Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 Next
Comments 123401 to 123450:
-
Riccardo at 04:52 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
arthuredelstein, are you aware of a natural process that pours so much CO2 in the atmosphere in such a short time? I don't know any and none has been seen from when the time resolution of paleo data is good enough (hundreds thousands years). We can make any hypothesis, but it needs to be supported by facts or known science. -
tobyjoyce at 04:48 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, "i do have three parting questions that are still on this topic that i have not received an answer.." Sounds to me like you haved decided to take your football and not play any more.... I did take a look at the paper you mentioned in 2. I think Figure 1 should show you what you need. You did not respond to me suggestion that you review figure 5 of the Harries 20006 paper which clearly indicates the areas where the difference spectra are significantly different from 0. To me, those charts blow your conjecture out of the water. Now, I suggest you approach the editor of American Thinker and request that he publish a retraction of your article... -
Tom Dayton at 04:29 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, regarding your question "1," your phrasing "it is a difficult calculation to do by hand and requires models" might just have been casual phrasing, but then again might reflect a misunderstanding. Calculations by hand also involve models. I'm guessing you do in fact know that, because your first sentence was "I put forth a rather simplistic model." But to audiences such as the usual readers of American Thinker, your "requires models" phrasing might well be misunderstood. -
Ned at 04:27 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Fimblish wrote: Lord Monckton is quoted as saying that if every nation were to cut emissions by 30% over the next 10 years, "the warming forestalled would be 0.02 degrees celsius, at a cost of trillions". Is this true? It's not clear what Monckton even means by that. Does he mean that we cut the total 2010-2020 emissions by 30%, but then for the rest of the century our emissions are back up to the "business as usual" trend? If so, the reduction in warming would be relatively small. But that's an absurdly unrealistic scenario. If he's talking about gradually reducing emissions starting in 2010 by enough to put us 30% below BAU in 2020, then staying 30% below the BAU trend for the rest of the century, then he's wrong -- that would yield a much, much greater reduction in warming than 0.02C. In my experience, many people dramatically overestimate the difficulty of changing course while also underestimating the impacts. See Pacala and Socolow (2004) for a good demonstration that effective reductions in CO2 are very feasible, or google "stabilization wedges". -
gallopingcamel at 03:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sorry to disagree with John Cook. Senator Inhofe's staffers did a great job of putting the CRU emails into context. Maybe y'all should take another look at the "Minority Report" http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63 -
Ian Forrester at 03:11 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
robrtl said:co2 continues to rise but according to phil jones there hasbeen "no discernable warming over last 15 years". que pasa ? could greeen house theory need clariication
Please cite where you found that quote. Are you equating "no discernable (sic) warming" with "no statistically significant warming"? I can assure you they are not the same at all. -
garythompson at 03:03 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
thanks again for John and all on here for allowing me to participate in this conversation. i have enjoyed it and i'm sure we'll bump into each other again on RC and SS and if there is something that sparks a question or comment you'll 'see' me. i do have three parting questions that are still on this topic that i have not received an answer to so i'd appreciate it if someone would either answer this or point me to a link that gets me to the answer. 1 - I put forth a rather simplistic model to try and correlate the delta BT to delta C. My rather simplistic model was dismissed and i have read on RC where it is a difficult calculation to do by hand and requires models. Has this been done? Even if i agree with you that all of these papers show a 1-2K drop in OLR emission in the 36 year period from 1970 to 2006, what temperature increase does that predict using the models/calcuations? it seems that would be a fairly important piece of information to 'close the loop' on this. for those who have cosmology/astronomy backgrounds i liken this to the cosmic microwave background radiation that validated the big bang theory. although there are still steady state people out there......skeptics die hard. anyway, delta k in BT is all nice but delta C/decade is what we are all concerned with. 2 - I still haven't heard any comments on the first paper i cited in the article (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf). even with removing the effects of temperature and water vapor the OLR spectrum related to absorption by CO2 didn't show a reduction. 3 - The Griggs and Harries 2007 paper (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4204.1) has an interesting component to the 1997-1970 central pacific data set. there is a large spike down (~5k) in the measured difference spectra on page 3989. The authors give a suggested explanation of that and even allude to a channel issue but this is the same data that is in the Harries 2001 paper and that paper does not show this spike. why the difference? -
miguelveraleon at 02:56 AM on 27 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Congrats on the success of the app John. -
Tony Noerpel at 02:53 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The best explanation for the silicate rock weathering carbon cycle negative feedback is Robert Berner's book The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle, though there is a rich literature. For Croll-Milankovitch cycles I like Rial, J. A., “Earth’s orbital eccentricity and the rhythm of the Pleistocene ice ages: the concealed pacemaker,” Global and Planetary Change 41 (2004) 81-93. I receive several investment opportunity newsletter emails every day, one from Casey Research. In a recent newsletter, they document the amount of money “invested” by Goldman Sachs and other banks in the political process (see http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayCdd.php?id=355). Their argument is that this money has a huge return on investment but that it borders on corruption in the Casey Research view. Now the writers at this group are avowed global warming deniers. They have stated that they believe the entire Earth should be paved over, not withstanding that if we managed to do that, we would go extinct. They do not see the irony that ExxonMobil, OPEC, API, WFA, the Koch Brothers and various coal companies also invest huge amounts of money in politicians, scientists and lobbyists (see for example http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389), not to mention