Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 Next
Comments 118251 to 118300:
-
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? -
Berényi Péter at 22:03 PM on 4 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
#66 sylas at 00:44 AM on 29 May, 2010 The largest impact by far is for those frequencies where optical depth is close to unity Thanks, Sylas. I will do the calculations along the skirt of an absorption line. I'll let you know the result. But for now back to the topic. Neither nitrogen nor argon are greenhouse gases, that is, they have no significant absorption in thermal infrared. Now, imagine removing half the nitrogen from the atmosphere. Or doubling it. Or increasing argon contents a hundredfold. What happens to average surface temperature? Why? Think about it. -
Berényi Péter at 21:51 PM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
#29 Riccardo at 18:45 PM on 4 June, 2010 the ocean temperature reflects global average temperature No, it does not. It reflects global average temperature of seawater. It is very far from average surface temperature, mostly determined by sea surface temperature close to the ice edge where downwelling can occur. This temperature is pretty constant as long as there is an ice edge somewhere. Current temperatures below the thermocline (75% of ocean volume) are close to 3°C everywhere. what you derived is the Antarctic amplification Yes, you can look at it that way. But it is the Antarctic amplification relative to average ocean temperature. an increased polar amplification is the same thing as an increased local sensitivity From the trendline alone no climate sensitivity can be derived. It represents equilibrium between temperature and CO2 partial pressure. At equilibrium there is no forcing by definition and the system's response to no forcing is only random fluctuation at best. -
Ned at 21:26 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus, I glanced briefly at that list of "35 errors" and I'm very unimpressed. If I had to summarize the problems with that list, I'd say that in the typical case Monckton skews his interpretation of Gore's statement in one direction, skews his interpretation of the science in another direction, and thus creates the appearance of an "error" where none really exists. There's also a lot of just plain confusion, like showing a time-series of Antarctic sea ice to criticize Gore's statement about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (i.e., Monckton or whoever created that list doesn't understand the difference between sea ice and land ice). I've read the book version of AIT and seen the film version a couple of times. There are a half-dozen or so places where there are statements or graphics that I'm unhappy about. Most of it, however, seems fine to me, and better than average for the field of "science popularization". -
Ned at 21:14 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
chriscanaris writes: Alas, such a policy would have doomed the Copernican paradigm (an extraordinary claim in its day for which extraordinary evidence emerged only because the hypotheses stimulated others to search the skies with telescopes)and Keppler's refinements to the dustbins of history. That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. My perspective is a bit different. If you want to use the Copernican Paradigm as an analogy, Copernicus is somewhat equivalent to Arrhenius -- the early proponent of a new theory, at at time when most of the data needed to test the predictions of that theory weren't really available. At first, both theories languished because the scientific community saw no clear benefit in adopting them. Over time, however, thanks to technological improvement and the collection of new data (telescopes and more precise planetary observations in the 1500s, computers and global geophysical data collection in the 1960s++) a body of evidence began to accumulate in support of these theories. In addition, advances in related fields provided complementary support (Galileo and Newton for Copernican theory, lots of advances in earth science and oceanography for the theory of an anthropogenically enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect). Thus, in both cases the scientific community gradually became convinced of the explanatory value of the new theory. In this analogy, how should we consider claims like those of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (there is no greenhouse effect) or E.G. Beck (CO2 is not rising; it fluctuated wildly in the recent past) or Don Easterbrook (the Earth is cooling, not warming)? I'd submit that those claims might have been worth debating a half-century ago, but in 2010 they should absolutely be regarded as "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence," comparable to the idea of someone promoting the Ptolemean paradigm over the Copernican in 1750, long after a scientific consensus had developed that the heliocentric model was superior to the geocentric model. I don't express any particular opinion on the relevance to the Comments policy here ... but I do think that this is a useful way of understanding the broader context in 2010 ... and I strongly concur with the idea that people promoting some of the more extraordinary "contrarian" arguments need to provide truly extraordinary evidence, and that failing such their arguments deserve to be dismissed. -
