Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 Next
Comments 119651 to 119700:
-
chris at 09:08 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
johnd at 02:23 AM on 11 May, 2010 johnd, michael sweet is right. I also don't know if those numbers for "industrial heat"are correct. However the "forcing" from any industrial heat generation applies only to the extent that the heat generation takes place (if all industrial activity were to cease, the heat would be rapidly dissipated to space). So this tiny forcing is essentially a constant. The forcing from increments of atmospheric CO2 is cumulative. Doubling of atmospheric [CO2] gives a net radiative forcing of 3.7 W.m-2. Notice that the feedbacks are manifest only in the presence of the forcing. If the forcing is (i) reduced or is (ii) a steady state, the feedback will (i) fall back, or (ii) steady out to a new level. In fact since the industrial heat has been fairly constant for several decades, we've likely had most of the tiny, tiny feedback from this tiny tiny forcing. Water vapour is only "additive" as a feedback response to a radiative forcing, or some other phenomenon (volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output) that changes the atmopheric temperature. It is the latter that governs the water vapour concentration. In fact the enhanced water vapour concentration in response to greenhouse gas forcing is readily measured in the real world [***], consistent with the expectations from well-established theory of radiative effects in the atmosphere and their feedbacks. Incidentally, the observation that atmospheric humidity is rising as predicted from theoretical understanding of the greenhouse effect, is one of the additional bits of evidence that a low climate sensitivity (less that 2 oC of warming per doubling of [CO2]) is unlikely. ------------------------------------------------ [***] Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704 Gettelman A and Fu, Q. (2008) Observed and simulated upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback J. Climate 21, 3282-3289 Buehler SA (2008) An upper tropospheric humidity data set from operational satellite microwave data. J. Geophys. Res. 113, art #D14110 Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data> Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, art #L17912 Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253 Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening Science 310, 841-844. -
johnd at 08:58 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
michael sweet at 08:44 AM, is not the forcing from direct heat energy also additive. Water vapour increases 6%-7.5% per deg C. Given global temperatures have risen about 5 deg C since the last ice age a simple calculation suggests that water vapour has increased from about 15,000ppm to about 20,000ppm whilst CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 380ppm. The numbers may not be exact but they are meant to illustrate that water vapour is additive and not tied directly to CO2, but responds directly to heat input. -
johnd at 08:45 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 08:02 AM, all I can suggest then is that you do your own research and when you find evidence that the matter of climate sensitivity (which still rests on the matter of cloud feedback) has been finally resolved, please post such evidence. I simply haven't got the time or the inclination to seek out and post every single reference to the fact that the matter remains unresolved when you could settle it with just one reference that provides proof it has been resolved, something you have avoided doing so far. -
michael sweet at 08:44 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Johnd, The point that I made is that the forcing from CO2 is additive while the forcing from heat released by using energy is not. Thus the forcing from CO2 grows each year while the energy forcing stays the same. Over time the CO2 forcing greatly exceeds the energy forcing. Heat released this year does not add to heat released next year. CO2, once released into the atmosphere, is essentially permanent. CO2 released next year adds to this years CO2. After a certain period of time the energy forcing becomes negligable compared to the CO2 forcing, even though this year the forcing from energy exceeds this years CO2 forcing. I would not agree with your characterization of the CO2 forcing as "very tiny". One year of CO2 is a small forcing, but we have been emitting CO2 for 150 years. The current CO2 forcing is equal to the difference between current CO2 and pre-industrial CO2. Wikepedia says current CO2 is 389 ppm versus 284 in 1832. Using your numbers that is about 0.4 W/m2 and growing. This is a very large forcing, much greater than the forcing caused by direct heat release (your 0.027 W/m2 for direct energy release). -
scaddenp at 08:44 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Geo-guy. "One of the issues that climate scientists have not been able to integrate into their models is the relationship of el Nino and global warming trends." This is not true. ESNO features arise with climate models - ie they are an output, not an input of models. There is insufficient skill to use a climate model for prediction of individual ESNO events but that doesnt limit in any way the models ability to predict a 20 year temperature trend. As to complexity of regional weather - heat distribution around the planet is complex that doesnt mean you cant make statement about the global energy balance. If you heat a large pot on the stove, you will get convection patterns that would be extremely hard to model but it doesnt stop the fact the pot will still heat up and boil if there is enough energy at the bottom. -
