Recent Comments

Prev  2466  2467  2468  2469  2470  2471  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  2478  2479  2480  2481  Next

Comments 123651 to 123700:

123651. Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 25 February 2010
        Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
        Nice work John. And once again more references than I can look at.
123652. tobyjoyce at 04:08 AM on 25 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        @garythomspon (#49), Nice try, and I do like your calm way you have elected to debate this, but I think your amended post on AT has a logical fallacy. You argue concerning the chart #3 that shows the 1907 & 1997 difference 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." What you are saying is that the curve of OLR differences averages out as 0 (approx.), so we must accept a Null Hypothesis that the difference between 1997 and 1970 is 0. First of all, the model curve also averages out as zero so should we not therefore accept the model as a valid prediction? But you are arguing that the model is wrong - hence the fallacy. Hardly a disproof of a key component of the theory of Global Warming. Further, IMHO, where you are going astray is that you are assuming a homogenous process underlying the curve. However, you can see the CO2, O3 & CH4 absorption bands highliged in grey. The question is - are the separate averages in the absorption bands for the three greenhouse gases significantly different from 0? Not sure about 02 and CH4, but the CO2 band seems to be, though I admit there is not a statistical test in the paper to demonstrate that conclusively. Certainly the model seems to be a good fit in the CO2 band. I think the authors are justified in claiming the following: "Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra.The methane signal is deeper for the observed difference spectrum than the modelled difference spectrum, but this is likely due to incorrect methane concentrations or temperature profiles from 1970. In the future, we plan to extend the analysis to more spatial and temporal regions, other models, and to cloudy cases. " This is good science - the authors publish their results through peer-review, are clearly concerned to establish the accuracy of their model, and clearly intend to do further work to verify their findings. Not the sort of people who deserve to be characterized as rogues and frauds, as your commenters on AT seem to believe.
123653. Jeff Freymueller at 04:07 AM on 25 February 2010
        Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
        The reaction to this one really has been in the up is down category. Many or most scientists who work in glaciology, and many who study sea level, consider the IPCC's projections to be only a lower bound on future sea level rise. That is, actual sea level rise is almost certain to exceed the IPCC projections. Why? Because the IPCC assumed that glacier flow would not speed up as temperatures warm. Their reason for excluding a contribution from enhanced glacier flow in the future is that the uncertainties in future projections of it were large based on the literature as of the IPCC cutoff date. In the Third report a few years ago, they had tried to include this contribution, but this time they did not. There are two problems with the IPCC's decision. First, a slowdown in glacier flow with warming temperature is very, very unikely. What we have seen so far is that glacier flow is speeding up with increasing temperature. It is just hard to predict how much more speedup there will be in the future. Second, the major contribution to sea level from Greenland and Antarctica does not come from meltwater running off, but from glaciers flowing faster and dumping ice into the ocean, where it melts. So the bottom line is that the IPCC projection excluded a component that is highly uncertain, but almost certainly positive. Sea level rise will almost certainly be faster than the IPCC projection, but there is disagreement on how much faster. That's the context of the Siddall paper. They got a relatively low projected future rate, which would have been a fairly big deal given that a lot of other work in the last few years has pointed to much higher rates. John is absolutely right -- the authors retracted their paper's conclusions of low future sea level rise, because when they fixed their error, they get a much higher future prediction. They explained the error in the retraction letter. Their basic method was sound. But the time step they used in the integration of their model was too long to be used for 20th century sea level rise and 21st century predictions. Effectively, by using a time step that was appropriate only for reconstruction over a much longer time scale, they smoothed out the recent and projected rise, getting a lowball estimate.
123654. SLRTX at 03:06 AM on 25 February 2010
        Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
        "Skeptics" (we'll call them that for now) confuse the facts supporting anthropogenic climate change (ACC), and the effects of those changes. Estimations of changes to sea levels falls into the category of effects of ACC. Whether or not the models to project the effects of ACC were off a bit still does not change the facts supporting ACC.
123655. chparadise at 03:04 AM on 25 February 2010
        Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
        In a way, this paper --> investigation by another group --> questions raised --> voluntary retraction is exactly the sort of way in which science is supposed to work. However, it's going to be tough convincing some of the non-scientists of this, since they don't know just how well scientists police themselves.
