Recent Comments

Prev  2487  2488  2489  2490  2491  2492  2493  2494  2495  2496  2497  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  Next

Comments 124701 to 124750:

124701. RSVP at 18:13 PM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        to doug_bostrom "I have neither common sense nor a reputation" ...give yourself more credit. Your reasoning is superb. One of the nice things about having anonymity, as on this site, is that ideas can be shared without fear of damage to reputations. Personally, for a question as large as global survival, its hard to understand how that can even be a priority. At any rate, I believe the truth ultimately "speaks for itself" and will lead humanity in the right direction. But then again, a lot of opportunists will be found along the way.
124702. RSVP at 17:51 PM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        Marcus I wrote... "For this reason, it is unlikely for a non skeptic to look for such a correlation, and that any detectible change would have to be coming from natural forcings" then you wrote... "this slower warming rate occurred against a backdrop of a significant drop in Total Solar Irradiance-to levels unseen in over a century" And I cant prove it, but I also KNEW somebody would reply with something like that about China & India. You cant have it both ways. Either it helps to cut back on fossil fuel consumption or it doesnt. The world is never going to get there if everyone is thinking, "well I cant stop this because someone in China is now polluting in my stead", or visa versa. Similarly, it is counterproductive in terms of global morale to be concerned with what the Sun is doing. I cant believe me the skeptic is saying this, but maybe the science behind all this will need to be censored in order to achieve the desired goals.
124703. Doug Bostrom at 17:47 PM on 4 February 2010
        What the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests
        The first full explanation of this matter I've seen. Thanks! C&T legislation coming up here in the USA, maybe, and whether that happens will depend a lot on what sort of noise level can be generated by extracting "gotchas" out of IPCC as well as whatever other scat can be flung at climate science. Our legislators here seem to be going through a period of natural or forced variation where the "courage index" is at historical lows, so they'll take any excuse possible to remain sitting on their hands when it comes to serious attacks on carbon. So this is a year-- maybe the first of a few in a row-- where we'll see all the stops pulled out; fossil fuel interests have so much at stake in their battle to avoid us becoming accountable for C02. Readers here may not be aware that even as Dr. Mann is vindicated after Penn State managed to construct a coherent set of inquiry points from skeptic complaints, a new and massive round of FOIA requests are being volleyed by the "Competitive Enterprise Institute".* The very filing of these is eagerly reported by news outlets, regardless of merit, as they feed an air of scandal even where none exists. Some climate scientists are even being sued in connection with their right to free speech.** When it comes to "dragging politics into science", remember where the real political machinations are coming from: CEI, The Heartland Instute, those are the kind of entities projecting politics onto science. No need to imagine scientists engaged in conspiracies, you can read about the real plans in your newspaper, nearly every day. What we're seeing are a number of unwitting researchers blundering onto a stage while pursuing their inquiries, doing what has turned out to be the "wrong" kind of investigation. The stage is filled with actors armed with real swords. It's not a pretty scene, not at all. * http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/climate-information-wants-to-be-free/#more-13879 http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B88iFXWgVKt-Y2VjMTdlNTQtMmJjNy00ZjhkLTkyYTItMzA1Yzc2OTZkYmFi&hl=en ** http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/25/competitive-enterprise-institute-to-sue-realclimate-blogger-over-moderation-policy/
124704. David Horton at 17:44 PM on 4 February 2010
        What the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests
        Blind Freddie knows forests, whether in the Amazon, or Australia, are stressed by drought and high temperatures (not to mention fires). From my window I can see Eucalypt forest which visibly changes appearance (I presume as leaves fall, or change orientation, or are reduced in size, or change colour) under extreme conditions. This rubbish about IPCC failures is again (like Himalayan glaciers) a piece of nonsense about the messenger while ignoring the message. "Peer Review" has become one of those terms which is just tossed around, contemptuously by deniers, with approval by those in the real world. I've always thought of the review process not as some magic bullet, removing all error, but as a way of getting your work looked at by someone familiar with the field, who can (a) have some chance, because of familiarity with the field and its literature, spot errors in references, or possible errors in tables, or see some error in logic, and (b) reassure you that you are not living in some alternative universe. Non-peer-reviewed material is the shock jock on the radio, Monckton at the press club, Plimer's book, most blogs (although in a sense the comments on a blog piece are a form of peer review, as long as your readers are not all raving lunatics). These are just statements made, out of someone's thought processes, or whacky experiment, which sees publication without anyone else getting to check it. Non-peer-reviewed papers may occasionally be right, of course, peer reviewed ones may retain errors (no one really knows the details of your subject as well as you do). It's all a bit like the difference between getting a PhD after being vetted by your supervisor and three hot shot examiners, and getting a PhD by filling in a form and sending money to an internet site in Uzbekhistan.