Geo Guy at 08:44 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Robhon # 213 - let's just agree to disagree on this issue. My comments re Mann had to do with the process they followed and not to their conclusions. I have yet to find a valid report refuting the critique of M&M on the process and data manipulation carried out by Mann et al. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:25 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Geo Guy... Just checked out your link to the 2004 Richard Muller article regarding McIntyre and McKitrick's critique of Mann's hockey stick. You need to do a little more research here. There are a lot of critiques of the Mc&Mc critique. And this is all older information. There are a long series of papers that have used other measures to come to similar conclusions as Mann (including Huang 2004, Oerlemans 2005, Moberg 2005, Esper 2002, Briffa 2001 and others). -
Geo Guy at 08:13 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
maintain_integrity # 199 & 200 I guess you missed the point of a tid bit - it wasn't to provide any proof but rather simply to show that climate varies widely and that long term cold records in some locations are being broken. Does this mean global warming is not happening? Of course not. Does it say global cooling is happening? Of course not. What it might reflect is the idea that climate change is more complex than many are making it out to be. Prior to the winter, it was predicted that this year would be an el Nino year - warming and drier than usual in the west side of NA, cooler and wetter on the east coast and colder in Europe - all of which happened. One of the issues that climate scientists have not been able to integrate into their models is the relationship of el Nino and global warming trends. Including temperatures that occur during an el Nino episode can have the effect of raising the calculated average for global temperatures. It is same effect a sale of a multi million dollae house in a market will have on average house prices in that market. That is why I feel that a median temperature is more indicative of what is really happening climate wise than average temperatures. As for the NSIDC report, certainly the data at environment Canada's website doesn't reflect a warmer arctic this past winter http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/Welcome_e.html One final note, can any one provide a link to any articles describing the role the jet stream has in determining climate? I ask that because where I live, the jet stream can be either north or south of us. The temp difference realized depending on its location can be 15 degrees C. -
scaddenp at 07:56 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I'd love to see how you get urban heat islands melting glaciers and causing sea level rise. What Mann "forecast" are you referring to? "Forecast" is not especially useful term without knowing the methodology used. You can make pretty good forecasts of a projectile path when fired from gun from physics. You dont get same certainty from statistical models based on past behaviour. -
Geo Guy at 07:52 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
maintain_integrity # 199 & 200 I guess you missed the point of a tid bit - it wasn't to provide any proof but rather simply to show that climate varies widely and that long term cold records in some locations are being broken. Does this mean global warming is not happening? Of course not. Does it say global cooling is happening? Of course not. What it might reflect is the idea that climate change is more complex than many are making it out to be. Prior to the winter, it was predicted that this year would be an el Nino year - warming and drier than usual in the west side of NA, cooler and wetter on the east coast and colder in Europe - all of which happened. One of the issues that climate scientists have not been able to integrate into their models is the relationship of el Nino and global warming trends. Including temperatures that occur during an el Nino episode can have the effect of raising the calculated average for global temperatures. It is same effect a sale of a multi-million dollar house in a market will have on average house prices in that market. That is why I feel that a median temperature is more indicative of what is really happening climate wise than average temperatures. With respect to the NSIDC report, am not sure where they got their data from, however if you look at the Environment Canada's date that covers data from 1840 to the present, their info does not support NSIDC's contention that the Artic was warmer than usual. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html The above link allows you to access data from some 168 stations located the Canada's east arctic and some 144 from the west Arctic. Not all stations have a full set of data but there are enough for you to be able to identify trends. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:28 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Geo Guy... I did look at the other links but maybe you missed my point. You are using anecdotal information to form conclusions. "Tidbits" are a double edged sword. -
