He claimed he was basing his data for the IPCC projections on the A2 emissions scenario. Well, at Lord Monckton's suggestion I found the published source of his graphs, Monckton's "CO2 Report" that he publishes for the SPPI. Here is a link to the article and the graphs in question clipped from it. “To summarize, Lord Monckton's treatment of CO2 projections is very strange. He simply makes up equations to describe the A2 emissions scenario, whose only real connection with reality is that they run through the proper endpoints in the year 2100. The exponential equations he makes up ALWAYS overpredict the actual A2 model input, except at the year 2100. Real CO2 concentrations reproduce the A2 model input very closely for the period 2002-2009, and the A2 model input is indistinguishable from a linear trend during this period. “But that's not all. Lord Monckton says that he fed his Fantasy CO2 projections into the IPCC's exponential equations for equilibrium temperature response to CO2 forcing to produce his famous temperature graphs, like the following. If that's true, then the temperature graph is worse than I thought! Not only is equilibrium temperature response improperly compared to the real, transient response, but the calculated equilibrium temperature responses are based on Monckton's Fantasy CO2 projections, which are ALWAYS too high in 2002-2009! “ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
117863. Berényi Péter at 03:27 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Sorry, link to Ramanathan 2008 was mixed up. Here is the correct one: Nature Geoscience 1, 221 - 227 (2008) Published online: 23 March 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo156 Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael In addition there is a testimonial by Mr. Ramanathan to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Hearing on the role of black carbon as a factor in climate change Thursday, October 18, 2007 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
117864. Philippe Chantreau at 03:21 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        I hope that Mr Monckton understands that if he uses the kind of language sampled by Riccardo in #13, or what he used to describe G. Monbiot, his posts here will likely be deleted. Everyone on this forum has to respect certain rules; efforts were made to enforce them recently, which has improveds the quality of the discussions, and this one should be no exception. I examined Dr. Abraham's posts again, I fail to see where there is a personal attack or ad hominem argument. Dr Abraham concentrates on Mr Monckton's actions and arguments, which is proper.
117865. John Russell at 03:16 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        The best thing about John Abraham's original post is that it so incensed Lord M that Monckton could not help but reveal his true colours. Any casual observer can see that Prof. Abrahams has remained focussed and civil at every stage of his carefully-researched criticism of Monckton's obfuscated science. In response C.Monckton appears so full of vitriol that he hardly mentions the science, so intent is he on his ad-hominem attack -- an attack in which, astonishingly and quite wrongly, he accuses Prof. Abrahams of the using the very same tactics he's using. It's jaw-dropping in its audacity. Truly, there's none so blind as those that will not see.
117866. Berényi Péter at 03:16 AM on 7 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        #50 chris at 01:06 AM on 6 June, 2010 Do you have the relevant cites? On soot this review article is available: Nature Geoscience 1, 221 - 227 (2008) Published online: 23 March 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo156 Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael BTW, some discussion of soot effects has already happened here. I've tried to recover the last 150 years of Kaufman's Arctic temperature history reconstruction from Fig 20 of the Copenhagen Diagnosis (ignore the red patch, please). If we take it on face value, the reconstruction either has no merit whatsoever (including its earlier parts, e.g. MWP) or there was only some fluctuation but no significant warming in the Arctic during the last seventy years of 20th century. I don't know which one is worse for the credibility of current mainstream climate story. Note that only 25% of 20th century logCO₂ increase happened before 1950, therefore in theory warming in the second half should have been three times more. Provided, of course, warming is caused by carbon dioxide.
117867. Riccardo at 03:02 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Apparently Monckton thinks that in the Universities good behaviour is required. I agree and I'd add that it is always required, including in journalism. So i think that Monckton should have contacted the authors of the many graphs he shows before using them to sell the opposite message. He should also avoid ad hominen attacks and the use of wording such as goebbelian propaganda, hitler youth and the like. Abraham has been formally (and scientifically) correct. Not Monckton, neither formally nor scientifically.
117868. Sean A at 03:01 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Chris Monckton: in your reply, you attack John Abraham's character and credentials, and completely side-step the question of whether you have serially misrepresented the work of various scientists. Let's have a serious answer.
117869. Erin at 02:44 AM on 7 June 2010
        We're heading into an ice age
        I am 17 years old and home schooled doing a project on climate change (trying to find all aspects for and against climate change and their effects) so i am not a scientist and do not understand everything that has been talked about on this page so bear with my questions please. How do we know that decreased insolation due to the larger projections of increased ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. GTon C) doesn't outweigh the resulting reduction of outgoing radiation thus causing global cooling?
