Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
Comments 118201 to 118250:
-
johnd at 07:46 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Riccardo at 07:32 AM on 5 June, 2010, I think the same principle still applies. The area represented by a pixel will still be larger as the distance from the focal point increases. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:32 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Ha! Maybe, in time, the whole car is going to fold up like George Jetson's car and we'll carry it into our homes like a briefcase and charge it there. :-) -
Riccardo at 07:32 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
johnd, "any error would cause an UNDER estimation, not an OVER estimation." not true, it depends on the projection. For example, you may have a projection that makes the area calculated at, say, 70° correct with opposite bias on the two sides. There's no way to come to any meaningful conclusion without knowing which projection has been used. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:18 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Doug, You're right. I hadn't thought about that. It's been a while since I lived in an apartment. A quick google search turns this up though... I wish I had the patent on that thing. -
johnd at 07:13 AM on 5 June 2010Models are unreliable
KR at 23:29 PM on 4 June, 2010, the point I started out to make was that models, be they forecasting the weather or the climate, should be within themselves 100% valid. That is, the combination of assumptions cannot be shown to be incorrect. If they could be then that particular model would be flawed and should not be used. Because each individual model is based on valid assumptions then it has as much chance of being correct as any other individual model. With the IPCC they take the mean as being the most likely outcome. With weather forecasters the process is similar with a number of different models all being run simultaneously with a range of different outcomes. When the forecasters are required to give a forecast for an extended outlook the use their best JUDGEMENT to select the output of whatever model they think at that time to be the most likely to eventuate. As I had mentioned earlier, this at times has resulted in different agencies simultaneously issuing forecasts totally 100% opposing each other. Obviously someones best judgement is different to someone else. They both can't be right, just as all models, be they weather or climate models, cannot all be right. Only one can hope to be right. HOWEVER as does happen with weather forecast models, at times ALL can be wrong. There is no fundemental reason also why all the climate models tracked by IPCC cannot be all wrong. After all, weather forecasting provides much of the data that that is plugged into GCM's that end up being plugged into all the climate models. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:09 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Rob, for sure when I remove my rose-tinted spectacles the swap idea does have some faults. However looking through neutral density I also realize we've got millions of vehicles owned by folks living in apartments, condos and "townhomes" w/parking arrangements distinctly problematic for retrofit with plug-in chargers. It'll be easy for me to charge, I've got ample 110 and 220 in my attached garage. Yet my brother lives in an apartment with his vehicle parked in a low-density arrangement that looks as though it would be extremely expensive to retrofit with charging infrastructure. Beyond the sheer amount of hardware and labor needed to equip the parking area with chargers, the parking spaces themselves do not closely correlate with the apartment location. Some form of duplicative electric metering would be needed, even if in the form of an integrator in the vehicle that could be read via wireless at the gate or whatever. Or maybe a credit card reader at the charger? What to do? Yet another head-scratcher. Hmmm. -
johnd at 06:34 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned at 02:00 AM on 4 June, 2010, Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC made the following statement is a response to an issue where Steve Goddard wrongly calculated an increase in ice extent due to a problem with the images used. Walt Meier" "The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does." This is taken from the article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ Clearly NSIDC also use pixel counting. If you think about, if weighting was not given to the pixels, any error would cause an UNDER estimation, not an OVER estimation. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Doug... I actually saw a TED talk about that same battery swap program. As I remember part of the model is that you wouldn't own the battery in your car. You'd just drive in and a machine would swap out the battery on the underside of the car. The Tesla Model S is apparently built with the battery swap idea in mind. I still think it's a dubious business model with a future unknown like battery technology. Plus, current gas stations are based on a model where we all have to fill up fairly frequently. If you get 100 mile range on a battery that means that over 90% of "refueling" will take place at night in people's homes. -
Ned at 06:07 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Maybe I missed something. Do we actually know what projection is used for those maps? It doesn't seem to say anything on the website. I was just speculating about polar stereographic, but it could be any azimuthal projection (orthographic, Lambert, ...?) The scale variation would depend on the specific projection parameters. More broadly, what metadata are available describing these data? Have the model results been validated, and if so, what is the structure of the error? I find it a bit disconcerting that the entire community of "skeptics" (here, at WUWT, etc.) seems to have suddenly latched onto this PIPS2 model with little to no examination of its suitability for the purposes to which they are enlisting it. Or perhaps I've missed something, and all these questions have been satisfactorily answered already. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:03 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that charging stations (as an equivalent to a gas station now) will never come to pass in any meaningful way. I was delighted to see that in Israel there's an outfit attempting to launch a business centered around standardized batteries that can be quickly removed and replaced from a vehicle, something I'm sure a lot of us have envisioned. That centralizes the charging arrangement, allows battery depreciation/degradation to be handled in a way friendlier to most pocketbooks. The economics of replacement and profit are relatively easy to handle especially when batteries can be equipped with onboard history to help account for abusive discharge and the like. A further benefit of this approach is that it's highly amenable to robotic assistance. The scheme is sort of the equivalent of the standardized gas refueling receptacle and nozzles we're accustomed to. Unfortunately proprietary considerations will probably cause this approach to fail. I'm really impressed by the Leaf; for my household we could eliminate nearly all of our gasoline consumption using this vehicle, leaving our remaining archaic vehicle largely in the garage. Combined with the reduction of gasoline costs and reasonably affordable price of the car I think I can finish justifying this choice by the additional safety features now missing from our current vehicles. I had a reminder on that just the other day when an oncoming car was pushed into my path in a collision, striking my vehicle w/enough force to deploy the other car's airbags and exposing me to a hell of a bang on the head. A compelling reason to retire a 23 year old vehicle... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:40 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
To close out this thread I have a companion photo to the opening Laurel and Hardy image...