Saudi Arabia’s influence on Fox News (see for example http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/23/top-gop-investigator-rep-issa-open-to-probing-saudi-ownership-of-fox-news/ ). These companies and their lobbyists have gotten much better at this sort of thing and it is probably true that action on CFCs, acid rain and tetraethyl lead would not be successful in today’s political climate as Doug Bostrom opines above. Lobbying companies like the Heartland institute and scientists like S. Fred Singer honed their skills as disinformationists as tobacco lobbyists. This is easily understood. It is simply greed and companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to increase shareholder value. As a stock holder myself in ExxonMobil, that is what I want them to do. This problem would be easily solved (and can only be solved) by forbidding corporations from participating in the political process. Corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. Corporations are only tools of society and if they don’t serve the public good, we have a right to eliminate them or break them up. My own view on ExxonMobil, as a shareholder, is that they should stay out of the political process, let whatever regulation, which needs to happen to meet the requirements of society, happen and then compete fairly with other companies under whatever rules society deems necessary. This is easy because we understand the problem, but given the SCOTUS decision of the Supreme Court it pragmatically may not be solvable. Since corporations have to think in the short term, the long term outlook for our economy, our society and our survival is therefore in doubt. Even though global warming effects are obvious now, the real pain is further down the road and in a future heavily discounted by the corporate outlook. Kevin Phillips wrote a wonderful book Bad Money, which takes its name from Grisham’s law that bad money drives out good money. Phillips expands this into bad capitalism drives out good capitalism but good capitalism cannot drive out bad capitalism. Just one corrupt corporation will force all others to become corrupt as well in order to compete. This is his explanation for the current economic crises. There is another dimension to our problem which is rather more difficult to understand. I call it the Julian Simon effect. Simon is famous as a supply side neo-classical economists who made a bet with the ecologist Paul Ehrlich about the price of certain minerals. Simon won that bet but subsequently lost another. Timing is everything and the outcome of bets doesn’t really prove anything. Simon believed that free market capitalism is making the world a better place for everybody and can solve all of our problems so long as governments stay out of the way. Simon believed that global warming, acid rain, lead poisoning, DDT poisoning, the ozone hole, mountaintop removal, overfishing the oceans, ocean acidification and tobacco smoke could not possibly be problems because there is no way that private enterprise could create problems. We could call this Reaganomics. I think critical or rational thinkers might see the flaws in this extreme view. As Herman Daly describes it, neo classical economics, of one school or another, works reasonably well so long as we are far away from any thermodynamic limits, either low entropy resource limits (peak oil being one) or high entropy waste limits (CO2 emissions being one). For free market capitalism to work for the betterment of society, it needs to be regulated by democratically elected governments, elected by a well-informed citizenry. One of the amusing contradictions in Simon’s ideology is that Simon would hold out for fusion technology as a sure thing that will come along just in time when the market sends the appropriate price signals (fusion power is only limited by economics, you understand), ignoring that only governments have the resources to try to develop fusion and that there may be rather serious physical limits on our ability to develop a fusion reactor. Also, and this too is rather amusing, Simon had absolute faith in technology. He ignores the fact that technology is dependent on exactly the same science that he denies depending only on his arbitrary judgment of whether or not the science in question is convenient. It is also amusing because Simon appears to have been pretty technically illiterate. He was a brilliant economist who probably didn’t know how coal formed in the first place. He believes that every human advancement is due to greed completely discounting curiosity. My own view is that curiosity is responsible for the accumulation of nearly all human knowledge, so we disagree. This second problem may not be solvable because it is related to how we have evolved. Lots of people, all global warming deniers, think this way. That is also amusing because many of these folks are young Earth Creationists. I suppose it is solvable by education but as Yogi Berra said: “There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em.” So here we are. I don’t know how accurate this explanation is nor am I unaware that it may be an oversimplification. I am curious to see how our new friend Dave Thompson responds to the science and fact-based discussion which takes place at this web site compared to what passes for thought in the comments section at the American Thinker web site. I hope positively. As a former firefighter, I can attest that it takes vastly more courage to change one’s mind and admit that one was wrong (for example Governor Wallace) than it does to rush headlong into a burning building when one is told there may be a life hazard. Anyway, regards Tony -
guinganbresil at 02:49 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Tom Dayton (71), You state (correctly): "The bottom line is that it is perfectly feasible to have simultaneously, increased energy accumulation, increased outgoing energy at non-CO2 wavelengths, and decreased outgoing energy at CO2 wavelengths." Would you agree that conservation of energy would mean that the decreasing outgoing energy at CO2 wavelengths cannot be fully responsible for this condition, but there must be an addition source of energy input? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around a small decrease in one part of the outgoing spectrum being responsible for a larger increase in other parts of the spectrum AND an increase in the energy stored in the system. (Riccardo - Thank you for a cogent response in 46.) -
dhogaza at 02:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Senator Inhofe is brilliant compared to the republicans in the South Dakota State Legislature. ("Republicans" because 92% of the democrats voted against it). Astrology and thermology (infrared medical imaging) may be the cause of global warming, not increased CO2. No, it's not the Onion. I wish it were. -