117870. Monckton at 02:39 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Mr. Abraham, and the president of his university, will shortly be receiving a long letter from me asking him a number of questions about his presentation, which appears to have fallen well below the standards of academic probity and honesty that would normally be thought acceptable in civilized society. Mr. Abraham here admits that he spent several months working on his presentation attacking me personally in the most venomous terms, and also complains that several of the slides that I showed to a lay audience did not have the full academic references on them. Why, then, did he not bother at any stage during his months of preparation to contact me simply to ask for the references? This is the first of many indications of bad faith on Mr. Abraham's part that I shall be drawing to the attention of the authorities at the Bible College where he lectures. The usual practice in academe is that anyone wishing to rebut another's work notifies that other of his intention and of the rebuttal, before it is published, to give that other the opportunity to prevent needless errors. That usual practice was not followed in the present instance. A video by me refuting all of Mr. Abraham's numerous false claims and outright mendacities will be available shortly. - Monckton of Brenchley
117871. JSFarmer at 02:39 AM on 7 June 2010
        It's the sun
        Thanks for the link... It appears to confirm both the skeptics' argument and the science rebuttal. Is that correct?
117872. DrTom at 01:58 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Aloha Dr. John. in your last paragraph "....presentation until my reply," The period is incorrectly typed with a comma making the word 'it' grammatically incorrect. I am not picking nits. Neither do I want Chris Monckton to be able to do so. Since he has no valid science, the only tactic available to him is ad-hominem. a hui hou T
117873. chris at 01:55 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Passing Wind at 01:17 AM on 7 June, 2010 Either designation will do Passing Wind. An associate professor (in the US) is a tenured position arising from promotion from an assistant professorship following assessment by several criteria of excellence (publication record; grant income; teaching and administrative contributions to the department and wider community). Tenured academic scientists in teaching/research universities are designated "professor" rather generically. However it's normal in a formalised letterhead to specify one's status more specifically.
117874. DrTom at 01:51 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Aloha Dr. John. Possibly this sentence is not fully developed: "I showed a number of slides which had no attribution." I believe you mean "I referenced a number of YOUR slides which had no attribution". I tend to read very literally and, from that lead-in, the paragraph was initially confusing to me. I may still be mis-reading it if my assumption is erroneous. a hui hou T
117875. Timothy Chase at 01:50 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        In case people are interested, here is the original presentation by Monckton at YouTube: Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul 2009 Oct 14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
117876. KeenOn350 at 01:26 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Thank you John Abraham. Your excellent work seems to have struck a nerve, judging by Monckton's emotively loaded and factually empty response. This discourse seems to be getting some attention - hopefully it will open a few minds to reality!
117877. Passing Wind at 01:17 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Would you kindly clarify if you are a professor, as you state in your presentation, or are an associate professor as you state above?
117878. ProfMandia at 01:14 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Dr. Abraham, Thank you for your time and effort to expose Monckton. Alas, those that do not have interest in the truth are likely not to care. It is sad that those of us that are out there trying to "right the wrongs" are probably only convincing a very tiny fraction of the population - both sides are pretty well-entrenched. Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences Selden, NY Global Warming: Man or Myth? My Global Warming Blog Twitter: AGW_Prof "Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group
117879. Bern at 01:11 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Oh, my... The funniest part of Monckton's reply was the paragraph condemning Dr Abraham for ad hominem attacks, followed shortly by a description of Monbiot (writing for a "Marxist" newspaper, no less!) as

        "a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialization has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham"

        The point he made that really shocked me, though, was this one:

        "Monbiot made the mistake of pretending that he understood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which he had plainly not previously heard. Here it was I who had the advantage: before writing the article in the Telegraph I had spent three months tracking the equation down"

        Three seconds with Google took me to a Wikipedia page with the relevant equations writ large. Or is there another set of radiative heat transfer equations they didn't teach me about in my thermodynamics classes at uni?
117880. Mythago at 01:08 AM on 7 June 2010
        Abraham reply to Monckton
        Well written John. Many thanks for taking the time and effort to sort it out. I am very glad as it enabled me to get my head around a number of the really glaring anomalies which most sceptics kept putting forward and I was always sure they were wrong. Now I have the right sources to quote from. Once again Many Thanks.
117881. nofreewind at 01:02 AM on 7 June 2010
        Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
        Good blog, but go to Figure 3 and the caption Global Temperature Anomaly strike dead to the heart of AGW theory. Why is that temperature from 1900 an "anomaly". Why is the temperature of 1900, just out of the clutches of the Little Ice Age, the normal temperature for planet earth. Even a cursory study will show that there have even more dramatic changes in earths temperature during the past 1,000 years, and if we go back eons, then positively change is expected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomaly The word anomaly lies at the heart of the matter and is one of the reason that warmers can not be trusted. Figure 3 works real well on the public though!