-
Mal Adapted at 04:57 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Gishgallopingcamel:Climate alarmism is constructed out of "Extraordinary Claims" while skeptics are unimpressed with the evidence produced to support them.
This is the argument from ignorance. As summarized by Ned, the claims in support of AGW aren't extraordinary to anyone who is competent in the natural sciences. Given that Ned's three statements are as yet unfalsified, counter-claims are extraordinary prima facie, and thus require extraordinary evidence to support them. -
Riccardo at 04:36 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Berényi Péter, there are several type of stereographic projections. Before doing any calculations you should know which one is used in that figure. -
Berényi Péter at 03:32 AM on 5 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#40 Ned at 02:00 AM on 4 June, 2010 you cannot simply use a count of pixels to determine ice-covered area Do you want me to recalculate with multiplying pixel area by cos(45°-lat/2)? Inside 70N it does not make much difference. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:00 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ned and Chris... I believe part of the idea of John's website is to take back the term "skeptic." That term properly belongs within all science because the entire process of science is based in skepticism. There is a larger body of research that suggests that AGW is real and should be considered a serious concern for humans. If you are a researcher in an area of climate change then you are automatically a skeptic. If, like me, you are outside of research and trying to come to a personal opinion then you either believe that larger body of research or you reject or deny that research. So, I believe the most accurate terms are AGW believer and AGW denier... for those of us who are NOT researchers. -
chris at 02:55 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Yes, I agree Ned...it's important to be clear about what we mean, and not to use labels unless we're pretty clear that their meaning is unambiguous. Unfortunately some perfectly good words (like "skeptic") have been battered out of recognition in pursuit of dodgy agendas...so we're forced to keep redefining them whenever we wish to use them meaningfully. -
Ned at 02:38 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ah, sorry, Chris. You are of course correct. I guess we just need to be able to conduct these conversations without labels for people. It's certainly not appropriate to allow one side to monopolize the term "skeptic". I understand that they don't care for the term "denialist" either. I'd prefer that they don't refer to me as "pro-AGW" (I'm not in favor of cooking the planet, after all) and the term "warmist / warmer" also annoys me. Oh, well. -
chris at 02:26 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ned at 02:11 AM on 5 June, 2010 Yes O.K. Ned...but I was really trying to recover a sense of meaningful terminology and "reclaim" a proper meaning for the word "skeptic"! So a true skeptic wouldn't claim that (referring to the examples on this thread) "there is no greenhouse effect" or "CO2 is not rising; it fluctuated wildly in the recent past" or "the Earth is cooling, not warming" or "the greenhouse effect disobeys Thermodynamic Laws" , or even your "runaway greenhouse" example. That's not skepticism. It's something else. So it is in the sense of the real meaning of "skeptic" that I said "In any case I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that "skeptics are the ones making extraordinary claims". By definition a true "skeptic" would be unlikely to make "extraordinary claims" and they did they'd be certain to have some decent supporting evidence. I certainly agree with your general principle. Any skeptic would! -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:23 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Chris... You're totally right. I was just trying to making a point that the situation IS alarming. -
Ned at 02:11 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
chris writes: In any case I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that "skeptics are the ones making extraordinary claims". Given that they are clearly in the minority here, I guess I can understand why they would leap to that conclusion. Thus, I was very careful in my comment here to use an example of an "extraordinary claim" coming from the opposite side (doubling or tripling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus!). It would be nice if we could all agree on the general principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ... but even that seemingly common-sense statement triggered cries of "censorship" in this thread. -
chris at 02:07 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
robhon at 01:59 AM on 5 June, 2010 Actually rob, we do have to be careful with terminology. By common understanding "alarmism" indicates needless or inappropriate alarm. I'm sure gallopingcamel was using it in that sense, and I would suggest that's the sense in which the word should be understood. A prognosis can be truly alarming without being alarmist! Of course we can only determine whether a prognosis is alarming or alarmist by considering specific examples in the light of the evidence. -
