Recent Comments

Prev  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  2478  2479  2480  2481  2482  2483  2484  2485  2486  2487  Next

Comments 123951 to 124000:

123951. mazibuko at 15:38 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        There is much to do in the comments here about statistical significance. The post and some commenters have rightly pointed out that it is harder to reject the null hypothesis when sample sizes are small, particularly if the effect (in this case the trend in temperatures) is small. Two other points worth mentioning: 1. the significance level chosen for rejecting the null hypothesis is somewhat arbitrary; 2) choosing a particular null hypothesis entails making assumptions. Regarding the first point, Dr. Jones used the conventional 95 % threshold. What if he had selected 90 %? The trend might well be significant at that level. One the second point, choosing to test for whether the climate has warmed over the past 15 years (null hypothesis: there has been no change in global temperatures over the past 15 years) does not seem like a particularly useful test, given that climate is typically defined as the average conditions over 30 years. Finally, many branches of science (e.g. applied ecology) are moving away from hypothesis testing, in large part because of the aforementioned arbitrariness, and increasingly relying on Information theory, predictive ability, and related approaches.
123952. Marcus at 15:28 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Jon, you are so seriously *off whack* that its barely worth responding, but I will anyway, so lets start with this: If what you were saying were true, that CO2 was simply transporting heat out into space, then why are we seeing a warming trend over the last 60 years (a time of declining solar irradiance)? Why are satellites showing a reduction in the emissions of IR radiation-in the wavelength which we *know* CO2 absorbs-into space over the last 30 years? Why has the stratosphere been *cooling* for the last 30 years (it would warm if CO2 were transporting heat into the upper atmosphere)? Why was the planet so much warmer during the pre-Quaternary Era, when the sun was significantly cooler? If this additional CO2 is so good for plant life, then why are we not seeing a significant rise in plant biomass? In fact, like any trace element, CO2 can become *harmful* for certain types of plants above a certain concentration-& there is a threshold above which additional CO2 has negligible impact on plant growth. Indeed, the warming for which CO2 is believed to be responsible can hasten senescence, which will result in a *reduction* in total biomass, & rising CO2 levels has been found to make certain crops less nutritious &-in some cases-even downright toxic. Yes plant biomass adapted to much higher levels of CO2 in the past, but they had *millions* of years to adapt, compared to mere decades. Also, its highly unlikely we're ever going to see the vast primeval forests of the Carboniferous Era-with their enormous trees-any time in the near future, so it is people like *YOU* are being reckless in assuming that we can just "reset" our atmosphere to Carboniferous Era levels without it having a detrimental impact on Quaternary Era life. However, the fact that you reject the science put forward by 70rn, but embrace the melodramatic rantings of rmbraun123 prove to me that you're not interested in *facts*, just your own sense of self-importance, which makes you a classic sufferer of the D-K effect!
123953. JonMoseley at 15:18 PM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        This entire discussion is flawed by the lack of a standard against which to measure what is "too much" or "enough" or "too little to be a problem." There is of course no science whatsoever - none, nada, no how -- to establish that OUTSIDE THE LABORATORY CO2 causes the Earth to warm. As I note elsewhere, CONVECTION is a dominant mechanism in the atmosphere that MOVES heat from the Earth's surface up to near space, where the heat is radiated to outer space. CO2 in the atmosphere MOVES. It is not anchored in place. So if CO2 absorbs heat, AND THEN MOVES by convection (as it must), this may simply increase the efficiency of the cooling mechanism of convection. Heat trapped near the Earth's surface is transported more efficiently to the upper atmosphere, and radiated into outer space. The point being that what we observe in the laboratory where a sample of gas is TRAPPED and unable to move is not meaningful for predicting how CO2 behaves int he open atmosphere. However, the question of what is the "RIGHT" amount is not science. It is simply an ego-centric and subjective belief.
123954. JonMoseley at 15:10 PM on 16 February 2010
        Working out future sea level rise from the past
        As for the orbital variations, you are all missing the boat quite dramatically. Review the analysis of "THE SWINGING SUN" by Dr. Landscheidt. The planets DO NOT technically revolve around the sun. ALL the bodies in the solar system revolve around the CENTER OF MASS of the solar system. This cuases the sun to "orbit" around a point which is NOT the physical center of the sun, but is the center of mass. The Jovian planets cause the sun to swing around a point in between the sun and the Jovian planets (though extremely close to the sun if not within it). This motion causes the sun -- a mass of plasma -- to slosh around the center of mass in a complex series of cycles ranging from the 11 year sunspot cycle (really 22 years) to 78 years, 170 years, hundreds of years ,and thousands of years. Take a large bowl of water and spin around. Watch the water. The sun's motion around the center of mass of the solar system creates pressure waves and variations in the sun.
123955. Tom Dayton at 15:06 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        hallewis, the consideration of the length of sample needed to detect a signal against the noise is an example of statistical power. It is a completely legitimate and important topic in statistics, but one that typically is not covered adequately, if at all, in high school and even college statistics and science classes. Here is just one of many introductions to statistical power. Phil Jones does not have a "limited knowledge of statistics." His comments were completely appropriate.