117882. Riccardo at 00:17 AM on 7 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd, my link reported the error bars, if you didn't notice, and i added the error in the trend because usually it's what we're interested in.
117883. Ken Lambert at 23:19 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        DougB #53 ChrisC #58 I think that Doug is enshrining 'long agreed findings' and climate science in general as a 'robust monolithic narrative' when it is more like a collection of essays with a warming theme but large room for uncertainty in each of its parts. This blog is a somewhat self-select and self-correcting under John's guiding hand. Extreme and unsupported comments are either ignored by the better informed or given short schrift by the better informed. Several of the regular contributors have a strong knowledge of the theory and numbers; so the poorly equipped visitor tends to drop out quickly. I have studied many papers over the last 18 months or so and worked through the numbers and followed the arguments before I felt I knew enough to make a comment on these threads.
117884. johnd at 23:01 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Ned, I understand that even with GRACE the measurements are subject to errors or uncertainty in excess +/- 50%. If you think otherwise can you perhaps provide a technical reference. Riccardo, your link had nothing about the degree of uncertainty in the calculated values. The indicated trend has nothing to do with uncertainty of the measurements made to calculate the nominal value. The satellite that has been providing data until now is only able to measure sea ice freeboard to an accuracy of +/- 50mm. If the ice is 1 metre thick total, it has a freeboard of only 100mm, so the accuracy range is significant. That is only one part of where the error comes in. Problems with determining density then compound the error, and snow on the ice compounds it again. That was mentioned in that non-technical article I linked to earlier. The latest satellite recently launched supposedly can measure ice freeboard to an accuracy of +/- 10mm, but that still leaves the density and snow problems to overcome.
117885. Paul D at 22:49 PM on 6 June 2010
        Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
        On the issue of the Sun, I also find it bizarre that many people will accept with open arms that Mars is warming etc. because of solar activity. Yet the amount of instrumentation available to quantify the theory is tiny in comparison to the intrumentation we have monitoring the Earth.
117886. chris1204 at 21:30 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Thank you Ned. ...unless global emissions peak and start to decline rapidly by 2020. There's the rub - how likely are global emissions to peak and decline by 2020?
117887. Riccardo at 21:29 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd, I don't know where did you take the figure of 60%. Eyeballing from here it looks more likely less than 20% on the thickness and i found it about 30% on the trend. Unfortunately we do not have accurate enough comprehensive thickness measurements of arctic sea ice. This is the reason why we still need to rely on ice extent/area or on models like PIOMAS. The strength of the latter is that it allows the reconstruction of past thickness and volume. In both cases the trend appears to be unambiguous.
117888. Ned at 21:05 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        chriscanaris writes: In fact, I think rightly or wrongly GC interpreted the Copenhagen Diagnosis as predicting 6 degrees rise this century. I confess that was my own impression from a quick perusal of the graph. Perhaps GC could have put his point less provocatively. Perhaps that is not what the graph really says - I'm happy to stand corrected. Well, if that was the source of concern, then we can all celebrate, because it was all just a misunderstanding. Like the IPCC AR4, the Copenhagen Diagnosis presents a range of projected temperature trends through 2100. This is nicely explained in the CD report text -- here are the first two bullet points at the top of the section on "The Future": Global mean air-temperature is projected to warm 2C - 7C above pre-industrial by 2100. The wide range is mainly due to uncertainty in future emissions. There is a very high probability of the warming exceeding 2C unless global emissions peak and start to decline rapidly by 2020. Here's the actual figure in question. Note the range of different projections on the right side (colored lines):
117889. chris1204 at 20:39 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        gallopingcamel@55 'as usual my comments were deleted' Actually, the deletion of comments was very unusual. Even so, it's John's blog and we are his guests. Still, I felt it was a pity your comment got deleted, as I think did some others. Doug @ 53 point out 'Those disagreeing with [the consensus] must produce a rebuttal that not only addresses the present case but comports with a plethora of long-agreed findings.' I think Doug is setting the bar too high. Sometimes the 'present case' is cause to look again at 'long-agreed' findings. Moreover, I have more than once trawled through the literature in my area looking at the original papers cited as the basis for 'consensus' only to find that their conclusions do not follow from the original data. With respect to Ned @ 18, 'uncertainty in areas X, Y, and Z' may be 'a reason to throw out certainty in areas A, B, and C.' We don't throw out the laws of physics and chemistry. However, the interplay of the laws of physics and chemistry in highly complex systems leave may create far greater uncertainties. I'm sure this happens in the physical sciences often enough. It certainly is the case in medicine (not just psychiatry). Reflecting over the posts, I was intrigued to reread the other Chris' comment: 'Of course if one was to assert "The IPCC and Copenhagen Diagnosis says we're going to warm by 6 oC during this century." that would be alarmist. But they don't. These groups carefully spell out the range of likely temperature rises according to various emission scenarios and accommodating known uncertainties in the Earth surface temperature response to greenhouse forcing..... ' In fact, I think rightly or wrongly GC interpreted the Copenhagen Diagnosis as predicting 6 degrees rise this century. I confess that was my own impression from a quick perusal of the graph. Perhaps GC could have put his point less provocatively. Perhaps that is not what the graph really says - I'm happy to stand corrected.