Ned at 02:04 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel, someone is "topsy-turvy" here, but it isn't climate science. I do find it ironic, however, that you use that word "alarmism". The main embodiments of the consensus view of climate -- the IPCC WG1 reports, Spencer Weart's history, basic textbooks, etc. -- are simply realistic, not alarmist. Everything is very clearly documented, and the IPCC generally errs on the side of caution (see, e.g., sea level rise). There is, however, one area where there's no shortage of alarmism. Over and over again I see "skeptics" abandon all shreds of actual skepticism when the subject turns to economics. People who nit-pick over details of peer-reviewed climate science blithely assert that mitigation of climate change would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, would lead to economic collapse, or would require everyone to return to the Stone Age. (I believe the expression "billions are bound to perish" is still present in one comment that somehow made it through the moderation policy yesterday, despite the inflammatory and alarmist language....) Climate scientists have done the hard work of setting up a process to review and summarize the peer reviewed knowledge of their field every few years. Those summaries tell us convincingly that if we proceed with business-as-usual, a wide variety of adverse consequences are likely to follow. Now, the "economic alarmists" can claim that trying to mitigate those adverse consequences will cost too much. But until they have a similarly convincing mechanism for compiling and explaining the evidence, I see no reason not to ignore them. There's plenty of peer reviewed evidence that we can make a reasonably large dent in our CO2 emissions with current technology. So if you're really concerned about "alarmism" take it up with the people who are claiming that we can't cut back on CO2 emissions without destroying the economy. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:59 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel... No. Climate alarmism (I don't totally reject that term because this is a very alarming situation) is constructed from a large body of research science that is all pointing to the same general conclusion. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence that this is real. Thus, it would take something extraordinary to counter that amount of evidence. I keep using the puzzle analogy. Science has pieced together a puzzle, using 150 years of solid research, and that puzzle is 95% complete. We're highly confident what the picture tells us. Deniers try to come along with single pieces here and there saying that the whole puzzle is wrong and they have the "real" answer. Problem is, all those other pieces of the puzzle can't just be discarded. You would have to completely rebuild the puzzle, using the existing pieces, and make them fit the new paradigm. That would be an extraordinary feat!Response: Hey, that's my analogy! I've spent years beating it to death :-) -
JMurphy at 01:58 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel, perhaps you could list some of those "Extraordinary Claims" made by 'Climate alarmists', and some of the evidence (along with the relevant counter-evidence) that 'skeptics' are 'unimpressed' with. I won't hold my breath, though... -
Jim Eager at 01:47 AM on 5 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Bill Walker, it's no surprise that some people cling to their own ignorance like a warm blanket and resist it being pulled away, leaving them exposed to the coldness of reality. -
chris at 01:42 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
gallopingcamel at 01:23 AM on 5 June, 2010 The problem there is one of definition gallopingcamel, your post being a sort of vague list of value-laden descriptors. There are lots of examples on this thread about what is meant by "extraordinary claims" in the context of attempts to overthrow fundamental knowledge (see examples in posts by CBDunkerson, Ned, JMurphy....). You need to do similar and define what you mean by "Extraordinary Claims" as well as "skeptics" and "climate alarmism". Otherwise your post doesn't really have meaning. In any case I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that "skeptics are the ones making extraordinary claims". -
gallopingcamel at 01:23 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Carl Sagan was known for saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. It is a wonderful illustration of the topsy-turvy CAGW world to suggest that the skeptics are the ones making extraordinary claims. Climate alarmism is constructed out of "Extraordinary Claims" while skeptics are unimpressed with the evidence produced to support them. -
Mythago at 01:21 AM on 5 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Oh damn. I realised I hadn't made myself quite clear. I was on night shift which meant I was beaten to the punch regarding the article. And the article can be found here for those interested parties: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change -
Mythago at 01:19 AM on 5 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Damn! Someone beat me to the punch. I was also going to mention the George Monbiot article. Well don John. Your turning the tables professionally here. The joys of night shifts. Anyway it fits nicely with the new comments policy idea that was mooted yesterday (Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?). If the sceptics want credibility and to be taken seriously now is the time to get their research peer reviewed. If they can't or won't then that's the end of their arguments. Simple. Looking forward to the future with more enthusiasm. Thanks. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:15 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