arthuredelstein at 02:17 AM on 27 February 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Your statement, "atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009)" is not justified by the reference. The Tripati et al CO2 time series estimates do not have the time resolution to say if any millennium's CO2 concentration might have exceeded the current levels of 2010. The time-averaging inherent in their technique will mask the peaks and valleys of CO2 concentration that occur in time periods shorter than their time resolution (which, according to Figure 2A/B, varies between roughly 100,000 and 1000,000 years). You could say that Tripati et al suggest that current levels are higher than the average of the last 15~20 million years. -
milestone55 at 02:16 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, Good for you for responding to the comments. However, while you seem exceedingly humble, willing to learn and interested in constructive criticism, I feel these characteristics are in striking contrast to the tone in your article: "A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven." Such hubris is astounding. I am wondering if you are going to the Comments section of American Thinker to defend the scientists that are being attacked regularly at that site and in the MSM of late. I hope you point out, not just your errors, but that such scientists have been remarkably responsive and helpful. Maybe, your penance should be, to review and criticize one of the newest pieces on American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html I will skip to the conclusion of the article: " Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong." In no way, am I qualified to review that article, but I expect that you think that you are. I hope this is not too off topic, but I am frustrated that every random AGW atack has to be officially debunked due to the political atmosphere. If you are going to be skeptical of scientific consensus, you should be skeptical of all scientific papers "published." thank you, milestone -
SLRTX at 02:10 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I find a re-occurring pattern in the thought-process of so-called "skeptics". They constantly confuse ideology (politics and policy) with science. For some, this could be plain ignorance regarding how science is done. But as in the case of "skeptics" like Inhofe, I'm pretty sure it's agenda-driven. Ok, so why do I call them "so-called skeptics"? To me, a skeptic is someone who isn't convinced, but is open to be convinced based on the evidence. A denier (the "so-called skeptic") has their mind made up, but to cherry-picks factoids to support their beliefs, and refuses to accept anything contrary to those beliefs. It's often easier for them to "muddy the waters" surrounding climate science by throwing in ideological junk. To a denier, ideology is a science. Good article, John. Challenge your readers to separate the science from the ideological debates. And separate the science that proves ACC is real, from the effects of ACC. -
Dan R at 02:04 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Hi Ned, you may be interested in reading the Dec 2008 thoughts of James Hansen. He seems to be suggesting that negative feedback systems that have operated in the past to prevent 'runaway' situations may not have sufficient time to play their role this time around, as the positive forcings are increasing at a much faster rate than they have in the past. To top it off, the solar constant is higher today than in the past, due to the continuing evolution of the sun. Point being (I think) is that you can't discount the chances of a truly runaway system if you are going to increase the forcings as quickly as we are, with the current solar constant. (Don't take my word for it though, read what he has to say. Note, to the best of my knowledge, Hansen is yet to publish these views in the literature, and thus I guess they should only be considered as opinions at present.) http://www.mediafire.com/file/trm9gnmznde/AGU2008.Bjerknes_Lecture.pdf Worth a look, particularly p22-24. Cheers, Dan. -
Ned at 23:54 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP: There is nothing strange about a climate system that for a couple of million years has managed to oscillate back and forth between glacials and interglacials without veering into runaway warming or cooling. There are two simple and straightforward explanations for that: (1) The dominant pre-anthropogenic forcings in the Quaternary period were the Milankovich cycles, which are of course cyclical. (2) In addition to the positive feedbacks (ice albedo, CO2) there are negative feedbacks (weathering, some in the biosphere) that act to maintain an approximate homeostasis. Of course, if this planet had a naturally unstable climate that was subject to runaway warming or cooling, it seems unlikely that intelligent life would have evolved and survived to observe it. But note that what we're referring to as "stability" here includes oscillations that involve a shift from a warm earth with sea levels 6 m higher (think "not much Florida left") to a cold earth (think "Boston, New York, and Milwaukee buried under ice"). The fact that the climate can recover from both those extremes, and thus be described as "roughly stable" doesn't mean that either of the extremes would be healthy for our economy or our civilization. -
dygituljunky at 23:21 PM on 26 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
I would love to have either Android and BlackBerry versions of the iPhone app (I alternate between the two) or a mobile version of the website which loads fast and is easy to navigate using a trackball or non-multi-touch finger interface... An article iPhone app helped me discover the website and now I'm an instant fan. Thanks! -
Marcus at 23:17 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Doug, RSVP is once again trying to blame global warming on thermal pollution-in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. He talks of the EPA report referring to a period of 3 million years ago-yet there is no evidence of human control of fire prior to 1.5 million years BP. There is no *conclusive* evidence of any human control of fire prior to 1 million years BP! Even if humans had controlled fire from 3 million years BP, the amount of thermal energy these small numbers of fires would have generated would have been easily dwarfed by the energy of a single large forest fire! Fact is that RSVP continues to ignore the obvious discrepancy between direct heat generated by anthropogenic sources versus the much greater heat from natural sources (volcanic activity, forest fires & the sun). -
