Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
Comments 123451 to 123500:
-
garythompson at 15:22 PM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Regarding post #51 - Philippe Chantreau - You say: " I still think this data isn't compelling enough to draw a conclusion about the OLR decreasing over the spectrum of CO2 absorption and I didn't change any of my conclusions because I still believe those." On what calculations/scientific assessment do you base these beliefs? " Fair question. let me see if i can do a good job of explaining. WARNING - I'm about to try and hyperlink references. not my strongest skill. if there is an issue, i'll follow up with another post with the links. and i apologize for the long post, it's hard to explain without graphics..... remember that I am arguing that there is no OLR delta between 2006 and 1970 over the regions where CO2 absorb and i feel the proof of that is fairly evident from the graph showing the delta but let's say I'm using "biased" eyes and in reality there is (on average) a -1K delta in Brightness Temperature (which could be argued from figure 5 in my article if you focused more on the lower wave nubmers/cm and ignored the higher wavenumber/cm portion that actually shows an increase in OLR). But let's assume that -1K delta and see what that equates to in W/m2 delta over 36 years. Once we get that difference of OLR flux let's plug that in the Radiative forxing X Climate sensitivity and see what temperature it predicts we should've seen. I'm going to do that by assuming calculating the W/m2 for an two ideal Blackbodies (that are radiating 1K different temperature) over all wavelengths to get the delta for the entire spectrum. Then, taking the ratio of that area under the blackbody curve which we are concerned with - the 700-780 wavenumber/cm and the other peak (which isn't shown on the data but we know is there - although it's OLR is less as we know from < a href="http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/sndprf/spectra.gif" > here ) find out what proportion of the overall delta is associated with CO2 absorption. but first let's look at that ratio we are concerned with. As I noted in my post (#28) and as RC noted < a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/" > here under Step 2, calculating the OLR flux from this data can't be calculated by hand. But let me try and simplify the situation and make it a worst case situation and see if that makes the calculations easier. As is noted on the RC post < a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/" > here and the post on this page topic (#34 Riccardo) the CO2 absorption is saturated at and around the peak (15um) and all we are left with are these "spurious peaks". So these edges are all we'll be concerned with since the saturated delta will be zero. Next, pull up the graphs 3 and 4 in my article which correspond to the TES and IRIS measured data (2006 and 1970 respectively). you can see that they both roughly start around the 220K BT (for 700 waves/cm) and then rise to about 290K BT at around 780 waves/cm (which comprises the CO2 absorption range for the data in this paper). for the sake of estimating (and doing this by hand) let's treat that entire region as if it were a BT of 255K (in the middle of that linear rise). I realize this is an assumption but as I stated above, the other side of this absorption will be less so I feel I'm being conservative and biased toward the AGW position. Take a curve showing the radiation of a black body that is at 255K. plot that out and draw verical lines at 13.5um (750 waves/cm) and 17um (588 waves/cm), then shade that region of the curve in. that represents the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. If you ratio that integrated area to the total integrated area of that curve (over the entire wavelength range) you get around 21.5%. I'll be generous and even call it 22%. Notice also that the wavenumbers/cm shown in the three cited papers (starting at 700) represent the higher magnitude radiation on this 255K radiation curve (whose peak amplitutde is around 11um). If we assume at and around the 15um area that there is total absorption then let's say that portion that absorbs to extinction is half of the total inside that shaded region (and on the page of RC that talks about CO2 saturation that sounds conservative). So, half of this energy in the shaded region is what we'll use to calculate the W/m2 conversion from the data in the cited paper. so that 22% is now 11%. Let's use Stephan-Boltzman Law to find out what the delta OLR flux would be for two ideal black bodies who were separated by 1K (255 vs. 254K). taking 255^4 minus 254^4 and then multiplying that result by 5.67x10^-8 you get 3.74 W/m2. so the delta in energy from those ideal Blackbodies for all wavelengths was 3.74W/m2. but we are only interested in the part that CO2 absorbs and taking 11% of that yields 0.41 W/m2. so in 36 years we see a difference in OLR of 0.41 W/m2. Assuming 100% of that contributes to forcing attributed to GHG and using the climate sensitivity factor of 0.75C/(W/m2) which is also in the first RC link, you get a contribution of 0.31C in 36 years! so at best, using VERY conservative estimates (which i don't agree with) the OLR reductions contributed at worst 0.31C warming to the earth from 1970 to 2006. According to GISS trend map from 1970 to 2006 we've seen a warming of 0.73C. Even with my oversimplifications and estimates to skew the number higher, we see the predicted increase is less than half of the observed. and this is neglecting the net cooling forcing due to aerosols and natural changes which is 1.6 W/m2 (again, mentioned in the first RC post). If we deduct 1.6 W/m2 from the 3.74 W/m2 then we get 2.14 W/m2 and that takes the temperature delta down to 0.18C (after multiplying by 11% and 0.75C/W/m2). i'm interested in feedback on my method and math - PLEASE! -