CBDunkerson... Actually, Tesla stopped producing the Roadster this year, making current owners extremely happy as they now own a very limited edition car. I think total produced was in the neighborhood of 1000. Haven't seen the Fisker Karma. Will check it out. The Nissan Leaf is the car I think you're looking for. I think their range in about 100 miles and it's all electric. Personally, I'm hoping to skip the hybrid thing. In my head two wrongs don't make a right. I love the simplicity of an all electric. But I want all electric with some range. The Tesla Model S has, I think, 3 battery set ups for different ranges up to 300+ miles. But I think I'd stick with the 160 mile battery and rent a gas car for those rare long distance trips. Will probably be putting my deposit down on a Model S next month. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that charging stations (as an equivalent to a gas station now) will never come to pass in any meaningful way. In the next decade or so battery technology is going to get a lot better. So much better that every car will have enough battery to take you as far as you want to go before you need to sleep. Hotels and motels will have to have parking with charging stations. -
JMurphy at 01:07 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ken Lambert wrote :"I detect that the switching of recent discussion to thoughts censoring the non-believers might be motivated by the realization by the owner of this blog that the deeper we go into technical examination of the science, and particularly the bases of the warming imbalances and the quality of the data and measurement accuracies -the greater we understand the uncertainties and weaknesses in the current state climate science." I'm afraid you are detecting, as far as I can see, something which is not only not there but not even anywhere near reality. How many articles are you thinking of that are switching this discussion ? Your use of a word like 'censoring' suggests that you feel victimised directly or indirectly by the deletion of nonsense arguments which anyone feels like posting without the need for any sort of evidence or back-up. Why ? Your use of the term 'non-believers' suggests that you look on global warming as a religion, as opposed to so-called skepticism which you would call...what ? Rational and empirical ? How many religions are based on science ? Your final views about the science betray a lack of awareness (probably deliberate) of both the vast amount of science available on this site and the vast majority of scientific studies which continue to confirm global warming; and betray your lack of awareness of the uncertainties that already exist in climatology and related fields - why else do you think people are continuing to study the subject and bother to bring out more studies ? -
Ned at 01:00 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
In the course of a very interesting post, chriscanaris (or should that be Chris Canaris?) writes: Ken Lambert's comments about the possible impact of the complexities, uncertainties, and weaknesses in climate science resonate strongly with me. My own field requires great tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Whenever I have delved more deeply into any issue over the course of my career, I have found myself confronting Socrates' maxim: ‘One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.’ That's interesting. An alternative view, however, is that we do know something. In fact, thanks to the vast expansion of data collection and scientific computing since WWII, we really know quite a lot about the earth system. To be sure, we don't know everything ... but if that were a necessary criterion for action, none of us would get out of bed in the morning. I don't know much about psychiatry, so I can't really say much about the current state of knowledge in your field. But in earth science, I think it would be incredibly wasteful to essentially wave away everything that's been learned since the days of Roger Revelle and decide that the uncertainties are just too large for us to say anything about how the earth system works. The big "ocean heat content debate" is a good example. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the exact trend in OHC over the past half-century, and realistically that will probably never be completely resolved since there's no way to go back in time and collect better data. But there are other areas with much less uncertainty (e.g., sea level rise, as the other Chris points out). The logical response is to base your scientific understanding on the lines of evidence that are most clear. Even if we never measured the temperature of the deep ocean, there would be plenty of lines of evidence in support of AGW. Insofar as the attempts to reconstruct the time evolution of OHC don't contradict those other lines of evidence, I see no reason to reassess our thinking on AGW. If, at some point, someone comes up with a very convincing reconstruction of OHC that shows strong evidence that the oceans have been losing heat since 1970, then I would agree that the conflicting lines of evidence need to be reconciled and one outcome might be ditching AGW. But that's not remotely the situation we find ourselves in. Instead, you (and others) are trying to hold up uncertainty in areas X, Y, and Z as a reason to throw out certainty in areas A, B, and C. We don't do that in other aspects of our daily lives and I see no reason to do it here. -
tobyjoyce at 00:54 AM on 5 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Re: Foregoing discussion on Al Gore Al Gore is doing his best to live up to his principles. but examples of great men failing to live up to their stated principles abound in history. Thomas Jefferson keeping slaves is probebly the most notorious. If someone enunciates something new and forceful, its ok for them to be on a learning curve like the rest of us. -
chris at 00:40 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