CBDunkerson at 21:11 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Much as I agree some of the arguments (e.g. 'greenhouse warming violates the second law of thermodynamics') are absolutely ridiculous and result in long debates which often go nowhere... you'll never be able to prove to someone that they are spouting nonsense by shutting them down / deleting the posts. Even telling them where to read up on the underlying science isn't likely to accomplish much IMO as they likely wouldn't be making 'extraordinary claims' if they were the kind of people who can weigh all the evidence dispassionately and come to a logical conclusion. Sometimes the only way to make progress is to engage with someone and SHOW them where there positions are clearly wrong. Yes, that means disruption and argument and yes it often doesn't do any good... but deleting such views will ALWAYS fail to convince them. So it really comes down to where you want to set the balance between 'trying to educate people' and 'trying to keep the discussion focused and constructive'. If you do adopt a stricter policy for discussions in general I might suggest having an area set aside for such 'extraordinary claims' and other contentious topics. Essentially, shunt these things off to the side (where they don't disrupt regular discussion) rather than banning them entirely. -
Argus at 20:55 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
#92 JMurphy. You can google yourself on Al Gore and his house, or go to the following sources for a starter: Glass houses Al Gore's Energy Use thedailygreen follow-up The rumours about him wasting energy were once true, but in the last couple of years Gore has made some changes. Apparently he became aware that you ought to live as you teach. As for errors and exaggerations in the movie, only nine were treated in court, due to lack of time, but there are easily 35 identifiable errors. ''The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.'' -
CBDunkerson at 20:55 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
robhon #93, the Tesla Roadster is out now and the Fisker Karma will probably be released before the Model S. All nice electric cars if a bit on the pricey side. I've been hoping that someone would come out with something along the lines of a Chevy Volt, but with ~100 mile all electric range. All the 'electric with gas backup' vehicles I've seen are designed around the assumption that you'll always have a full tank of gas in the car because you are likely to need to use a little every week or so. I think electrics would catch on much faster if the all electric range were large enough that most people would only need to use gasoline a couple of times a year... so you could drive around on an empty tank except when you were going on a long trip. The technology for this sort of design exists, but nobody seems to want to go that way. 'Gasoline backup' is going to be needed to get people to buy electric cars en masse until quick charging stations are everywhere... which will never happen if people don't buy enough electric cars to warrant it. -
johnd at 20:54 PM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
yocta at 09:53 AM on 4 June, 2010, if you've finished marking your first years papers and it hasn't been too traumatic, answer to your earlier questions are at the "How reliable are climate models?" thread. I was going to provide multiple choice answers in keeping with the education practices of today but decided against it. ;-) -
JMurphy at 20:50 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
chriscanaris, I can't see the Copernicus or Keppler connections, because they had theories which were based on evidence and were testable (eventually). Big difference from some of the ideas posted on here by various individuals below the articles ! And they weren't that extraordinary, either, because theories of heliocentrism had been around for nearly two thousand years - it was just very difficult to prove it more reliable against the Ptolemaic system, which worked pretty well at explaining and predicting planetary motion. Again, I have seen no so-called skeptic giving even a hint of any ground-breaking science - usually they try to assert that they have discovered something that no-one else has; try to overthrow the laws of Physics; or just type what they believe to be the case, no matter the lack of proof. -
johnd at 20:44 PM on 4 June 2010Models are unreliable
transferred over from "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" re yocta at 09:53 AM on 4 June, 2010 You say: ...and as can be seen with the IPCC tracked models there is quite a divergence... Please quantify this statement These projections from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: must surely be the most recognisable of any and quantify the divergence sought.
Figure 10.5. Time series of globally averaged (left) surface warming (surface air temperature change, °C) and (right) precipitation change (%) from the various global coupled models for the scenarios A2 (top), A1B (middle) and B1 (bottom). Numbers in parentheses following the scenario name represent the number of simulations shown. Values are annual means, relative to the 1980 to 1999 average from the corresponding 20th-century simulations, with any linear trends in the corresponding control run simulations removed. A three-point smoothing was applied. Multi-model (ensemble) mean series are marked with black dots.
just the opinion of the forecasters as to which one was most likely to eventuate.
Can you provide evidence of the forecaster's opinion?
If weather was relevant to your livelihood rather than merely a subject of academic interest or topic of conversation, then you would surely follow professional forecasters rather than those who present it as part of the evening entertainment.
By following the professional services, the processes by which forecasts are developed will over time become clearer as forecasts are continually updated as situations develop and the forecast period shortens.
all the models should begin converging until about 24 hours out they all should be fairly well aligned.
why 24 hours? What physical basis do you have for this?
See above.
However there is another scenario that can and does occur, they are all proved wrong. It is obviously impossible for them all to be proved right.