johnd at 07:21 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 04:04 AM, perhaps I need to make it clearer still, these snippets should help. ‣ “... the modelling of time dependent clouds is perhaps the weakest aspect of the existing general circulation models and may be the most difficult task in constructing any reliable climate model” --- Arakawa (WMO,1975) ‣ “It must thus be emphasized that the modeling of clouds is one of the weakest links in the general circulation modeling efforts” --- Charney (NRC,1979) ‣ “Probably the greatest uncertainty in future projections of climate arises from clouds and their interactions with radiation ... even the sign of this feedback remains unknown” --- IPCC (TAR 2001) ‣ “Cloud feedbacks are a primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor” --- IPCC-draft language (2006) This is what the question has, and still pivots on, as I mentioned earlier, as yet remaining unresolved. If you have some evidence that the matter has been resolved, please present it. positive cloud feedback, larger climate sensitivity negative cloud feedback, smaller climate sensitivity -
Stephen Baines at 07:15 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
GeoGuy 204 Re acidity. It's true that SO2 is acidifying and H2SO4 is more acidic than carbonic acid. But there is substantially less of it and it desn't get around much. SO2 has a half life of days in the atmosphere -- what doesn't fall out locally as particles interacts readily with water droplets and quickly rains out. As a consequence, it cannot build up to great concentations and is deposited regionally. Only lakes and streams that are small, dilute and whose watersheds have very low buffering capacities are generally sensitive to acid rain. Lakes that are as alkaline as the ocean (which resemebled a saline lake in chemistry) are not senstive to acid rain - unless you REALLY pound them as has sometimes happened in Eastern Europe. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere in years. That means it is well mixed in the atmosphere relatively unvarying in concentration and continuously exchenging with dissolved CO2 in the ocean. The increase in CO2 is felt throughout the whole ocean. Because of CO2, pure droplets of water in the amsophere have a pH of 5.6 (actually lower --that was in the 80's!). SO2 rains out mostly near sources on land and only sporadically. It concentrations have been declining due to controls on emissions. A success story of regulation and the model for cap and trade approaches! NOx (another pollutant that causes acid rains) shows similar characteristics although it is not declining yet. So no, SO2 cannot be the cause of declining pH in the ocean. The other effets you cite are too local in effect as well. The change in pH we see correlates perfectly with what we expect from changes in temp and pCO2 based on equilibrium buffer chemistry. -
J Bowers at 07:15 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
These other papers are probably relevant to this subject: Palaeoclimate: Global warmth with little extra CO2. Birgit Schneider & Ralph Schneider (2010). http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo736.html (3 - 4C once thought to be associated with CO2 at 500 - 600 ppmv therein put at 385 ppmv) "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Tripati et al (December 2009) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296 Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (December 2009) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo706.html Here’s a chart: http://www.paleo.bris.ac.uk/~ggdjl/conferences/egu2009_ess.pdf High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations. Pagani et al (December 2009) http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100. Breecker et al (October 2009) http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576 -
Geo Guy at 07:08 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
robhorn # 198 - interesting link - you showed the month of April, if you look at earlier months you will see a much different story. December, 2009 http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nam&ui_month=12 -
maintain_integrity at 07:04 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #204 Giving us the pH of a solution of carbonic acid, is meaningless when it comes to a highly diluted solution of a large ocean absorbing more and more CO2 from the atmosphere. While I can certainly agree that runoff from mankind in a stream emptying into a huge ocean will skew that pH more than what you will find out in the middle of an ocean. It is still the AVERAGE pH, not regional, just like global temperature vs. regional temperature. There's been many credible studies over the past few years, showing a huge decrease in sea water pH, and all of them cite clear evidence of pH levels dropping in response to increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The latest study even stated that it was the largest decrease in ocean pH levels in at least 800,000 years to a pH level of 8.1 -