124705. Doug Bostrom at 12:08 PM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        Marcus: "First off there has been *no cooling* for the last 10 years, just a slower rate of warming than what we saw between 1980-1999." And it's great that Solomon's paper advances a possible explanation for this. Beyond Solomon, there is no identified mechanism to explain why the Earth should appear to have undergone cooling during the past decade. More, for that matter there is not even a means to explain a slowdown in warming of the size we've seen, not one on which anybody's prepared to stake their reputation. Solomon explains perhaps 25% of the budget problem, leaving a hole that while not a complete mystery is not actually attributable on a quantified basis to any of several possible candidates. Consider for a moment that the first 3 meters of the ocean contains as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere, that the ocean has an average depth of some 3,800 meters, with the vast bulk of that water exchanging heat with the atmosphere as well as directly absorbing much larger amounts from insolation at greater or lesser rates. The upper 90m of ocean alone introduces potentially years of delay for measurable surface temperature changes in response to forcings. Now remember that our ability to measure ocean heat content is patchy while our understanding of the movement of heat into the oceans particularly as water and heat goes deeper via thermohaline circulation is by no means perfect. We can't say on an annual basis or even over a number of years how much energy the ocean will suck up in a way that keeps the ever-so-wispy atmosphere cooler than it would be without the ocean sink. We obsess about surface temperatures while in point of fact a miniscule fraction of the energy imbalance predicted by climate science is actually available for measurement at the surface. Most of the energy is going into the ocean, at greater or less rates over time, where it may be hidden for greater or lesser periods of time. I don't think anybody with common sense and a scientific reputation to protect will make a firm prediction about the ocean heat sponge vis-a-vis the past decade in the absence of more actual data. I have neither common sense nor a reputation, so I'll say that in years to come we'll likely find there was little total change in the radiative budget during the past decade and that instead this heat has been temporarily "lost" in the ocean. More on ocean: http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal
124706. Marcus at 11:18 AM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        RSVP. First off there has been *no cooling* for the last 10 years, just a slower rate of warming than what we saw between 1980-1999. Secondly, this slower warming rate occurred against a backdrop of a significant drop in Total Solar Irradiance-to levels unseen in over a century. It had little to do with economic activity, given that 2001-2007 marked a large upswing in economic activity in most parts of the world-especially China & India (the GFC is only a very recent event after all). So your theory about warming being potentially due to industrial waste heat doesn't actually bear up to close scrutiny. Even so, turning waste heat from industry into electricity is a good idea because it reduces both thermal pollution (which, IMHO, is a problem we should be tackling) whilst also reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as an immediate source of electricity.
124707. RSVP at 10:50 AM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        The warming period happens to coincide with a period of economic boom (the 90s), while the cooling comes after ten years of economic crisis. It is well known that the affluent heat polluters of the planet have had to curb their spending habits in direct relation to the crisis and increased fuel prices. On the other hand, if the effects of CO2, as the theory goes, has such a prolonged hysteresis (in the order of hundreds of years), changes in life style within this ten year span shouldnt make a dent in temperatures. For this reason, it is unlikely for a non skeptic to look for such a correlation, and that any detectible change would have to be coming from natural forcings. (If this recent cooling is indeed due to a slowed down global economy, it would suggest extra warming is due primarily to industrial waste heat.) Without jumping to conclusions, this touches on the issue of climate response, or what has been referred to in other posts as sensitivity. If an Earth Year was conducted (like Earth Day except for a year, and with participants truely not burning any fossil fuels), and if after that year, global cooling was detected, an index for the Earth's response to human industry could be determined, where a faster response would indicate higher sensitivity, and a slower response, lower sensitivity. Ironically, higher sensitivity would be bad, since it would indicate a need for drastically curbing human industry. On the other hand, low sensitivity would also be bad, because it would indicate that we have little or no control of this situation. More ironic still is that I am supposedly a skeptic.