This statement is too vague.
See above.
-
Riccardo at 18:45 PM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Berényi Péter, allowing for your assumption that the ocean temperature reflects global average temperature, what you derived is the Antarctic amplification. Massson-Delmotte, in their much more detailed study quoted above, found it equal to about 2. Your variable amplification at high ΔT converges nicely with this value while it's lower for lower ΔT. Does this make sense? Yes. Indeed, an increased polar amplification is the same thing as an increased local sensitivity, which is exactly what Masson-Delmotte claimed. You misinterpreted their claim. Maybe quoting Hansen who found that the global sensitivity too may be higher at higher temperatures misled you. -
chris1204 at 18:37 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Alas, such a policy would have doomed the Copernican paradigm (an extraordinary claim in its day for which extraordinary evidence emerged only because the hypotheses stimulated others to search the skies with telescopes)and Keppler's refinements to the dustbins of history. It would also make a very interesting site which I look forward to reading deadly boring. As at present, you have succeeded in engaging folks from both sides of the Climate divide in spirited debate - something sorely lacking on other sites. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:27 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Second MattJ on moderation policy considerations, if for no other reason than avoiding pointless repetition of faulty claims eliciting impassioned rebuttals, dooming us to boredom and ennui. As to the Australian accent, Subaru sold millions of cars here in the U.S. thanks in part to their relentless application of that accent. Somehow it's inherently cheerful and positive to those us of us in the upward pointing region of the English speaking world. Don't sell it short! -
MattJ at 16:16 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
I agree with your proposal (inspired by Dan's policy) for modifying your own policy. -
Jeff Freymueller at 16:10 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Perhaps Monckton forgot to mention that the IAU he got his statement from was the "Independent Astrologers of Uptonsbury"? Seriously, John Abraham's work here is a great service, although perhaps with limited reward (as BillWalker pointed out in #10). It must be awfully tedious to catalog all the false claims.... I simply don't understand why anyone would believe a thing that Monckton says about climate -- there was already plenty of evidence even before this. But obviously some prefer to hear a false message that agrees with their beliefs rather than a true message that might conflict with them.Response: It's important to remember before completely laughing off Monckton that he has been invited more than once by Republican congressmen or senators to testify about climate science to the U.S. government. So the more John Abraham's work can be highlighted and disseminated, the better as far as I'm concerned. -
actually thoughtful at 15:56 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Shawnhet @95 www.capanddividend.org - a web site devoted to the idea. Senators Cantwell and Collins have introduced a bill to create this tax as law. It is going nowhere. I find it disheartening as it is a pure play on reducing pollution but OUR representatives will only talk about severely damaged legislation, like the Kerry/Lieberman/(the guy who dropped out)/House version. I am actually at a loss why this idea isn't winning over people of all world views. It just make sense. It harnesses the power of the free market to solve the problem. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:22 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Shawn (mind if I call you that?), here in the U.S. a revenue neutral carbon tax was heavily promoted by a familiar politician by the name of Al Gore, and despite fitting many stated requirements of so-called conservatives was laughed away by about half the electorate because of a combination of ideological considerations, confused thinking about climate science and personal dislike of the man mentioning the idea. Not a success story for conservatives, all in all. Regarding your second remark, what I fail to see is how considerations of the "free market" are useful or appropriate when discussing an almost exact analogue to other pollutants, of the sort we've discovered are technical problems amenable to solution, with a scientifically demonstrated compelling requirement to be corrected, and which the free market has historically always proven incapable of addressing on its own. Finally, there has never been a functioning example of a pure "free market" any more than there ever has been one of communism. Fortunate, because each would be intolerably obnoxious in its own unique way, more so than we've experienced with the corrupted implementations with which we've so far experimented. Your assertion in #96 is rather difficult to believe, by the way. Have you actually explicitly asked these folks you speak of whether they'd reject a quick and reasonably clean path to solving both our energy requirements and our present C02 pollution problem? -
garythompson at 14:39 PM on 4 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
the "mind of Dan blog" link points back to your article.Response: Fixed, thanks for the heads up, Gary. -