117890. Ned at 20:39 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Fortunately, johnd, there are lots of different ways of measuring the mass balance of ice sheets. The article you linked to is non-technical, so it's not really clear whether the student in question is using radar altimetry or an airborne imaging synthetic aperture radar. But if you're just interested in the bottom line -- is Antarctica gaining or losing mass? -- this can be answered with much less than "60%" uncertainty, using gravity measurements from GRACE:
117891. Ned at 20:10 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Marcus, along with the solar forcing, the early 20th century experienced a relative absence of volcanic forcing. John Cook has a very concise but clear explanation of this in the article A drop in volcanic activity caused warming.
117892. Ned at 20:01 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        gallopingcamel writes: It is my contention that forecasts of huge increases in global temperatures by 2100 look ridiculous rather than scary. I cited figure 21 in the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" as an example of this kind of "Extraordinary Claim" but it is by no means an isolated example This is the second time you've complained about that figure. Your first comment gave absolutely no reason at all, and the best explanation you can apparently provide now is that the figure's projections "look ridiculous rather than scary." But those projections are very clearly documented and justified, in short form by Chris above and in long form in the AR4 and elsewhere. I'm not sure why you ignore Chris's reply entirely and simply repeat your content-free complaint about this figure. Please stop playing games and wasting everyone's time, gallopingcamel. These kinds of actions really detract from the value of this site.
117893. johnd at 19:47 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        Riccardo at 18:53 PM, you are right, the connection is not really to measuring sea ice extent, the subject of this thread, rather ice volume. With all the different ways various agencies report on trends in polar sea ice, coverage, extent, volume, it becomes confusing. I think ice volume would be the better indicator, however with a range of uncertainty of up to 60% in the various measurements needed to calculate actual volume, such huge uncertainty makes meaningful conclusions difficult to reach. With a new more accurate satellite recently launched, overcoming some of the other factors that contribute to the large uncertainty becomes even more essential for the full potential of the newer technology to be utilised.
117894. Riccardo at 18:53 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        johnd, honestly, I completely miss the connection you're trying to make. She is trying to find a way to accurately measure ice thickness from satellites (below 5 cm accuracy), which we know only recently has being tried (2003-04). Could you be more precise instead of genericaly say "useful data is still some way off"? Which data and why?
117895. tobyjoyce at 18:00 PM on 6 June 2010
        Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
        Regarding Viscount Monckton's response, John would never have allowed such a self-serving, bad-tempered, ad-hominem assault to be posted on this blog. What does Professor Abraham think?
        Response: Stay tuned on that...
        
117896. johnd at 17:56 PM on 6 June 2010
        On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
        This article is relevant and interesting regarding the difficulties in being able to accurately measure polar ice. If the work is at the stage indicated by the research carried out by this student then reliable, thus useful data is still some way off. Measuring Antarctic snow levels http://www.theage.com.au/national/love-of-science-in-a-cold-climate-20100605-xly2.html
117897. gallopingcamel at 16:40 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        Gentlemen, I was hoping to get some "Extraordinary Evidence" but as usual my comments were deleted after many of you had seen my post (#40, now replaced by chriscanaris). It is my contention that forecasts of huge increases in global temperatures by 2100 look ridiculous rather than scary. I cited figure 21 in the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" as an example of this kind of "Extraordinary Claim" but it is by no means an isolated example. The other "Hockey Sticks" in the Copenhagen Diagnosis such as figure 20 lack credibility but for quite different reasons. Berenyi Peter's critique (#47) covered some issues but he failed to mention that this chart is at odds with well documented work by historians (e.g the LIA and the MWP) and also the work of Hubert Lamb. While I am not a climate scientist, I have experience in electro-optics research and teaching so there is at least a chance that I may understand your scientific arguments.