Marcus at 23:10 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Arkadiusz Semczyszak-your claim contains a number of easily identifiable logical fallacies-which I'm happy to outline: 1) during the interglacial periods of the last 750,000 years, deltaT changed by as much as 10 degrees C, yet this was unable to increase CO2 concentrations by more than 90ppm-over a space of 20,000+ years-yet you're suggesting a "mere" 0.6 degree C change is capable of lifting CO2 emissions by almost 100ppm in the space of only 60 years! 2) During most of the past interglacial periods, changes in total solar irradiance generated significant warming which *led* to a rise in CO2 emissions. However, the increase in TSI over the 1st half of the 20th century produced *no* significant rise in CO2 emissions-yet CO2 emissions *did* rise significantly during a period when TSI was trending downwards. 3) Further to (2) rapid increases in CO2 concentrations are detected from the 1950's onwards, wheras rapid warming is only detected from the 1970's onwards, suggesting a lag between CO2 emissions & deltaT of 20-30 years. This also suggests that warming is the result-not the cause-of rising CO2 emissions. 4) As pointed out elsewhere, if the rise in CO2 concentrations were the result of release from natural carbon sinks, then we would see no change in the ratios of C13 & C12 in atmospheric CO2. Yet we're seeing a marked rise in ratio of C12:C13 in the atmosphere-suggesting that the new CO2 is from a source where there has been significant time for the 13C to decay to 12C-which is definitely true of coal & oil (where its constituent carbon atoms have had *millions* of years to decay from 13C to 12C). So, in spite of all the contortions engaged in to absolve human activity for global warming, all the available evidence strongly points to CO2-from anthropogenic sources-as the *cause* of recent global warming! -
MarkR at 20:38 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Arkadiusz Semczyszak: As well as Riccardo's point, conservation of mass tells us that it's not nature that's causing the CO2 increase. With atmospheric CO2 going up by about 15bn tons/yr, and human emissions at ~30bn tons/yr, nature MUST be absorbing more than it's giving out. This has been detected in the oceans with declining pH, for example. -
CBDunkerson at 20:21 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Just a minor issue on the source of one bit of data. The article cites ice core records as indicating that CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 15 million years. Actually, the ice cores go back just under 1 million years. The longer record is from proxies, mostly ocean sediment analysis. The cited source used changing ratios of boron and calcium (which are impacted by ocean pH... which is impacted by atmospheric CO2) from microorganisms called foraminifera. Recent foraminifera based studies have shown very high correlation with the ice core and modern instrumental records and greater granularity (smaller timeframes between data points) than the ice cores. -
Riccardo at 19:24 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, the characteristic response time of CO2 to warming is not the same as that of warming ro increasing CO2 forcing. Past climate and the physics teach us that the former, the one you suggest is operating now, takes centuries. Also, to get the level of CO2 we are experiencing now the temperature should be several degrees above current. We can safely and easily rule it out. -
Doug Bostrom at 19:20 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP at 18:54 PM on 26 February, 2010 What's your point? -
Pierre-Normand at 19:06 PM on 26 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Thanks to Tom Dayton for the reminders. I myself wrongly assumed that those spectra ought to be consistent with the fact that total OLR must (almost) balance solar input and hence not vary much. But while this must be true globally, the measured spectra aren't global averages. And the Earth doesn't warm uniformly, neither does the stratosphere cool uniformly. There should be no a priori expectation that total OLR flux in the observed area should behave the same as they do globally. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:02 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Our surplus is up to 0.5 ppmv C02/years -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:01 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
"The empirical evidence that global warming is happening and that humans ..." - this sentence is a large group of researchers. But not all. Using Bayesian Statistician may well prove the reverse sequence of events: the natural increase in temperature - an increase in the concentration of water vapor and CO2 (soil respiration) in atmosphere. Just look at this picture: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Jan% 20Pompe_co2% 20and% 20temp2.gif. Here you can see that the increase in pCO2 - is a function of temperature. Volcanic eruptions - is the smallest (http://i30.tinypic.com/2uzxe0k.jpg). A reduction in the TSI as quickly responds only to the soil. Our surplus is up to 0.5 ppmv C02. -
RSVP at 18:54 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
There does seem to be an official line put out by the EPA... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/epa_report2.pdf ...the demeanor of which is astounding. In reference to Milankovitch cycles, for example (p46), "There appears to be something which has prevented the Earth from getting even colder than it has during ice ages or warming more than it has during interglacial periods. It is far from clear what these somethings are, but this asymmetry appears to have existed for at least 3 million years." (Hmmm, just around the time some apes discovered fire.) Ironically, NASA and the EPA are both government agencies. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:25 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
One other thing really bothers me about Senator Inhofe and for that matter what appears to have become a campaign of harassment (see the Competitive Enterprise Institute's recent volley of FOIA demands launched far and wide) against scientists. Although the scientists I know are in general a stubborn lot, very much subject to their sense of curiosity almost without regard to worldly matters, distractions of the kind that Inhofe et al are creating are likely to play a negative role in recruitment and retention for outfits such as GISS etc. Practicing scientists-- particularly academics-- are generally overcommitted persons with many demands on their time stretching beyond the numbers of hours available in a day. I'm don't think many rejectionists understand how irritating it is for these people to waste their time on redundant requests for information already available or irrelevant to scientific progress. For that matter, come to think of it, swerving undeniably bright and productive researchers into wasting their time on political matters that won't affect research results is a sorry waste of human talent. I look at this whole sorry affair and a picture of sand being poured into a clockworks is what comes to mind. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:56 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
This "well, the evidence wasn't working for us, let's attack the scientist themselves" business concerns me as almost as much in terms of collateral damage to science in general as it does in terms of dealing with climate change. Senator Inhofe in his efforts to discredit climate research is unleashing a degenerative force akin to the cliche movie monster that slips its chains and runs amok. As others have commented, Inhofe's assault will be integrated into the thinking of people for whom scientific research findings are an "inconvenient truth" and they'll use this particular matter to dismiss whatever facts stand in the way of their particular agendas. "Oh, those scientists, you can't trust them." I'm not completely sure but I also think Inhofe's exact method is without precedent. In any case, now that a man of seemingly respectable position has stooped this low, we can be sure it will not be the last time we'll see this technique used. For any conflict pitting industry against research findings in a matter of sufficiently high stakes, this now could well be the outcome. More and more, I find myself wondering if we were to discover the CFC or tetraethyl lead or acid rain problems in this modern era, would we have been able to tackle them? Tetraethyl lead took a few decades to address, but CFC and acid rain dispersal were fairly crisply dealt with via public policy. I fear that's not possible any more, not in this climate. -