chriscanaris at 00:23 AM on 5 June, 2010 I think your comments are on topic, at least in relation to the discussion that has evolved from the "Comment Policy" bit of the top article. Perhaps it is me that is going off topic by developing your point about psychoanalytical paradigms. With great respect to your field, I would suggest that the possibility for embedding "mainstream perspectives" at the expense of alternative theories and approaches is bound to be much stronger in the psychological/neurological sciences and their interface, compared to the physical sciences. In any field with large and fundamental uncertainties like psychiatry (considering more broadly the neurological basis for behaviour and personality), the fact that the uncertainties are large allows for the possibility of real (and probably justifiable) factionalisation of views and therapeutic approaches. You can correct me if you consider that's incorrect, but I would consider the physical sciences (including climate science) to be far less susceptible to this simply because the evidence base and the causal relationships are so much more strongly defined. That doesn't mean that uncertainties don't exist of course. But we should be honest about these uncertainties, and how these impact on our essential understandings of the subject and its sub-subjects... -
Ned at 00:37 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ken writes: The strength of this blog is manifest. It sticks to broadly technical arguments and refrains from questioning of motives for posting arguments and avoids the political or personal. Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, Ken then continues: I detect that the switching of recent discussion to thoughts censoring the non-believers might be motivated by the realization by the owner of this blog that [...] Ironically, Ken here engages in exactly the kind of ungenerous speculation about motives that he was previously praising the site for avoiding. I really don't see any suggestion that "non-believers" should be "censored". At the very end of his post, John considers the idea of expecting anyone who is making an extraordinary claim to back that up with extraordinary evidence. This really ought to be common sense, and it's remarkable that we need to debate this at all. If someone wants to dispute plate tectonics, electromagnetism, biological evolution, or other aspects of mainstream science, we should expect them to provide very convincing evidence. It's not sufficient to suggest "Well, there's some uncertainty about geophysical processes in the upper mantle so plate tectonics isn't true." Likewise, mainstream science doesn't offer any support (that I'm aware of) for the idea that doubling or tripling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus, where temperatures rise high enough to boil away the oceans. If I were to propose such an idea here, I would expect you to demand that I provide not just speculation or hints to back it up, but very serious and direct evidence to support my radical proposal. Personally, I would be embarrassed to be suggesting that asking people to provide concrete evidence when they make extraordinary claims is somehow tantamount to "censorship". If your ideas can't be supported with any convincing evidence, perhaps you should reconsider them? -
chris1204 at 00:23 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
JMurphy @ 5 Copernicus' system was less reliable than the Ptolemaic system which relied on a scheme of in which regression of planetary motion in the heavens was based on cycle and epicycles. Copernicus was further restricted by the dominant paradigm which declared circular motion to be 'perfect.' In fact, Kepler had to break out of this paradigm by proposing elliptical motion thus providing a reliable model which corresponded to then observable data. Copernicus theory was untestable when first proposed. I harbour no delusions that my contributions on this blog reach Copernican heights. I have learnt a great deal from reading John's posts and from responses from 'warmists,' 'lukewarmists,' and 'sceptics' (if you'll pardon my resort to labels). I'd like to see this continue. I'm very comfortable with John's 'warmist' perspective - you have to have a firm working hypothesis to generate robust debate. Moreover, shutting out non mainstream perspectives freezes science. I could best illustrate this by talking about my own field - psychiatry. Fifty years ago, my field was dominated by a psychoanalytical paradigm which has now receded giving way to neurobiological, cognitive, and behavioural perspectives. Psychoanalysis would be on the margins and yet the contributions of its proponents still provide useful insights without which my field would be impoverished. I appreciate my comments might be strictly off topic - however, in any scientific field of endeavour, many schools of thought contend. The minority schools are vital to the integrity of science - otherwise, important questions go unasked. Ken Lambert's comments about the possible impact of the complexities, uncertainties, and weaknesses in climate science resonate strongly with me. My own field requires great tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty. Whenever I have delved more deeply into any issue over the course of my career, I have found myself confronting Socrates' maxim: ‘One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.’ -
Berényi Péter at 00:23 AM on 5 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
#31 Riccardo at 22:58 PM on 4 June, 2010 made me think that you believe that the global temperature is, one way or another, linked to the ocean temperature I do. If that's what you mean by "reflect", I am sorry. However, it is important that "polar amplification" relative to average ocean temperature or average surface temperature are two very different beasts. Using this definition, you can derive it [climate sensitivity] from paleo data exactly No, you can not. F in your equation is not preserved. There is no fossil record of TOA net radiation balance. You can assume one, but as we know this kind of reasoning has its own problems. -
