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:
-
Charlie A at 14:13 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
@ Doug_bostrom #67 I'm merely saying that the CRU results most likely cannot be replicated. As for starting with the raw station data, it appears that the Met Office may indeed do this. I don't expect any tremendous changes in the temperature series, but then again we are looking at trends of 0.1 or 0.2 C per decade. Were I a betting man, I would give 2 to 1 odds that the overall temperature trend of the reconstructed series is lower than that of the CRU. OTOH, I would be surprised if the difference in trends were more than 0.05 C/decade. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:51 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sounds as though you believe the whole CRU process is quite useless. That being the case, there's no point in following their method. Instead you should obtain the raw station data and do your own analysis. Maybe you'll come up with some new insights. -
Charlie A at 13:33 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
doug_bostrom at 13:15 PM on 27 February, 2010 "The raw data underlying CRU's analysis is available, the processing methods are known, if there's serious doubt about wagering large amounts of cash on predictions made on the basis of this research there's no actual obstacle to verifying the results." I guess you haven't read much of the harry.txt file and seen how arbitrary, opaque and non-replicable were the decisions on how series were chosen and combined. And how many known errors are in the current database. -
Charlie A at 13:18 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The missing data at CRU is an old story. I tried to replicate some time history for islands in the Pacific and requested the original station data used for the HADCRUT3 time series for those locations. Their response was "we don't have it anymore". UEA put up this notice back in August 2009: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ The key section says "Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." -
Doug Bostrom at 13:15 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 12:22 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Only wimps use tape backup..." :-) Karl_from_Wylie at 12:55 PM on 27 February, 2010 As Marcus pointed out, back in the 80's I don't think anybody knew what a bone of contention this would become. The raw data underlying CRU's analysis is available, the processing methods are known, if there's serious doubt about wagering large amounts of cash on predictions made on the basis of this research there's no actual obstacle to verifying the results. Compared to the money everybody's worried about the cost of doing so is infinitesimal. Moralizing about Phil Jones and CRU's lack of candidacy for being patron saints of data archiving is sort of beside the point. I'd be the last to criticize, just based on my own experience. In my real life I'm sometimes dependent on restorations done from backups being done on an hourly snapshot basis with modern equipment. When we're called to rely on those there's invariably something missing. Nobody is perfect, sadly enough. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 12:55 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #53 Ogemaniac "...I know if someone asked for copies of everything in my decade-old dissertation, I would surely not be able to come up with everything." Not a problem until you ask someone else to spend their money based upon your analysis. If you want someone to spend their money as a result of your study, you'd better have ALL your ducks in a row. -
Ned at 12:53 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The first page of this thread was getting pretty ugly. Let's all take a deep breath and remember that this site is focused on science. Accusations of fraud and casting aspersions on people's motives are off-topic here. -
Ned at 12:48 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter writes: Come on. Latest blogposts, not latest comments. Not the same. Well, then look at the top left: "RSS Comments" -
Berényi Péter at 12:25 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#55 doug_bostrom at 12:11 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Don't despair" Come on. Latest blogposts, not latest comments. Not the same. -
Berényi Péter at 12:22 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#54 doug_bostrom at 12:10 PM on 27 February, 2010 "When a grant is zeroed out, entropy sets in regardless of the best efforts at preservation. If nobody is tasked specifically with archiving data it'll inexorably rot" Not necessarily. "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it" (Linus Torvalds) -
Marcus at 12:18 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I would add a further point Doug. I doubt that any of the researchers collecting original climate data 30-50 years ago could have predicted the politically motivated attacks that the current crop of researchers would be subjected to. Had they predicted it, I've no doubt they'd have made a far greater effort to keep every last paper-clip & staple. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:15 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Correction: checked the geometry and it's a little shy of 400 boxes of research product. -
Marcus at 12:13 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Wow Karl @49 if that's the very *best* you guys can come up with, then that's just beyond WEAK! -
Doug Bostrom at 12:11 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 12:06 PM on 27 February, 2010 Don't despair; check to the left: "Latest Posts"! -