Geo Guy at 06:57 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
robhon # 200 While I haven't reviewed Mann's model, I have taken several graduate courses on forecasting and consequently I feel I do have a background in understanding the pros and cons of forecasting. I have relied on publishings by others who have had access to the model and data and who have determined that it is unreliable. I remember when the report first came out and the President of the US Association of Statisticians issues a statement that Mann did not follow normal statistical protocol in his study.(sorry I do not remember the official name as it was some years ago). However I have come across a resent report in Technology Review, published by MIT which is worth reading and throws some light on the issue: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f As for throwing out the baby with the bath water concept, I don't believe we, as scientists should accept conclusions that have been derived from suspect processes. I don't believe the issue regarding Mann's forecast to be reflective of such a concept. Regarding citations for my SO2 and CO2 - any text dealing with introductory chemistry will work for you. It is a no brainer to understand that until the 1980's and 1990's that the fuels being burned worldwide were high in sulfur contents and that their buring released SO2 into the atmosphere in large amounts (visit Sudbury to see the remnant effects). As for your friend in Portland - ask him how cold his November and Decembers were this past year. The west was affected by el Nino, hence the warming, but in recent years Portland has had heavy snow: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/paststorms/200812/2008_Dec_snow.php Here in Calgary we had the warmest January that I can recall, but by far we experienced the coldest November in many years. However neither what Portland experienced nor what we experienced amounts to any significant in a 100 year time frame. - if you are going to use tid bits, make them comparable -
johnd at 06:57 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
michael sweet at 06:20 AM, given climate sensitivity is all about how the feedbacks respond to the very tiny initial warming provided by additional CO2, then one would expect those same feedbacks to also respond to any other sources of direct heat energy, especially if they are larger than that provided by CO2, thus once the feedback has reacted, that forcing heat energy will not be be dissipated to space. Is that not how climate sensitivity responds? Additionally CO2 does not have a total franchise on absorbing IR radiation, heat energy, as it's absorption bands overlap that of water vapour, and water vapour like CO2 is also additive. In fact whilst CO2 can be sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, water vapour, as it changes form, remains still with a surface exposed directly to the atmosphere, (that surface area relative to the prevailing conditions) and the heat energy circulating within thus exercising control over that heat energy, ready to provide immediate, short and long term feedback, positive or negative. -
J Bowers at 06:46 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech:"Does Courtney have a degree in material science or not? Either he has a science education or not." You mean you don't know yourself, Poptech? Here you go, enjoy the read... "Richard is also an Accredited Methodist Preacher. He is a founding Member of the Christ and the Cosmos Initiative that explores the interactions of religious and scientific ideas. The Initiative started in the UK but became active in 28 countries. Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath)." From Page 17 of this PDF by the man himself. -
Geo Guy at 06:38 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Maintain_integrity # 199 My purposes in posting the regional data is that there are other potential sources that affect ocean pH. As weathering of rock patterns change due to uplift, the pH of run-off water will change depending on changes to the rocks being eroded. Furthermore industrial activities contribute additional emissions notably SO2, which is more soluble in water than CO2 and which, when mixed with water creates sulphuric acid (pH of 0.96). On the other hand, CO2 when mixed with water forms Carbonic acid. Solutions with high amounts of dissolved CO2 (ie a soft drink) will have a pH of just under 4. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the pH of a carbonic acid solution lies around 5.4 Now with Sulphur dioxide being a major emission from sulphur rich coal, sulfur rich fuels and from the manufacture of cement, once can readily surmise that it has a greater role on influencing the pH of ocean water than does CO2. -
Geo Guy at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
