Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 Next
Comments 120101 to 120150:
-
qball17 at 19:02 PM on 1 May 2010CO2 effect is saturated
the reason why he couldn't publish it was because NASA refused to let him, so then he went back to hungary and made his paper.. just like all the other scientists who say how hard it is to get a scientific journal published that is against or is skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. Don't you find it funny how all the readily available journals are CO2 CO2 CO2.. how can science come up with such a definite conclusion with all the other factors that would contribute.. this issue has turned into a political one, not scientific... how do these papers justify the CO2 lag behind temperature, and solar activity etc etc -
Marcel Bökstedt at 17:51 PM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
HumanityRules> Even if I'm not completely sure what they do mean with the expression, I assume that "mostly warmer than the 1901-1995 climatology" means something like "warmer than the average temperature in the period 1901-1995". But because of global warming it is now warmer than the 20 century average, and the diagrams of the paper do suggest that the temperature in the middle ages might have been lower than the temperature today. -
Berényi Péter at 17:43 PM on 1 May 2010Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
#28 Oxford Kevin at 08:23 AM on 1 May, 2010 It will be interesting to see the discussion Thanks for the links, I'll look into them. However, to make it clear, I don't claim they have made an error in their calculations. Just have asked the same wrong question. Anyway, I'd prefer to have this result checked and double checked first. It is not too difficult, in a technical sense. There are tens of thousands of guys out there with the proper skills to do that. Also, as I have said, there is a vast amount of fresh data online. Just takes time to collect it. I really don't understand why it has not been done long ago. It seems to be a bit reckless to base a multi billion dollar trade like carbon credits (with plenty of room for fraud) on deficient data. It simply makes more sense to do the job right away than trying to explain why it does not need to be done. -
Jeff Freymueller at 14:30 PM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
#53 HumanityRules, we might disagree whether McIntyre a politically motivated or not, but even if you think he is not, there have been plenty of attacks that clearly are. For example, several years ago Rep. Joe Barton sent out letters demanding all sorts of material from Mann's employer, and the new and very radical right-winger Attorney General of Virginia has just done the same (Mann used to work at the U. of Virginia). Then there are all the blogosphere attacks on top of that. But you asked about McIntyre's criticism. The first I had heard of this whole issue was in 2005 when McIntyre and McKitrick had a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters that suggested an artificial hockey stick-like shape could be introduced by a feature of the Principal Component Analysis that Mann et al. used. But there were two comments published on the paper (I thought I remembered a third, but I can't find it). M&M had replies to the comments but I found the replies to be weak, and I think the comments were on the mark. The comments both showed that while Mann et al were technically in error in their application of PCA, the error actually had little impact on the results. In fact, the analysis was later redone with the error corrected, and this was shown to be true -- the error had little impact. I found freely downloadable PDFs of the comments, links below (not sure about the replies). Von Storch and Zorita used climate models to generate a synthetic set of proxy data that they analyzed with the original and corrected method. The difference was not significant. Huybers showed that the reason M&M found a significant artificial hockey stick effect was that M&M themselves made a statistical error. Their Monte Carlo simulation were not adjusted to match the variance of the instrumental record. This led them to significantly overestimate the reduction of error statistic, and led to an exaggerated artificial hockey stick effect relative to the actual Mann et al. method. When Huybers corrected this error by M&M, the M&M code gave results very similar to Mann et al. Bottom line: yes, there was an error in the original 1998 paper, but it made almost no difference to the result. McIntyre claimed it made a big difference, but only because his own approach was in error and exaggerated the effect. The error has long since beeen corrected. There has also been a vigorous scientific debate about that 1998 paper, and in the whole field, and of course today the work being done has advanced quite a ways since then (improved methods, more data). But the result is still standing. -
HumanityRules at 13:19 PM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
45.Jeff Freymueller You can put me straight on this as I haven't followed the history but my understanding is that the attack on the Hockey Stick was originally a scientific one. McIntyre and others have questioned the validity of either the statistics and/or the appropriateness of the series used. From my understanding this critisism is completely rejected by Mann and other pro-warmers, the fact that these critisisms do not seem to shape IPCC is worrying. 47.Marcel Bökstedt Sorry for my lack of accuracy but you'll have to explain to me how "mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology" is substantively different to "as warm as now"? Of the 6 SH proxies used by Mann 2009 to prove the whole of the SH did not participate in medievel warming 3 are located in the tropics and 2 of them are sediment record. Using your criteria we are down to 3 proxies in the SH (Tasmania, New Zealand and Southern Africa) which prove there was no global MWP! The IPCC uses the Hockey Stick by to say that the present climate conditions are unique compared to the rest of the last 2 millenia, and that this must be due to anthropogenics CO2. My argument would be that there are sufficient proxies that put the present conditions at the top end of the range of natural variation. -
CO2 at 13:01 PM on 1 May 2010Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?
