Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 Next
Comments 121801 to 121850:
-
Ned at 12:05 PM on 26 March 2010Oceans are cooling
Lyman et al. 2006 and Gouretski and Koltermann 2007 both illustrate that the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The same authors of Lyman et al. 2006 published a correction in 2007 noting that the apparent cooling had been an artifact of errors in the analytical method used. From their abstract: "Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work." Much has been published since then, including a followup by the same authors (Willis 2009) -
Ned at 11:48 AM on 26 March 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
suibhne writes: Is there no one with a background in thermodynamics that can give G&T a reasonable debate? Actually, a number of those coauthors have already explained the problems with G&T in various blog posts etc. elsewhere. But it will be nice to have something appear in a journal. If I were you I'd drop G&T and find some more productive ground for climate skepticism. This one is a lost cause. -
Ned at 11:39 AM on 26 March 2010CO2 was higher in the past
Oh, yes, you're quite right .... I'm not at all minimizing the problems resulting from doubling CO2 on short timescales. Just pointing out that when people refer to the very high CO2 in the Paleozoic, 400 million years ago, they need to realize that it was countered by what was a much lower solar irradiance. If CO2 hadn't dropped over time, the world would be more or less uninhabitable today. Or, another way of putting it is that a much smaller increase in CO2 today will produce a climate that would have required much higher CO2 to achieve in the Paleozoic. -
michaelkourlas at 11:25 AM on 26 March 2010Oceans are cooling
Lyman et al. 2006 and Gouretski and Koltermann 2007 both illustrate that the oceans have been cooling since 2003. -
suibhne at 11:16 AM on 26 March 2010Is CO2 a pollutant?
I'm afraid that I have misled the readers of this thread. I thought that a peer reviewed article was about to be released. Instead it is a comment. Chris Ho-Stuart one of the authors addmitted None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists. The reference is: Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics”, (to appear in) International Journal of Modern Physics (B), Vol 24, Iss 10, March 30 2010. Is there no one with a background in thermodynamics that can give G&T a reasonable debate? -
chris at 10:18 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
Geo Guy at 08:37 AM on 26 March, 2010 Your post is a little confused about water vapour as a greenhouse gas Geo Guy. Water vapour partitions into the atmosphere according to the atmospheric temperature (and pressure). It's effectively the atmospheric temperature that governs the levels of water vapour on average. With an Earth atmosphere warmed by the sun, and containing greenhouse gases that amplify the atmospheric temperature above the Earth's blackbody temperature, water vapour will partition according to the atmospheric temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron equation), further amplifying the atmospheric temperature (since water vapour is a greenhouse gas). With a constant CO2/methane/nitrous oxide etc. level and a constant solar output, the atmosphere will settle around an equilibrium temperature, a significant contribution to which will be the water vapour that partitions into the warmed atmosphere. Now: raise the CO2 levels. The atmosphere will warm. Since the atmosphere warms so the atmospheric water vapour levels increase. Sinc water vapour is a greenhouse gas the CO2-induced warming is amplified. To what then do we attribute the enhanced warming? Strictly speaking some is from raised CO2 and some is from the resulting raised water vapour which partitions at higher partial pressure due to enhanced CO2-induced warming. However, in essence all of the warming is a consequence of the raised CO2, even 'though part of this is the warming from the CO2-induced enhancement of water vapour concentration (the water vapour feedback). The water vapour feedback applies to anything that enhances (or reduces, of course) the atmospheric temperature. So if the sun became a bit brighter (say) such that the direct atmospheric warming is 1 oC, and the resulting water vapour feedback adds an additional x of additional warming, then the total warming from the solar enhancement + water vapour feedback is something like 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 ... which is 1/(1-x). So if the water vapour response to a 1 oC warming is 0.5 oC then the total warming (when everything comes to equilibrium) is 1/(1-0.5) = 2 oC. Again, strictly speaking we could say that 1 oC of warming is due to the sun being brighter and 1 oC is due to the water vapour. But all the warming is essentialy due to the sun being brighter, since the water vapour feedback is a direct result of thesun-induced warming in this case (that's pretty much what is meant by "feedback"). This is all pretty well understood, and the water vapour feedback is (of course!) taken into account. No one "puts water vapor into a subordinate role"! -
scaddenp at 09:45 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
Geo Guy - what causes water vapour increase - temperature rise. What causes temperature rise CO2. CO2 is the forcing - water is the feedback. Oh and so is albedo etc. It doesn't make sense to refer to feedbacks when looking for causes. Ditto, ice age cycle is driven by solar, not the CO2 feedback that amplifies it. On and on IPCC, PLEAZZE! The IPCC reviews and summaries the the published science. The talk about the "inaccuracies" is crock - so some human mistakes happen but is that the best you can do?? Note a lack of issue of WG1 which I bet has been heavily scrutinized. As for "radiative forcing" being coined by IPCC - where do you get these ideas? Do you understand it? Do you realise why it so useful? Want to google the published science that uses the term? You are at a website devoted to scientific answers to skeptic rubbish. Try looking at the articles. -
chris at 09:42 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
re Geo Guy 08:37 AM on 26 March, 2010 Asserting falsehoods isn't helpful Geo Guy: Two here:Finally the term radiative forcing was coined by the IPCC - so it's best that we use a different term - after all their mandate was not to identify the cause of global warming but rather instead they set out to prove global warming is attributable to man's activity.