124708. Berényi Péter at 10:05 AM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        CO2 does play an important part. In tropical lower stratosphere (~15 km), above low level clouds it has a vehement cooling effect. Temperature there can get as low as 190 K. Air becomes absolutely dehydrated (0.2 ppmv dihydrogen monoxide). Up there CO2 is the main agent, capable to radiate heat out to even cooler (2.7 K) space. The more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more dryfreezed air is produced this way. If subsequently it gets mixed into upper troposphere by whatever process and drifts over a cloudless area, a wide IR window is opened, an effective heatsink to space. http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/images/NationalGeographic/ceres_aqua_olr3d_20030804_s.png
124709. Riccardo at 09:55 AM on 4 February 2010
        Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
        Feet2thefire, nice description of an important decadal variability contribution, second only to ENSO probably. You only did not mention that together with the warm phases there are negative phases and that's why it contributes to variability but not to the long term trend. Indeed, PDO has been in a neutral/negative phase during the last and warmest decade on record. As for the models, do you think that in 20 years nothing has changed? And, above all, models can not "include" PDO, the may show a PDO-like pattern of variability as some (not all) of them actually do.
124710. Riccardo at 09:19 AM on 4 February 2010
        There is no consensus
        oracle2world, Nobel prizes are awarded only after a consensus is reached and Stanley Prusiner had to wait 15 years. Contrary to popular belief, this is how science works, a ground-breaking theory on something not yet explained emerges but it needs to convince the other scientists before it is accepted and form a new consensus. In real science there's no definitive proof but a (growing) amount of evidence.
124711. Vinny Burgoo at 08:45 AM on 4 February 2010
        The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
        Don't bother bothering the authors further, Charlie A. The ultimate source of WG2 Ch10's bogus and unsourced 135.2 m/a Pindari retreat claim is a 1981 book entitled _The Himalaya: aspects of change_ by Lall and Moddie. (This source was predictably hard to pin-dari down. The intermediate sources that the WG2 authors most likely used said that the claim came from a study by the first Indian to climb Mount Everest called, somewhat daftly, 'Himalayan Glaciers in the Himalaya', editors Lal and Moodie.) This book is viewable only in Snippet mode in Google Books but that's all that's needed. A search with 'Pindari' returns the relevant portion of a table. Name of glacier: Pindari Period: 1845-1966 Rate of retreat, M/yr: 23.5 Yet more climatic Chinese whispers. Well spotted, Charlie!