I agree with Carlos #1. Just checking my spreadsheet for ice melt 2010. In 2009 the max extent was 14.41 million sq/km on March 5. The 2010 extent on the same day was 14.31 m/sq/km. The 2010 max came late on 31 March, identical to 2009 at 14.41 m/sq/km. On that date the 2009 extent had dropped to 13.97 m/sq/km which gave 2009 a head start of 440,000 sq/km. Since March 31 2010 the drop in extent was 1.24 m/sq/km at a rate of 41,297 sq/km per day. For the same period in 2009 the drop in extent was 803,438 sq/km at a rate of 26,781 per day. This is a good indicator that late thin ice melts rapidly. The sea ice extent on April 30 is now the same for 2009 and 2010 at 13.16 m/sq/km. -
HumanityRules at 12:40 PM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
GL -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
RSVP at 12. You're right, all these trees in British Columbia are packing up and walking up North to escape the Pine Beetle... -
CoalGeologist at 09:50 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
Just returned home today to Dallas--site of the evil "Grassy Knoll"--and thought I'd check if Brisbane, could possibly be at our antipode, and the site of a "good" Grassy Knoll on the other side of the world. But alas, Dallas's antipode is out in the Indian Ocean, somewhere between Perth and Madigascar, and Brisbane's is in the Atlantic, in the general vicinity of the Canary Islands. So there's no cosmic symmetry there! Nevertheless, I've notified my favorite (er, favourite) UQ faculty member of the event, and hope you get lots of geologists in attendance. Break a leg! -
Alexandre at 09:50 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
RSVP #12 We know Nature can cope with global temperature changes at the rate of some 6ºC in 6,000 years. That's a fast change, like the deglaciation. 3 or more degrees in a century is quite a different challenge. And I'm being conservative. It really outpaces the moving capabilities of many species. Even some animal species have trouble shifting polewards 6.1 Km/year. And remember we humans are here this time to fragment most ecosystems, so it's not like a species can roam freely towards the pole without tripping in a city or farm or National Park limit. -
ktam at 08:23 AM on 1 May 2010Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
Berényi Since you consider what Tamino has done is meaningless. Have you taken it up with Tamino. Since Zeke, Nick Stokes, Jeff Id, CCC seem to have replicated much of what Tamino has done plus one of them has extended the analysis to produce a global land/ocean temperature reconstruction have you taken this issue up with those who have the tools and experience/background to interpret your results. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/ http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/ http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/04/incorporating-sst-and-landocean-models.html http://clearclimatecode.org/ http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/ghcn-processor-11.html http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/ It will be interesting to see the discussion where those who have the statistical background and knowledge of the temperature data to interpret your results. Kevin -
suibhne at 07:46 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
doug_bostrom By longwave em radiation -
RSVP at 07:10 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
John Russel "too fast for most plants and animals to move" Humans were nomads way before they settled down and fenced in their properties and animals migrated as needed (now they get squashed on highways). Point is, the only problem with global warming is that the status quo is finally threatening itself. Nature is equipped for global warming. Modern civilization...that is another issue. -
Phila at 06:38 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
#48 Mike "It is not the number of reports that matter, it is the quality and impartiality of those reports and so long as we continue to read reports that are clearly biased in that they fail to acknowledge simple things like urban heating, the poor siting of sensors or simple statistical facts like the cooling this century or that if there were warming it would have considerable benefits by reducing the number of cold related deaths in Norther latitudes." Each of these points has not only been "acknowledged," but addressed. Repeatedly. On urban heating, see Are surface records reliable?. On the cooling this century, see Is global warming still happening?. On cold-related deaths, see here. -
Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Mike, > may I ask you how many times a politician has to tell you they saved the planet from global economic collapse for you to believe them? If they have hundreds of rigorous scientific studies and empirical data to back their claim, then once will suffice. > Repetition of the same assertions which are not believed do not and should not increase belief in those assertions. Scientific studies are not assertions, they are examinations of empirical reality using the most objective and effective technique available to humanity: the scientific method. Ironically, a lot of "skeptic" arguments are nothing more than a repetition of assertions, your post being a great example. If you have some specific complaints or questions about the science, please review the list of skeptic arguments on this site, and place your comments under the appropriate post (if you are truly interested in the answers, you should probably read the post as well). > science is inherently sceptical and requires those making assertions to prove what the say; it does not require the sceptic to disprove it! Hence the multitude scientific studies that overwhelmingly support AGW. -
Phila at 06:24 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
#45 Jeff Freymueller "I'm not saying that there isn't or can't be legitimate criticism as well, but my assessment is that most of the "skeptic" criticisms of Mann are based on nonsense (or character assassination)" Well said. Focusing on Mann's reaction to criticism, as some skeptics are wont to do, amounts to little more than ad hominem. How he responds to attacks on his work really has no bearing on the quality or reproducibility of that work. -
Berényi Péter at 06:23 AM on 1 May 2010Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
Posted by John Cook at 15:28 PM the dropped weather stations actually show a greater warming trend than the kept weather stations Interesting. However, it deserves some checking, doesn't it? So I have fetched current GHCN data form the GISS Temperature site. Raw data are in v2.mean.Z. The readme file is also handy. I have lumped together data according to WMO station number and selected 610 stations that have reasonable coverage for the last forty years (from April 1970 to March 2010). Then I have calculated average temperature trend on this set for each station and for the entire set on the first and second twenty year periods (April 1970 - March 1990 & April 1990 - March 2010 respectively). The warming found is huge and accelerating. It is 0.0239 °C/year for the first two decades and 0.0297 °C/year for the rest on this particular set. Then I have divided the set of stations into two equal subsets. Subset A contains those stations that have the least trend during the first two decades, subset B the rest. Average warming for A in this period is 0.0018 °C/year while it is 0.0461 °C/year for B in this period. And here comes the surprise. For the last two decades the trend for A is 0.0359 °C/year while for B it is 0.0235 °C/year. It is really odd. Let me rephrase it. If stations with the largest warming trend at the beginning were dropped, the rest would show more warming on average, not less. Therefore what Tamino did, is meaningless and you also have to reconsider your points. The vague description of procedure followed is intentional. I would like others to repeat it, with slightly different assumptions, just to see how robust it is. Neither have I applied any adjustments, although it would be easy to repeat it with v2.mean_adj. The result begs for an explanation. My bet would be it is UHI. The local warming influence of human presence is roughly proportional to the logarithm of population density. If population growth is slower than exponential, the UHI effect increases in a sub-linear fashion. If we keep throwing out stations with large warming, the rest is getting more rural with larger warming potential. Indeed, in set B there are considerably more stations flagged rural than in set A. the reason for the "dropped" weather stations is merely the result of stations no longer actively recording temperature data John, this statement is not an adequate description of reality. Find another explanation, please. Weather Underground manages somehow to collect several reports per day for the overwhelming majority of stations dropped from GHCN in 1990 and also for those USHCN stations dropped in 2005. I have started a script that pulls down the daily data from that site. Unfortunately it takes time, for the site is protected against DoS attacks, therefore large pauses are needed between accesses (otherwise access is rejected). They have station histories going back to decades, in some cases as far back as the fifties. With these the hypothesis above can be tested. As soon as I'll have enough data, I will report back. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:50 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Mike, that was 6 paragraphs and 470 words without a single specific complaint about science or for that matter data visualizations. Not that anybody's counting, but you may have set a record... ;-) -
Doug Bostrom at 05:44 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
Suibhne, perhaps I should ask the question a different way. Does energy leave planet Earth? If so, how? -
Mike Haseler at 05:03 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
JMurphy "Just how many studies would be enough to satisfy the so-called skeptics ?" JMurphy, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the sceptical position. To answer your point, may I ask you how many times a politician has to tell you they saved the planet from global economic collapse for you to believe them? Repetition of the same assertions which are not believed do not and should not increase belief in those assertions. Moreover, science is on the side of the sceptic, because science is inherently sceptical and requires those making assertions to prove what the say; it does not require the sceptic to disprove it! But at a more systemic level, the climate community have systematically failed to address many of the concerns raised by the scientifically sceptical. Rather than accepting reasonable criticisms of the problems of the modelling, "unknown unknowns" and most importantly the abysmal temperature record (my speciality) there has instead been a nasty smear campaign against anyone who dared to be scientifically sceptical. Far from making us believe you are “scientists” this smear campaign smacks of blatant political propaganda and unfortunately anyone no matter how political they are in the subject, is tarred with the same brush. Moreover, the climate community have hardly done themselves any favours by their response to the behaviour revealed in the climategate emails. As some have said such things can go on in any academic field, but whilst a firm rebuke from the discipline would have given us some confidence that the behaviour in the emails was not deemed acceptable, the silence and (from our view) a whitewash of inquiries has shown to the sceptics what we now see as a community of academics with absolutely no willingness to bring the standards of their discipline up to the standards the sceptics believe is appropriate for such a high profile world-wide important and hugely costly area of research. So, much of the sceptical response to the climate community is self inflicted by that community. Most sceptics are not heartless animals. We are mostly people with real life experience or real life situations, where we have seen how people can be misled by statistics and a "bee in their bonnet" to come to the wrong conclusion. It is not the number of reports that matter, it is the quality and impartiality of those reports and so long as we continue to read reports that are clearly biased in that they fail to acknowledge simple things like urban heating, the poor siting of sensors or simple statistical facts like the cooling this century or that if there were warming it would have considerable benefits by reducing the number of cold related deaths in Norther latitudes.... basically so long as we can see the reports are obviously biased, it won't matter how many are produced because our training tells us that it is not scientifically appropriate to “believe” them. -
suibhne at 04:52 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
doug_bostrom The planet can heat up and cool down over geological periods. Heating up means gaining internal energy. Cooling down means losing internal energy. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 03:53 AM on 1 May 2010Are we too stupid?