117898. scaddenp at 14:30 PM on 6 June 2010
        Climate's changed before
        Roger, I am somewhat disappointed by your post on your blog. I think it would be have better to continue the discussion here, clearing up misconceptions one at a time rather than posting a public essay with a number of incorrect assertions. Lets see if I tackle the main points. "it is difficult to understand why we did not experience excessive heat (such as enough to make the world uninhabitable) during say the Holocene Maximum where the climate was significantly warmer than today.". Well watch for new papers on this, but Holecene maximium was a/ similar to today and b/ at time when most of humanity was hunter-gatherers. The worry about AGW is mostly about RATE of change and also that the last time we had atmospheric Co2 at 450ppm was in the Pliocene when humanity didnt exist let alone have developed sophisticated civilizations based on settled agriculture. The question indeed is "is it the driver of current warming?". I dont think you have understood the intent nor the conclusions of Harries, Griggs, Philipona, etc. Firstly, lets deal with water vapor. Clouds<> water vapour. They occur when vapour condenses. The do however complicate the measurement that these papers are trying to make. The reason for lack interest is the water vapour that it is a function of temperature. It is always a feedback not a forcing. It doesnt matter what the forcing is, GHG, solar, aerosols - if the temperature changes then so does water vapour. see water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas for more detail. Since we are interested in the FORCING not the feedback, water is deliberately filtered out. Now here is the condensed basis of the those papers: Hypothesis - the forcing is GHG. Prediction: if the GHG is the forcing, then we can (for a cloudless sky anyway), predict the spectrum of detected radiation, filtered for water. (incoming for Philipona, Evans, Weng; outgoing for Harries, Grigg, Chen). This the "modelled result" in the papers, but please note this "model" is the GHG equations from fundimental physics, not the output of a GCM. Next you measure the actual radiation, filter for water vapour and compare results. Observation confirms prediction - there isnt a placebo effect, statistical uncertainty, and skeptics can examine the data themselves at leisure, no need for double-blind. The results can also determine how much energy is from the increased GHG - roughly 4x the radiation difference from solar minimum to solar maximum. The paper is written for scientists in the field. They dont need to discount the sun because the sun does not emit radiation in this part of the spectrum. (see for example of The sun and Max Planck agree. For more on why its not the sun see, Its the sun. Especially, explain upper stratospheric cooling - increased CO2 is the only theory going so far that can explain this. And by the way, we have no way of measuring what the outgoing radiation was in holocene. Despite being told explicitly earlier in the thread about accounting for past climate change, you state "There is no attempt in your analysis to identify and then rule out the reasons why the earth has warmed in previous epochs. (I agree that it would be a very tough project)". This is patently false. Why do you continue to assert this? You also assert without proof: " Neither have you have not taken into account, so far as I can see, of the negative logarithmic relationship that CO2 has with its greenhouse properties," Where on earth did you get this fanciful idea? Or perhaps it is better to ask why do you believe this? The mathematics used in the code is published and the GCM code is online. Given other comments on your site, I suspect you knowledge of climate "science" comes mostly from sites like WWUT and Climate audit, rather than from climate scientists (especially Realclimate.org). Instead of making assertions about what science does or does not say, how about actaully reading it IPCC WG1 ? Then we all start on the same page and have a sensible discussion but please respond in the appropriate sections of this blog.
117899. scaddenp at 13:10 PM on 6 June 2010
        Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
        Johnd - while you are right, the pot will not heat if input exceeds loss, but once an equilibrium has been established, then increasing the heat (in our gas add GHG) will definitely raise the temp. As to how we know that heat loss does not equal heat gain - well the TOA energy imbalance persists no matter how how complex the energy exchanges below it.
117900. Marcus at 12:37 PM on 6 June 2010
        Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
        What's interesting about this figure 20, though, is that-whilst the warming in the first half of the 20th century is fairly "uncontroversial" (due to the increasing solar activity at that time), the warming in the 2nd part of the 20th century (1950-1999) is controversial due to the lack of rising solar activity to explain it. Indeed, even though the 2nd part of the century was dominated by *falling* sunspot numbers (from 1979-2000). Temperatures rose slightly faster for the period of 1950-1999 than for the period of 1900-1949. This is something I think people need to keep in mind when looking at these kinds of graphs-is to remember what was going on in the *bigger picture* at the time!

Prev  2350  2351  2352  2353  2354  2355  2356  2357  2358  2359  2360  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  Next