123956. JonMoseley at 15:05 PM on 16 February 2010
        Working out future sea level rise from the past
        First, the greatest factor in sea levels is the shape of the ocean floor determined by plate tectonics. The effect of plate tectonics creating massive chasms and mountains reshapes the "basin" in which the world's ocean water sits, affecting sea levels far more than any other factor. Second, if there were global warming, it would INCREASE the amount of snow, sleet, and rain on the polar regions. The polar ice caps would be GROWING if there were global warming, not shrinking. Sea levels would FALL, not rise. Evaporation from the ocean's surface (even below the boiling point temperature) accelerates when the water is warmer. An increase in the temperature of the ocean's surface would cause an increase in the humidity of the atmosphere, which -- EVENTUALLY (complex to be sure) -- would increase the humidity world wide. More water vapor in the atmosphere would precipitate when coming into contact with the colder air at the poles. Yes, the vast majority of the evaporation would precipitate at warmer climes, but there would still be a net INCREASE in the precipitation in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Third, the temperature at the polar regions remains below the freezing point of water year-round. The temperature at Antarctica's coastline in Summer was -15 degrees C. An increase from -15 to -13.4 degrees C leaves the temperature still below freezing. How does ice melt below the freezing point of water?
123957. ejo60 at 14:56 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        I have lost my confidence in some media because they are making too many errors in reporting climate science. Also, I refuse to believe their errors are bad luck, it seems more like harassment by an overactive anti IPCC lobby group. In the Netherlands it is the Telegraaf and Elsevier that show this behavior. My policy is to avoid those media, moreover if you need to say something then insist that they start with a written press release and that you get to see their text prior to publication.
123958. David Horton at 14:43 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        It is as if he is having a polite chat in a seminar with colleagues who understand the subtleties of statistics and regression lines and variability and natural variation masking trends. He must surely have known that saying this on tv in the way he did would feed the deniaworld crazies?
123959. hallewis at 14:41 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        This is statistical garbage, and I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know it. To say that something isn't statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, but would be if you look a longer sample is to predict that you know what the longer sample will be, which in turn means that you take the lower significance as significant. He seems (as quoted. and I grant that he may have been misquoted) to have a limited knowledge of statistics.
123960. JonMoseley at 14:41 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        In post 64 70rn retreats into the known, to hide what is not known, arguing: "That co2 has absorption/emission towards the peak output of surface radiation is is well quantified ( I can give specifics if you like), the effect isn't an arcane knowledge, its ability to provide energy to the atmosphere has been known since the late 19th century by various disparate observers." This however, is irrelevant. The question is not what CO2 does in the laboratory but what it does in the extremely complex global eco-system and atmosphere. 70m repeats the fundamental fallacy of the global warming proponents. What is true in an overly-simplistic case is not necessarily true in a complex, multi-variable mega-system. First, as noted, CO2 is life-giving nourishment (of a fashion) to plant life. CO2 is not a pollutant, but the very building block of all life on Earth. Animal life requires plant life, which requires CO2. Just as increasing sugar as food to a culture will stimulate growth, it is reckless to ignore the effect of the Earth's plant life reacting dynamically to an increased presence of CO2. Life is extremely dynamic and adaptive, and to simply ignore its role is reckless. Is the Earth's plant life capable of absorbing more CO2 than it currently does? Has the Earth's plant life reached a maximum cap, beyond which it cannot absorb any more CO2? Well, we know that at times in Earth's history, the amount of plant life on Earth was vastly greater than today. So we know that we are not at the Earth's maximum capacity for plant growth. Secondly, how do we know how CO2 behaves in terms of heat in the open atmosphere? Answer: WE DON'T KNOW. We have absolutely no idea. The proposition is that CO2 abosrbs and traps heat. HMMMMMMM..... What happens to warm air in the open atmosphere? Hot air rises. The error is in assuming that CO2 at surface level will -- after absorbing heat -- WILL STAY at surface level. Is that assumption warranted? Can any theory be based on the assumption that CO2 - after being WARMED by capturing radiant heat -- will REMAIN at surface level? And if CO2 RISES by virtue of becoming warmer, then isn't it simply transporting heat from the surface up into the upper atmosphere, where it is radiated into outer space? Since CO2 is not anchored in place, but MOBILE, CO2's ability to absorb heat -- AND THEN RISE when heated -- may simply increase the efficiency of the TRANSPORT MECHANISM OF CONVECTION. The ability of the Earth to cool itself through CONVECTION of air from the surface to the upper atmosphere may be ENHANCED by CO2's properties of absorbing heat.