embb I forgot to mention. I am contractually obliged to divulge science to the public. How do you imagine tit-for-tat working among states? You defect to fulfill your emission goals, we punish through trade restrictions, UN resolutions, treaties that disfavor your interests, making the IMF put conditions to loans during economic downturns etc. Reciprocity. It gets better. Axelrod points out that a small cluster of players using tit-for-tat may completely eliminate all the defectors (and keep them from reemerging). Quite interesting. Lots of recent research points in that direction incl. the references in my post. Have you read any of them? I can provide a lot more. In terms of environment, no gain at all. There is no environmental gain from preventing climate change? Energy security could be a gain but it is almost accidental - there are cheaper and more efficient ways to achieve energy security. What are those ways? And compared to what, exactly? Do the cheaper ways destroy the planet? I meant security in terms of not being dependent on imported oil, what do you mean by 'energy security'? There is a state above the Californian companies. So your example does not answer my question. The fig tree/fig wasp symbiosis shows that tit-for-tat works without executive power. Isn't it amazing how nature always beats humans in ingenuity? I did not see any acceptable solution Let me reiterate: should anything be done to prevent climate change? -
chris at 03:39 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
"Qld"? Surely "Qnsld"... -
Marcel Bökstedt at 03:20 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
HumanityRules> New data on the middle age climate arrive all the time, and I don't think that this case is closed yet. But the paper by Mann etc. seems to be a strong paper, even if it does not seem to take all available published proxies into account. I can't see that the paper about South America by Neukom et al. that you linked to contradicts the Mann paper, they claim that the summers in SA were "mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology". They do not claim that they were as warm as now. The paper by Oppo et al. is about the tropical waters around Indonesia, so it's not really southern hemisphere. It also has temperatures around 1200 well below present temperatures, and also estimated temperatures below the estimated North Hemisphere average (figure 3). So I can't see that paper as contradicting Mann's paper either. I'm sure you have read those two papers closer than I have. If I'm missing something, please explain. -
ktam at 03:19 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
I have also recently blogged on why i think the Hockey Stick isn't broken: The Hockey Stick is Accurate -
Jeff Freymueller at 02:23 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
#35 Humanity Rules, I think it would be a surprise if Mann was NOT defensive, given the politically motivated assault that has been made on him personally and on his work. I think nautilus_mr has it right in #36 about the intuitive power of the hockey stick graph, which is why so much is made in many skeptical camps about that one result. Hint: he's not being attacked because he reacts defensively, but because some don't like the conclusions of his work. Whether ego or other personality factors contribute to his reaction to criticism, I really don't know because I've never met him and only had one second-hand interaction with him. I have my own guesses but it's just speculation. I haven't read all of the relevant papers on the paleoreconstruction topic, but the papers I have read demonstrate exactly what you call for: a drive to improve the science. Criticisms are made and countered in the literature, on this topic as well as many others. What is different on this topic is that there is a firestorm of criticism (and noise and distortion) outside of science because of the political implications of the results. I'm not saying that there isn't or can't be legitimate criticism as well, but my assessment is that most of the "skeptic" criticisms of Mann are based on nonsense (or character assassination) or on nitpicking that has had little impact on any conclusion (the decade claim I mentioned before being the one conclusion that didn't hold up). Otherwise, more than a decade of subsequent work and a lot more data has not altered the fundamental conclusions. The last paragraph of #36 is also on the money as far using science to address issues that are also politically important. On issues of political importance, we know and expect that people with financial interests will hire lobbyists and mouthpieces whose job is to say anything, regardless of facts, to advance the interests of their clients. Scientists have to be careful to stick to presenting the results and implications of their scientific work, but if we don't say what our results are and what our science tells us about potential options and consequences, then I think we would be doing a disservice to the people who ultimately pay the bills for research. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:18 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
Suibhne, you don't believe in radiative equilibrium? Can you describe how the planet sheds energy, or is it being stored somewhere inside the globe? -
Bob Lacatena at 02:08 AM on 1 May 2010Tracking the energy from global warming