Jeff Freymueller at 15:18 PM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I'd like to think that American thinkers are plural, even if I have my doubts about the magazine! Two nations separated by a common language, indeed. I commend Gary Thompson for coming here to discuss the issue politely, but Phillipe Chantreau's comments (#51) really are damning, and yet at the same time probably too kind. I don't see any defense for either sentence in that paragraph, nor is the rest of Thompson's analysis compelling. "My interpretation of data from three papers, which is not quantitative and is opposite to the interpretation of the authors, and in some cases not supported by actually doing the subtraction ..." would be a more accurate statement, I think. -
David Horton at 14:52 PM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
24 February - Andrew Bolt incorporates the app into his climate change conspiracy theories http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/skeptical_science_iphone_app.phpResponse: Gotta admit, didn't see that one coming. Have posted a comment there in response to one user's question (but it has to go through the moderation system first). -
chris1204 at 14:25 PM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
King's English? Our monarch (long may she reign)is a Queen. Actually, 'American Thinker' as a collective noun may take a singular or plural verb. And long may we all think :-)! -
jondoig at 13:00 PM on 24 February 2010It's El Niño
Great post. Another point - your Figure 1 shows the basic problem with this claim at a glance. The grey temperature line has a discernible upward trend, while the dark ENSO line does not. So ENSO doesn't match the warming trend, case closed. However, as the paper itself is behind a paywall, the key findings have been posted here, with the graph split into three at 1980 and 1995:With this split, the warming trend is much harder to spot. You can do the same thing with surface temps (NASA GISTEMP):
A "trick" to "hide the incline" perhaps?
-
Tom Dayton at 12:44 PM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, correlation is necessary to demonstrate causation--just not sufficient. No climatologist relies purely on the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Indeed, the observations of temperature increase came many decades after the predictions of increase (in the 1800s, long before "computer models" existed). Observations have confirmed the predictions, which were made based on physical experiments with CO2. Regarding the empirical evidence of physical mechanisms of the causation, see How do we know CO2 is causing warming? and There’s no empirical evidence and CO2 effect is weak. Regarding the strength of the observed correlation, see CO2 has been higher in the past, and High CO2 in the past, Part 2, and There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and The correlation between CO2 and temperature, and The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century. -
Leo G at 12:16 PM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
{This leads to numerous blogs similarly labelling me a solar physicist} Well John, you know the old saying, - "you can call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner!" -
Robert at 12:05 PM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
I love my app! This site deserves more traffic. -
Cowboy at 11:58 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
"There are some things known with certainty, e.g. the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic..." Yet there were times in the past when CO2 levels were significantly higher. Correlation does not prove cause and effect.Response: Both your statements are correct. However, a proper understanding of the implications requires a deeper look at the science:
CO2 has been higher in the past
There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature -
Deech56 at 11:39 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
How can "skeptics" build an app that's coherent? I'd love to see them try. It would be nice to be able to enlarge the screen and turn it sideways (can't do it on my Touch). Old eyes and all. -
Deech56 at 11:27 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
REResponse: Don't forget to post a review in iTunes :-)
Just did. -
Tom Dayton at 11:20 AM on 24 February 2010The sun is getting hotter
batvette, in addition to what Riccardo replied, you should read Climate time lag. -