124712. Feet2thefire at 06:39 AM on 4 February 2010
        Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
        "The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing. This is due to an energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than is going out (Hansen 2005)." This may not be the case at all, although may not be obvious to everyone why not. And I am just throwing this out there to point out that we tend to accept what seem like obvious black-and-white preconceptions because we don't think of everything. It could be just a rearranging of the energy distribution. It could be that enough heat energy is sequestered in the deeper ocean (such as the Northern Pacific), and it only rises to the surface under certain conditions. Those conditions may be currents or wind patterns that change, for shorter or longer periods. ENSO is already understood to be a change in the wind currents (although the currents, too, might actually be an effect, not a cause). The heat signature (for satellites) of ENSO represents HUGE amounts of heat energy that does not appear to come from anywhere. It doesn't come from the Sun, so it must be heat coming up from the abyss. Perhaps the prevailing currents from Peru push the warmer water down (I know, that seems counter-intuitive.) But where does the heat come from, if not from the Sun? And if it does not come from the Sun, then it is not part of the albedo/energy In-Out balance. At least not in any way we currently know of. Back to the climate, as it applies to the PDO especially, the heat energy under the ocean may well up for periods, bringing more heat energy to interact with the atmosphere. This is all speculation. But I've been following the PDO since right around 2000, and wondered for quite a while when scientists were going to start to realize that climate theories and models that don't include the PDO simply cannot possibly be correct. The Pacific Ocean is the bull in the china shop, as far as climate goes. The Pacific is about 30.5% of the surface area of the planet - more than all the land area put together. It is fully FIFTEEN times as big as the United States. What happens out there, energy wise, in the Pacific dwarfs everything else. And then consider the 1/30th of 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere and the 5% or 2% of CO2 that humans create. How totally insignificant our activities are in comparison. The climate models upon which AGW were originally based were created in the early 1990s. This predated the discovery in 1997 of the PDO, so they could not have included the PDO. And if they don't, those models were (and are still, I believe) fundamentally wrong, because they were missing a huge factor, the PDO. One would have to think that it will be a decade or three of four before we adequately understand the PDO well enough to even approximate it in the models.
124713. SNRatio at 05:07 AM on 4 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        What is the likelihood of CO2, methane etc playing no part in the processes discussed here? Not very high, I would say - to some extent, SWV content seems to be part of a positive GHG feedback. But this is not a fixed, well defined functional relationship, rather it has a stochastical nature, with considerable variance, and several other factors influencing. In some situations, it may even turn out to be negative.
124714. oracle2world at 05:04 AM on 4 February 2010
        There is no consensus
        "Consensus" has little meaning in science. Ground-breaking science is by definition outside the prevailing consensus. Consensus just means it is easier to publish your work. Prions were hotly disputed, and the idea of an infectious protein is about as jaw-dropping as it gets, but subsequently Stanley Prusiner won the Nobel prize for his research. Science simply consists of explaining the most data with the least long-winded explanation (aka Occam's Razor). We use the model that the earth orbits the sun because the math becomes neat and tidy using this assumption. With the earth at the center, the math becomes intractable very quickly. However, when discussing hurricanes and naval guns, folks like to assume the earth does NOT rotate, and a fictitious force called the Coriolis force must be introduced to correct. We assume the earth is flat for laying out a garden, but need a spherical model to use for space travel. Physics uses the wave theory of light in optics, and organic chemists use stick and ball models, knowing they are incorrect, but convenient, models. Everyone clear on what science is now? The Asch conformity experiments in psychology show people will knowingly lie to conform when comparing lines on a piece of paper. No ambiguity. Other experiments show the less people know about a topic, the more they conform. What happens when you have an enormously complex chaotic non-linear system (aka climate) whose inputs and outputs are not well understood, and conclusions are presented as unequivocable? The bottom line is that climate science is a bit flakey from the get-go, the data have enormous variance, and the field is not helped by over the top WAG predictions a hundred years out. The only reason it appears to have any traction, is because mankind can be blamed. There are far worse end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios with much better data, approaching almost certainty, that would merit more time and resources. Any questions?
124715. Doug Bostrom at 04:38 AM on 4 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        fimblish at 20:23 PM on 3 February, 2010 That's a horribly vaguely worded assertion by Monckton. Short answer: with a 30% cut we'd still be pumping up the C02 content of the atmosphere, adding to the basic physics problem. There's no reason to even to imagine the temperature would decline, let alone show it on paper. "Not even wrong", as some wag at RC says. So Monckton is making an attack on morale, a "psyop" thrust as the military would say.
124716. Berényi Péter at 20:53 PM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        @44. Marcus at 13:41 PM on 3 February, 2010 "whether increasing SWV" Marcus, the Solomon paper is not about increase, but an abrupt global drop in lower stratospheric specific humidity. If it occurs every now and then, it can provide an overall negative long term water vapor feedback loop in spite of positive feedback in the short run. Dynamics just like bubbles bursting, both real ones and those created by stock excange. Also, it makes pattern recognition based data homogenization techniques specific to mainstream climate science untenable. Climate does have temporal patterns, even sharp steps. They are not to be removed from data series but to be observed.