Just a thought... there is another possibility for where some of the heat could be hiding. Greenland and Antarctic ice melt is, I assume, estimated through the gravity measurements of the GRACE satellite, but that only measures mass change, i.e. ice that melts and then runs off into the ocean (I presume). Suppose the degree of ice melt is much greater than currently assumed, but large amounts of the melt sink into crevasses or seep down in other ways without an opportunity to escape? This is particularly likely in Greenland, where I believe there is a large basin below sea level that would ultimately trap melt water. Based on watching snow melt in my yard (probably not a good model for places like Greenland and Antarctica, where it is densely packed ice instead of loosely packed snow, but...) a lot of the melt water spreads through the depth of the snow and eventually seeps into the ground or runs off from underneath, where it can find an outlet like the edge of the plowed street. This also seems to melt a lot of snow "from the inside" away from the sun by transporting the heat downward in a form of convection. What might happen in Greenland or Antarctica, with kilometers of depth to penetrate before some of the water is redirected outward "toward the street"? Could large crevasses/channels/tunnels be accumulating the water, and melting and growing from the inside from the heat and pressure? I don't know the numbers, so I don't know how much melt would account for what percentage of the missing heat, but it's a scary idea, both in the thought that ice could be melting faster than we think, and that there could be sudden sea level rise events unleashed if some of that reservoir of trapped melt water is unexpectedly released. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:56 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Thingadonta @ post 27. The "skeptic" position as you define it seems to be total nonsense. Why would the climate be more sensitive to a radiative forcing than another? How could the Earth/atmosphere system react differently to an energy imbalance according to the origin of that imbalance? How does the Earth "know" to react little from the extra w/sq.m coming from GHG but lots to that of solar irradiance? It makes no sense. What possioble physical processes could be at work in such discrimination? Where does the extra energy go for "low sensitivity" forcings? Are you sure that this is what "skeptics" argue? Is that what you believe? -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:41 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
Portland, OR being a rather distant suburb of Brisbane, I won't be able to attend but I wish you the best John. Thanks for walking the talk :-) -
HumanityRules at 01:33 AM on 1 May 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
40.MarkR Mann in 2009 produced a paper that purported to show that the MWP was a regional occurence (essentially NH). You can read John's post about it here. Was there a Medieval Warm Period? That paper uses 6 SH series that stretch back to the MWP that show a lack of warming in the SH. The papers I link to in #28 include 5 SH series that show greater temperature variability than Mann and show the MWP as warm as the present. The Mann 2009 paper was uncritically presented on this website as proof of a regional MWP. So is 6 a "significant #s of proxies" while 5 is insignificant? -
suibhne at 01:30 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
KR ......G&T, on the other hand, seem to claim that radiative heating doesn't exist at all, which would overturn ~220 years of scientific consensus, contradicts _all_ the experimental evidence and measurements, and is certainly not proven by their collection of errors, logical fallacies, and outright junk........ What makes you think that G&T "claim that radiative heating doesn't exist at all" Quote a page number or such like. -
suibhne at 01:25 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
KR I think you must have missed recent post in which Kevin Trenberth frankly admitted that he couldn't account for what he called the "missing heat" and further worried that unless it is found "it could come back and haunt us". I on the other hand like Richard Lindzen do not believe in radiative equilibrium hence the post above. The very simple model excluded geothermal and gravitational effects such as tidal flows etc which would only detract from the focus on these points. I have exaggerated many physical effects to make radiative equilibrium as big a problem as I can make it. If you can think of any further reasonable inflation of the problem please let me know and I will include it. Including non related phenomena only make the case for human induced CO2 as a major problem much weaker. Reasonable conductivity given the time scale of 1000 years should enable the one degree rise in temperature. -
shdwsnlite at 01:03 AM on 1 May 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
Any chance of the event being recorded for those of us not in that part of the world?Response: I haven't discussed it with the UQCfC. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the idea as I don't particularly like the sound of my own voice but I'll ask. At the very least, I can always post the slideshow on the webesite. -
KR at 00:14 AM on 1 May 2010Where is global warming going?