123961. JonMoseley at 14:26 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Bern makes the same classic slip in post 59. Bern attempts to distinguish between biologic activity creating and consuming CO2, from what is wrongly portrayed as some kind of different or unnatural CO2. Of course, in reality, it is ALL nature. Nature put the fossil fuels in the Earth. Man did not. The fossil fuels are every bit as much part of Nature as a snail darter or warm, fuzzy puppy. The fossil fuels that Nature created have as much claim to be "NATURAL" as Bambi or Thumper. MAN DID NOT CREATE THE FOSSIL FUELS. Thus, in looking for a balance between CO2 creation and usage (consumption), Bern (like others) seeks to artificially distinguish between CO2 breathed out by lviing beings and CO2 released from 100% NATURAL fossil fuels, created by Nature, which Nature created, and Man had absolutely NOTHING to do with creating. Where do we imagine this CO2 came from? BUT, you say, CO2 has been stored -- by Nature -- and releasing it is "excessive." "Excessive" by whose standards? Since we know that at times the Earth has supported far more massive amounts of plant growth than exists today, we cannot merely assume that releasing stored CO2 won't result in compensating expansion of plant life. The error is in looking at only a subset of the total system, rather than the entire system as a whole.
123962. Marcus at 14:20 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Yes John Moseley, the CO2 in fossil fuels was once present in our atmosphere. It took several hundred *million years* for atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to reach more than 3,000ppm-& a further several hundred million years for trees to sequester that CO2 from the atmosphere before being buried under many layers of sediment. Humans are now releasing these millions of years of CO2 in the space of just a few centuries-yet people like yourself would have us believe that this couldn't *possibly* have an impact on our atmosphere or climate. How about if I told you that the planet was an average of 6 degrees *warmer* when this CO2 was present in the atmosphere? Does that give you any sense of the danger we could be putting ourselves in?
123963. Doug Bostrom at 14:18 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        JonMoseley at 14:13 PM on 16 February, 2010 Jon, you should pause for a while and read this: Dr. Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming
123964. Marcus at 14:16 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Jon Moseley, would it be too much to ask that you learn to *read* before you go off on a multi-post tirade? It has already been pointed out that there are about a *DOZEN* sites, across the globe, that measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere at regions far from urban areas & at altitudes above the inversion layer. All of them are showing *THE SAME THING*-that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is rising at around 1ppm-2ppm per year, which is in direct accordance with the data from Ice Cores. It's just that Mauna Loa was the very first observation post to be built which monitored the atmosphere on a continuous basis. That you fail to comprehend this simple fact is *YOUR FAULT*-not the fault of previous posters. It is clearly a sign that you're a victim of the dreaded D-K effect! The best examples of egotism I've seen is from lay-people who believe they know more than scientists who've been studying in the field for over a decade-sound familiar?
123965. 70rn at 14:16 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        I would say that Jon Mosley's primary scientific method appears to be heavy handed use of the caps lock button, repeatedly, at multiple locations through out the post in varying conditions. That co2 has absorption/emission towards the peak output of surface radiation is is well quantified ( I can give specifics if you like), the effect isn't an arcane knowledge, its ability to provide energy to the atmosphere has been known since the late 19th century by various disparate observers. Similarly is absorption and emission is not just noted via the proxy of the atmosphere, but is observed by spectral analysis with in laboratory conditions. Again this not a myth, merely a property of it's molecular structure, which is known by a wide variety of practitioners in disparate fields, and can easily be verified by readily available equipment. Co2 is measured a numerous location other than Mauna Loa, and the consistency with which they align makes it's measurements suitable for use. This is also supported by measures from aerial observation devices. There isn't an elite inner circle, this science is the culmination of chemical, physical, geomorphology and climatological understanding involving countless thousands of individuals . Comparing current scientific process to a single classical philosopher isn't even vaguely relevant. @41 - I believe this to be applicable to your interests.
123966. Doug Bostrom at 14:14 PM on 16 February 2010
        It's the sun
        Dan, I take it then that you are the author?
123967. JonMoseley at 14:13 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        rmbraun123 gives a very thoughtful analysis of many points in post #41, yet worries that it is obvious that human use of fossil fuels is generating carbon dioxide. (Never mind the fact that humans did not create the fossil fuels, they have been on and in the Earth for millions of years before humans, and fires existed long before humans existed.) But this is not the question. The question is what happens in a massively complex global weather system. Plants thrive on carbon dioxide. CO2 is nourishment for plants, including algae. What is the NET effect of a source of carbon dioxide? After the stimulating effect to plant life and the gigantic quantities of algae in the oceans, what is the NET effect? It is not enough to say that Activity A produces CO2, without considering Activities B through ZZZ in the Earth's complex global systems. Because carbon dioxide is a life-giving, natural, healthy nourishment for plants -- a source of life -- it is quite a leap to assume that the ecosystem does not respond to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by expanding plant life, and converting CO2 into Oxygen. A PROBLEM for the global warming proponents: Where did the fossil fuels come from????? The CO2 released by CO2 does not magically appear out of nowhere. CO2 from the Earth went IN to the fossil fuels, in order for it to come OUT again when burned.