(a) The IPCC was formed in 1988. The term "radiative forcing" has a long history in atmospheric science. Here's a paper from 1975, for example: D. W. Blake (1975) Radiative Forcing Of Annual And Semiannual Oscillations In Stratosphere Transactions-American Geophysical Union 56, 996-996. Therefore the term "radiative forcing" clearly couldn't have been "coined by the IPCC" could it, Geo Guy, since it was alread "coined" many years before the existence of the IPCC. (b) The IPCC wasn't set up "to prove global warming is attributable to man's activity." We can look at the IPCC mandate here: and see that your assertion is false. -
Marcus at 09:29 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
Geo Guy, you're way off base for the following reasons: 1) Water vapor is about 100 times more concentrated in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, yet contributes about 70% of the *natural* Greenhouse effect compared to the 20-30% contribution of carbon dioxide-this makes CO2 20 times more potent-on a parts per million basis-than water vapor. 2) Given this fact, even a 1% rise in water vapor is not sufficient enough to give the rise in temperature-especially given the short lived nature of water vapor in the atmosphere, as compared to CO2 & methane. 2a) CO2 levels have risen by 110ppm above pre-industrial levels-almost all of it in the last 40 years-which actually represents an almost 1% rise per year in atmospheric CO2 levels. 3) Water vapor is just as likely to act to increase albedo (clouds) as it is to capture outgoing long-wave radiation. -
Geo Guy at 08:37 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
In response to Ned (#66). During the period from 1980 to roughly the present, the water vapor content of the atmosphere gre by an average of 1% per year, a rate that is significantly higher than that of CO2. However, contending that the so-called warming observed during that same period is solely attributed to growing CO2 concentrations is quite frankly hard to fathom. Putting water vapor into a subordinate role IMHO is like sticking your head into a pile of sand. It doesn't make sense. I also contend that any data posted from any IPCC report needs to be taken with a grain of salt, given the inaccuracies and the questionable process that was followed in producing and finalizing those reports. Given that water contributes anywhere from 35% to 75% towards the greenhouse effect, (65% to 85% when you include clouds) it certainly suggests it has a primary function in affecting climate on this planet. (On a comparative basis, CO2 is believed to account for 10% to 25%.) Finally the term radiative forcing was coined by the IPCC - so it's best that we use a different term - after all their mandate was not to identify the cause of global warming but rather instead they set out to prove global warming is attributable to man's activity. -
Geo Guy at 08:21 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
In response to the response given to BlackCanvas above, the author has proved squat - except for supporting the hypothesis that given a model that has been constructed showing CO2 to be the cause of climate change, it is obvious that when you move that driving factor from the model, the obvious result will be cooling. That in no way supports the contention that man-generated CO2 caused a rise in global temperatures. For someone who espouses about the validity of the so-called "science" behind climate change the above statement suggest a complete lacking of what is cerdible and what isn't. Perhaps it is best said: "CLIMATE MODELS PROVE NOTHING!" - They simply project a relationship amongst parameters that has been modeled by the creator of the model. Simply because a model generates a relationship between C)2 and higher temperatures, it does not prove that relationship exists in the way portrayed in the model. -
chris at 08:13 AM on 26 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
KR 07:54 AM on 25 March, 2010 ".....those are all parts of reasonable scientific discussions." I don't think that's quite right KR, although I agree with you post overall. The contrived "disagreement" over the derivates isn't a matter of opinion or point of view. McLean et al. are categorically wrong, and I expect that they know it. If you take a function (say temperature in relation to time) that has a trend, then the derivative eliminates the trend. You could reproduce the Mclean et al artefact simply by considering a linear trend with a gradient of (say) 1 unit per year. The derivative has zero slope and an amplitude of 1. If you have two data sets: (i) Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) which has no long term trend (ii) the tropospheric temperature (RATPAC for example) that has a long term trend (around 0.4 oC over the period of interest).. ...the SOI may account for some of the variance in the temperature series (that which corresponds to short term variation), but won't account for any of the variance that corresponds to the long term trend (since the SOI has essentially zero long term trend). So the contribution of the SOI to the RATPAC variance will be smallish. Now take the derivative of each of the data sets (McLean et al did this by subtracting the 12 month running average from the 12 month running average 1 year in advance, as can be seen from their paper). Now each of the SOI index series and the RATPAC troposperic temperature series has zero long term trend (that's what happens when you take the derivative of the data). Lo and behold (!) the apparent contribution of SOI to the tropospheric temperature has magically increased. It's a crude and blatant arithmetical fudge. McLean et al sooo want to pretend that the SOI underlies long term temperature variation (as in the quote from their "reply to comments" that you reproduced in italic in your post above). It's got very little to do with "reasonable scientific discussion" sadly... -