Riccardo at 10:51 AM on 24 February 2010The sun is getting hotter
batvette, as i'm sure anyone will admit, temperature has gone up from the lows during the Maunder Minimum. This post is on the recent trend, where you have slight decrease in solar output but rising temperatures. More on the Maunder Minimum in this recent post -
batvette at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2010The sun is getting hotter
No reason to overthink this: http://science.nasa.gov/.../maunderminimum.jpg It's not rocket science (or big $$$$ research obscuring its findings with acronymic codes to confuse common sense) to see that the latter half of the 20th century was a period of increased solar activity unmatched since recording of which began. The peaks may have decreased somewhat in the last 20 years BUT were still far above the average of the 400 year period- making the expectation that this 20 year period should be observing a cooling effect from solar influence patently absurd. To be exact: "Various independent measurements of solar activity all confirm the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1978" Is misleading. It is bad science to be sure. While one could say that solar activity has decreased since 1978 it is completely erroneous to assume that it has decreased in comparison to the 400 years of recorded observation- let alone believe that since 1978 we could calculate that a cooling effect on earth climate should be the result. -
Riccardo at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2010It's the sun
This is the first time in my life that i see the IPCC accused of over-emphasizing the role of the sun. Never say never, indeed. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:30 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
robert test at 10:17 AM on 24 February, 2010 I'm guessing you're not from a Commonwealth of Nations locale. John is practicing King's English. -
robert test at 10:17 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Your article titled "Have American Thinker disproven global warming?" makes me wonder about grammar. Have the rules changed? Has the rule of noun-verb agreement changed? Isn't "The American Thinker" a singular noun requiring a singular verb? The American Thinker website thinks it does. You'll find this description there: "American Thinker is a daily internet publication...." So, if the American Thinker is a singular noun, your title--to be grammatically correct--must be "Has the American Thinker disproven global warming?" You made the same error in the opening sentence of the first paragraph and the next to the last sentence in that paragraph. What were you thinking? -
John Russell at 09:50 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
I love the comment on the end of the Guardian article (it's exactly my thought too)... "This might shock some people, but I happen to agree with the sentiment underlying the request issued by Climate Realists for sceptics to build their own rival app. I think it would be very constructive if they compiled a one-stop shop for all their arguments with full references and citations so that everyone could assess them calmly and dispassionately. This would be done away from the white heat of the blogosphere cauldron where people can make any claim they choose and know it has the ability to stick..." Spot on. Invariably the trouble is trying to pin the sceptics down on the source of their 'science'. But I suspect they already know such an app could only serve to undermine what limited credibility they currently enjoy. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:47 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, data on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and land use changes can be download from here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ "Frankly, with what (I believe) I know, I don't buy into "man-made" global warming" allegedly being settled science." neither does e.g. Phil Jones (from his interview for the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm) "N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean? It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. " I don't think "the science is settled" is anything most climatologists would say. There are some things known with certainty, e.g. the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic, however there are large uncertainties regarding many elements of the theory, and the scientists involved are quite happy to talk about them (their papers are often filled with such caveats). Politicians and journalists on the other hand... -
Josie at 08:38 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Great work John. This has really raised the profile of Skeptical Science, which is fantastic. I don't have an iphone, or much technical knowledge (as is about to become apparent, as I am now going to ask what may be a stupid question...) but how easy would it be to make the app for other phones? Would it be possible to make a generic app that could be adapted to lots of different phones, or is that not how it works? (I have a sony ericsson w810i phone and I would love to get skeptical science on it, but I am interested in general) -