123968. stevecarsonr at 14:08 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        The ocean heat content graphic is nice. The whole idea of measuring the "temperature" of the earth by averaging (area weighted) air temperatures 6ft off the ground (a proxy for surface temperature) with (area weighted) sea surface temperatures is just such a crazy idea. I realize the OHC has been hard to come by and even now deep ocean heat is a problem.. but still. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean.
123969. Marcus at 14:06 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        jasonk, I just went & did a quick calculation using data from GISS, & what I show for 1995-2009 is a warming event of +0.015 degrees per year, with an R-squared value of 0.41 (just below the 0.5 needed to be statistically significant). If I look at 2002-2009, I get a cooling event of only -0.003 degrees per year, with an R-squared value of only 0.02. If I look at 1995-2002 I see a warming event of +0.02 degrees per year, with an R-squared value of 0.22. So we have 2 relatively significant warming trends (1995-2009 & 1995-2002) vs a relatively *insignificant* cooling trend (2002-2009). So I'm curious as to what your point is? Well, aside from the dangers of cherry picking extremely short time frames! I'm much more interested in the trend for 1979-2009 (+0.016 degrees per year, R^2=0.709) & for 1959-2009 (+0.013 degrees per year, R^2=0.762).
123970. JonMoseley at 13:59 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        David Horton gets a failing grade in post 15, where he says: "Moseley and Westwell above have seen something, somewhere, perhaps on the WUWT site or similar deniablog, to the effect that CO2 concentrations in the air are variable." Wrong, totally wrong. One a proposition is advanced, it must be proven to be science. Horton wants to put an argument in my mouth, when it is the proponent of the original proposition who is responsible for establishing his proposition. The proposition was: "The reason why it's acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere." This is circular reasoning. This is stating the desired conclusion in support of coming to that conclusion. COULD IT BE THAT "CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere." ? Quite possibly, even probably. But do we KNOW this (recognizing that the global atmosphere is staggeringly complex in relation to a tank in a laboratory)? No. If you have the measurements necessary to establish that to a scientific certainty, then WHY DON'T YOU SIMPLY USE THOSE MEASUREMENTS around the globe, instead of relying on only one location? If you have the data world-wide, use it. If you don't have the data from around the globe, then you cannot really conclude that CO2 is evenly diffused throughout the world's atmosphere. The reason you are using a single measuring station, is that you DON'T have the necessary data world-wide to measure CO2 levels around the globe. PROXY SCIENCE IS A HOUSE OF CARDS, with one guess stacked upon another guess, stacked upon another guess, with errors, assumptions, misinterpretations, and biases multiplied many times over.
123971. JonMoseley at 13:48 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Timothy Chase at post 11 comes dangerously close to returning to true science. Jargon aside, let us confront the fundamental divide between genuine science and malarkey. Aristotle was one of the wisest men who ever lived. For that reason, no one dared to question Aristotle's conclusions that a large body and a small body dropped from a tower would fall at different rates. Gallileo was more courageous than smart, though smart he was. Yet not as smart as Aristotle. But setting aside hero worship, Gallileo put it to the test by dropping 2 differently-sized cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. One of the smartest men to ever live: WRONG A less-smart, relatively untrained Gallileo: RIGHT The egotism and belief that one is part of an elite inner circle CONTRIBUTES TO ERROR. It is a passionate commitment to the realization that one could be wrong which is the greatest safeguard against error. It is not the belief in one's own superiority that makes science, but the humility of believing in one's own fallibility that creates genuine science.
123972. Marcus at 13:44 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        Jon Moseley, I'm afraid that its you who is being unscientific. It is *extremely* difficult to get any kind of significance over such a small number of years, especially when there are so many things which can influence a single year-like the declining total solar irradiance we've seen over the last decade & individual El Nino vs La Nina events. However, if you look at a better time period (like 1979-2009 or 1950-2009) then you see a definitive warming trend which is statistically significant. Significant or not, its certainly not a *cooling trend* from 1995-2009 as some people have tried to claim, no matter how they try & cherry pick their dates!
123973. JonMoseley at 13:40 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        macoles demonstrates the D-K effect of global warming proponents in post 7, stating: "Thankfully it is not necessary to do this, as one can visually see that the localised Mauna Loa data matches well with the more contemporary global data that has been available since 1980," Again, more circular reasoning. If you can measure CO2 around the world, why are you relying on only one spot on the Earth as a data set? If you cannot The heart and soul of science is the Scientific Method. This separates REAL scientists from alchemists, shamans, and witch doctors. The Scientific Method depends upon REPEATABLE experiments, repeated by UNBIASED observers, in MULTIPLE LOCATIONS under VARYING CONDITIONS. How many principles of the revered Scientific Method are violated by this global warming myth? It is a fundamental principle of real science that any measurement or observation or experiment MUST be performed under varying conditions at different locations by different people, all of whom are unbiased. Even if you imagine that there are no factors influencing the measurements, you cannot possibly know that for certain. Thus it is a fundamental requirement for genuine science that NO measurement can ever be valid if taken in only one location.