muoncounter at 07:34 AM on 26 March 2010CO2 was higher in the past
Ned, "if CO2 were to go over 2000 ppm today most of that ice would (eventually) be gone." Agreed. And I certainly am not questioning the role of solar irradiance. But the geological proof that ice once existed at our South Pole -- striated bedrock among other unmistakable features -- would still be there. So any future scientific inquiry -- if there is such an enlightened future -- would say "see, they had 'glaciers' in a time of high CO2!" and conclude that CO2 is unimportant. "increase in solar irradiance by 4% over the past 400 million years" ... "Compare that to the anthropogenic CO2 forcing" 400MY is time enough for evolutionary changes on the grand scale. Isn't anthropogenic forcing is on a time scale of 100s of years? Not enough time for many organisms to get ready for a warmer environment. -
Ned at 07:08 AM on 26 March 2010CO2 was higher in the past
muoncounter, we have a continent at the south pole now, but I suspect that if CO2 were to go over 2000 ppm today most of that ice would (eventually) be gone. As a rough calculation, an increase in solar irradiance by 4% over the past 400 million years would yield something like +9 w/m2 forcing. Compare that to the anthropogenic CO2 forcing of something like +1.5 w/m2 ... -
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
HumanityRules - when a paper runs in the face of direct measurement and other analyses of the data, then there are good reasons to be doubting. When it is furthermore based instrumentation which is known to have erroneous trends due to improvements in sensors, then I certainly wouldnt jump to conclusions. Check back in a year and see what cites have been made of this paper. I also wouldnt overestimate the impact of these uncertainties on models. Sensitivity is established from multiple lines of evidence. This looks like a desperate clutching at straws to me. -
scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 26 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
N/A - perhaps you should start with AR4, WG2 on the IPCC website. It is heavily referenced and details the impacts. Check the references, decide for yourself. The critical question is how fast can we adapt? The problem areas as I see it are densely-populated delta regions (Bangladesh, Nile, Niger etc), and regions prone to long-lasting drought. Disruptions to water cycle are unfortunately not that easy to predict. -
muoncounter at 06:29 AM on 26 March 2010CO2 was higher in the past
Wow. This topic just came up in the current Greenland melting discussion (#52) so I spent a few minutes looking at denial sites. Widespread indeed is the notion that very high CO2 in geologic past coincided with glaciation and that somehow negates today's relatively paltry 370 ppm CO2. Graphs like this abound:
— from the "Frontiers of Freedom" website. There are a couple of very straight-forward holes in these denialist arguments. 1. Ordovician CO2 over 4000 ppm and glaciation proves CO2 doesn't matter! Nope: Look at the distribution of continental landmasses of the Ordovician (~450 MY). Those "glaciers" were the south-polar ice cap. There wasn't much in the way of land in the northern hemisphere. 2. Warming and cooling is purely cyclical! CO2 variation is natural! Sure, there are natural cycles. But something very important and very obvious changed over the geologic time scales involved that makes such simple comparison irrelevant: Plants. Lots of plants. Gymnosperms (conifers etc) originated in the late Devonian-early Carboniferous (380-300 Mya) and angiosperms (flowering plants) in the Cretaceous (100 Mya). All that carbon in the Carboniferous coalbeds? Dead plants that took CO2 out of the atmosphere. The downward trend apparent in the graph above from the Cretaceous forward? More plants. And now we've turned the downward CO2 trend around despite a world rich in plants... maybe we can hope that a whole new class of plant life comes to our rescue... but that would require evolution and the science is still uncertain on that too. -
Ned at 06:29 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
Geo Guy writes: The biggest complaint I have with the current debate is the 100% focus on CO2 when we know there are so many other parameters that work together in setting the climate here on earth. Why the focus on CO2? As John discusses in this thread elsewhere on the site, CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. However, it is the largest single climate forcing today:
Figure 1: Global mean radiative forcing of climate. Anthropogenic RFs and the natural direct solar RF are shown. (IPCC AR4 Figure 2.20a)
Geo Guy continues: Their failure to recognize the important role that water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect to me is a significant shortfall in their reports. After all we do know that water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect than does CO2.