Tom Dayton at 17:28 PM on 26 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, you wrote "according to the paper by Ramanathan...'an increase in greenhouse gas such as CO2 will lead to a further reduction in OLR.... Notice there is no clarifying statement about having to use model simulated graphs to 'correct' for surface temperatures and water vapor before seeing that OLR reduction." And you wrote "he made the general statement that OLR would decrease with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. i could be reading too much into the Ramanathan paper." Yes, Gary, you are reading far, far too much into that statement. That statement was made in a journal for climate scientists, who know perfectly well that the total effect on OLR depends on all the mechanisms that come into play when CO2 is increased, and on mechanisms independent of CO2 that come into play nonetheless concurrently. It is so well known that it need not be stated for that audience. Indeed, if the author had stated it, the editor probably would have insisted it be removed to shorten the article and reduce clutter. Professional journals are not like textbooks, Science News or Scientific American, let alone a newspaper or the American Thinker blog. Journals rarely need or want "clarifying statements" about rudimentary knowledge, unless the editors strongly expect that the audience will include substantial numbers of people outside the normal, professionally specialized, audience of that particular journal. What if the authors had tried to make a "clarifying statement"? Hmmm.... Given the complex set of variables involved in determining the precise amount of OLR in response to the CO2 increase, they would not have been able to give a single answer, because the answer varies across situations, depending on the precise details of the situation being predicted, and there is an infinite number of situations. Instead they would have to, let's see... construct a model that they and others could run separately for each situation. They and others also would use that same model as a component of models for predicting temperature responses to increased CO2. But responsible scientists would want to verify that model's OLR predictions against real world observations! They would have to run it, then show its results...say as a graph line...maybe displayed underneath a graph line of the observed OLR over the same time period. They might even label that graph Figure 1.b and c. Gary, nobody is taking issue with you for not knowing all that. You would have if you had spent significant time writing articles for professional scientific journals in any field, even as a mere grad student. But you don't have that experience, so no foul. What people are taking issue with, is your quick leap to very public and strong proclamation before investigating sufficiently. When faced with your own "obvious" conclusion that flies in the faces of thousands of professional, specialized scientists who have spent many decades researching that topic, the stronger your feeling of certainty is, the more you should suspect that you, not they, are missing a fundamental piece of knowledge. And the harder you should dig to verify your own conclusion. That's what I do. That's what John Cook does. That's what most of the commenters on this blog do. Sometimes (and sometimes often) we don't dig deep enough to verify our opinions, and so write a comment that is wrong. But we write a comment, not a whole, highly publicized blog post. And we usually prefix our comment with "I think I'm missing something, but it seems to me...," and other folks correct us. Often not gently. That difference between your behavior and our typical (not perfect) behavior is what the Dunning-Kruger effect is about. -
gpwayne at 17:16 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I agree John, it's the science that matters. As a regular contributor to the debate in the UK's Guardian newspaper, I've become increasingly concerned that the paper is not giving the science its due, in favour of the distractions which of course do garner sensational headlines. Science is not the tool of politics and its findings cannot be determined by vote or popularity. We need to concentrate on the evidence, and luckily, as we have taken to saying as we shoot down the zombies - we have an app for that :) -
Berényi Péter at 17:14 PM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Looks balanced, puts things into perspective, makes you feel small (a good thing). Unfortunately it's behind a (mild) paywall. Oxford Companion to Global Change Sea Level By Michael J. Tooley http://www.mywire.com/a/Enc-Global-Change/Sea-Level/9517794/ -
robrtl at 17:03 PM on 26 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
co2 continues to rise but according to phil jones there hasbeen "no discernable warming over last 15 years". que pasa ? could greeen house theory need clariicationResponse: Its imperative that we obtain our understanding of our climate from peer-reviewed science and not media headlines. However, if you are going to insist on sourcing your science from the media and not from scientists, then at least read the full article and don't just go on the headline. -
RSVP at 16:07 PM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter Thank you. On the http://hpiers.obspm.fr home page, the graph, "Excess of the Length of day for the last years", it is interesting to see the deviation on the order of what appears to be nano seconds. This is kind of humbling. -
garythompson at 14:55 PM on 26 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