123974. jasonk at 13:39 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling? No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. in (B) - is positive for an upward temp increase and there is 'almost' statistical significance with 1995 to 2009. a +0.12 up trend. in (C) - the 2002 to present shows a -0.12 down trend...but is not statistically significant because it is a shorter time frame. now, i am not a mathematician but i think if you add +0.12 with -0.12 the answer would be zero. no net gain or net loss...exactly zero. thus, how can things be warming +0.12 per decade and then cooling -0.12 per decade be interpreted as temperature gain? remember that: E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible? I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. remember that 100% confident is still a 100% opinion. there is evidence that smoking can cause cancer but it is not 100% of time. is smoking good for any body? absolutely not. this is just an example that NOTHING in science is 100%. to say so is 100% subjective opinion.
123975. bcbwilla at 13:33 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        That was quick - you're on top of things! I've been seeing this article all over the place, and I became extremely frustrated after reading the original BBC interview and realizing that the Daily Mail was being less than honest with their headline. Although this is not Phil Jones' fault, I do think he should have been much more careful with his wording. Even though what he said is completely accurate and not controversial, it is confusing to those with little scientific knowledge and easy to twist by those who want to get a good headline. Perhaps he should have gone into a bit more detail to avoid such confusion. He appears to have underestimated the quote mining ability of others.
123976. JonMoseley at 13:32 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        To be valid science, one must state that a measurement that is not statistically significant is equivalent to ZERO.
123977. JonMoseley at 13:29 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        Ah, NO.... You claim to be lecturing the public on lack of scientific understanding or knowledge, but your arguments are not scientifically correct. Any measured change or trend that is not statistically significant DOES NOT EXIST scientifically. What "statistically significant" means is that any apparent change is smaller than the accuracy of the means for measuring the change. Thus, scientifically, a trend that is not statistically significant DOES NOT EXIST, and must be treated as ZERO for the purposes of valid science. Furthermore, the observed results are in conflict with the predictions of the computer models. Therefore, the computer models are wrong. Since we have no experimental (i.e., scientific) data whatsoever to support the idea of man-made global warming, and are relying only on the computer models, the invalidity of the computer models destroys the entire global warming alarmist argument.
        Response: "Since we have no experimental (i.e., scientific) data whatsoever to support the idea of man-made global warming..."
        
        Can I suggest you read the article to the end to see experimental data besides the HadCRUT record. Then I recommend Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming.
123978. yocta at 13:29 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        What's distressing about this article or maybe a sad reflection of its readership but: One of the comments most highly rated"(1510 votes) include: ...and so the scam of AGW begins to unravel! One of the comments most lowly rated has 1079 votes against containing the phrase: ... humans ARE having an impact on climate change.
123979. Marcus at 13:28 PM on 16 February 2010
        Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
        Actually, John, it's funny you should mention this. On Media Watch here in Australia, they made reference to the supposed claim by former IPCC director-Sir John Houghton-that "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen,". Turns out that the first actual use of that "quote" (supposedly from 1994) was actually 2006-by an Australian journalist by the name of Piers Ackerman. He claimed he got the "quote" from Houghton's book "Global Warming, The Complete Briefing". Guess what, though? That quote does *not* exist in *any* edition of that book-so its just been invented, from whole cloth, by the contrarians to cast aspersions on those concerned with global warming! Personally, I hope Phil Jones sues the Daily Mail & I hope Houghton sues The Sunday Telegraph. Maybe if these newspapers (thought I hesitate to use the term for these rags) face a huge price for their slanderous comments, they might be less likely to make such comments in the future! Anyway, check out the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2820429.htm
123980. Bern at 12:45 PM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        rmbraun123 at #41: Regarding your concern about CO2 & CH4 emitted/breathed out by humans and livestock - they would not be a problem, if the only source of that carbon was biological. If you source your carbon from plants, algae, & other biomass, then that carbon is coming *from* the atmosphere, and you are emitting it back into the atmosphere, so the balance doesn't change. CH4 may be a bit of an issue, as it's a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but that's not a huge concern compared to the use of fossil carbon, which has been geosequestered for literally hundreds of millions of years, in some cases. Actually, when you look at it, even *that* carbon is sourced from nature, and much will ultimately be returned to nature via volcanic action. The problem, though, is that's a hundred-million-year cycle, and we're taking that material & dumping it back into the atmosphere in a few centuries, when the carbon-storing part of the cycle takes millions of years. So the problem isn't that we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the world. The problem is that a large proportion of it is naturally 'locked up', which we are now liberating. The solution (well, one of them, anyway) is to stop using geo-sequestered carbon to power our economies. I find it amusing that one of the main efforts being supported by governments (particularly in Australia) is about trying to re-sequester the carbon after we've dug it up & burned it...