shawnhet at 14:05 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Phila #72, "Many liberals believe that more government action on AGW is necessary, granted (just as many conservatives believe that more government action is needed on immigration). But I don't know anyone on the left who'd oppose a viable "free market" solution to AGW on principle. I certainly wouldn't." Well, maybe it's simply the folks that I talk to, but I know a fair number of people who if you had a cost-free fix to AGW(say viable fusion) would be disappointed, because it would make it more difficult to make the sorts of changes they are in favor of. Cheers, :) -
shawnhet at 13:41 PM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
doug bostrom #10. "It might be possible to sell conservatives on the idea of a carbon tax, if it were revenue neutral(all taxes raised would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere). That's been offered, rejected. As an exercise, try looking it up. Any other ideas?" I did try looking it up through Google. Most of the links are to a story out of my neighbors to the West, British Columbia, that actually *approved* a revenue neutral carbon tax(I only looked at the fist couple of pages though). While BC is not a conservative province (especially by US standards), it does suggest that this is definitely an attainable goal. Do you have a counter example? #16:"Further to shawnhet's points, I believe that when we begin talking of ideological considerations such as the "free market" (no more existent than ever was Communism, by the way) and even more abstract notions such as an imaginary desire to "grow government" as an end in itself, we've quite departed from what we know of the useful relationship between science and human affairs. Quite simply this matter we're discussing is no more ideologically freighted than is the notion of responsible disposal of sewage or any other potentially noxious byproduct of our daily existence." I thought that this post was supposed to be about why different groups respond differently to the scientific evidence. IAC, I don't believe it is at all imaginary to believe that some people are more enamored by the power and efficacy of government than others. (BTW, in what sense was Communism "nonexistent"?) As to whether the issue is ideologically freighted it clearly is, regardless of whether you think it should be or not. Cheers, :) -
Ian Forrester at 12:13 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Thingadonta said:Also, I think papers 2 and 3 above contradict each other, despite one referring to sunspots and the other to solar variation
There is no contradiction. If you had read the papers you would have seen that one paper compared sunspot numbers to climate (temperature) and the other compared solar irradiance to climate (temperature). The two parameters are not directly connected so it is not surprising to see that they do not correlate with either temperature or each other over long periods of time. The reason temperature disconnects from solar irradiance is due to anthropogenic influences (CO2 increase from burning fossil fuels). -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:02 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
"Aren't they in denial?" No, they worked the numbers and that's their conclusion. -
Daved Green at 12:00 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Thanks for the good work again John A , but the problem I see is that most of the people at the conference will go away with the understanding that the scientist and organistions quoted by monckton have made these statement as presented by monckton And they will not seek to qualified those statement becuase it sets their world right and they can keep their lifestyles . also agree with MattJ legal action needs to be taken maybe a class action by all the reseachers miss quoted/represented that way he would have to pulicly defend himself . MattJ same here in Australia science way down on the list of students aims first seems to be taken by being discovered as the next singing sensation on X-factor (least it sounds scientific lol ) -
thingadonta at 11:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
It is interesting to see a flurry of papers which show solar activity increasing from about 1700, but the authors all denying that it makes much or any difference. Aren't they in denial? Ever been outside when the morning clouds clear, the sun rises to the top of the sky, and seen the warming continue through to late afternoon? Also, I think papers 2 and 3 above contradict each other, despite one referring to sunspots and the other to solar variation: "After reviewing more than 100 papers, I came to the conclusion that … little convincing evidence…for real correlations between sunspot cycles and the climate…" "“Changes from 1861 to 1975 show an unexpected remarkable correlation"Response: Noone is denying that changes in solar output have an impact on climate. What these many papers find is that solar output has shown little to no trend over the last 60 years - if anything, a slight cooling trend.
Sunspots are a proxy for solar activity. -
BillWalker at 11:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
John, here's an example of the kind of willful ignorance we're up against. I sent your link to Monbiot's story to a denier friend of mine (he's otherwise a wonderful guy, but I knew he'd never look at a link from here). Here are his responses (excuse the typos, he was sending from his phone):Please stop.... Your being minipulated. If I sent you a link to every video debunking AGW you won't be able to do anything else. your guys have exposed as the frauds they are. There was an Ice Age.
and later he sent:I will send ya Monckton's response in a few days after he stops laughing and gets around to it.