124717. fimblish at 20:23 PM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        According to Miranda Devine (SMH), Monckton has claimed that if every nation were to cut carbon emissions by 30% over the next 10 years, the decrease in mean global temperature would be a mere 0.02 degrees. Is this true?
124718. Riccardo at 19:06 PM on 3 February 2010
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        Hence the single station measurement is equivalent to a local measurement in the pot; it must be corrected with a nearby stations if for any reson locally there has been an unjustified jump. If the jump is real, it shows up in nearby stations also. It's so true that there are non climatic jumps that the corrections average to zero globally. As always, people like to discredit stations measurements with no real reason, just becasue it's "usefull to the cause".
124719. HumanityRules at 17:08 PM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        Chris #42, It's not just the coincidence of cooling for the last 7-10 years but also the coincidence of warming from 1980-2000. From reading past stuff John has posted and comments I've got several impressions. 1)The warming from 1980 to 2000 (or beyond, take your pick) is the most obvious, significant and fastest and has given us projections for the future. 2) Prior to this nothing else has coincided with the warming trend, solar/ENSO etc all breakdown at some point. For this reason CO2 has been blamed for most of the warming over the past 30 years. Thats not to say CO2 doesn't cause warming but you have to conclude that the present discussed process is contributing a not insignificant amount which has to come from warming that was previously attributed to CO2. I agree you can't overturn a whole idea based on one paper (although I didn't see this complaint discussing Mennes 2010) but there's no problem with acknowledging a role and speculating on the implications. While the temp record maybe 150years long, most other processes discussed here and elsewhere have much shorter data runs, take arctic sea ice melting for example. Separating trends from fluctuations is an issue with many climate related topics.
124720. Arno Arrak at 14:32 PM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Looked at Dana Royer's paper on climate sensitivity for the past 400 million years that you refer to. What a great snow job it is! This is apparently where part of that billion dollars of climate research money goes. Running a total of 10,000 GEOCARBSULF simulations for each one of his delta-T(2X)values on a supercomputer does not increase my confidence in his values, just shows that he can do it. The paper basically tries to model carbon dioxide role through the ages and comes to the conclusion that climate sensitivity has been about 1.5 degrees Celsius for the past 420 million years. He shows nice computed curves but it is hard to understand what they mean and totally impossible to check or repeat any of his work. We know that both temperature and partial pressure of carbon dioxide have varied throughout geologic time but we learn nothing about either one of them. Daniel Rothman (PNAS 99:4167-4171) has also looked at the role of carbon dioxide within the last 500 million years and comes to the conclusion that global temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere simply do not correlate over geologic time. His is a direct comparison and I trust it more than the modeling mumbo-jumbo from Royer. Reliance on modeling is what brought us the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the economic downturn that followed. And thanks to modeling there are no more cod on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Orrin H. Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis have written a book called "Useless Arithmetic" where they analyze numerous attempts to model the natural world and come to the conclusion that none of the models can be trusted to give quantitative results. At best they will give a qualitative idea and sometimes even that is not possible when one model says that sea level will increase and another says it will decrease due to water held in storage.
        Response: Firstly, thanks to Arno for emailing me Rothman 2002. What Rothman does is compare CO2 to climate over the past 500 million years and finds a number of periods where climate is cool and yet CO2 is at high levels. This question is examined in a later paper Royer 2006 which notes that the sun gets cooler as you go further back in time - solar output is around 5% lower 500 million years ago. When he compares the combined effect of solar and CO2 forcing, he finds good agreement. More on higher CO2 in the past...