123981. Dan Pangburn at 12:12 PM on 16 February 2010
        It's the sun
        The paper at the link at post 523 is an engineering analysis using the first law of thermodynamics applied to credible published data. It is very common to look at sunspots in terms of either just the number of them at any time or some time factor relating to a solar cycle. It should be obvious that a short wide solar cycle would have the same influence on planet energy as a tall narrow solar cycle. The way to take both number and time in to account is with the time-integral of sunspot number. I have found lots of papers that considered just sunspot number or just a time factor where they found poor correlation. However, I know of no other papers that considered the time-integral of sunspot number which has excellent correlation with measured temperature anomalies. The ESST for the last 114 years…and counting is defined as 32 year up trends followed by 32 year downtrends in a repeated 64 year cycle of magnitude 0.45 C and peaks in 1941 and 2005. When anomalies from the ESST cycle are combined with the equivalent anomalies from the sunspot time-integral calculation, the result is an excellent prediction of average global temperature anomalies since 1895. There are many ocean currents. PDO, ENSO, AMO, etc. and they are all occurring at the same time. Each of the currents has its own cycle time and phase relation with respect to the other currents. The NET effect of all of these currents since 1895 apparently matches the numerical cycle defined above. Prior to 1895 the phase relation may not have resulted in producing the noted temperatures or possibly the temperature measurements were inaccurate. As stated in the paper, future temperature anomalies depend on future sunspot numbers and future [ESST] behavior neither of which has been confidently predicted. When these can be predicted, then the model will predict future agt. Until then the model, which shows no signs of being wrong since 1895, provides the best estimate. It is certainly better than the IPCC prediction which has failed miserably for years. The perception that the only influence that the sun has on earth’s climate is by total solar radiation (TSI) is apparently wrong. In a separate analysis, I discovered that average global temperature is sensitive to average cloud altitude which determines average cloud temperature and thus the rate at which the clouds and thus the planet radiates energy to space. Others have shown that fewer sunspots correlate with more low level clouds. The overall mechanism sequence is: Fewer sunspots; reduced solar magnetic shielding of earth; increased galactic cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere; increased low-level clouds; lower average cloud altitude; higher average cloud temperature; increased cloud-to-space radiation; lower agt. A rising temperature trend is going to be the conclusion if our knowledge is limited to statistical analysis and a 50 year period. However, if the record had started with best estimates of temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period the statistical trend would be down. The agt downtrend since 2005 was predicted by the model. The important point in all this is not so much what the agt is going to do but that, since agt can be accurately predicted with no need to consider change to the level of any ghg, then change to the level of CO2 or any other ghg has no significant influence on agt.
123982. Eagleeye at 11:54 AM on 16 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        What have we learnt from talking about Plimer Monckton's visit and talking about it here ? As a bit of an outsider , 3 things keep many of us from accepting the role of Co2 as a forcing agent of great note. - correspondents are not addressing the evidence of earth history ( Plimer's beef) where are the earth history geologists on this blog? - the dominance of modelling and experimental small talk and testing is insufficient to carry the academics ( tell me i am wrong about who is driving the talk ) into the place of final respect on air flow systems that are extremely complex. ( the theoretical is important and i do appreciate Berenji and Doug's pointed pieces in particular. ) - the dynamics of carbon dioxide buffering would seem to add a level of complexity I can't find you addressing across the blog . Co2 knob and Co2 cycling in seas is interesting but little talk of water and other terrestrial agents for temp changes .Berenji's well made point about the misplaced concreteness allowed to develop around temperature testing is an example of why skepticsm is not abating. Simply - if you want to be convincing , don't rush it. Academia's enthusiasm for change meets with media appetite for change and we have stalemate .Bhttp://fearmongersshop.blogspot.com
123983. Marcus at 11:50 AM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        My point, RSVP, is that some people who want to retain the Status quo (because its in their own self-interest) massively overstate the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Here's a case in point-my own CO2 footprint just for household electricity was approximately 12kg per day & I was paying somewhere in the order of $2.80 per day for electricity. Then I replaced my inefficient electric hot water tank with a continuous flow gas system & switched all of my lights to compact fluorescents & through these efficiency measures managed to cut my electricity use to around 6kw/h per day, which cut my daily CO2 emissions to less than 6kg & reduced my electricity bill to around $1.50 per day (in spite of a price hike of nearly 10c/kw-h over that time period). I'm also saving money on light globes, because compact fluorescents last for *years*! So my personal reduction of CO2 emissions-though it carried an initial cost-will almost certainly save me huge amounts of money over the rest of my life. The same goes for driving. I choose to catch a bus to work, because keeping fuel in my car for my daily commute would cost me about $14 per day (let alone the cost of parking, registration, insurance & maintenance). By using the bus or train, I am spending a *maximum* of $8/day (& usually closer to $6/day) & am also cutting my transportation based CO2 emissions. Now, imagine tif *everyone* took these similar measures-think how much our CO2 emissions would be curbed, but without long-term cost to the individual. Indeed, over time these individuals would find themselves financially better off (not to mention less stressed because of less time spent in traffic jams). Other measures exist that will have an equally beneficial impact on CO2 emissions-without carrying a long-term cost burden to society-but still we're told by certain people that we can't do it without "massive social & economic upheaval". My point is that this kind of defeatist mantra is completely & utterly *wrong*, as I've proven via my own personal experiences.