In taking Doug Bostrom's advice (#70), let me try and address John Cook's issues with my article one by one. i have gone through the article and attempted to summarize them into the following 3 categories: 1 - i misrepresented or missed the authors' conclusions in all three papers i cited. 2 - i was not forthcoming in showing all the graphs on those papers. 3 - i 'eyeballed' the graphs and there was no actual data analysis performed to reach my conclusions. as i stated before #1 and #2 has been addressed ad nauseum so i'll focus on #3. on the paper that John's article focused on (Harries 2001) he noted that i didn't include the second figure that showed the actual delta so i didn't have to "eyeball" it. in a previous post, i made my position known that even on the graph that John shows, the top graph, actual measured data, doesn't show a decline over the majority of the spectrum where OLR is absorbed by CO2. In fact, it appears that OLR has increased for most of that spectrum. To rectify this in my AT article i added the actual delta graph for the third paper and my commentary on that new graph is in the AT article and it follows the same line as my commentary in the pervious sentences. but back to the Harries 2001 paper, Figure 2 in John's article still shows, on average, that the CO2 absorption didn't decrease but rather oscillated around zero for the actual measured data. Minor point for John, I think the caption should read 1970 to 1997 (instead of 1996). once the models removed water vapor and SST, then the drop in CO2 was more pronounced. So, based on the data without model manipulation, i made my conclusions about this graph (which was my figure 2) that there was no change in OLR in the spectrum that is absorbed by CO2. I have stated before why i believe the SST and water vapor corrected graphs shouldn't have more value than the actual data (18% increase in CO2 vs. 1% increase in IR due to SST) but there is another reason i feel comfortable drawing that conclusion about Harries 2001. remember i had three papers cited in my article but we've only focused on #2 and #3. paper #1 also included harries as an author and the same time intervals (1970 vs. 1997) as Harries 2001. Since i don't have a membership to Nature i couldn't download the actual paper #2 cited in my article and it was the only one i didn't read. But paper #1 appears to have come first since it doesn't site other work by Harries on this dataset. i also think the difference is that Harries 2001 focused on the Central Pacific and this first paper i cite focused on the East and West Pacific. those who know the answer to this please correct me and fill in the gaps. anyway, please go take a look at that paper here (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf) and look at figures 1, 3 and 4. Figure 1 is actually 2 graphs showing delta BT measured for east and west pacific (1997 vs. 1970) and this corresponds to the figure 1 in my article. it's pretty obvious from this graph of raw data that the delta BT is at or above zero for the spectrum where CO2 absorbs (for both the East and West). It gets more interesting even when you bring in the model to compensate for temperatures and water vapor. on the top graph in figure 3 (east pacific) the delta BT is still at zero and i'd say it is above zero for most of that spectrum associated with CO2. the west pacific graph is shown in figure 4 (top graph) and again for the spectrum range associated with CO2 absorption there is no reduction in OLR. so i looked at all these graphs from paper #1 and #2 and concluded that CO2 is not decreasing in both of these papers and i can even make the case in the measured data in paper #1 that the OLR associated with CO2 absorption increased. -
datn at 14:09 PM on 26 February 2010Skeptical Science now an iPhone app
Thanks for making this app. Here's another Android supporter! -
Jeff Freymueller at 11:50 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
If the function you fit to the sea level height is h0 + v*t + (1/2)*a*t^2, then you need to report that your function had that form so that your coefficient can be interpreted. Otherwise, if you just say you fit a quadratic function the assumption would be h0 + v*t + a*t^2, that is, straight polynomial coefficients. "Fit an acceleration" leaves an ambiguity. -
Berényi Péter at 10:55 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#56 RSVP at 06:25 AM on 26 February, 2010 "With all that mass moving off the poles, the Earth should slow down a little to conserve angular momentum. Days should get longer" Part of the reason it does. Moon is a major player (tides, friction, angular momentum transfer). You can find everything & much more here: IERS (International Earth Rotation & Reference System Service) http://www.iers.org http://hpiers.obspm.fr Stuff GPS is based on. -
Berényi Péter at 10:20 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#59 kwinters79 at 07:15 AM on 26 February, 2010 "not 20.4 cm" s(t)=a/2*t^2, v(t)=s'(t)=a*t Kinematics, uniform acceleration. You've forgotten to divide by 2. Linear component is trivial, does not add much, depends on place. No accelerating acceleration (i.e. no jolt, snap, crackle, pop, etc.), no scare. In the long run (>> 100 years) even this tiny acceleration can't possibly persist. Also, in a century, if some silly war or neoluddite takeover would not kick us back to stone age, climate engineering is quite possible. I did the average, this is the 10 micron/yr^2 figure. However, Klaipeda, Lithuania looks like an outlier. Something must have happened to the tide gauge during the war. According to docu old name Memel (used to belong to Third Reich). http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/080161.gif http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/docu.psmsl/080161.docu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Memel Black sea (e.g. Poti, Georgia - not the one enduring general Sherman's March) also problematic. See comments for Bourgas http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/docu.psmsl/295021.docu You can look up any PSMSL station here: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/psmsl_individual_stations.html -
Tom Dayton at 10:17 AM on 26 February 2010The sun is getting hotter
batvette, the severities of the up parts of the cycles are irrelevant, because the down parts of the cycles cancel them. More precisely, the degree to which the up and down parts of the cycles do *not* cancel each other is reflected in irradiance statistics that filter by 11 years by one or another method. Those filtered statistics are the ones that show either flat or slightly down trend since 1950. -
batvette at 09:28 AM on 26 February 2010The sun is getting hotter
Climate lag is precisely the reason I would argue it is fallacious logic to assume there should be a pronounced cooling trend anytime soon after the peak around 1950. Indeed, your own link cites 25 to 50 years. Since the peak was nearly right at 1950 and it was of unprecedented in amplitude over the 400 year period since accurate count began, it should be prudent calculate the residual effect, or lag, should have a duration of 50 years per your own reference, not 30. Even if one accepts a 30 year lag the 4 cycles following it still saw the second, third and fifth most active cycles in the 400 years so should be expected to have continued the warming trend- not cooling. It is furter notable that if you look carefully at that chart you see the bottom swings of each cycle actually became more active than they had been around the 1950 peak, so observations would be skewed as well because the (low) cooling years which countered the unpredented high would not have been as much as had been seen before. To expect any significant cooling after 1980 you'd have to show a cycle or even two which had significantly lower activity than the 400 year average, not merely compare it to an unprecedented high that just occurred and whose residual effects would affect the assumed cooling cycle.Response: Note that climate lag doesn't mean there is a delayed response to a change in forcing. Climate responds immediately to forcings. The climate lag refers to the time it takes for the climate to reach equilibrium.