chris at 00:05 AM on 5 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Ken Lambert at 23:13 PM on 4 June, 2010 Not really Ken. The notion that one can "declare victory" despite the uncertainties in the measurements isn't very scientific or even that interesting. I don't think there's much doubt that oceans are continuing to absorb heat in response to a radiative forcing. As the "falsification" discussion on this thread indicates, one needs to consider evidence in its entirety. For example, it's difficult to square an absence of ocean heat uptake, with continuing sea level rise that can't be accounted for by land ice melt contributions. One may as well wait until these fundamental uncertainties are resolved. In other words focussing on areas of uncertainty (or apparent uncertainty) and then assuming that one's (or someone elses!) interpretation of where the numbers would lie if there wasn't uncertainty, is (also) non-scientific. I think most of us are pretty relaxed about these peripheral uncertainties that relate to very short monitoring of noisy signals, and don't feel the need to make comprehensive interpretations. I would suggest that your apparent desire for a "killer" observation that casts strong doubt on the science isn't helping you to understand the science...witness your unconsidered cheerleading for Arkadiusz's incorrect analysis of early 20th century sea ice loss on the "Abraham shows Monckton...." thread. One really needs to be more relaxed about the science and less concerned with point scoring. That to me is the strength of this blog where the science can be dicussed in detail. I suspect your desire to jump to comfy self-supporting conclusions is also the reason for your point about "censoring the non-believers" on this thread for which the evidence is also decidedly thin..... -
KR at 23:57 PM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Again - what are the actual measurements? theendisfar - In time. It appears you're not ready. Now that's just a flat out insult. I'm very disappointed. The measured values for radiative, evaporative, and convective energy transfer are well established - and they show (relative to our discussion) that convection energies are over 16X smaller than radiative, and 3X smaller than evaporative. Local variances cannot change the averaged values over an order of magnitude, which if you recall are what we were talking about. Large scale averages drive climate, not weather variances around mean temps and humidity. If you change the subject (N2 and O2 radiation? Non-atmospheric models of the Earth? When did you stop beating your wife???) from the balance of convection/radiation levels, I can only conclude that you don't have a response to my question - where are the measurements that contradict the currently agreed upon energy balances? Hypotheses and theories must match the measurements. If they don't, it's time for a new hypothesis. -
KR at 23:36 PM on 4 June 2010Models are unreliable
A clarification - the differences shown between the means in the three scenarios is due to different what-if postulations, while the spread of predictions under different assumptions is the difference in multiple year predictions of different models, with different estimations of feedback and sensitivity. Again, the exact values for feedback and time constants are under refinement, which is where climate scientists get to write papers. You'll note, however, that all of the models go "up"... regardless of assumptions. -
Berényi Péter at 23:34 PM on 4 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Also, consider this. Equilibrium temperature of a perfect black sphere in space 1 AU form the Sun is close to +6°C, provided it has high heat capacity and conductivity. On the other hand, average surface temperature of the same sphere with no heat capacity and conductivity whatsoever is 93 K (-180°C). Lunar Bond albedo is about 0.11. Therefore effective temperature of the Moon should be higher (-3°C) than that of Earth (-18°C, Bond albedo 0.3). In spite of this average temperature of lunar regolith at 1 m depth is -35°C. It is a bit overstretched to imagine Earth with no greenhouse gas in its atmosphere, i.e. with no water vapor whatsoever, but having the same albedo, heat capacity and distribution efficiency currently provided by icesheets, snow, clouds, oceans, currents and winds. That much about the alleged 33°C "greenhouse effect". -
theendisfar at 23:29 PM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
@248 KR Again - what are the actual measurements? In time. It appears you're not ready. Thought analysis and small scale experiments give solid clues to what happens when you scale up the model. You see these GCM models that AGW Believers hold so much faith in are nothing but THOUGHT Experiments without careful thought and input. First off, the numbers you give are averages. Averages are no help in determining the behavior of a thermo-system, only in determining the average inputs and outputs that will give an average temp. The less you know about the behavior of a system, the less able you are to predict the outcome of events. Example. 