Cowboy at 07:50 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
To avoid creating a list of back-to-back posts, I'll just say 'Thanks' for the responses. Frankly, with what (I believe) I know, I don't buy into "man-made" global warming" allegedly being settled science. But I wouldn't be being honest to myself if I assumed that I must be right. Let's be honest, when you read emails that say that if empirical data does not match model outputs then the the data must be wrong, and emails that clearly say that 'inconsistent' data has been intentionally deleted, you have to question how agenda may have influenced accuracy of science, or to be more accurate, how the science gets reported. That makes it, from an honest and practical point of view, impossible to entirely separate science from politics (at risk here of being considered off-topic). On the other hand, I know that to damn the science because a piece of it may have been, to some as of yet unknown extent, compromised would essentially be an ad hominem fallacy. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:35 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I will join Doug on giving kudos to John. That, and the strong focus on published science, is what makes this site among the very best on the subject. -
Cowboy at 07:32 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
"Cowboy, many questions are addressed in the list of "Arguments" you see at the top left of this page (the ones next to the thermometer). See, for example, CO2 lags temperature." Thx. I'll take a look at that. -
Cowboy at 07:31 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
"Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been rising at a fairly constant fraction (about 45%) of human emissions (fossil fuel + land use), which is prettty good evidence that the cause of the rise is not a lagged response to previous warming, but is the result fo human activity. " Understood. But the data I was referencing went back to the BEGINNING of the IR. I think I need to find that data ... But thx for your response. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:28 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I just read the updated version with the disclaimer, which does make the all thing somewhat better. However, the paragraph following the disclaimer is still abusive: "So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven." The first sentence is false. For any reader, the "results" of the papers is something that the papers actually contain, and would likely be assimilated with the conclusions of the papers. What would be correct for Thompson to say would be that the observational data contained in the papers suggest to him, without doing a data analysis, that there is no compelling change of OLR. Furthermore, the very fact that there is disagreement between the peer-reviewed conclusions of the papers and the non peer-reviewed conclusion of Thompson opinion piece should prevent the use of such definitive words as "disproven." I don't see how one can go at length to expose doubt, then jump to certitude. 2 questions for Thompson: 1-Did you also amend your blog post suggesting agreement between the researchers and you, which I will cite again here: (Posted by: gdthomp01 Feb 18, 03:07 PM) "But even on the wavelengths shown, there was no decrease in OLR at those wavelengths so I still felt comfortable drawing the conclusions I did - and the authors of these papers (using simulated results from climate models) drew those same conclusions using these wavelengths although they weren't based on the actual measurements." You say: " I still think this data isn't compelling enough to draw a conclusion about the OLR decreasing over the spectrum of CO2 absorption and I didn't change any of my conclusions because I still believe those." On what calculations/scientific assessment do you base these beliefs? -
Doug Bostrom at 07:07 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Hat tip to Gary Thompson, and to John Cook who-- by inflicting cruel and unusual demands for polite comportment on us all-- demonstrates that it's actually possible to have a productive dialog on this topic! Who knew? -
garythompson at 06:56 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
On this blog and on the comments to my AT article there were two interpretations of my article that disturbed me. A) readers thought that my article somehow stated that the authors of the three cited papers agreed with my conclusions and B) I was being deceptive in not showing a graph that depicted the delta in BT between TES and IRIS. That was not my intent but since I was the one who wrote the article I am to blame for those perceptions. One of my favorite one-liners about life is that "in the absense of clear communication, people will make up their own story so it is up to me to communicate effectively." I updated the American Thinker article to clarify those two points and AT has uploaded the new version. First I put further language in the article that unambiguously states that the conclusions drawn in this article are from the author (me) and not the authors of the three cited papers. In many respects my conclusions were in direct opposition to the authors' conclusions in their papers. Also, I included the graph from the third paper that showed the comparison of the real measured data from TES and IRIS (2006 and 1997). I still think this data isn't compelling enough to draw a conclusion about the OLR decreasing over the spectrum of CO2 absorption and I didn't change any of my conclusions because I still believe those. I can live with counter viewpoints on how I interpret the data and my supposed lack of understanding of the underlying science but I can't abide being percieved as A) misrepresenting someone else's conclusions and B) cherry picking data and hiding contrary results. I Thanks to all here who brought this to my attention. -