124721. Vinny Burgoo at 14:09 PM on 3 February 2010
        It's not bad
        Re Glacier Melt, Barnett 2005, Kehrwald 2008 and 'Severe consequences for one-sixth of world's population dependent on glacial melt for water supply': I wasn't going to bother with this tabulation any more (for reasons already given) but I can't let this slide. Barnett's 'one sixth of the world's population' refers to both snowmelt and icemelt - mostly the former, of course. Kehrwald's 'one sixth' is either a misattributed misrepresentation of Barnett or pure invention. Either way, it's gibberish. If you're genuinely interested in presenting a fair picture of the science, the least you can do is remove the Kehrwald reference and add something that highlights the importance of snowmelt to this alleged one sixth. Personally, I'd remove the whole thing. Barnett was based on a very dodgy analysis.
        Response: I notice Kehrwald 2008 cites the IPCC AR4 as their source so until I track down the IPCC's peer-reviewed source (most likely Barnett 2005), I've removed Kehrwald. I find it interesting that you'd 'remove the whole thing' - do you think the whole issue of threatened water resources for such a large proportion of the population is not worthy of concern?
124722. Marcus at 13:41 PM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        What matters here is whether increasing SWV is a cause or an effect. The two most logical theories for the increase-increased convection & the oxidation of methane-both seem to be tied in with greenhouse gas emissions &/or the warming they produce. That hardly provides the basis for a "paradigm shift".
124723. Berényi Péter at 12:26 PM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        chris, see my comment elsewhere: http://skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html#8093 The Solomon paper can also be an onset of a paradigm shift.
124724. Berényi Péter at 12:10 PM on 3 February 2010
        Understanding Trenberth's travesty
        dough, it is also expedient to reconsider arbitrary data homogenization techniques used in retrospective "adjustment" of historical radiosonde temperature & humidity measurements. Just documented instrumentation changes should be used and only after experimental recalibration of the actual devices used. There are numerous abrupt downward shifts identified in the record. There is an extensive literature identifying them as artifacts. Having "corrected" the record by subtracting a step-function constructed this way, the overall downward trend vanishes. After the Solomon paper this practice is untenable. What if it's not just "natural variation" but the very way the climate system reconfigures itself to accommodate to increased CO2 levels? In a nonlinear system "feedback" can work in tricky ways. It can be positive on the "micro" level while occasional abrupt topological shifts can make the overall behavior well regulated within tight bounds, i.e. bring the state back to "normal". Let me clarify the idea through an example. Consider a pot of boiling water heated from below. As anyone knows, there are bubbles forming in the liquid and rising to the surface. Now, bubble formation is a tricky process, for each bubble should start tiny with a huge curvature on its outer surface, hence large negative surface tension. It throttles evaporation for a while, but as soon as the bubble gets bigger, this effect diminishes. We have a positive feedback. With very clean water free of "seeds" (like motes or air bubbles), it can get rather explosive. Just put clean water into the microwave, boil it for a while, let it cool, then re-boil. Don't use a bottle with a tight neck, it could actually blow up. And be prepared to clean up the mess. Anyway, in a normal pot of boiling water bubbles regularly end up on the surface and burst, releasing water vapor to the environment. It is a highly chaotic process, but the overall vapor contents of the pot is regulated, in spite of the positive feedback in bubble formation. Temperature is also constant with only slight local and temporal variations. One can see, the negative feedback works on a higher level and requires occasional reconfiguration of topology (bubble burst). If vapor contents of the pot were measured as a time series, then sudden drops associated with these topological changes removed from the record, one would fancy an ever increasing amount of steam in the pot. Putting some substance on the surface of water like oil would not make much difference. Of course it could "trap" steam for a while. Individual bubbles could get a little bit larger before bursting. But neither the temperature, nor the volume integrated steam contents of the pot would change. The dynamics of "water vapor feedback" to "carbon dioxide forcing" can be just like that.