On the contrary, everyone recognizes the role of water vapor. But water vapor acts as a feedback, amplifying the forcing from CO2, other greenhouse gases, solar, etc.
-
Geo Guy at 06:02 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
First of all, Science is never settled. As soon as we believe that issues have been settled, we will stop progressing. No matter how confident people may be about a theory and no matter how accurate that theory may be, we can only continue to move forward if we allow healthy debate and not roll over at the whims of people who try to shove their perspective down our throats as being "true correct, beyond debate yadda yadda yadda". The least scientific method to prove a theory is to use graphs of data. While graphs serve to help one explain a theory, they do not prove anything. The biggest complaint I have with the current debate is the 100% focus on CO2 when we know there are so many other parameters that work together in setting the climate here on earth. Why the focus on CO2? Well that is the only way in which the IPCC can relate climate change to man's activities (which was their mandate when they were established by the UN. Consequently they have failed miserably in their attempt to shove the cause of climate change onto man. Their failure to recognize the important role that water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect to me is a significant shortfall in their reports. After all we do know that water vapor has a much greater greenhouse gas effect than does CO2. -
Ned at 05:58 AM on 26 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
gallopingcamel writes: On another thread I was asking how one could justify discarding 80% of the surface weather stations (the station drop off problem). Most of the folks on this blog thought that was fine because Tamino (a statistician) assured them the answer was not affected. Er, no. Your questions about declining station numbers were addressed repeatedly by many commenters, including me here and here>. There are now at least four separate replications of this (Tamino, Zeke Hausfather, Ron Broberg, and now Joseph at "Residual Analysis"), all of which show no significant difference between stations that stopped reporting and those that kept reporting. Watts and D'Aleo made some ugly accusations that have been shown to be incorrect. I would suggest that unless you're prepared to offer some actual evidence, you should probably stop promoting their claims. Continuing, gallopingcamel writes: My point about the CO2 concentration was that we are living in a low CO2 era. In the past there have been periods with >4,000 ppm concentrations. Right ... several hundred million years ago, when the sun was significantly dimmer, and yet the world was quite a bit warmer thanks to all that CO2. This is dealt with in John's article Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?. -
muoncounter at 05:10 AM on 26 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
Camel, #52: "suggesting that the melting of the Greenland or polar ice caps is a "catastrophe" is Alarmist nonsense. The negatives of reduced glaciation are more than offset by the benefits." Melting ice is a symptom, not the disease. Unfortunately there are an enormous number of other symptoms. Excuse the length of this post, but I've compiled a mere handful for reference: Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity "large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt." Drought's growing reach "the fraction of global land experiencing very dry conditions (defined as -3 or less on the Palmer Drought Severity Index) rose from about 10-15% in the early 1970s to about 30% by 2002. Almost half of that change is due to rising temperatures rather than decreases in rainfall or snowfall," Global warming increases flood risk in mountain areas "if global temperatures increase by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), then large floods that occurred about once every 100 years could occur up to 5 times more often." Climate change amplifying animal disease "The World Animal Health Organisation said a survey of 126 of its member-states found 71 percent were "extremely concerned" about the expected impact of climate change on animal disease. Fifty-eight percent said they had already identified at least one disease that was new to their territory or had returned to their territory, and that they associated with climate change." Public health-related impacts of climate change "The population of many pathogens increases at higher temperatures, and this is likely to occur in lakes, streams and coastal zones as water temperature increases. In the coastal zone, toxic algal blooms will likely be more frequent as ambient, and consequently water, temperature rises, increasing the risk of illness originating from aquatic recreation, such as swimming and surfing, and from contamination of seafood (Rose et al., 2001)." Ecological responses to climate change "We have reviewed merely a portion of the enormous body of basic research on ecological and physiological processes that are sensitive to climatic variables such as temperature and precipitation. The evidence indicates that only 30 years of warmer temperatures at the end of the twentieth century have affected the phenology of organisms, the range and distribution of species, and the composition and dynamics of communities." Evidence from a wide range of unrelated disciplines points in the same direction. Many of the symptoms are already here - and the disease remains untreated and often is flat-out denied. Unrelated to topic, but here's a story of warnings ignored, or what would have been called at the time 'Alarmist nonsense'. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:28 AM on 26 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
gallopingcamel at 14:29 PM on 25 March, 2010 The negatives of reduced glaciation are more than offset by the benefits. GC, would you care to quantify that? Are you making a prediction based on analysis, or instead stating your opinion without support? -
Ned at 03:02 AM on 26 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Berényi Péter, I'm not sure I understand your point in this comment. You suggest there is a qualitative similarity between areas with positive geoid/ellipsoid separations and areas with high sea level rise. Maybe there is, and maybe there isn't -- the southwest Pacific and northeast Pacific seem to show that, but then look at the Indian Ocean, or the east vs. west coast of South America. But even if there were a moderate correlation, so what? You assert "There is no legitimate reason to be a correlation between undulations and local sea level trends" but you don't give any justification for that claim. Keep in mind that both geoid height and SLR exhibit very high levels of spatial autocorrelation. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:08 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
"... how has climate responded to forcings in the past?" And here we return to the reliability of data from ice cores, on which based Hansen and Chylek. And open another Pandora's box (http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7) - huge doubts ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:07 AM on 26 March 2010Is the science settled?
@ProfMandia and unreal2r Specifically, the discussion on costs: 1. Without CCS will not achieve over the next 20-30 years a sufficient reduction in CO2 emissions. CCS is perhaps 70-80% of the cost of combating AGW. CCS is in no way improves the efficiency of energy - on the contrary - only generates costs. 2. Adoption of a AGW theory version of the IPCC (required haste) the effect of the introduction of large-scale too "young" technology for renewable energy. It harms the technology. For example, solar power - is still underdeveloped energy storage technology is at night - the day melting salt (NaCl, KCl, and others) - is still too inefficient technology. 3. Trenberth - one of the "creators" Climategate - the end justifies the means? 4. @ Scaddenp - bravo! I agree completely. The theory of risk - an acceptable degree of probability - an intolerable absolutizing (IPCC), the principle of the superiority of prevention ... Here I recommend the work of V. Klaus, a professor of economics and the Czech president: "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" (one of the chapters of this book) and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions -Economy -
Marcel Bökstedt at 22:58 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
RSVP> It's probably off topic here too, but I find the question interesting. One answer would be "If there had been really huge temperature variations, we would not be here to record them". Another answer is suggested by the idea that in the long perspective the level of CO2 and the temperature is controlled by rock weathering. The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere due to weathering would have to be in equilibrium with the outgassing of CO2 from volcanos etc.. Of course, this raises a different question: Why does outgassing not change over the millions and millions of years? -
tfhabig at 22:52 PM on 25 March 2010Antarctica is gaining ice
One thing that seems to have been missed here is that an increase in sea ice will not change the ocean level since that mass is already in the ocean. A decrease in land ice will add to the sea level. -
RSVP at 22:19 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
In the last round of discussion, my posting was deleted, I assume for being off topic. Perhaps it is more on topic for this article. Who knows. I believe it is a fairly significant question however trivial, given that the science is mainly settled, so it shouldnt be too hard to answer. The question again is... why does Earth's average temperature happen to oscillate about 14 C (or whatever the number happens to be)? Referring to the diagram above, you could have this tug of war between positive and negative radiative forcing that leads to any temperature, and yet, for millions and millions of years, temperatures hovers around the same general area, give or take 10 C. -