If the sun cooled, the effect on climate would be immediate, a drop in temperature - but it would take years to decades for the climate to eventually reach equilibrium at a stable lower temperature.
We are not observing this. There is no negative energy imbalance gradually reducing to equilibrium. Instead, we're observing a positive energy imbalance that is gradually increasing over time. We're moving further and further away from equilibrium. The increasing CO2 forcing is causing an increasing positive energy imbalance. -
kwinters79 at 07:22 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
I wrote: "In the year 2100 (x = 244) you'll get ... This is 328 mm above the 2008 level" I should have noted that this 32.8 cm estimated rise by 2100 falls within the IPCC range for all 6 emission scenarios. -
kwinters79 at 07:15 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter (53) wrote: "Finally let me confess I've made an error in calculating sea level rise acceleration for New York and Stockholm. The acceleration of sea level rise is actually positive for both places." You have my respect for that correction. "The average acceleration of sea level rise across stations is a better candidate for being a global indicator. In this timespan it was 0.0102 mm/yr^2. It is 20.4 cm in 200 years. From 2006 to 2100 it means an additional 14.7 cm sea level rise." 0.0102 mm/yr^2 x (200yr)^2 = 408 mm, not 20.4 cm But this only deals with the x^2 component. There's also a significant linear trend. Using the New York guage as an example, the trend line I calculated was: y = 0.0036x^2 + 2.2337x - 5.087 {Note: I adjusted all the data so that 1856 was year=0 and level=0} The trend line in 2008 (x = 152) shows: y = 0.0036(152^2) + 2.2337(152) - 5.087 = 417.61 mm (above the 1856 level). In the year 2100 (x = 244) you'll get: y = 0.0036(244^2) + 2.2337(244) - 5.087 = 754.3 mm This is 328 mm above the 2008 level (which is 426 mm above the 1856 level). If I take this out another 100 years to 2200 (x = 344) I'll get a sea level of about 1.189M above the 1856 level. But as you pointed out, some of the guages show a much higher rate of acceleration than the New York one. So I would have to conclude that if I averaged the trend-lines of the 32 tide guages you posted, the increase would be higher. -
Jeff Freymueller at 06:56 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#56 RSVP, yes. Search for "Earth Orientation Parameters" (EOP might do). Both rotation pole and rate (length of day) are monitored, and most variations are well explained. Also, the shape of the earth changes (although glacial isostatic adjustment may be the bigger factor). Search on "J2" or "J2 + oblateness" or "J2 dot" to find information about how the oblateness of the earth is changing. -
Jeff Freymueller at 06:52 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#53, Berenyi Peter, your last post shows you are making progress. In particular, you fixed your computational error that gave you the wrong sign, and you are averaging over many tide gauges. Now it gets a bit harder. Some general advice: Not every acceleration estimate is going to be equally good. You need to weight them appropriately. A simple way would be based on the formal uncertainty of the quadratic fit, scaled by the misfit of each quadratic fit. You should also assess the statistical correlation between the linear and quadratic terms so that you can determine whether that needs to be considered in weighting the quadratic terms. A more accurate measure of the uncertainty in the quadratic terms would explicitly estimate the temporal noise character of each time series. You'll have to carefully pore over the station history information, just to make sure that there are no discontinuities in the series (PSMSL should note that), or anything else (earthquakes, etc) that might affect the series. Some of your extreme values might be outliers due to something other than sea level changes, or they might just be far from the mean due to random variations. You might then be able to refine your estimate. You also need to determine the uncertainty in your estimate, and evaluate how that projects into the range of sea level rise you would predict. This last bit is a little trickier than you might think, because you have to combine your acceleration estimate with the appropriate linear rate, and you have not addressed that yet. But all in all, I suspect by going through this process you will get a range of rates fairly similar to the IPCC AR4 projection. In projecting to the future, you are assuming that nothing will happen in the 21st century that is fundamentally different from the 20th century. That may or may not be true, and to assess that you need to consider projected future temperature trends, and some glaciology. So your next question should be, is your assumption that you can extrapolate correct? If temperature rises faster in the 21st century, will your extrapolation still be valid? Will rising temperatures trigger the beginning of new processes affecting sea level that were not captured in your analysis of (mainly) 20th century sea level? Look more carefully at the work of people like Rahmstorf and Vermeer to get at the first question. (And I mean carefully, skeptically, not with a "what are these guys trying to pull on me" attitude). Go to a library and look things up when they reference papers you can't get online -- most university libraries I have been associated with do allow you to enter even if you are not a student, and there are xerox machines so "paywalls" are not really an issue because you can copy journal articles for personal research use like everyone had to do when I was a student. For my second question, John has postings on this site that deal with the recent significant increases in mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica. I'm betting his postings are quite good, and will point to the original sources. Fact is, both Greenland and Antarctica have started to lose significant mass, and this is a recent change (within the last decade). This appears to be dominated by the speedup of glaciers. Finally, your two numbered points near the end of the post are not very accurate, and you really just need to do some more reading and research to learn more about those topics. Starting with the sources on this website is a good way to go. -