390W/m^2 works out to be an average 14.83 C surface temp, and 324 = an average 1.79 C Atmosphere temp. What does this tell you about the Highs and Lows of the system? Where they are at? How long does it take to reach a High or low in an area that is arid vs humid? How much higher or lower does it get in arid vs humid with same input? Here's some questions that may help. What would the Earth's High's and Low's be without an atmosphere (i.e. zero greenhouse effect)? Simple higher lower will suffice, but rate of heating and cooling are also important. If all matter emits radiation, then do N2 and O2 molecules emit radiation? Do they also absorb radiation in the same wavelengths that they emit? (look it up before you answer) Hint: They do. If N2 and O2 absorb and emit radiation, are they GHG's? Is the atmosphere heated by contact with the surface (conduction) or do GHG's absorb IR and transfer the heat to local N2 and O2? If CO2 'traps' 2W/m^2 at the surface of the planet and a cubic meter of water contains ~1.2 Billion joules (at 14 C), how long would it take for the 2 Watts to heat the cubic meter of water 1 C? How much energy (joules) is in a cubic meter of dry air at 14 C at sea level? In order to verify the GCM's are behaving correctly, the above questions and many more need to be answered. As for the measurements, they are useless when averaged, and for convection being a minor part, every bit of wind and weather the Earth has is a result of convection. 4,000 Trillion tons of air reside in the convective zone and it takes Trillions of Trillions of joules to get and keep it moving, much less blowing down buildings on occasion. We can get to 'peer reviewed' work soon enough, let's If you don't like answering questions, then say so and I'll simply make statements and you tell me if I'm wrong. Work for you? Feel free to ask me questions. -
KR at 23:29 PM on 4 June 2010Models are unreliable
johnd - we (if I recall correctly) got into this topic over on CO2 is not the only driver of climate, where we were discussing weather. In weather a 24 hour outlook is part of forecasting, with declining accuracy over longer periods due to the non-linear chaotic system of atmospheric physics - deterministic (not stochastic, sorry about that in an earlier post) progression but complex and with extreme sensitivity to starting conditions, which we don't absolutely know. The IPCC models and predictions you give above are for climate changes; the temporal progression of averages over the period of years. 24 hour time periods make absolutely no sense whatsoever with regard to climate predictions. As to the differences between the models - these are related to different estimates on feedback (active research to establish amounts and time constants), and different human future actions (how much CO2 do we continue to put into the air, how many aerosols?). They are multiple year "what if" scenarios. Since they're dependent on feedback refinement and how we respond to the issue, they of course are different in predictions. Weather and climate are not the same thing, not in time scale, variability, or predictive range. It's important not to confuse them. -
Ken Lambert at 23:13 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
The strength of this blog is manifest. It sticks to broadly technical arguments and refrains from questioning of motives for posting arguments and avoids the political or personal. The discussion of 'Robust Warming of the Global Upper Oceans' was an excellent example of 'robust' technical argument by both AGW adherents and those who disagree with the so-called 'concensus' of overwhelming evidence for AGW by CO2GHG means. That discussion ended with the 'Robust Warming of the Upper Oceans' looking distinctly non-robust and those such as DougB lamenting the lack of good measurement and good data (in sympathy with Dr Trenberth). The argument that 'its there but we just can't measure it' is wearing a bit thin. The argument that 'it might not be there at all - or could be there in reduced numbers' may well be equally valid in scientific terms. I detect that the switching of recent discussion to thoughts censoring the non-believers might be motivated by the realization by the owner of this blog that the deeper we go into technical examination of the science, and particularly the bases of the warming imbalances and the quality of the data and measurement accuracies -the greater we understand the uncertainties and weaknesses in the current state climate science. -
Riccardo at 22:58 PM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Berényi Péter, sorry if I misunderstood what you said, this sentence: "Global climate is clearly driven by ocean temperature" made me think that you believe that the global temperature is, one way or another, linked to the ocean temperature. As for sensitivity, you probably give a different definition than commonly accepted. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is usually defined with respect to an (arbitrary) state after the system reached the new equilibrium, i.e. λ=F/ΔT where ΔT is the equilibrium temperature difference between the two states. Using this definition, you can derive it from paleo data exactly because you can safely assume that the system reached equilibrium. -
werecow at 22:54 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
I've been looking for a podcast like this, much appreciated. -
Tony Noerpel at 22:50 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
thingadonta What would falsify AGW? Go back to the rocks. Find a paleoclimate example which contradicts carbon dioxide's influence on climate. Such examples have been offered such as the glaciation at the end-Ordovician, but have stood up to further scientific inquiry Tony -
Ned at 22:48 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