JMurphy at 22:14 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
oracle2world wrote : "The overall problem with AGW, is not whether it is true or not. It is that people like warm weather, and don't like their taxes raised. There are winners and losers in change, like climate change, and it happens America, Canada, Northern Europe, and Russia make out like bandits. Access to more resources and less money to heat." However, people are not too keen on hot weather when it lasts too long. However, America, Canada, Northern Europe, and Russia won't like losing all that land (especially in their coastal capitals) to rising sea levels. However, people won't be too keen on taxes being raised to build flood defences to save their important towns and cities from flooding; or on their insurance premiums rocketing; or on their property prices devaluing; or on their water being restricted; or on their energy bills increasing; or on a host of other expensive and detrimental measures that will have to be enforced if we all sit back and wait for these 'lovely warm' temperatures. However, the permafrost melting is not very helpful vis a vis Methane; nor is its release from the oceans; nor is the thought of burning more carbon; nor the need to use more resources to keep cool. Best not to wish for what you will later deny ever having wanted. -
Ubique at 22:05 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
If the science was settled those who visit and comment on this site would have nothing to discuss! -
RSVP at 22:02 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
"...there are still uncertainties in climate science and therefore action to cut CO2 emissions is premature." Why should "action to cut CO2 emissions" depend on whether warming correlates with CO2 or not? It could turn out that world leaders rationalize that the warming is tolerable or the lesser of two evils, or that it is actually on the whole beneficial to a majority etc. Why are scientists wearing two hats? (i.e., getting involved with recommendations, when their only charter is to investigate?) -
John Cross at 22:01 PM on 25 March 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Just saw this post - what exactly do you mean by saying that being called John Cross has been bugging you for ages ;-) Best, JohnResponse: Where have you been?! -
Berényi Péter at 21:33 PM on 25 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
#78 Peter Hogarth at 08:55 AM on 25 March, 2010 "Do you really think the positioning guys have got it so wrong?" Yes, I do. It happens all the time when trying to detect a tiny little signal submerged in a sea of noise. In this respect it is the same story as all the other empirical proofs of AGW except CO2 trends for the last fifty years. Poor S/N ratio, urgent drive to see something, sophisticated filtering strategies, mirage. The image is linked to Interactive Geoid Computation page, you can verify this claim by clicking on it. It is created by James R. Clynch, a geodesy professor, retired now, while working for the Naval Postgraduate School. It is part of the OC 2902 Web Based Course Reference Material. The Monty Python thing is something completely different. -
We're heading into an ice age
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I hope you are right about an ice age being so slow. But it is probably the only factor that would justify an increase in CO2 at this time. My background is that I am a retired science librarian with an earned PhD. That should qualify me to do compreshesive searches of the current literature and to understand what I find. I do question those who want to divide comment into either "warmer" or "denier." And I do want us to consider many other questions other than "Is it getting warmer?" I think it is getting warmer. I wonder if that is good or bad. And I am not convinced that it is bad. -
thefrogstar at 18:12 PM on 25 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Dohhhh... "Thank you", not "Tank You". -
thefrogstar at 18:11 PM on 25 March 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Tank you, HumanityRules. Post #14 refers to "they" 9 times out of the 11 'arguments/counter-arguments', but I don't consider myself to be one of "they", or making the same arguments. I have my own questions, and this site is the best one (yet) that I have found where they might be answered. -
HumanityRules at 17:03 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
54.Philippe Chantreau at 16:18 PM on 25 March, 2010 "the fact is that energy conservation is almost totally absent from the mentalities here" Here's a graph showing USA car fuel consumption. The modern world is a more efficient place in terms of energy use than previous generations. It's just we are luck to get to use much more of it, it's what makes our lives seem so pleasant.