Tony Noerpel at 06:42 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Hello Gary I don't know if you are still paying attention to us. I agree with Toby Joyce's advice, you need to try to get this published in peer-review. It is meaningless on a blog site. There are millions of those. You cannot expect any of the climate scientists who need to review this to see it where it is. Personaly I will wait for that before I bother to read it. Johns'critique points out the serious flaws and is good enough for me. Anyway, given the rising global temperature, melting glaciers, melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, bark beetle disasters, increase in extreme weather events and so on, I think your conclusion has been overtaken by events and rendered rather moot. :+) It is sort of like arguing that there is a serious flaw in the Case-Shiller housing index and housing prices are therefore not going to fall. Best regards Tony -
Mizimi at 05:09 AM on 24 February 2010Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes
Volcanic activity releases more water vapour than any other gas (up to 95% of the total gas discharge may be WV) and submarine/coastal lava flows produce localized highly acidic conditions (pH ~ 2.0). Given that the estimated total atmospheric release of CO2 from volcanic activity is ~ 130million tons then a conservative estimate of WV released would be ~ 400 million tons, which I suggest would have a greater immediate effect (but shorter lived) than the CO2. Some background stuff here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php -
BillWalker at 04:45 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
I love that the Telegraph's own review called Delingpole "Delingate"! Now, there's a -gate that's really deserved! -
LauraM at 04:35 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Thanks, John, Please keep up the good work! -
Doug Bostrom at 03:57 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
To Tom Dayton's pointer to materials for further study, let me add Spencer Weart's history of climate research, The Discovery of Global Warming, a very readable, fascinating and informative work no matter your perspective on this topic. The book is available in print but Dr. Weart has also kindly made it available in HTML form, at the link. -
Albatross at 03:49 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
John, This is wonderful news! A breath of fresh air really. The fact that the "realists" (uh huh) are hitting back do hard just goes to show what an excellent job you are doing. We don't have an iphone (so much for the Telegraph's hopeless generalization about "lefties" all having iPhones), but if we did the app would be on there. I'm sure the realists are feverishly working away on their own. But you were first, you have the reputable science on your side, and above all, you have integrity. I wonder if the "realists" will charge a fee? Anyhow, this bird should get back to work. Best of luck John, I hope that the app opens up new and exciting opportunities for you. PS: How about interactive apps? You could project the global SAT anomalies in 2060 (for example)by selecting a range of accepted climate sensitivities and for different emission scenarios. -
Riccardo at 03:46 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
RSVP, does it come as a surprise that the atmosphere is on average colder than the surface? Never heard about lapse rate, i.e. that it gets colder with altitude? I thought it was preatty obvious. You still miss to distinguish the two componets of an IR spectrum as measured from satellites. There is the part that is due to absorption, the relatively narrow absorption band, and the part that is transparent to IR and hence can measure what comes directly from the surface. The former causes warming, the latter is what hopefully tries to restore equilibrium. You do not need to have faith on "belivers of AGW", you probably need to look a bit more deeply into the physics involved; 'cause even if all the climate science is wrong, it's not obviously wrong for sure. -