123656. Dan Olner at 02:31 AM on 25 February 2010
        A brief history of our iPhone app
        Got the app, brilliant. Looking forward to seeing the results of which arguments people are meeting. There's more scope for simple apps (both phone and interwebs) for this sort of education. One clearly in dire need is something simple to illustrate 'statistical significance.' My thought on that was: a pair of dice, which may or may not be loaded. When a run of sixes comes up, how likely is that to be chance, how likely a problem with the dice (or die... er... never sure which way round that is!) That would nicely illustrate that the level of statistical significance is partly a choice. (Given an infinite universe, after all, it could end up like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and their never-ending coin-flips coming up heads...) Not sure what simple examples for time series could be concocted. Perhaps take a slot of time and ask "are we heading to winter or summer?" (say you've just come out of a coma, in the middle of nowhere, with a stats book and a weather station. How many days before you can be sure?) The misrepresentation (or deliberate twisting) of Prof Jones' statements about significance really alarmed me. Can journos really not know such basic stats? (Or do they just not care?)
123657. SaganGathering at 00:40 AM on 25 February 2010
        Other planets are warming
        I'd just like to point out that it's absurd to claim with any confidence that any other planets or moons are warming, when we have so little data about them- all the while ignoring our vast armada of land and sea based temperature probes right here on Earth (and orbiting satellites). We know far more about the temperature trends on our own planet than on any other planet, and yet certain people use highly questionable speculations about other planet's temperatures to try to dismiss the trends we see here at home. We have laughably few samples of temps on other planets as compared to the astounding array of data on our own Earthly climate trends. For example, we have a handful of probes on Mars and an orbiter. Mars is the planet we probably know the most about besides Earth. With that equipment we can only get the faintest idea of what's going on with the temps there. To use this data (or records from other planets) as reliable evidence of anything more solid than the temperature sampling we have for Earth, is on its face absurd. I would also like to say that there's too much attention paid to CO2 alone. Methane and Nitrous Oxides maybe be at least as problematic. Most of this comes from livestock production. Certainly, getting them under control first will give us more return on investment.
123658. Jesse Fell at 23:07 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        My understanding of the Earth's heat balance is that it will, in the long run, be a balance between heat energy reaching Earth from the Sun and the amount of OLR that the Earth emitting back into outer space. Granting for the sake of argument that there has been no reduction in the amount of OLR in recent decades, wouldn't that mean simply that the Earth had found a way to achieve balance in spite of the undeniable increases in atmospheric CO2? And the Earth has only one way to achieve balance given the CO2 buildup: by getting warmer. If this understanding is wrong, please help me out.
123659. Berényi Péter at 22:47 PM on 24 February 2010
        What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
        #59 Marcus at 12:13 PM on 22 February, 2010: "So I'd love to know how Beranyi has gotten his figures" I've given a brief description. Read it. Do it. Try to replicate. I can answer any specific question, but not interested in what you'd love to do. Or you can calculate July trends from GHCN by whatever method you see fit. Describe the method, show results. However, I can tell you the specific reason I have found a centennial decreasing trend in GHCN July temperature data. Unfortunately GHCN is dominated by USHCN stations. There is no legitimate reason it should be this way. Except it was created in America, by Americans, for Amaricans perhaps. Rather silly explanation. Weather stations in Europe have long and stable histories, still, they are absolutely underrepresented in GHCN. Worse, European record is full of discontinuities. Now. There were severe US July heat waves in several consecutive years during 1930s (see any history book on Dust Bowl in Dirty Thirties). It was not unique to Northern America thogh. In Hungary Julies in early 1930s were 0.6°C warmer than present on average. The pattern can be observed all over Eastern Central Europe as well. Looks like data collection policy of GHCN is more than sloppy. Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (DSI-9100) Metadata from the NOAA Metadata Manager and Repository (NMMR) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nmmrview/xmls/fgdc.jsp?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00422&view=html An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database 1997, Thomas C. Peterson* and Russell S. Vose http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Peterson-Vose-1997.pdf There are much, MUCH more data out there. First thing to do is to COLLECT it (with as much metadata as possible). Then PUBLISH it on the web, making it freely available to all. UK Met Office Proposal http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/metoffice_proposal_022410.pdf Even this porposal is too rigid. Data collection & verification is not rocket science, one does NOT need peer rewieved literature to accomplish it. Just open standards (like RFCs for the net) and several open source community projects to do evaluation. Way cheaper, more transparent, built-in quality assurance procedure developed for open source projects in general. "Publish early, publish often" How open collaboration works: an introduction for scholars by Larry Sanger http://www.citizendium.org/how_openness_works.html
123660. AndrewY at 22:10 PM on 24 February 2010
        A brief history of our iPhone app
        Having a mobile app containing the information on this site is such an excellent idea. It might be worth considered developing an app for the Symbian mobile OS? The Symbian OS actually has the majority share of the smart phone market (in Q2 2009, more users than all the other platforms put together http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone). It is not widely used in the US but it dominates the smartphone market in the rest of the world. It also recently became fully open source, with the platform releases and developer support being managed by the not-for-profit Symbian Foundation (http://www.symbian.org/). I'm not sure if developing apps is as easy as for the iPhone, but it may be worth a look? BTW I am glad I found this site, you are really making a great contribution here, helping people to find the facts and understand the arguments more clearly. Cheers for that!