Doug Bostrom at 12:10 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February, 2010 Karl, I have a very good friend who is an active researcher and who has performed many experiments over the years. She has attempted like any good scientist to retain all data used in the course of her investigations, "just in case." Presently there are something like 500 boxes of moldering floppy disks, papers, hard disks etc. sitting in the downstairs of her house. Theoretically nearly all her work product is there, but I can almost guarantee that if she had to account for all of it there would be a shortfall of some percentage. Guess what? When a grant expires, is consumed, there's no annuity provided to fund record keeping in perpetuity. When a grant is zeroed out, entropy sets in regardless of the best efforts at preservation. If nobody is tasked specifically with archiving data it'll inexorably rot. There's nothing controversial or mystifying about this phenomenon, these artifacts are subject to the same vagaries as anything else in the physical world. CRU has managed to hang on to something like 95% of their records going back decades. That's actually a very good performance and of course is indicative of an active attempt to combat rot. Some folks would like us to imagine there's incompetence or worse at play in this matter, but in fact the CRU resides in the same physical world as the rest of us and cannot reasonably be expected to do otherwise. -
Ogemaniac at 12:08 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
49.Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February, 2010 . #43 Tom Dayton Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0gh3ygxsK Is this really a surprise? I know if someone asked for copies of everything in my decade-old dissertation, I would surely not be able to come up with everything. It's not because I have something to hide, but rather, I am a human with limited amounts of time and limited amounts of effort I can put into organization. -
Berényi Péter at 12:06 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Yes, it would be better to post it in that thread. Unfortunately this site lacks "last updated" feature, no one can see comments to old posts. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 12:04 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #46 Ricardo If you lose track of $10 then don't be surprised if I question your ability to handle other money. And don't be surprised if I am skeptical of your investment advice. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:59 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 11:58 AM on 27 February, 2010 Perhaps would be better for "Temp record is unreliable" thread? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #43 Tom Dayton Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0gh3ygxsK -
Berényi Péter at 11:58 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I repost, not the details. Ask. If John deletes facts again, I quit. Average NCDC adjustment for the 1850-2010 period for GHCN rural and non-rural sites. Difference of v2.mean_adj & v2.mean (raw data). Suggests some bizarre algorithm. http://ber.parawag.net/images/GHCN_adjustments.jpg ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ -
Charlie A at 11:44 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The title of the headpost is "Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming", but I don't see any discussion or argument to support your claim that he is distracting rather than focusing the discussions in useful ways. It would help your readers if you had included links so that they could easily look to see what Senator Inhofe actually said. Here's a link to his EPW committee page, with further links to subject of interest: http://www.epw.senate.gov/inhofe Here's the minority report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63 Here's a 2 page listing of recent errors and controversies surround IPCC, with links for further info: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=9cc0e46e-56be-4728-9099-92dbda199bfc Here's a short 1 page note on the relationship between IPCC AR4 and the EPA finding that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8cbf48d4-22b3-4151-bc9a-651cadd62c4c My earlier post appears to have been accidentally deleted. -
Riccardo at 11:28 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, "The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved," Then what? If you loose $10 you've lost all your money? And don't you know there exists the GHCN? A weak try mate, find a better one. -
Berényi Péter at 11:28 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
John, have you deleted a post again? Why? -
Marcus at 11:11 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sorry, my mistake. It is 14C, not 13C-I have a tendency to get those two mixed up-thanks for clearing that up Stuart. Still doesn't invalidate my point-namely that we *know* the most recent CO2 emissions are from fossil fuels due to the change in carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere. Even if we couldn't identify the CO2 in this fashion, it would still leave the following question-if there was so much additional CO2 being held in natural sinks, why did CO2 levels in the troposphere never exceed 290ppm over the past 7.5 million years, in *spite* of significant changes in temperature during the interglacial periods? -
Tom Dayton at 11:02 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, for the real story on the Phil Jones missing data version published by the Guardian, please see "Part 5" of the new RealClimate post "The Guardian Disappoints." -
Karl_from_Wylie at 10:58 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#39 Riccardo, Phil Jones now admits that data has now gone missing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data "...The dog ate my homework" -
wingding at 10:55 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel #27: The CRU email analysis you cite is shockingly biased and incompetent as documented here: http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/example-of-pseudogate.html http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-skeptics-distorted-cru-emails-in.html and http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-skeptics-distorted-cru-emails-in_20.html -