Tom Dayton at 03:40 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, you wrote "...until there is actual evidence that models produce more accurate results." See the argument "Models Are Unreliable". You wrote "...recent events that have caused question with respect to the reliability of data used in who-knows-how-many models." The "events" I think you are referring to do not involve data that go into models, but only data that are observations against which the models are tested. Just as importantly, those "events" have zero implications for even those data. See "CRU emails suggest climate conspiracy". Also "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record". And "Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?" Finally, your questions and comments have covered a wide enough range that I think you would enjoy and benefit from an initial overview of global warming instead of diving straight into answers to individual questions. Subsequently you might come back with some even better questions. Try cce's "The Global Warming Debate". -
Riccardo at 03:35 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
guinganbresil, you have to think in terms of a time dependent process. Separate, at first, the two contribution, energy absorbed by increasing CO2 and energy emitted by the warming surface. Both increase monotonically. When you start adding CO2 the first term must prevail pushing the system out of equilibrium. Then the system responds increasing its temperature. Two cases need to be considered: 1) if the increase in temperature is not strong and/or fast enough, absorption keeps prevailing pushing the system further and further out of equilibrium. This is the "pathological" case of the runaway warming. 2) if the increase in temperature is able to keep up with the forcing, the trend in total OLR reverses and the planet will exponentially reach a steady state. The take away message is that in any reasonably real situation on planet earth, if you measure a decreasing OLR the planet might be going toward a runaway warming or at least it's too early to tell (remember, it's a time dependent process); if you measure increasing OLR the planet is going to reach a steady state. Luckly the latter applies to the current situation and at least for now we can rule out runaway warming. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:25 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Just downloaded the iPhone app yesterday. It's fantastic. I find myself just sitting and reading through the segments. I have a few climate change denier friends. This should make for great fun at our next party. -
Tom Dayton at 03:23 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, your quote of NOAA is specifically about stratospheric temperatures, not the rest of the atmosphere nor the average of the atmosphere. Volcanoes emit both CO2 and aerosols (some reflective and some not). The precise effects on temperature vary over time for a given volcano, and vary across volcanoes, because of variation in the amounts and rates of those emitted substances, and how high in the atmosphere they go (and even the height changes over time). For more, see the Scientific American note How Do Volcanoes Affect World Climate? If you have more comments about volcanoes, you should post them on a thread about volcanoes, such as Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Our host, John Cook, is trying to keep each thread on topic, so often he deletes off-topic comments. -
Tom Dayton at 03:04 AM on 24 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, many questions are addressed in the list of "Arguments" you see at the top left of this page (the ones next to the thermometer). See, for example, CO2 lags temperature. Also handy for finding the relevant arguments and posts is the Search field at the very top left. -
stbloomfield at 02:21 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Android please! My Motorola Cliq has had iPhone envy since you released your app! -
Dennis at 02:21 AM on 24 February 2010A brief history of our iPhone app
Alas, I do not have an iPhone. (With a dirt cheap pay-as-you-go plan, I barely qualify as a cell phone user.) but if I did I would add this app. Let's see if the followers of Climate Realists come out with their own app. What will be interesting will be to document their "evidence" and break it down between actual science and politics/conspiracy drivel. -
RSVP at 02:04 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
"Riccardo at 06:00 AM on 23 February, 2010 RSVP, the continuos part of the spectrum comes directly from the surface and reflects surface temperature. The atmosphere is overall much colder, i.e. much lower emission intensity and a peak shifted to lower wavenumbers, and being almost transparent has a lower emissivity. On the contrary, the level at which the strong absorption bands saturates reflects the tropospheric temperature or, to be more precise, the air temperature at the height from which IR escape directly to outer space. " I am sorry, but I do not follow. I thought CO2 is making the atmosphere that much warmer? Here you are saying it is colder, and that the extra IR is coming from the Earth's surface. If this energy is escaping because the atmosphere is transparent at these wavenumbers, how exactly is the surface getting warmer? If I am skeptic about anything, it has to do with my faith in "believers of AGW" to make a convincing argument about AGW. I think it would be more productive if we all just concentrated on lower CO2 for other reasons. -