For those of you relying on published temperature records to support global warming - you can use it to support the notion that it is due to man's activities, however not in the manner in which you believe. A study undertaken by Edward Long (The Science & Public Policy Institute) arrives at some interesting conclusions. In essence he notes that apparent global warming trends as presented by GISS, NCDC and UAH are misleading. “GISS, over a 10-year period has modified their data by progressively lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past (Ref 3). These changes have caused their 2000 reporting of a 0.35 oC/century in 2000 to increase to 0.44 oC/century in 2009, a 26-percent increase.” In essence he identifies the global warming trends identified in the reports of those institutions to simply reflect the impact of urban warming (hence the effect of man's activities) on the data. It is an interesting study and can be found here. -
maintain_integrity at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198 Instead of parroting the usual stories of cold/snowy winters for one region over another, try to stick with the longer trends to make a point. BTW, the NSIDC explained the winter of 2009-2010 quite well as an extreme negative phase of the Arctic oscillation from a natural pattern of climate variability. Seems as if the Arctic was warmer than average and the mid-latitudes were colder. (i.e. Sweden) nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html -
J Bowers at 06:21 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Philippe Chantreau:"As I said, virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer, so long as some "appropriate organization" nominates the person." Interesting that. What year did the European Science and Environment Forum become defunct? When did it finish lobbying for the tobacco industry and GM foods? I can't even find their webpage. Is it still associated with the George C Marshall Institute? -
michael sweet at 06:20 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Johnd, I am not sure of your numbers (although they are available) but one problem with the 0.0075 W/m2 from CO2 is that it is additive. Any heat released from energy consumtion is dissapated and radiates into space. After 10 years the CO2 contribution is .075 W/m2 and after 20 years it is .15 W/m2. Meanwhile energy consumption still releases 0.027 W/m2 (obviously adjusted for different energy consumtion). After 50 or 100 years it starts to add up. -
maintain_integrity at 06:11 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198; BTW, instead of parroting the usual cold and snowy stories for the winter of 2009-2010, as I posted in #197, even lead skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer stated that Jan. and Feb. 2010 were the 1st and 2nd warmest globally in his 32 years of satellite data. Another thing, you might want to research this past winter's extreme negative Arctic oscillation by the NSIDC, which made the Arctic warmer than normal, and the mid-latitudes quite a bit colder. (i.e. Sweden) nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:09 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
CATO publications are "peer-reviewed" to ensure that they follow the CATO party line. This is looking more and more like a joke. Pielke Jr is a political science major. I studied political sciences too, albeit briefly. I am unimpressed. As I said, virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer, so long as some "appropriate organization" nominates the person. And I still don't know what Dip Phil means. But as you said, it certainly is irrelevant. -
J Bowers at 06:07 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Philippe Chantreau: "And I still don't know what DipPhil means..." A diploma in philosophy. Impressive Eli has also been asking the same question. READ HERE And as DeSmog point out... "...Courtney is really just another PR guy. He's a union official and a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, the journal of the international coal trading industry, and his principal expertise seems to be in coming up with imaginative and self-promoting ways to suggest that climate change is either not happening or that its cause remains a deep, dark mystery. It would be embarrassing to any real scientist to be seen on the same newspaper page with this guy..." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:59 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@Geo Guy... Can you try to cite information on some of the claims you make here? Not challenging them, just would like to be able to properly evaluate them. I would also ask, how familiar are you with Mann's forecasting models? I keep hearing this refutation of modeling but I also know that science gets a tremendous amount of information through modeling. Don't you think it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water? SO2 and CO2... again, citations. Just as a side note, MY friend who lives in Portland ME said they got very little snow this year. As interesting a tidbit? I would also note that Rutgers just published data on snow cover in N. America and it was the lowest in the 40 years. Tidbits tend to be a double edged sword. -
maintain_integrity at 05:58 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@geo guy, #198: "I found it quite common to observe the pH of stream and lake waters..." Comparing apples to oranges, since sea water is inherently alkaline due to the dissolved solids, and being a much larger body of water does not change as rapidly as smaller fresh water lakes and streams. Sea life is optimum between 8.1 and 8.4 pH, and the latest oceanographic studies have said the average is now at 8.1, and forecast to drop even further as this century progresses with additional dissolved CO2. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:56 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