Berényi Péter at 09:54 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#12 Marcus at 23:10 PM on 26 February, 2010 "the new CO2 is from a source where there has been significant time for the 13C to decay to 12C" Marcus, 13C is a stable isotope, it does not decay. Plant uptake is different, but it's another matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13 -
tobyjoyce at 09:48 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@garythompson, In my view, figure 5 destroys your revised statament in AT that: "Since half the wavenumbers experienced a decrease and the other half experienced an increase, the data is not compelling enough to make conclusions either way with regard to OLR for these wavenumbers associated with CO2 absorption" As Figure 5 shows,the vertical grey bans indicate regions where the differences in spectra are significantly different from zero. The legend beneath the chart says: "The regions of the difference spectrum with 95% statistical significance that the differences shown are nonzero are shaded with vertical gray lines." The number of such shaded areas is striking, particularly in Figure 5 (b). If you superposed the 3 charts (a), (b) & (c), the CO2 absorption band would be almost entirely grey, indicating uniform difference from 0 across the band. For you to prove your conjecture, you must demonstrate that these regions of statistically significance differences are of no consequence. Your handwaving explanation (above) just does not cut it. So I am sure where this came from: "...so the bottom two graphs on that figure (which look at deltas over 27 and 33 years) show a rise or no change in OLR emission in the spectrum associated with CO2 absorption" I repeat: the graphs show a statistically significant difference from 0 over substantial regions of the band. You can't argue black is white. This has nothing to do with time windows. The guys at RC prbably are top notch for climate science, but time windows are no part of the point I am trying to get across to you. The points you raised were interesting, and thank you for what we have all learned here. But your article at AT is grotesquely triumphalist in tone and should be retracted. -
Riccardo at 09:45 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, "And it is imperative that we have ALL of the data available for review. Lost, misplaced, inaccessible data is unacceptble" Luckily we already have those numbers even though a lot of people didn't noticed. -
Riccardo at 09:41 AM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, yes, you can claim whatever you wish untill you look at the data. Which tell a different story. By the way, in the '20s the arctic was already warming. -
ProfMandia at 09:37 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
To the few of you who still think the CRU email theft changes anything about the science, I suggest that you re-read the post from John Cook. How can any of you believe that email from a few scientists refutes these multiple, independent lines of evidence. Surely you do not think that ice sheets, glaciers, oceans, plants/animals, CO2, satellites, etc. can read email? Scott A. Mandia http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/ P.S. John, this is a great summary which I will be adding to my site and referring to when I post on anti-science blogs. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 09:34 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
"....Its imperative that we obtain our understanding of our climate from peer-reviewed science" And it is imperative that we have ALL of the data available for review. Lost, misplaced, inaccessible data is unacceptble And it is imperative that skeptical scientists are allowed and encouraged to enter into the peer-review process. And it is imperative that non-peer reviewed conclusions be labeled as such when inserted in reports used to request major funding. -
Argus at 09:27 AM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers … all point to a radical change in climate conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface. … Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes in ice-free water. … Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice have been were found, there are now often moraines... At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea, they have entirely disappeared. - - - The above alarming excerpts were taken from an October report to the US Weather Bureau. October 1922, that is, not 2009. So it has happened before, and will happen again. We should not think that everything is so special for our time: the contents of this site strike me as very centered around here and now. It is 10 years this, 30 years that, highest since record began in 1978, and so on. That is a very short time perspective. Somehow the lack of perspective in the climate discussions remind me of the 2000+ year old quote attributed to Socrates that most people would place in our time frame: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." It is presumptuous to think that mankind rules the earth's climate. There are other, more powerful, forces in play. But we think we can raise or lower the average temperature of the earth at will! 0.33 degrees up, or why not 4 degrees. Or raise the oceans, 38 centimeters up, or why not 6 meters, or whatever ! Invent a figure, and people will bow to you in awe. Ridiculous. Anything could happen, and probably will, but we are not in control. -
Stuart at 09:00 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Marcus: Slight correction to your post #12 - Carbon-13 is stable and the reason fossil fuels are relatively depleted in C13 isn't radioactive decay, it's photosynthesis's affinity for lighter isotopes of carbon. The decay of Carbon-14 means it has very low concentrations in fossil fuels, and therefore burning fossil fuels should lead to a decrease in both C14 and C13 concentrations in the atmosphere (according to the Suess effect), but C14 is complicated by factors such as nuclear testing which greatly increased the atmospheric concentration. -
dhogaza at 08:42 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
If there is a fraud trial it will be interesting to see what the lawyers make of it all.