guinganbresil at 00:27 AM on 24 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Tom Dayton (40), may assertion is based on conservation of energy. If you SUDDENLY add insulation to an object that is in thermal equilibrium, the heat loss from the object SUDDENLY goes down. The object's temperature then increases (and its heat loss through the new insulation) to restore the equibrium to the original heat loss. Conservation of energy would prohibit both the heat loss AND temperature to increase at the moment you add the new insulation unless the insulation were creating (or adding) energy to the system. The heat loss has to DROP before the temperature can increase. The more realistic case is a continual adding of insulation (increasing CO2) rather than a step increase. In this case the same applies, the increase in heat loss would only occur after the addition of insulation has been reduced (or stopped as shown in Murphy 2009.) At best, you could achieve a state of quasi-equilibrium where the increase in temperature (and thus its contribution to heat loss) matches the decrease in heat loss from the increasing insulation. I agree with you that IN REALITY the OLR could be going up due to some cause OTHER THAN CURRENT CO2 INCREASES - changes in albedo, insolation, or recovery from a PAST high CO2 transient that has been reduced. I have not seen a good explanation of the disparity. The increasing CO2 cannot warm the Earth (with downward long wave) if it is causing more heat loss to space (upward long wave) unless it is GENERATING ENERGY. I understamd the wavelength bands of the specific upward and downward fluxes are different, but overall energy must be conserved. -
RSVP at 21:18 PM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
garythompson "We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere about 17% from 1970 to 2006 (328ppm vs. 383ppm) and the OLR appears to have remained constant" John Cook "Anyway, I appreciate your comments and expect (nay demand) that commenters here will abide by our commenting policy and treat you with respect." As long as the debate is focused on whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, oil interests are off the hook. Ironically, those who are crusading for the planet's health (in terms of correlating warming to GHG emissions) are in some sense impeding that attention be focussed on what is directly measurable... that being anthropogenic CO2. Of concern specifically is the planet's capacity to absorb CO2, and where all this could be taking us. This may be more of a problem than any warming. I dont really know this, but somehow if anything has me genuinely concerned, it is not runaway global warming, but runaway global CO2 concentration. I have placed these two excerpts side by side to contrast what appear to be two realities. One reflecting a known. The fact about CO2 global levels (even though I arrived at 14% using these values). The other, John's need to mediate the hubris of those "in the know". I would go further still and ask what guarantees does proving AGW have on taking action against curbing CO2 emissions? Maybe the warming will be seen as necessary as temperatures actually start dropping for other "radiative forcings". On the other hand, focussing directly on the ills of CO2 and our ability to control its output seems like enough work in its own right. ETC. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:48 PM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy asks: "But isn't the theory of "greenhouse gases" that solar energy is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere? " I think it would be more correct to say that greenhouse gasses absorb the long wave radiation (i.e. heat) leaving the Earths surface, rather than the incoming short-wave solar radiation (light). w.r.t. CO2 lagging temperatures, a change of concentrations of about 100ppm (as we have seen over the last 200 years) happens at the start start of an interglacial period. This results from a temperature change of about 6 degrees or more, so you could argue there is a sensitivity of about 20 ppm per degree. There simply hasn't been a temperature change in the last few thousand years that could explain a rise of 100 ppm, so for that theory to work, you would need to find a reason why the carbon cycle is 6-10 times more sensitive to temperature now than it has been for the last 800,000 years (looking at the Vostok ice core data). Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been rising at a fairly constant fraction (about 45%) of human emissions (fossil fuel + land use), which is prettty good evidence that the cause of the rise is not a lagged response to previous warming, but is the result fo human activity. -