-
Marcus at 16:50 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
Well Oracle, when fresh water supplies dry up due to loss of glaciers in some parts of the world, & due to reduced rainfall in others, then a lot of people are going to regret their love of the warmer weather. Crops in warmer conditions also reach senescence earlier-meaning reduced biomass prior to harvesting (i.e. *less food*). So we'll have a combination of reduced rainfall & increased aging of crop plants in the various bread-baskets of the world-how do you think thats going to impact our quality of life? Meanwhile, some of the best means of reducing CO2 emissions also carry a number of related benefits-like the cost savings from weather proofing homes & businesses, reduced air pollution from the burning of coal & petrol, reduced stress from unnecessary time spent in traffic jams & the extension of the life of our many NON-RENEWABLE resources. Perhaps that is how the scientists need to sell it, because right now its only the "we'll be rooned" mantra of the Fossil Fuel industry that is getting through! -
HumanityRules at 16:49 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
(**John comment 50 doesn't seem to be displayed**) 51.scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 25 March, 2010 As we all know Pielke isn't a climate scientist. You reject every last word of it? It seems any paper that questions the concensus is rubbish. Is this how we come to a concensus? Even if the data they generate is flawed. And lets face it no data in climate science seems perfect. You still have to deal with the limitations of the empirical data they highlight. I think Trenberth's paper highlighted the poor data quality in the mid-upper troposphere as well. If it is the case that this region is key to water vapour feedback then it's not good enough to not know. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:18 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
HR says "What stopped natural runaway warming in the past?" I believe that we briefly looked at this before from a purely mathematical point of view. If a feedback effect is less in magnitude than the change that triggered it initially, there can be no runaway. As to the discussion on energy prices in the US, the fact is that energy conservation is almost totally absent from the mentalities here, from the end consumer to industries. Waste is pervasive. Energy prices could go significantly higher without too much pain provided the appropriate conservation measures are implemented. -
James Wight at 16:02 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
Good post, John - was this the one that was intended to be no. 100? In one sense I agree with the skeptics that the science isn't "settled"; but to the extent that I do agree, it has more to do with the nature of science than the nature of AGW. Science doesn't "prove" things, it draws tentative conclusions from the available body of evidence, and continually revises its conclusions as new evidence comes in. Also, I can't remember ever hearing a scientist say that "the science is settled", so the whole argument seems like a straw person to me. Incidentally, should this post be listed as a response on the arguments page?Response: No, this wasn't the planned #100, that one is yet to come (see if you can pick it :-)
Nowadays when I add a new skeptic argument, I post it first as a blog post. Then I give it a day or two for the comments to nitpick all the typos which is a helpful form of proofreading/peer-review. Sometimes I find people misunderstand a point I was trying to make so I clarify the wording. Then once the dust has settled, I add it as a skeptic argument on the arguments page.
Long story short, I've now added the 102nd skeptic argument "The science isn't settled". Not quite happy with "The skeptic argument" excerpt. I like to quote a really short, succinct explanation of the skeptic argument but haven't been able to find any skeptic article that really nailed it in a single paragraph. Sing out if you find a good example. -
BlankCanvas at 15:22 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
Great read. Every time I read the posts and comments I always have numerous questions, and come to the conclusion it is mind boggling complex. For instance John, your answer in 43, is there any way of knowing that global temperatures have risen or gone down in a smaller time span during geological time periods, say 200 years? Then what bothers me is: How much percentage of the total warming is due to humans? Isn't it the fact that climate goes in and out of equilibrium swinging from cold to warm and vice versa? Are we in a natural warming trend with AGW on top? If this is the case how much CO2 needs to be absorbed for instance by oceans, in other words how high would sea levels rise to get back to stability in climate? But then again CO2 seems not to be the only culprit.Response: The natural temperature trend if humans weren't around would've been one of slight cooling (Meehl 2004). The following figure shows model results of how climate should've behaved with no man-made forcings:
Figure 1: Climate model results from natural forcings compared to observations (black line). The red line is the average of the four-member ensemble. The pink shading is the model range. The blue line is the ensemble mean and the light blue shading is the ensemble range (Meehl 2004).
CO2 is not the only culprit - there are many forcings that drive climate. But CO2 is the dominant forcing and of more concern, is the fastest rising forcing. -
scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
re: Paltridge et al. A little misleading. Now show me some reproduction of the effect without using mixed sensors. Even Peikle rejects the paper. It cant be hard to find more detailed comment on this paper (and I dont mean breathless stuff off CA). -
scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 25 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
I see that the "they are throwing data bit" has been answered for you before but you obviously havent accepted. Tamino correctly answers the charge that there was no fraud - the data is not "selected" to show warming. Reduced glaciation MIGHT be a benefit - but only if it happens slowly. Do you seriously believe that 10mm/year would be a good thing? How many refugees from salt-poisoned deltas is your country going to take? -
gallopingcamel at 14:29 PM on 25 March 2010What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?