123984. carrot eater at 11:16 AM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        Bob Armstrong: The actual emissivities and albedos of different materials found on the Earth have been measured, and go into the relevant calculations. You can look them up. You can also look up the absorption spectra of real materials. Over short wavelength ranges, you can sometimes get away with the grey-body approximation. A wavelength range spanning the visible and the far IR is not a short range at all. You will have experienced this yourself. The emissivity of common paints are often in the range 0.9 to 1.0, regardless of whether the paint is white or black. But this emissivity is referring to the IR range. The absorptivities in the visible range are of course dependent on the color, and the wavelength. Again, if you think memories of your physics class are somehow leading you to a simple insight that invalidates an entire field, you are most likely mistaken. As for quantitative algorithms for calculating forcings: There's a good reason why you haven't seen one simply presented. For greenhouse gases, they require much more computation than can be easily presented. It requires the calculation of absorption and emission of radiation throughout the atmosphere, keeping track of spectral detail (since CO2 and water are extremely far from being grey bodies, with specific absorption bands due to vibrational modes).
123985. Nick Palmer at 11:14 AM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        Thanks Ned
123986. Eagleeye at 11:04 AM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        Find the critical question of c02 buffering poorly handled in many of your summaries . Where is the Co2 being measured apart from ice cores? I want you to show where in the atmosphere and on the earth it is being measured and monitored ( over time too ) - otherwise the buffering equations and their significance remain in doubt .
123987. Doug Bostrom at 10:06 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        David Horton at 08:59 AM on 16 February, 2010 Cook not Cole, Cook not Cole.... Where did I get "Cole", anyway? Thanks!
        Response: I used to always get mistaken for John Cross so John Cole is a bit out of left field.
123988. chris at 09:53 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        Not really HumanityRules. The top article is pretty clear about the nature of the fallacies under discussion and illustrates this with examples. While the top article discusss "presumptive misunderstanding", I wonder whether you might be playing at "wilful misunderstanding"! Perhaps you simply didn't read the article properly, but it's not easy to see how you can have come away with the interpreation that it's about "support the consensus, stupid"! Surely it's about "before presuming that every one else is wrong and you're right, and that the blindingly obvious hasn't occurred to scientists, take an effort to find out what the evidence bring to bear befoe launching into contrary interpretations"...
123989. HumanityRules at 09:44 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        You seem to be conflating asking questions and raising doubts with arrogance and stupidity. If humanity didn't ask questions we wouldn't have science. This appears just another way of saying "support the concensus, stupid" dressed up with some psychobabble (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, honestly!!!)
        Response: I'm a big fan of asking questions. In the example given above, I commend the commenter for asking a good question about whether its appropriate to use CO2 from one location as a proxy for global CO2. Where the comment went pear shaped was when, not yet having an answer, they accused me of manipulation. So my main point is asking questions is a good thing. Investigate, query, learn, fill those gaps in your understanding.
123990. jisabi at 09:38 AM on 16 February 2010
        Why does CO2 lag temperature?
        Thanks Riccardo, I appreciate your help. I understand the mechanisms for glacial termination, but was more curious about glacial onset and CO2 drawdown. From reading a bit further I have come to sort of an understanding (reading principles of paleoclimatology by Thomas Cronin). It seems that CO2 drawdown followed diminished solar forcing for several reasons. 1.) Increased bio-productivity as ocean currents changed 2.) Increased bio-productivity through increased upwelling 3.) Fertilization of oceans from continental dust (mainly Fe), again leading to increased bio-productivity 4.) As well as increased solubility of CO2 in water at cooled temps. I was curious, because the correlation of temp and CO2 are obvious, but I was having a hard time finding a credible answer as to why cooler temps seem to drawdown CO2, I hope I have my head around it somewhat. Thanks again for your help. If I am off base, please let me know what you think. Reading Caillon was helpful for my overall knowledge of the subject.
123991. Marcus at 09:35 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        rmbraun123, you claim that Malthus was wrong, & technology alleviated the problems associated with overpopulation-*wrong*! Take a look at all the high birth rate nations of the world & I'll show you massive, grinding poverty, gross levels of infant mortality, poor health & life expectancy & shortage of education & health care. Then look to all those nations where women gained status, independent wealth & control of their fertility-& were thus able to drive down birth rates-& I will show you countries that have managed to reduce poverty, increase access to health, education & social welfare & boost overall health & happiness. Yes technology played a part, but it was mostly the curbing of population growth which did the trick. So it can be on a global scale. The alternative is a world groaning under the weight of 10 billion people, where access to cheap oil & coal is no longer a given. How long before a mass global die-off occurs under those circumstances-& just how painful do you think that will be compared to government action, now, to limit overpopulation & overconsumption of resources?