And I still don't know what DipPhil means... Sonia B.C.'s record of science publications speaks volumes on her ability to review science papers. -
J Bowers at 05:54 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: "Regarding Richard S Courtney, your opinion of him is irrelevant to him having scientific qualifications." Poptech, I don't care about your opinion of my opinion Both yours and my opinion are of complete irrelevance... full stop. "The word "serious" is subjective. I consider the journal serious." No, I believe an objective view can be made on whether a publication is "serious" or not. For instance, compared to Nature, or Science, I do believe E&E is a mere comic in comparison on the subject of climate. Its editor, Sonia B-C, has herself said in an email that neither she nor her reviewers are qualified to review the IPCC papers, therefore it is an irrelevance on the subject of climate. If you are trying to set yourself up as an authority on the subject I suggest you think again. You are not. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:48 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
And I still don't know what DipPhil means... -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:47 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Pdjakow,your quote seems to indicate Jaworowski confuses weather and climate. Other sources in the list that certainly won't ring bells for many are: "Futures", "Public Administration Review", "Interfaces", "Environmental Politics", "Society" "The Independent Review" "World Economics". This one I haven't checked, sounds interesting but never heard of it before "International Journal of Global Warming." I would have thought that skeptics arguing that science is not made by consensus would not attempt to give the impression of one by compiling lists. Dikran is right, at any rate. -
Geo Guy at 05:42 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Ok people..having read and re-read some of the posts here, I felt that should add my 2 bits worth. Re temperatures - recent investigations have thrown a question on the validity of the temperature studies undertaken by NOAA (cherry picking). Until their conclusions have been verified and the data examined, we cannot carry out any logical argument regarding recent global temperatures. Using world average temperatures, is in my view incorrect - the median should be used instead. Averages can be too easily manipulated through the inclusion or exclusion of outliers. Forecasts predicting large sea level rises are meaningless - as is any forecast that simply takes current observations and projects the trend indefinitely into the future. Mann's hockey stick forecast is a prime example. Having worked with a variety of forecasting models myself I personally know how difficult it is to reach and logical conclusion - (read near impossible) yet amy climate scientists seem to believe that forecasts using their models are to be accepted. Modeling does not work that way, no matter how much time and effort is placed into building it. While ocean acidity is of concern, linking any increase to high volumes of CO2 is really stretching it. SO2 is likely playing a more significant role in reducing pH than CO2 - I haven;t heard of any lakes becoming acidic due to acid rain involving CO2 - there are many cases of those lakes forming as a result of SO2 emissions. In my years as a field geologist, I under took many regional geochem surveys involving collecting and analyzing soil, water and sediment samples. From that experience I found it quite common to observe the pH of stream and lake waters to range from a low of around 4 to a high of 9. When you factor all other potential reasons for a change in ocean pH, I cannot accept the reasonableness of a slight drop in pH being related to increased carbonic acid. Just as a side note, a friend of mine who lives in wester Sweden recently told me they had snow for all the winter - the first time that has happened in their region for over 100 years - scientific?..of course not; interesting tidbit?..of course!!!! :) -
J Bowers at 05:37 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Dikran Marsupial: "If they can't, how can they arbitrate the 'scientific' truth of papers that seek to refute those papers?" Indeed. Well spotted! Let's emphasise the really important part of what Sonia says, just to make sure nothing gets missed... "I do not claim that I or my REVIEWERS can arbitrate on the `scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant..." Huh? Peer reviewing climate papers? Are they sure the 'peer' belongs there? -
maintain_integrity at 05:31 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@tobyjoyce, #156: "Global warming is still the best explanation for multiple phenomena, and not even Roy Spencer is offering an alternative." First off, Dr. Spencer's webpage is a perfect example of a lead skeptic showing a steady warming trend from 1979 to the present through satellite data, with Jan. 2010 being the warmest January in 32 years and Feb. 2010, being the 2nd warmest February in 32 years of satellite data. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures Secondly, because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians like Roy Spencer, holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming, need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:22 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