Hmm... I'm reminded of a joke about a farmer (with milk production problems) asking a physicist for ideas, leading to a discussion of "spherical cows". The Earth's core is already pretty warm (think lava) from radioactivity and residual heat; it would be interesting although irrelevant to calculate how long before we melted once we stopped losing radiative energy to space. It was my understanding that Trenberth has refined his data and estimates, based on temperature variation and a fourth-power rule for heat radiation (to use the Max Planck term). That's science - always improving your results with further study. G&T, on the other hand, seem to claim that radiative heating doesn't exist at all, which would overturn ~220 years of scientific consensus, contradicts _all_ the experimental evidence and measurements, and is certainly not proven by their collection of errors, logical fallacies, and outright junk. It reminds me somewhat of the Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity paper, 'tho with less overall humor. And once again, short term variations are quite large - that doesn't change the facts about long term temperature shifts of the center-point around which those variations are based. -
Jonathan E Markham at 23:37 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
I don't think it's valid to compare the 10yr average now with the 50yr average from 800yrs ago, you need to plot the 10yr averages for the whole graph or, inconvenient as it may be, stick with the current 50yr average. -
John Russell at 23:04 PM on 30 April 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
RSVP: The question John asks -- " (if) ...there's any empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming?" -- is perfectly valid. That question does not exclude the possibility that there are underlying natural variations of temperature that would have occurred anyway. Any human causes of warming clearly modify natural events, either worsening or mitigating their effects. If you read the relevant sections of this site you'll find that a critically-important point is that the human-induced element of the current global warming is resulting in change at an unprecedented rate -- too fast for most plants and animals to move, adapt or evolve to accommodate (and I include humans). And THAT'S the rub. -
JMurphy at 22:35 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Just how many studies would be enough to satisfy the so-called skeptics ? NOAA have published the data for nearly 100 reconstructions, and shown them individually here, along with visualisations, using lots of proxy data types Will any number of studies satisfy those who want to keep believing in a 'broken' hockey-stick or a 'lying, cheating, etc.' Mann ? I don't think so. -
sleepership at 20:44 PM on 30 April 2010It's cooling
April has been record breaking in Connecticut for warm temperatures. Today it will be 77 degrees- after a month that has been 6.7 degrees above normal. Tomorrow 85 degrees, and Sunday 90. Of course this is day to day weather- however, warming of this magnitude after years of milder winters and earlier springs is troubling to say the least. The climate models always predicted that after 2010 we would begin to see record warming-is this 'that' beginning? -
Alexandre at 20:39 PM on 30 April 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
It's great to hear that, John. Let us know if the slideshow or video or audio is available afterwards. -
ktam at 20:03 PM on 30 April 2010Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
Another issue is the claim that the temperature adjustments at various weather stations are the reason for the warming trend, once again this is based on anecdotal evidence. What demonstrates this claim to be false is a different graph from the Zeke Hausfather page already referred to in this piece. In that plot they compare the warming trend various forms of the raw data against GISS Temp. GISS Temp shows the weakest warming trend of them all demonstrating that the adjustments are reducing the measured trend not increasing it.
From Zeke Hausfather at rankexploits
-
ktam at 19:16 PM on 30 April 2010Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?
I think an important bit that you have missed out is the analysis of the surfacestations.org data by Menne et al. I refer to it in a rather provocatively titled blog post here: Nasa underestimates global warming" -
MarkR at 18:56 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
#28 HumanityRules: My main criticisms of using graphs like that (there were many examples on CO2science, I might put them up in another post) are that they often concentrate on one region or that they cut off post 1950. Now, that isn't necessarily a problem with the science. Sometimes proxies don't go after 1950 for whatever reason. But to claim that this shows the MWP was warmer is just wrong. You need alternative evidence to do that & so far I'm not aware of any reconstructions of hemispheric or global means from significant #s of proxies that show that. -
Argus at 18:45 PM on 30 April 2010A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
Phila (#71), your comment to #61-gallopingcamel : How could sea levels continue to rise if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was hypothetically reduced by a factor of 2 (to 194 ppm). If the CO2 content in the atmosphere is so essential for the increasing temperatures we observe (and the rising sea levels), I would rather expect the earth to rapidly cool off, and the sea levels to decrease as a consequence. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 18:42 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