123992. Bob Armstrong at 09:13 AM on 16 February 2010
        Is CO2 a pollutant?
        carrot eater , Real materials are much closer to being gray bodies than to emit as black bodies . Furthermore , a flat spectrum , gray , term is orthogonal to the correlations between the spectra of an object and its sources and sinks making it the appropriate first term like extracting the mean as the first term in any series expansion . I see no evidence that anyone here is capable of arguing with actual equations in which case we could work out the transformation of your non-orthogonal equations to my orthogonal . I think the confusion caused by your starting point is a reason why I have never found a complete quantitative algorithm for calculating "forcings" . I repeat , I find the understanding of the physics pathetic on both sides of the debate .
123993. 1077 at 09:08 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        @46 My previous comment labeled "41" was really addressed to "@46". I am obviously not perfect either...
123994. David Horton at 08:59 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        #42 Doug Bostrom write out 100 times "It is John Cook not John Cole". Haven't you done this before?
123995. 1077 at 08:59 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        @ 41 Very clever. But kindly try to make a difference between "being emotional" which in this context I meant as being insulting and irrational with "harboring opinions and inclinations" which in my post are rather obvious to the careful reader... and intended to be so. No, I am not disingenuous but rather honestly confused by the nature of the discussion, barely supported by reliable quantitative evaluations in either direction and very concerned, if not ouright frightened by the potentially dire immediate effects of policies that could be triggered by a false evaluation of the facts. Back to the very real D-K syndrome, let us not forget that it can (and does) work very well in very educated individuals, if not more so. Proof is in the tribulations of the human race ever since its beginings with an increasing propensity toward disastruous outcomes as the level of knowledge has increased. And yes, my late-in-life financial readings do make me more apprehensive of the "idiocy of geniuses" than I was as a technical individual.
123996. chris at 08:58 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        re #41 mrbraun I assume (given your background), that you don't really believe that animals "by the very act of living" produce CO2. It's an odd thing to say! It's also difficult to understand how you consider that a gas diffusing in an atmosphere of gas such that it becomes well mixed is "counter intuitive"! I would have thought that the non-mixing of a gas would be counter-intuitive. Of course one should consider the relevant time scale. CO2 is rather well mixed when considered as a yearly global average, as is easy to see by comparing the CO2 measures at Mauna Loa with the average over the sea surface sites (for example). http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ "Euthanasia" ??? I wonder whether you might be drifting from the Dunning-Kruger effect towards something akin to Godwin's Law!
123997. CBDunkerson at 08:54 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        rmbraun123, first... don't misquote. The phrase "a molecule of air", which you placed in quotation marks, does not appear in the passage you are objecting to. Replace that erroneous representation of what they said with the actual wording and the answer to your question presents itself... "in a given number of molecules of air". Molecules plural, not singular. Air is of course a mixture of different elements and compounds, but we can determine the composition and express it in various ways; percentage by volume, percentage by mass, or (in this case) percentage of molecules. As to technology having prevented the problems of overpopulation... we have a different knowledge of history. Mine includes several famines and plagues which would seem to contradict that view. Technology has certainly helped to keep deaths from overpopulation 'down' in the mere millions, but it is also very obviously a real and growing problem.
123998. chris at 08:47 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        re #47 rmbraun123 "the number of carbon dioxide molecules in a given number of molecules of air" That's quite easy to understand I think. It's essentially the "mole fraction". Take a volume of air. Count the number of molecules therein (the O2, N2, argon, CO2, methane, ozone, CO etc. etc.). Of the total, what is the fraction of CO2? Right now it's about 386 ppm.
123999. 1077 at 08:26 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        BillWalker at 07:42 AM on 16 February, 2010 wrote: "Re #41, rmbraun123 at 07:16 AM on 16 February, 2010 Your questions re CO2 measurements have already been answered in the prior comments. Human population growth is a problem, although due more to consumption of resources and need for energy, food and water than from simple exhalation, but nobody is suggesting extermination! Education, particularly of women, and access to voluntary birth control have been shown to reduce birth rates and would likely be sufficient to stabilize population at a sustainable level." A very worthy Malthusian response, tempered a bit by current political correctness but still Malthus redivivus. He was proven wrong by the technological advances of humanity. So will you be proven wrong in a few hundred years: let's talk about it then... Incidentally, the Chinese tried population limitation. True it was by legislation not by enlightenment of ladies. But the results are very comparable. And the demographics of Russia as well as the worries of the Japanese and Europeans in this respect indicate that your "solution" is unlikely to work. Long live the US immigration policy... if we can get it right.
124000. 1077 at 08:17 AM on 16 February 2010
        The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
        doug_bostrom at 16:03 PM on 15 February, 2010 Westwell at 14:57 PM on 15 February, 2010 Sorry, fella, that's a dog that won't hunt. Here's are the actual methods employed for measurement: How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa Pieter Tans and Kirk Thoning, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory I went to the proverbial horse's mouth as you recommended... and I found the following rather puzzling sentence: "the number of carbon dioxide molecules in a given number of molecules of air" Can you please enlighten a poor soul - who studied chemistry and physics quite some time ago - what exactly is "a molecule of air"?

Prev  2472  2473  2474  2475  2476  2477  2478  2479  2480  2481  2482  2483  2484  2485  2486  2487  Next