J Bowers I had a look at the -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:21 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I had that Jaworowski confused with another one. What is Pielke Jr PhD in again? I loose track of all these things. I see nothing to convince me that Courtney is a scientist. I also read some of his tuff indicating he does not understand science better than me. Virtually anyone can be an IPCC reviewer. I'm still not sure what does Dip Phil mean. The list is misleading in the sense that it bundles together real papers with opinion pieces in the CATO publications or proceedings of conferences etc... I had never heard of "Economic Analysis and Policy." -
Geo Guy at 05:16 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I find the post somewhat intriguing and feel it simply exemplifies an attempt to place credibility on the IPCC's report. First let me say that the issue of climate change and the probable cause of climate change are two distinct issues. If a person does not agree or feels the IPCC has not followed appropriate steps in arriving at their conclusions, that does not mean he or she is a denier of climate change. Unfortunately those who support the IPCC's conclusions fail to recognize this difference. The authors of the article number 250, while the NAS membership exceeds 2000. There would have been more credence to the report had it been published by the NAS - however it wasn't and that should speak loudly by itself. The NAS has been cited many times as a supporter of the findings of the IPCC. However that is misleading. While their statement acknowledges the conclusions of the IPCC, there is nothing in the wording that is close to clearly supporting the conclusions. What they do address is climate change itself and how governments should respond to it. http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf (sorry but your tip to post links does not work with the browser I use) Finally it is interesting to note that the NAS as a part of the InterAcademy Council Committee will be participating in a committee that has been asked by the UN to conduct an independent review of the procedures and processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....so from my perspective, the jury remains out on the IPCC's reports. http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100503.html -
pdjakow at 04:45 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@Poptech "Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Former Research Scientist, Norwegian Polar Research Institute, Professor, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland" Zbigniew Jaworowski: "zima r. 1995 (-5,3oC) była ponad sześciokrotnie zimniejsza niż w r. 1797 (-0,8oC)" ("1995 winter (-5,3oC) was more than six times colder than 1797 winter (-0,8oC)") Source -
J Bowers at 04:35 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: "Richard S. Courtney, B.A., DipPhil Material Science, Expert Reviewer, IPCC" Richard S Courtney of the European Science and Environment Forum. Hmm... I think WTD is still trying to get to the bottom of a few things. I'd also like to know whether you classify Energy & Environment as seriously peer reviewed given its absence on the ISI listings (isn't it listed as a trade journal?)? Roger Pielke Jr is certainly on record somewhere saying he regrets publishing in E&E. Both Jaworowski and E&E are discussed HERE as well. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech *@ 256 said "In Brooks case his paper supports skepticism of tornadoes getting worse due to global warming." That is not true, on another blog post you made this claim on the grounds that "It is relevant to the “economic effects of.” climate change." Brooks himself then challenged you to "...provide one citation in the scientific literature AGW will lead to increased “tornado activity?” You came up with a Science Daily article that claims NASA predicts more thunderstorms and tornadoes, However as Brooks pointed out to you, the paper the story was based on made no mention of tornadoes (other than to say that the US has more of them than anywhere else), so it was an error made by a journalist. It also suggests that you had not read the paper to find out. Brooks then challenged you to have another go at finding a research article suggesting a link between AGW and tornadoes, but as far as I can see you didn't. If you want to rehabilitate that paper being on your list, then post an article that justifies it being there. If you can't, you'd be better off deleting it. BTW by "alarmist" do you actually mean "mainstream science" (as represented by say the IPCC WG1 report), or do you really mean alarmist in the sense of someone making wild claims of disaster above the level supported by mainstream science? Another BTW, you do know that some science papers are intended to show that something isn't ruled out by current understanding, without in anyway implying that it is probable? -