One word for you: Dover. -
shargash at 08:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The Economist online has a good take on the Phil Jones misquote: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/. -
Riccardo at 08:32 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, wrong analogy, there's not third party. We do not need any "third party" to judge. We all know the context and we know what has been written. No need to have someone else in between. -
kwinters79 at 07:49 AM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Berényi Péter (61) wrote: "Kinematics, uniform acceleration. You've forgotten to divide by 2." I see the confusion. As Jeff (63) pointed out, I took your statement about fitting a quadratic function to be in the form: h0 + v*t + a*t^2 All my computed data is in this form. Berényi Péter (61) wrote: "Linear component is trivial, does not add much, depends on place. No accelerating acceleration (i.e. no jolt, snap, crackle, pop, etc.), no scare." The linear rise rate is actually the dominant part of the sea-level rise projection in my polynomial equation of the NY data. If the acceleration term were dropped, you're still looking at 20.5 cm rise by 2100 and over 42.8 cm by 2200 (the acceleration term only adds an additional 12.3 cm by 2100 or 33.4 cm by 2200). However you look at it, the current trend line from NY guage data shows an expected sea-level rise of an additional 32.8 cm by 2100 and 76.2 cm by 2200. I'd call those extremely low-ball estimates, since the ice sheet dynamics haven't yet really come into play and there was very little global warming during the early part of the NY tide guage dataset. If I start my NY guage data projection fit from 1950 or 1960 (vs. 1856) there's a significantly more rapid acceleration component. I'll gladly post the data, if anyones interested. Though my analysis here is much too simplistic, it certainly helps convince me that Siddall's results appear quite reasonable. -
SLRTX at 07:41 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
1077 - "Science is only used in support of one or the other political position." Your partially correct. The evidence can be used to support one position or the other. We all take positions for different reasons. But the argument doesn't work in reverse. The collective process of science itself is as a-political as any process we can use. The peer-reviewed process, isn't perfect, but it does move us in the right direction to the facts. The process mitigates personal biases and agendas. But the evidence supporting ACC is what it is. Backed up by numerous, independent measurements. The process to get to this point isn't political. Now, twisting the facts, and simply denying that evidence can and does serve political purposes. But, that's not science. John's article was dead-on. -
SLRTX at 07:33 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP - Follow up on my post #28. I see a lot of blog posts and radio appearances by Archibald, but no peer-reviewed work by this Geologist. I did find a critique of his methods at realclimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/ So forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical (aren't we all?) of the point of page 46 (post #5), if it hangs on claims that can't be supported in peer-reviewed literature. -
gallopingcamel at 07:30 AM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
Thanks to satellites we can be confident that sea levels have risen 55 mm in the last 17 years. That works out at about 320 mm/century. The 20th century rise was <220 mm so it seems plausible to suggest that the 21st century will see a rise in sea level greater than the last century. However, the 750 - 1,900 mm predictions by 2100 sound high given the current rate of rise. We may be in danger of missing the big picture by agonizing over what may turn out to be small, short term fluctuations. My understanding is that sea levels have risen by ~360 feet in the last 9,000 years. That works out at an average of 4 feet/century or 1,200 mm/century. My conclusion is that the rise in sea level is a good thing because it will be accompanied by longer growing seasons in the high latitudes and eventually the de-glaciating of the poles as in the Eocene. I don't buy your sea level "Catastrophe". Rapidly falling sea levels on the other hand will constitute a "Catastrophe" as they will be accompanied by famines on a horrific scale. -
1077 at 07:26 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
So this site did become political after all... It had to because the issue is a political and economic one. Science is only used in support of one or the other political position. And in this field science lends itself to be used as the analysis is statistical. Only those who did not work with statistical data can believe that results obtained this way are anything more than approximations of the reality, highly dependent on a number of simplifying assumptions which are necessary but can also be proven wrong. For example normal distribution assumptions, continuity assumptions, etc. So claiming that one is apolitical is disingenuous. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:12 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
allopingcamel at 06:48 AM on 27 February, 2010 How about we come to an agreement? If somebody mentions the word "fraud", let's follow this specification: 1) A specific reference to a specific case of fraud is stated, with a detailed explanation of exactly what the putative fraudulent behavior consists of; 2) The specific parties alleged to have committed that specific case of fraud are individually named, unambiguously identified; 3) The person making the allegation of fraud accompanies their accusation with their own identifying information, i.e. name, address, country of origin. Fair enough? I don't find at all persuasive your assertion that hearsay provided by third parties not involved in a conversation is suitable evidence to support allegations of misconduct. So I remain skeptical of Senator Inhofe's extrapolation of facts. -