123661. Riccardo at 19:18 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        garythompson, i hope that you (or anyone else) is not going to use these rather crude calculations to prove or disprove anything. In the response to John, Harries pointed out that one should be carfull in using brighteness instead of radiance: "to sum up all the energy you would have to use the radiance spectrum, not the brightness temperature spectrum. Though they are equivalent, the transform from one to the other is not linear. So, integrating brightness temperature would not be easy to interpret.". The average brightness, for example, is not the same as the average radiance. The correct calculation should be done with the full spectra as radiance, taking the non saturated part (which cannot be done with Harries spectra), calculating the difference and integrate. And even this is not accurate enough as, again, pointed out by Harries. It's rather odd that you think it is possible to disprove science made by professional scientists with a few hand calculations on numbers obtained drawing lines on a graph. At best you can get the order of magnitude, in this case not even that.
123662. Dikran Marsupial at 19:08 PM on 24 February 2010
        What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
        Cowboy @ 81 The argument that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic doesn't rely solely on correlations, a simple piece of accountancy is enough to verify that it is true. The annual increase in atmospheric carbon is about half the annual emissions (fossil fuel + land use), and the remaining carbon has to go somewhere. This excess carbon must be being taken up by the natural environment (oceans + terrestrial biosphere) somewhere, which proves that the natural environment is a net sink (over a full annual cycle). The bottom line is that if the natural environment were a net source of CO2 then the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than annual anthropogenic emissions, but this is observed not to be the case, and hasn't been the case for over 150 years). As I said there are some things known with considerable certainty (Ferdinand Englebeen has an excellent website discussing this and other lines of evidence).
123663. Cowboy at 18:22 PM on 24 February 2010
        What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
        "Cowboy, correlation is necessary to demonstrate causation--just not sufficient." Understood. It indicates the possibility of some kind of relationship, but does not establish cause/effect or the "degrees of separation". But if one set of data consistently leads or lags the other, it can help direct looking for any actual causality. Thx for all the feedback. I believe that going through a "primer" on the science will actually be more meaningful after getting some of the preconceived ideas (correct or incorrect) in better perspective as much as possible/practical first. I'm just pretty certain that I would to some extent be distracted by those things, and be looking more for support for what I might think I wanted to find/prove rather than at the science for what it is. Granted, starting with a premise to prove or "disprove" may be scientific approach, but I know for example that too often data 'normalization' and 'filtering' can be influenced by a desire to prove a premise.
123664. Leo G at 17:12 PM on 24 February 2010
        A brief history of our iPhone app
        A bit O/T - just wanted to let you all know, that it is snowing on Cypress Mtn. @ the Olympics, but raining at my house :(
123665. Philippe Chantreau at 16:45 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        G Thompson: OK, I more or less follow you reasoning. I believe that it is overly simplistic, by far. At the top of the troposphere and above, CO2 produces cooling due to complex mechanisms that are related to the decreased IR reaching these levels as a result of the increased tropospheric CO2 at lower altitudes. Iacono and Clough did the work on this and Chen relies on Clough's updated radiative transfer model from 2005. All of this needs to be taken into consideration in order to determine if the upper troposheric OLR really correponds to expectations. The conclusion reached in the paper you used is that it does. Your calculations constitute a model, whether you realize it or not. I am not ready to give it more credence than LBLRTM or MODTRAN, both of which show radiative forcings at the surface far different from your back of the envelope model. I also believe that your model diverge from surface obervations of downwelling IR. I have no reference at this time but will provide some if I have the time (I have a life too). In any case, I doubt that the upper troposheric or TOA OLR can be used as a measure of the radiative forcing at the surface the way you did. This is no amateur work and it would be nice to have someone truly knowledgeable of atmospheric physics to help out (most of it is beyond me). I know that this is the stuff normally done with line by line radiative transfer models. The fact that the obervational data very closely matches the modeled results indicates that they've got it right. I will readily concede that some fine tuning may be needed on methane. The Griggs & Harries 2007 paper uses MODTRAN, and more observational data than the 2001 paper had, and the 2001 results are overall confirmed. The point is this: both of the papers you cited compare model results to observational data, in order to confirm that the models showing enhanced GH effect got the radiative transfer right at these higher altitudes. Both papers confirm that they did. Some details diverge, as anyone would expect. Obsevations exactly identical to model results would be suspicious. Your ending comment in the AT piece is thereby entirely unwarranted. BTW the Griggs and Harries 2007 paper can be found here: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4204.1 And for Pete's sake, people, let's cut on the pedantic grammar remarks. They add nothing to the discussion. Are we going to look at typos next? Please...