124725. chris at 11:42 AM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        re #41 Neither I suspect. One doesn't need to attempt to readdress and overhaul our understanding in response to every paper that comes out. The observation is that there have been short term changes in lower stratospheric water vapour, the causes of which are not known. It's not really known whether these changes can be considered forcings or are responses to changes in sea surface temperature or to aerosols, or what. The paper's only been out a few days, It will take some time to address its significance if any. It's worth restating that while the earth surface temperature hasn't warmed since 2005, it hasn't cooled since then either (a very short period for addressing "trends"!). However in the past 7 years the sun has progressed right to the bottom of a prolonged solar minimum, the secular solar irradiance trend has been a slight cooling one for a couple of decades, we're apparently in a cool ocean circulation regime, and now we have apparently had about a decade's worth of stratospheric water vapor "cooling" too. So one conclusion is that as this coincidence of cooling contributions that have oddly coincided during the last 7-10 years, dephases, that we're going to get quite a jump in surface temperature (rather like the analysis of Latif and Keenleyside in Nature the year before last): N. S. Keenlyside et al. (2008); Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector; Nature 453, 84-88 I think there's no question that we have got some "heat in the pipeline" at least from the solar cycle contribution. Otherwise this is about short term variability, and doesn't have much influence on our basic understanding of the earth surface temperature to rising greenhouse forcing...
124726. HumanityRules at 10:34 AM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        Do we need to re-evaluate CO2s contribution to global warming from 1980 to present? If 30% less came from CO2 then you have to believe that even more heating is "in the pipeline" or reduce CO2s impact. Which one?
124727. Albatross at 10:19 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        This is my last post, hopefully for a while: " But no one is taking the crap he says at this dinner that seriously." Actually, they paid to see him, so they seem to be taking him very seriously IMO. I do not take Monckton seriously, my concern is that lay people will take him seriously and what the consequences will be for moving forward on this issue. "Skeptics" whom I debate almost always cite Monckton to substantiate their argument, so he does regrettably have some influence. McIntyre claims that "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith". Yet, his actions and choice of language clearly fly in the face of that claim. Until last fall I might have agreed with you that McI has done some good; his actions and revelations since then have burnt that bridge. So forgive me if I have trouble assuming the best in the actions of McI and other 'skeptics'. You also need to remember that there are over 3000 climate scientists alone, yet you seem obsessed with the *alleged* transgressions of a handful of scientists. "I've heard Monckton make a pretty compelling argument for saving the trillions it would take to stop GW by reducing CO2, and instead using that money to adapt to future climate change, should it ever arrive" Actually, we are already witnessing the effects of AGW. Adaption is important, but this is not a choice, we have to do BOTH. Stern et al. have pointed out that reducing GHGs emissions is going to be costly, but not nearly as costly as dealing with the consequences down the road. Prevention is better than cure, and the same holds true for AGW. Regardless, adaption was a featured portion of AR4, WGII, see Chapters 17 and 18, so the IPCC and others are tackling that; Monckton is clearly not the only one to be thinking about adapting. Monckton is presenting a false choice. His argument fails to recognise that adaptation may be an option for the wealthy amongst us, but it is not really a viable option for people in Bangladesh. Those likely to experience the worst impacts from AGW are known to have the least resources to spend on adapting. And as I pointed out to you earlier, ocean acidification is going to be a significant problem down the road, regardless of what the climate sensitivity turns out to be. Finally, if we were to defer the cost of adaption to future generations we are not practicing inter-generational equity, because they will ultimately be burdened by the huge costs of adapting. That seems rather selfish and short-sighted to me. How about we spend a portion of those trillions on reducing GHGs and the remainder on adapting? Either way, just doing one is simply not going to cut it.
124728. sbarron2000 at 09:37 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Just like those "unfortunate" CRU emails amongst friends and colleauges, you can't take what Monckton says to a dinner of 100 AGW skeptics too seriously. Albatross, you keep saying it's unfair that journalists, or Monckton, or I, treat your side unfairly. The CRU emails being taken out of context, never being intended for the public, or Jones having to deal with the pressure of FOI requests are great examples. But then you turn around and treat Monckton's speech to a room full of skeptics (that probably paid to see him) like he's testifying before congress. Monckton is playing to his audience. Much of what he says here are jokes at the establishment's expense. The crowd knows this, because it's fun to make fun of the other guy. But no one is taking the crap he says at this dinner that seriously. You shouldn't, either. And more importantly, if you're going to ask me to assume the best in the actions of Mann, Jones, CRU, et al, than the least you can do is do the same for WUWT, Monckton, McIntyre, etc. I've heard Monckton make a pretty compelling argument for saving the trillions it would take to stop GW by reducing CO2, and instead using that money to adapt to future climate change, should it ever arrive. That's an arugment that rings true to me, and its the kind of discussion I'd like to see more of. There has got to be more than one way to skin this AGW cat, doesn't there?