SLRTX at 07:05 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
RSVP (#5) I read some of the paper your link points to. It's a bit long for me to read it all in one sitting. But on the surface, I did notice several edited charts that left some details out. Some charts run from 2000 to present, I guess to hide how much warming has occurred before that time. A chart on solar irradiance is clipped off at 2000. What happened since then? It's been on a decline. I guess that bit of information was inconvenient for the document's authors. Here's the link to the document referenced on your page 46: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/files/solar_arch_ny_mar2_08.pdf The author, David Archibald, proposes the sun is driving our current warming trend, but then also seems to claim the recent minimum in sunspots should herald a cooling trend. Am I missing something? He also claims that as CO2 increases in the atm, the ability to retain heat goes down. That may be true (I'll leave that to the technical types here to verify), but he seems to miss that as ANY warming occurs, we do pump more moisture in the atm. THAT enhances the warming effects of CO2. Then he says increased CO2 is good (ah, now we see where he's going with this) for us. Plants love it, so it must be ok. And hey, CO2 levels were higher in the past, so it's just natural, right? Problem is, the RATE of climate change is outpacing the ability for the rest of the ecosystem to keep up. This is already being observed. So, even if CO2 levels were higher in the past, the RATE of increase/decrease was much, much slower than it is now. The rate of CO2 increase, with observable negative changes to the ecosystem, is tied to our use of fossil fuels. Can't change the evidence, only deny or accept it. -
gallopingcamel at 06:48 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
doug_bostrom, Looking at the CRU emails is often like listening to one side of a phone conversation. You need the other half of the dialog to fully understand what is going on. Fortunately, additional context has been supplied by McKittrick, McIntyre and many other folks who were communicating with the CRU. If you want more "Context" than can be found in the senate minority report try this: http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ The "taken out of context" excuse does not fly in this case. The more context you fill in, the worse things look for the Hockey Team. If there is a fraud trial it will be interesting to see what the lawyers make of it all. -
garythompson at 06:34 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
@tobyjoice (89) - ah, the griggs, harries paper - got it now. i covered this in post #67 (6th paragraph) but i confined my comments to figure 4 and not figure 5. i'm sorry i dropped the ball on answering your question but i hope to rectify that now - here are my thoughts on figure 5. the bottom 2 graphs are over a longer time frame and as i'm told many times by those on RC, you need decades to assess climate change (not anything less than 10 years). so the bottom two graphs on that figure (which look at deltas over 27 and 33 years) show a rise or no change in OLR emission in the spectrum associated with CO2 absorption. Of course the spike in both of these figures i alluded to in my post #84. the author offers various expalanations for this spike down and i raised the question why it shows up here and not in the other Harries paper that covers the same geographical region and the same time period. i agree with you though that there was a decrease in OLR emission from 1997 to 2003 but then again, i'm going to side with the guidance i have received from others at RC about choosing my window of time wisely. otherwise i could say that global warming has stopped since the HADCRUT3 temperatures have been stable over the past 10 years. -
NewYorkJ at 06:32 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
One frustration I have with RealClimate right now is that they're having to spend a ridiculous amount of time defending themselves and their colleagues against defamatory attacks against their character from various media sources, while there's zero accountability for those making the accusations, much less people like Inhofe. While RealClimate is doing a necessary task and doing a pretty good job of it, it ultimately detracts from what has made the blog so useful over the years - discussion about science from credentialed climate scientists. I'm sure it will all die down (perhaps when clean energy legislation in the U.S. is resolved one way or the other this year), but in the meantime, where to go for the latest interesting climate studies? ScienceDaily is a nice site, as is this one, which has been a rare bright spot (and growing brighter) within all the loud noise. -
Tom Dayton at 06:15 AM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
Gary, you keep arguing that AGW theory requires OLR in the CO2 bands to decrease, while you refuse to allow any detailed qualifiers in that prediction. The actual prediction is not a short, obligatory phrase of introduction from a paper. The actual predictions are the models' outputs--the outputs that were compared to observations, and found to match. Those models' outputs are of total OLR in those bands, due to all mechanisms--CO2, water vapor, and a bunch of other things. All those are included in the model, because it is the net effect that is being compared to observations. The net effect must be the focus of the comparison of model to observation, because we can't directly observe only the OLR that is escaping past only the CO2. There do exist models that deal narrowly only with CO2. Those models are incorporated as subsets of the models we've been discussing. If those CO2-focused portions of the models were incorrect, the overall model's net output would be incorrect. But the overall model's net output is correct. So the AGW theory's prediction is validated.
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