thingadonta writes: what kinbd of evidence would actually thoroughly deflate the AGW hypothesis? In order for the theory of AGW to be a useful description of the earth system, all of the following have to be true: (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (2) We're increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. (3) The net impact of all feedbacks to a radiative forcing of the climate system has to be positive or neutral, not negative. So, there are several kinds of evidence that would falsify the individual components: * You could show that the past two centuries' measurements of the spectral absorptance of CO2 are erroneous and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. * You could show that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are much smaller than we think they are. * You could show that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the earth's climate tends towards homeostasis (i.e., climate is strongly resistant to changes over time). This would probably necessitate either proving the nonexistence of the LIA, MWP, and Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles, or else discovering a new forcing that's large enough to have overpowered this homeostasis. If none of those sound very likely, well, that's probably because AGW is in fact a useful description of the climate system, just as plate tectonics is a useful description of planetary crustal geophysics ... so it's unlikely that AGW will be falsified just like it's unlikely that plate tectonics will be falsified. A less rigorous way of looking at it is "are there lines of evidence that would contradict the end result of AGW theory" rather than contradicting its specific mechanisms. In this case, AGW is supported by multiple lines of evidence, so it would really be necessary to have multiple lines of evidence against it before most scientists would be convinced. Perhaps you'd want to see several of the following: * Sea levels stable or falling over the long term (they're actually rising at the upper range of IPCC predictions). One caveat to this would be that one could imagine a world where AGW caused a huge increase in snow accumulation in polar ice sheets, leading to a reduction in sea level rise ... so you'd really want to see no evidence of thermal expansion contributing to SLR. * Long-term temperature trends explainable solely by other forcings without reference to CO2 (currently, they're not). * Clear evidence that ocean heat content is not increasing. (Past OHC data aren't great but they don't indicate that the oceans aren't accumulating heat). * Clear absence of any of the expected "fingerprints" of CO2 induced warming (greater warming at nights and in the winter, polar amplification, cooling in the stratosphere, etc.) Anyway, you get the idea. The things you list ("Slowing sea level rise, flattening Earth T, no increase in hurricanes, flattening ocean temperatures, oceanic islands expanding, snowy Washington winters, poorly thought out Met office forecasts") are either not actually happening (SLR, temperature) or are basically irrelevant (snow in Washington, inaccurate weather forecasts). -
JMurphy at 22:44 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
thingadonta wrote :"Popper once stated that the theory of evolution by common descent isn't really science because it can't be falsified, (presumably because it largely deals with the past), until someone pointed out that you can easily falsify it by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. He retracted." Of course, a good deal of suspicion would be directed toward the finding itself. How sure are we that the rocks are that old ? Might the rabbit fossil have been planted as a hoax ? But let us suppose that all agree the fossil is clearly a Pre-Cambrian rabbit. This finding would not be an instant falsification of all of evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is now a diverse package of ideas, including abstract theoretical models as well as claims about the actual history of life on earth. The theoretical models are intended to describe what various evolutionary mechanisms can do in principle. Claims of that kind are usually tested via mathematical analysis and computer simulation. But a Precambrian rabbit would show that somewhere in the package of central claims found in evolutionary biology textbooks, there are some very serious errors. The challenge would be to work out where the errors lie, and that would require separating out and independently reassessing each of the ideas that make up the package. Sounds strangely familiar and yet we still await the climatological rabbit... -
thingadonta at 22:11 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
"Carl Sagan was known for saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you make an extraordinary claim (such as saying that mainstream science on global warming is wrong) then I will require extraordinary evidence." It may not be possible to 'disprove' the AGW hypothesis. Popper's assertion that a scientific theory must be able to be falsified to qualify as science is barely (?) true of AGW (?), at least for various century-scale projections. Popper once stated that the theory of evolution by common descent isn't really science because it can't be falsified, (presumably because it largely deals with the past), until someone pointed out that you can easily falsify it by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. He retracted. Once again, that very under-rated branch of science-the stratigrahpic record-came to the rescue. (I think this record has a few more surprises for AGW proponents). I think the only way one could possibly falsify strong AGW is if the world got colder over the next few decades, but I would actually be interested to hear a few ideas of what sort of evidence would actually put some serious doubt into it. Slowing sea level rise, flattening Earth T, no increase in hurricanes, flattening ocean temperatures, oceanic islands expanding, snowy Washington winters, poorly thought out Met office forecasts- none of these of course prove or disprove anything, so what kinbd of evidence would actually thoroughly deflate the AGW hypothesis?
Prev 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 Next