Cowboy at 19:41 PM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Sorry to double-up on posting (I'm not a spammer), but with respect to the few posts above, I just found this at NOAA... "While middle tropospheric temperatures reveal an increasing trend over the last three decades, stratospheric temperatures (14 to 22 km / 9 to 14 miles above the surface) have been below average since the warming effects from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption dissipated in 1993. January - December 2008 was the 16th consecutive year with below-average temperatures (an anomaly of -0.62°C/-1.12°F), the second coolest year behind 1996 which had an anomaly of -0.64°C/-1.15°F. The below-average stratospheric temperatures are consistent with the depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere and the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The large temperature increase in 1982 is attributed to the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was associated with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2008&month=ann In my understanding of the above, NOAA is saying that volcanic activity INCREASES WARMING, so if there was increased volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age, according to them it would have counteracted the cooling during that period... -
tobyjoyce at 19:24 PM on 23 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, Your claim is: "A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven." Even if this was true, it does not disprove AGW in toto, contrary to your commenters at American Thinker. Many theories, accepted as valid, are often retained even with an anomaly or two. Newton's Law of Gravity could predict the existence of Neptune, but was not rejected solely because it could not explain the orbit of Mercury (Einstein's theory could). Science works in "paradigms", or (perhaps better) in "research programmes", of which climatology has been a resounding recent success. As we know through the work of Naomi Oreskes, 95% of climatology papers accept AGW. So to bring your claim home, you need to get it peer-reviewed & published, discussed at conferences and tested with new data. Science is inherently conservative and an accepted paradigm is not changed easily. Having read your article, I find like Ricardo at #34, your failure to discuss the last chart in paper 3 rather damns your thesis. You take the previous two charts, claim that one can be overlaid on the other, there there is no difference in the OLR between 1970 & 1997. But chart 3 shows is difference is non-zero. It seems to me that you lack the analytical skills to seriously investigate these data, because "eyeballing" is just not good enough. -
Cowboy at 18:15 PM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
But isn't the theory of "greenhouse gases" that solar energy is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere? Is particulate matter in the atmosphere generally not as reflective as the globe, or is it somehow less capable of energy transference? Doesn't global climate envelope all ocean currents, regardless of their paths and speed? I mean, I can understand that a local condition (by Milankovitch forcing?) could cause a local change in atmospheric water vapor which could be spread and/or transferred to other locations. But wouldn't such events be "averaged" over just several decades, much less 70 years? After all, the quote I referenced said "possible changes" in ocean current patterns anyway. I don't claim to be any form of climatologist, but formal training as an engineer does teach one how to analyze scientific data. And I see things such as a desert in Arizona where there used to be a sea, and that change, along with similar changes, happened long before industrialization and man-generated CO2 (leaving aside the exhaling thing). What I get from your comment (no disrespect intended) and wording like "POSSIBLE changes in ocean current patterns" is that there are still far too many potentially related variables and unknowns to even think about trusting long-term climate modeling, particularly on a global scale. I am personally in favor of keeping an eye on the big picture history and events until there is actual evidence that models produce more accurate results. Particularly with recent events that have caused question with respect to the reliability of data used in who-knows-how-many models. Incidently, with an understanding (?) that Maunder is related (second cousins, I think) to "greenhouse gases" with respect to climate, I was looking for graphs I have seen that showed historic atmospheric CO2 level increases lagging global temperature increases. Do you know the current thinking with respect to that data? -
Tom Dayton at 17:32 PM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Cowboy, the part of that quote that makes it consistent with this Skeptical Science post is "...in concert with increased volcanism and possible changes in ocean current patterns." -
Cowboy at 17:14 PM on 23 February 2010What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Is it not true that... "The longest minimum on record, the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, lasted an incredible 70 years. Sunspots were rarely observed and the solar cycle seemed to have broken down completely. The period of quiet coincided with the Little Ice Age, a series of extraordinarily bitter winters in Earth's northern hemisphere. Many researchers are convinced that low solar activity, acting in concert with increased volcanism and possible changes in ocean current patterns, played a role in that 17th century cooling." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