RSVP at 06:25 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
With all that mass moving off the poles, the Earth should slow down a little to conserve angular momentum. Days should get longer. Ocean salinity should also decrease just a tad. -
shdwsnlite at 04:57 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Interesting. As i am trying to understand all this and follow the conversation it appears to me a sort of an example of a peer reviewed process has happened. In #18 Berényi Péter provided data and his conclusion. In a later post he gave his process for coming to that conclusion. Someone else reviewed that process and found an error. Berényi Péter acknowledged the error and came back with a revised and expanded conclusion. If i am in error or simplifying too much please correct me. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:50 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter at 04:25 AM on 26 February, 2010 Thanks for doing all that work. Was that the result of hand calculation, or something you could conceivably pour downloaded data into? Finally let me confess... I wouldn't term it a "confession", or at least I hope you don't feel mournful about it. You're putting more effort into this than a lot of other folks. Me, for instance. -
Berényi Péter at 04:25 AM on 26 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#43 AndrewY at 21:14 PM on 25 February, 2010 "Returning to the topic, it does seem the Siddall abstract is very easy to misinterpret (unless you are careful to find the definition of sea level response)" The issue is not made less difficult by the fact that "definition of sea level response" is nowhere to be found in Siddall 2009 either. However, usege is consistent with that found in retraction letter. "Over the twenty-first century, projected sea-level rise reaches a maximum of 0.82m in response to warming from the upper estimate of the A1FI emissions scenario (6.4°C)" http://geo.oregonstate.edu/files/geo/Siddall-2009-NatureGeo.pdf Finally let me confess I've made an error in calculating sea level rise acceleration for New York and Stockholm. The acceleration of sea level rise is actually positive for both places. I have found 32 tide gauges in the PSMSL database, having data for the 1900-2006 interval. To make up for my error, I have calculated sea level rise acceleration for each, including the two above. First column is acceleration in mm/yr^2, then latitude, longitude and name of station. -0.0152 43 18 N 05 21 E MARSEILLE -0.0128 51 27 N 00 45 E SHEERNESS -0.0065 57 26 N 10 34 E FREDERIKSHAVN -0.0059 55 00 N 01 26 W NORTH SHIELDS -0.0034 54 34 N 11 56 E GEDSER -0.0034 48 23 N 04 30 W BREST 0.0002 40 42 N 74 01 W NEW YORK 0.0010 53 58 N 10 53 E TRAVEMUNDE 0.0023 53 54 N 11 28 E WISMAR 2 0.0035 55 34 N 09 46 E FREDERICIA 0.0041 45 53 S 170 30 E DUNEDIN II 0.0044 55 20 N 11 08 E KORSOR 0.0048 64 00 N 20 55 E RATAN 0.0058 54 11 N 12 05 E WARNEMUNDE 2 0.0074 55 17 N 10 50 E SLIPSHAVN 0.0077 37 48 N 122 28 W SAN FRANCISCO 0.0102 56 09 N 10 13 E AARHUS 0.0108 57 22 N 17 06 E OLANDS NORRA UDDE 0.0109 57 36 N 09 58 E HIRTSHALS 0.0117 30 41 N 81 28 W FERNANDINA 0.0129 55 28 N 08 26 E ESBJERG 0.0142 65 02 N 25 25 E OULU/ULEABORG 0.0145 59 19 N 18 05 E STOCKHOLM 0.0165 55 41 N 12 36 E KOBENHAVN 0.0166 47 36 N 122 20 W SEATTLE 0.0169 58 45 N 17 52 E LANDSORT 0.0194 56 06 N 15 35 E KUNGHOLMSFORT 0.0221 56 06 N 12 28 E HORNBAEK 0.0307 60 09 N 24 58 E HELSINKI 0.0328 53 52 N 8 43 E CUXHAVEN 2 0.0425 42 10 N 41 41 E POTI 0.0490 55 42 N 21 08 E KLAIPEDA Looks like at some stations sea level has got rather large upward acceleration. But even 0.049 mm/yr^2 at KLAIPEDA means less than 1 m in two centuries. The average acceleration of sea level rise across stations is a better candidate for being a global indicator. In this timespan it was 0.0102 mm/yr^2. It is 20.4 cm in 200 years. From 2006 to 2100 it means an additional 14.7 cm sea level rise. Of course, there is a steady linear rise as well due to geophysical processes (like glacial rebound), but it can hardly be more than 10 cm/century. To get a sea level rise during 21st century substantially higher than 25 cm, not only rate of rise should increase, but acceleration as well. In other words, there should also be non-vanishing third or higher derivatives of sea level. It can happen, if the underlying dynamics is exponential. However, a dynamics like this makes the system very unstable. Not likely scenario. With no major icesheets left on Northern continents, sea level has not changed much during last eight millenia. Ice albedo feedback must be weaker than during deglaciation for two reasons. 1. Remaining ice sheets are closer to poles, don't get much sunshine anyway 2. No long ice sheet margin on land exists Substantial sea level rise can only come from land ice melt, not sea water thermal expansion, since latter requires almost a hundred times more energy to produce same rise. I would rather watch out for black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. It accelerates ice melt by a well understood process (makes it dark). Also, it is WAY cheaper to filter it out from industrial smoke (it is done in Europe). Not only cheaper, possible as well. -
Tom Dayton at 02:03 AM on 26 February 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
The professional statistician Tamino has proven two skeptic claims to be false: "1st, that the dramatic reduction in the number of reporting stations around 1990 introduced a false warming trend; 2nd, that the adjustments applied to station data also introduce a false warming trend." Tamino made those proofs by...analyzing the actual data! What a concept! The skeptics have had access to the same data, but have not bothered to do the analyses, only to make the claims.
Prev 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 Next