He may as well have said "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." -
Rogerthesurf at 10:27 AM on 4 June 2010Climate's changed before
Support, Thanks for your answer. My response is rather lengthy so I have posted it at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/ You are welcome to comment there further, as is anyone provided they can keep to the point and avoid ad hominem remarks etc. Cheers Roger -
Jim Meador at 10:24 AM on 4 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
John, Great work to go through all of Monkton's data and put together a rebuttal. However, I think that what you have done needs to be put together in a way that is more succinct and snappier. This will make it accessible to a much wider audience, one that "has better things to do with their time" as you correctly intone in your last slide.Response: Perhaps the YouTube videos are this succinct, snappy version. We have the full presentation video, the shorter YouTube videos and now separate blog posts. Not sure how many more ways we can repackage the rebuttals. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:20 AM on 4 June 2010Latest GRACE data on Greenland ice mass
Philipm, that's really well written article, accessible by your use of analogies but with lots of data. Nice job. The matter you mention of folks taking comfort from upticks since 2007 truly baffles me; the briefest scrutiny of past years' data reveals a monotonous succession of similar dips and rises, overwhelmed by an equally monotonous but much large ongoing slump. Blind men groping an elephant comes to mind. -
KR at 10:16 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
A comment or two on storms - by KR Thermal convection from the surface (estimated at 20-24 W/m^2) and latent heat/evaporation (est. 78 W/m^2, primarily by calculating evaporation energy versus precipitation) are both elements of storms/weather. As a personal anecdote (why, oh WHY are personal anecdotes more acceptable on blogs than actual data???), I fly (extremely) light airplanes. On a hot summer afternoon, in the peak of convective/thermal activity from ground temperatures, I can get bounced around by updrafts and downdrafts - to the tune of ~200 meters per minute in some cases. In a thunderstorm initiation, a thermal brings wet air up through the lapse rate (averaging 6.5 °C per kilometer temperature drop with altitude) to the point where it condenses - the bottom of a cumulus cloud. If the excess energy released by condensation warms the air sufficient to bring more wet air up, the updraft increases, more air comes in, the updraft increases some more, and so on - limited only by the transport of wet air up into the convection cell. At this point the initial thermal becomes irrelevant - the energy of condensation is much larger than the initial thermal transferring ground heat. In a thunderstorm the limit is the transport of wet air under and up into the convection cells. In a hurricane the warm ocean continues to evaporate as wet air moves up, supplying more energy, and feeding the storm as long as it is over warm ocean. The top of the cell is where the lapse rate reverses, and the temperature is no longer dropping with altitude. The initial thermal is the pull-starter on the storm - the condensation and latent heat provides the 'gas'. Hail also contributes - if the temperature drop in the storm is sufficient to freeze water, it gains the energy of liquid-ice transition as well. Approximately 5×10^8 kg of water vapor are lifted by an average thunderstorm, condense, and add energy to the storm. The storm ends when insufficient water vapor is available. Back to the personal - normal convection cells are enough to bounce me around. Thunderstorms have enough energy to reduce me and my plane to tasty bite sized chunks, with thousands of mpm up/down drafts... when a thunderstorm comes by I had better be hiding in a very secure hangar! Thermals can't do that. Latent heat provides most of the energy for storms - thermal convection from the surface just kick-starts the process. -
Berényi Péter at 10:15 AM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
I'm trying to understand what is said. It turns out Fig. 1 in the post has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, much less with climate sensitivity increasing with temperature. The true message of Dome C is something entirely different. To see this, let's look at it the other way around.
That is, CO2 concentration is considered as a function of temperature anomaly (relative to current global average). There is obviously some noise added to the function, but long term equilibrium values can be estimated by a trend line using least square fit.
The temperature-CO2 distribution can be approximated by the quadratic
C = 266.6 + 5.89×Δt - 0.333×Δt2 (ppmv CO2)
It can be translated to atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide as a function of temperature anomaly.
As density of CO2 is about 1.52 times greater than that of air, at standard atmospheric pressure of 1 atm (101.325 kPa) with CO2 concentration of 266.6 ppmv, partial pressure of carbon dioxide is 405 μatm (41 Pa).
p = 405.1 + 8.95×Δt - 0.506×Δt2 (μatm CO2)
The trend line above represents the equilibrium pressure. This is a long term equilibrium value for each temperature after taking into account the temperature dependent transfer between different reservoirs and all the possible CO2 (short & long term) feedbacks to temperature, because the time interval covered is extremely long (several hundred thousand years), much longer than relaxation time of any feedback.