thingadonta> OK, so according to you, the (a?) skeptic position is that there is some external forcing that caused both the medieval warm period and the present warm period. Can this be made more precise? I would like to know what mechanism is supposed to be responsible. The linearity probably comes from the assumption that effects are differentiable functions of causes. This is a very common assumption, and by definition it means that if the cause is "sufficiently small", then the effect depends linearily on the cause. Your example with the volcanoes is not relevant here, because you are talking about large effects. There is a catch of course, namely whether the causes really are "sufficiently small". As for climate sensitivity varying with the forcing, I think that we first have to agree on the definition on "climate sensitivity". The IPCC is guilty of confusing this issue, as discussed in the first 15 lines of wikipedia's article on climate sensitivity . But lets go with their latest definition. According to this, climate sensitivity is the reaction of the system of an increase in temperature. That is, suppose that a forcing would cause a temperature rise of RF if there were no feedbacks. We would like to know how big the increase would be if we include the feedbacks. The climate sensitivity provided by the feedbacks would conspire to give a temnperature rise of l * RF, where the number l is the climate sensitivity. So in this definition of climate sensitivity, it does not depend on any particular forcing. It is determined by the reaction of the system to an increase in temperature. Maybe I'm missing some point here. -
Riccardo at 18:22 PM on 30 April 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
ESVP, if you want to anticipate John's answers to your questions take a quick tour of this site, you'll find them and a lot more. -
Riccardo at 18:18 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
Semczyszak, even if Professor Boryczka is right it would not be smart to lower our chances of a safe landing after the pending climate crises. I mean, if there will be a natural trend of, say, 2 °C for the next century it surely won't help to add 3 more degrees ourselves. Or should we be so nihilist to say we're doomed anyways and we should not even try to fight? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:23 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
"... like cherry picking 100 Chinese companies that are having bad results to "prove" that Chinese economy is not growing. ..." - Is sophistry The existence of these "100 Chinese companies" however, proves that the "Chinese economy ..." not everything" is in order ... Incorrect interpretation - the use of cherry picking theory; is "a nightmare" discussion about climate ... "... the *rate* of change & the presence or absence of forcings to explain the previous warming events ..." Small "* rate * of change" in the earlier research (MWP) showed (in large part) of using a wavelet "old style" - excessive "smoothing" reconstructions (especially multi-proxies). About this repeatedly, even by Tamino. "... forcings ..." Polish climatologist of the our greatest University (Cracow), Professor Boryczka, forecasting solar activity and the NAO, believes that awaits us, in the XXI century (circa 2070-2100), a strong natural warming (the imposition of the cycles of 100 and 180 years - I would add Millennium x 3) - greater than in the MWP - MWA and CWP-CWA. -
RSVP at 17:16 PM on 30 April 2010Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7
Are humans causing global warming? (I contend that this is a very loaded question. Here's why...) In order to answer that question, you need to break it down a little. What would climate be doing right now if there were no humans at all? would there be... A: warming anyway? B: a static condition? (and if so, for how long?) C: a cooling trend? To ask if humans are "causing" global warming only makes sense when you know what the trend would be for Nature alone without a human presence. For case A, humans would only therefore be contributing to warming. (And then the question would be "to what extent?".) If case C, humans could actually be detaining an impending iceage, or may have even reversed the trend. And a little more... The question is not, "Have humans caused global warming?", or "have humans touched off global warming?" When you ask if "humans are causing global warming" it seem to imply that the moment they stop activities, things will turn back to "normal". -
nautilus_mr at 16:45 PM on 30 April 2010Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period
It is a challenge to stay clear-eyed about the Hockey Stick, because it has been such an iconic image and therefore of tremendous political importance. It has been used by the IPCC, Al Gore and others, precisely because it is so much more effective a communication tool than virtually any other illustration. It is certainly the image that got me tuned into the global warming problem -and I bet that is also true of many readers of this site. It is also no accident that the earliest attacks from AGW deniers were against the hockey stick and often Manne personally. The focus of AGW deniers is to score political wins; they use the language of science, because in this culture it adds gravitas, but their main targets are always the stuff laypeople can easily understand. People reasonably acquainted with the science know the various studies that comprise the hockey stick are only a small part of our overall understanding of climate change. Politically, however, it would be a massive coup for the deniers' camp if they could tear it down. The hockey stick has been given a political importance far beyond its scientific importance. So far as I can humbly tell, it has also yet to be proven wrong. But that could change, and we must always take care not to argue for a scientific theory because of the political consequences of it being incorrect-leave that to the Moncktons and Plimers of this world.
Prev 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 Next