tobyjoyce at 04:04 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd, #188 I looked at the link indicated and found a page from the IPCC TAR. Hardly a place to demonstrate "...even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. " and "evidence that they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles". Perhaps you misdirected me by mistake. I will await your response. -
maintain_integrity at 03:09 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@chris, #185 No doubt, "usurped by tedious bouts of trolling," which is mainly why I posted #191 to see how the peanut gallery is being incited towards rioting, when it comes to real scientists signing a letter like this from the NAS. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:05 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
@Heide... So, Lindzen et al have put another data point on that chart representing climate sensitivity. I wouldn't take this as being in anyway definitive because that's just not how science works. Lindzen has put forth a possible way of looking at climate sensitivity. There are many many such ways of looking at the issue. To take one method and dismiss all others because it fits what you want to hear is a mistake. -
maintain_integrity at 02:49 AM on 11 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Quite amusing reading 'Marketing Advice for Mad Scientists' by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts over at the WUWT skeptic site, supposedly posted as a "satire." Despite the list of 255 distinguished scientists of the NAS, most of them Ph.D.'s with a varied range of expertise including paleoclimatology, geology, geophysics, physical oceanography, atmospherics, etc....Goddard and Watts disingenuously stated it was "signed by 250 biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, etc. in defense of climate science." They also added some nice sniping like: "In addition to the condescending tone, the use of the d-word, and lack of open access to an 'open letter' and companion editorial, the letter was so poorly written, that we thought we would pitch in and lend them a hand." Then they attack the scientist signatories: "All in all, this letter is a PR train wreck. then there's the signatories.....After the first 20 names, they are batting 0.000 (as far as true 'climate scientists'). The 266 responses get even better, as can be expected! wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/marketing-advice-for-mad-scientists/#more-19277 -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:30 AM on 11 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
I started looking into the list of 700 peer-reviewed papers linked by Poptech at the beginning of the thread. A surprising number comes from E&E, but many also from little known sources that seem to be Economics newsletters type, or secondary industry publications. Many come from non scientists like Richard Courtney, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Pielke Jr, etc. The title of the list is somewhat misleading, since Poptech includes in it responses to peer-reviewed comments that were submitted for publication but rejected: notably a response to the comments by Foster et al on McLean et al but also a response to a comment on the G&T paper. Also, it is not clear what the peer-review process is like for the lesser known publications (there is a great many of them in the list). I'm not curious enough about the thing to count how many papers would remain in the list if only science papers that appeared in peer-reviewed science journals were retained. The spirit of it is somewhat reminiscent of the OISM web page that continues listing deceased members, less it be apparent that it is made of one person and some family members. -
johnd at 02:23 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Riccardo at 17:06 PM, it was confirmation of the values rather than that of the formula I was after. If the value of 0.0075W/m2 is correct, and that is the additional energy not lost due to an additional 2ppm CO2, then surely the additional 0.027W/m2, being the average heating rate released from energy consumption is of even greater significance. That figure is based on the 2002 figure of 13.76TW averaged across the world. Would someone like to confirm, or otherwise, any of these values? -
Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Heide, Some papers use models, some papers use analysis of historical data, and some use direct observations. For example, Chung, Yeomans, & Soden (2010) directly measures climate feedbacks via measurements of outgoing radiation, and finds close agreement with models. When hundreds of papers using independent methods all converge to the same answer, it makes a very compelling case that the answer is correct. A couple papers outside the mainstream do not overturn an entire field of science. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the Lindzen paper has been refuted. Even Roy Spencer has serious issues with it, and he's one of the leading proponents of low climate sensitivity. -
Heide de Klein at 01:50 AM on 11 May 2010Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago
Wow, over 100 papers directly measuring climate sensitivity! I had no idea. I must look them up. Nevertheless, climate feedbacks have been directly measured from satellite data, and the sensitivity calculated to be 0.7K.
Prev 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 Next