123666. 70rn at 16:33 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        Though I acknowledge their necessity, the first page of this thread looked rather impenetrable at first glance.
123667. 70rn at 16:30 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        A three letter Acronym.
123668. garythompson at 16:25 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        typo in the spreadsheet carried over so a correction to the last few sentences of my previous post. From the RC link, 1.6W/m2 is not correct, the aerosols and natural changes is 0.9 W/m2 so that takes 3.74 W/m2 to 2.84 W/m2 and that equates to a temp increase of 0.23C. Sorry for the error, it's late here on the east coast of the USA.
123669. Jeff Freymueller at 15:36 PM on 24 February 2010
        A brief history of our iPhone app
        #4 Albatross, you read it backward. The claim was that all iPhone owners are lefties, not that all lefties own iPhones. The latter must be a failure of the Socialist International, which somehow failed to requisition enough iPhones for all lefties. The app seems like a great thing. No iPhone for me, though, so I'll just have to make do with the website. I also would love to see a one-stop anti-Skeptical Science app, especially if it could explain how mutually contradictory arguments constitute absolute proof that climate science is wrong, no doubt about it or room for skepticism!
123670. 70rn at 15:34 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        The number of TLAs in this thread is starting make it look like a military briefing.
123671. garythompson at 15:22 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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!
123672. Jeff Freymueller at 15:18 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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.
123673. David Horton at 14:52 PM on 24 February 2010
        A 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.php
        Response: 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).
123674. chris1204 at 14:25 PM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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 :-)!
123675. jondoig at 13:00 PM on 24 February 2010
        It'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?
123676. Tom Dayton at 12:44 PM on 24 February 2010
        What 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.
123677. Leo G at 12:16 PM on 24 February 2010
        A 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!"
123678. Robert at 12:05 PM on 24 February 2010
        A brief history of our iPhone app
        I love my app! This site deserves more traffic.
123679. Cowboy at 11:58 AM on 24 February 2010
        What 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
123680. Deech56 at 11:39 AM on 24 February 2010
        A 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.
123681. Deech56 at 11:27 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
        RE

        Response: Don't forget to post a review in iTunes :-)

        Just did.
123682. Tom Dayton at 11:20 AM on 24 February 2010
        The sun is getting hotter
        batvette, in addition to what Riccardo replied, you should read Climate time lag.
123683. Riccardo at 10:51 AM on 24 February 2010
        The 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
123684. batvette at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2010
        The 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.
123685. Riccardo at 10:37 AM on 24 February 2010
        It'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.
123686. Doug Bostrom at 10:30 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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.
123687. robert test at 10:17 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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?
123688. John Russell at 09:50 AM on 24 February 2010
        A 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.
123689. Dikran Marsupial at 08:47 AM on 24 February 2010
        What 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...
123690. Josie at 08:38 AM on 24 February 2010
        A 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)
123691. Cowboy at 07:50 AM on 24 February 2010
        What 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.
123692. Philippe Chantreau at 07:35 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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.
123693. Cowboy at 07:32 AM on 24 February 2010
        What 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.
123694. Cowboy at 07:31 AM on 24 February 2010
        What 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.
123695. Philippe Chantreau at 07:28 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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?
123696. Doug Bostrom at 07:07 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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?
123697. garythompson at 06:56 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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.
123698. Tony Noerpel at 06:42 AM on 24 February 2010
        Have 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
123699. Mizimi at 05:09 AM on 24 February 2010
        Two 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
123700. BillWalker at 04:45 AM on 24 February 2010
        A 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!

Prev  2466  2467  2468  2469  2470  2471  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  2478  2479  2480  2481  Next