The largest reservoir of carbon dioxide by far is seawater. It contains about 1.215×1017 kg of dissolved CO2. All the other reservoirs (soil, vegetation, atmosphere) taken together contain only several percent of this amount, so they are negligible on this timescale. Ocean turnaround time (including deep waters) is several thousand years, much shorter than the timescale considered, therefore atmospheric CO2 partial pressure fluctuates around the equilibrium value determined by average temperature of seawater.
Solubility of carbon dioxide in seawater decreases with increasing temperature. It means increasing partial pressure, for realistic temperatures a doubling for an increase of about 16 K.
If temperatures recovered from Dome C core would mirror average ocean temperature, one would expect an exponential increase of CO2 partial pressure, that is, a convex function, not a concave one as seen in the figure.
The only way out of this mess is to suppose average ocean temperature anomaly is a nonlinear function of Dome C anomaly. From the data above even the form of this dependence can be guessed:
ΔT = 23.1×log(p/p0)
where p0 is the equilibrium pressure of 405 μatm at 0 K anomaly and ΔT is ocean temperature.
What we see here is just the opposite of the claim expressed in the article above. Global climate is clearly driven by ocean temperature, not by polar one. And rate of change in ocean temperature anomaly, as it is shown by history, is not magnified, but diminished by increasing polar temperature.
-
MattJ at 10:09 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Alexandre- Ever since Sputnik, the American education system has labored mightily to teach good science, believing it was necessary to keep the Russkies from gaining missile superiority. But we had only limited success. The failure can be seen everyday with the number of people who fall for the absurd commonplace you mention. What is worse, once the Cold War ended, Americans as a whole stopped seeing even that limited value in a science education. We saw salesmen, managers and other professional liars get all the high paying jobs, while scientists and engineers got shafted, now even being replaced with overseas piecemeal workers at a fraction of the price -- workers who often only provide a fraction of the value as well. So now the state of our science education is even worse, especially in states like California which have been forced to cut education budgets so drastically. So if, as you say, "a good [science] education" is the only antidote, then we are doomed. Why, even if we could proceed with a reform of the education at breakneck pace, we could not see the effects in public policy until decades later, and by then it would be too late to prevent a 4C rise in global average temperature. But we are not even heading in the right direction. So rather than pin our hopes on the Herculean task of reforming science education for the masses, we should instead pin our hopes on getting scientists -- whose career successes already shows a great ability for learning -- to learn the basics of political science, and in particular public relations. Then scientists will have a chance at learning how the tack taken so far is so misguided, and what needs to change to undo the immense damage done by the PR from the other side. Now I know even that sounds Herculean! But since scientists really are better at learning than the average voter, we have a chance. -
MattJ at 09:57 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Can the IAU take legal action against Monckton for using their name fraudulently in support of Monckton's position? -
yocta at 09:53 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
RE#261 johnd I have been busy marking my first year's papers so I can't help it... You say: ...and as can be seen with the IPCC tracked models there is quite a divergence... Please quantify this statement just the opinion of the forecasters as to which one was most likely to eventuate. Can you provide evidence of the forecaster's opinion? all the models should begin converging until about 24 hours out they all should be fairly well aligned. why 24 hours? What physical basis do you have for this? However there is another scenario that can and does occur, they are all proved wrong. It is obviously impossible for them all to be proved right. This statement is too vague. johnd, these statements could be taken and applied in all areas of science and still be given the same bad marks I am giving it now. Watch this video that was linked here before. In order to really criticise the scientific process you need to have a good foundation of how it works. The loose fitting language and assertions you provide do not reflect this.Moderator Response: Looks like I posted my remark on johnd's comment at the same time you were posting yours. Let's take the discussion of model accuracy to the thread Models are unreliable. -
scaddenp at 09:45 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
My point about TOA, is that if you measure energy imbalance at TOA, then the system underneath it must heat up. -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Put all the oil (minimal refining) through gas turbine combined cycle at around 60% and you do even better efficiency. Internal combustion doesn't compete with that. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:40 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Okay, that settles it. I want my Tesla Model S right now. -
JMurphy at 09:37 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus, your beliefs with regard to Al Gore are confused. I think you will find that he was rich and famous before his movie and the number of its 'errors' (as they were expressly described, with those quotation marks, because they were more a matter of interpretation rather than substance) added up to nine - 'many' to you. As for rumours about him, why do you believe what you read about him and where did you read them ?
Prev 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 Next