KR (#50), Peace! You are right, it makes absolutely no sense to exclude a large proportion of the data from the statistical analysis. On another thread I was asking how one could justify discarding 80% of the surface weather stations (the station drop off problem). Most of the folks on this blog thought that was fine because Tamino (a statistician) assured them the answer was not affected. Picking up on your mystic connection, William Blake (1757 - 1827) already imagined that a truly wise individual could do a great deal with very little information, maybe as little as one weather station or one grain of sand: "To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour." Until we get much smarter we are going to need all the data we can lay our hands on and a bunch of statisticians to sort it out for us. scaddenp (#49), statisticians as you insist can be very useful. Just be careful not to trust them if what they are telling you defies reality or common sense. My point about the CO2 concentration was that we are living in a low CO2 era. In the past there have been periods with >4,000 ppm concentrations. In this context a few hundred ppm is just "noise". Getting back to the context of this thread, suggesting that the melting of the Greenland or polar ice caps is a "catastrophe" is Alarmist nonsense. The negatives of reduced glaciation are more than offset by the benefits. -
Marcus at 13:59 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
Humanity Rules, given the cost of fossil fuels these days, I'd argue that our continued reliance on them will have a far, *far* greater chance of stunting the economies of developing countries than a shift to a low carbon economy. The US DoE is already trialling a number of Biomass Power plants which make use of waste methane to efficiently generate both electricity & heat-all whilst removing a potent greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Also, as the source of fuel is local-& cheap-it will allow for more rapid economic development. No doubt the fossil fuel industry will do its level best to kill projects like this-as it hurts their bottom line. Thats the real choice we face here HR: allowing our planet to keep warming vs hurting the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Guess which option I'll pick? -
HumanityRules at 13:24 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
"What's the uncertainty?" I don't know but..... This analysis which takes the data through to 2007 (beyond trenberth). It shows a mixed picture of water vapour trends in the troposhere. It also suggests that present models have got things wrong. It also says "Put the other way around, increases in total column water vapor in response to global warming do not necessarily indicate positive water vapor feedback, since very small decreases of water vapor in the mid-to-upper troposphere can negate the effect of large increases in the boundary layer." Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook Theor Appl Climatol (2009) 98:351–359 So a "Straight dependence on temperature" seems a little to simplistic. -
Bern at 12:47 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
#35 Berényi Péter: Yes, Denmark's electricity prices are about triple those in the USA. But Denmark also uses about half the electricity per capita as the USA does. Slightly less than half the total energy usage per capita, in fact (including all sources of energy). So the *real* cost of electricity in Denmark is only about 1.5 times what it is in the USA. Enforcing energy-efficiency standards could easily reduce consumption in the USA by 20-30% over the next few decades. In nearly all cases, the net cost would be zero or negative (i.e. people would save money) in the long term, even just based on current cost (ignoring any future increases in the cost of oil, coal, or any form of carbon tax). Why is that not worth doing? Personal anecdote: I recently bought a diesel-powered car. I now spend about $25 per week on fuel, where I used to spend $45 (diesel & petrol are about the same price per litre here at the moment). Going for a more fuel-efficient vehicle saves me $1000 a year on fuel costs, and it didn't cost any more than an equivalent petrol vehicle. What's not to like? (I'm unsure of how well the new car would go on 100% biodiesel, but that's a possibility, too). -
Is the science settled?
HumanityRules, as to the Loehle link in #41 you posted; I find his various curves oddly chosen, lacking (as he states) any kind of descriptive model, and selected to fit 1/4 of the data in the paper he's arguing about. I've discussed that in a few posts here, which I'll link to rather than boring people again... I can over-fit a near infinite number of curves to data given choices as to the number of free parameters and error levels. That has no consequence to the consensus view unless (a) the consensus view fits the data poorly, (b) the alternative view fits better, (c) this points towards a different model, and (d) this alternative model allows predictions, testing, and confirmation. Loehles curves only satisfy (b) for a subset of the data. -
scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 25 March 2010Is the science settled?
'Moralising about grandchildren is pointless - I see your future warming and raise you stunted economic growth in the developing world." I see one as more deadly than the other and I am unconvinced about the "stunted economic growth" bit in developing world. They can use renewables too. At least they are no WORSE off if their fossil fuel use is capped and developed world reduces. This is still frankly dodging the risk analysis. You want to trust an unknown and probably non-existent model rather than a known and working one on grounds that have no basis in science. daisym: There is at least a reasonable convergence between model estimates of sensitivity and empirical estimates. These alluded to uncertainties have been greatly reduced between TAR and AR4.
Prev 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 Next