124729. Albatross at 08:00 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        SBarron, read what he is telling people and then try and argue that Monckton is enlightening us and fulfilling an important role in the science of AGW. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptic-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html Sounds more like a conspiracy theorist to me.
124730. Albatross at 07:26 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Sbarron, thanks for your note. I hear you. That said, I still find your defence of the repeated distortion and misinformation put forth by Monckton et al. puzzling. They do not seem even remotely interested in representing the science properly, period, and I have a huge issue with that. So Jones "hid the decline" in an obscure WMO brochure (well there is much more to it than that as you should know), anyhow, so that justifies Monckton distorting, disseminating half truths etc. ad nauseum to infinity? As to some of your comments: " I realize you think this is some key issue that no one understands but the AGW elite. Trust me, everyone gets it." This has nothing to do with elitism, it has everything to do with a) stolen emails and b) a complex subject that many scientists even do not understand unless they are willing to spend a lot of time digging and learning about the nuances of dendrology. So no, "everyone" certainly does not "get it"! Go on You Tube and search for CRU hack and see what people are saying about "hiding the decline" etc., what they understand it to mean and the alleged implications. Even Dr. John Christy drew the wrong conclusion in a TV braodcast with Gavin Schmidt. You may have read this: http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/06/delayed-oscillator-on-divergence/ and this, http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/ "But these guys are not attempting to sway the science itself, or they'd be publishing in journals. They are trying to shape public perception." And that is what I have a very real problem with. They are trashing science while at the same time using pseudo-science and deception to refute the alleged lies and deception of the IPPC-- bizaree. And more importantly, all the while hopelessly confusing the non climate scientists. I have a very good idea why they might want to shape "public perception", and if you were being honest with yourself then you would know why too. They are not for one minute interested in advancing the science, or the pursuit of the "truth". Their actions make that blindingly clear. "I am fully aware that some prominent skeptics (Monckton, WUWT, whoever) don't provide answers to every question put to them." They are not in the business of providing scientific answers, they put forth whatever misinformation, opinion and rhetoric they can to "shape public opinion". Plimer for one refuses to acknowledge the multiple errors in his book, nevermind actually considering correcting them. In contrast, errors in journal papers tend to get fixed before print, if not then then afterwards by the author's themselves and if not by them then by their peers. If a paper turns out to be wrong, that paper is dealt with harshly, and it ultimately ignored. There are errors in the IPCC, and they will find more. I am not surprised, and neither should you be. The huge difference is, that in AR5 those errors will be addressed and corrected. By creating unrealistic expectations you are setting the IPCC up for failure, so you can then discredit them and say "see, they messed up, they have no credibility". That is disingenuous. You, of course, had to mention Al Gore, what would a debate about AGW be with out drudging up Gore :) His documentary was, for the most part, accurate. He at least took the trouble to speak with scientists. Did he get everything right? No, and yes I am aware of the list of errors. The point is that we are heading for trouble. Do you not listen to weather warnings? Do you want your pilot to ignore the warning of CAT the next time you fly because the NWS did not forecast its location correctly the last time? I would have preferred that Gore made a follow-up in which he corrected the errors, and in which he expanded on some aspects. Interestingly, if he were to do a follow-up, while correcting the alleged "alarmist" statements he will have to make more sobering projections about the cryosphere and sea level rise than he did originally. the "skeptics" should be careful what they wish for. "It’s highly likely that CO2 increases over the past 50 years are adding to global warming. But how much so is still very much in doubt. So the science is NOT settled." You are grossly overstating the uncertainty involved, that is just the flip side of being "alarmist". Is the science settled? I do not believe that, so please don't lump me in with that line of thinking. The problem Sbarron is that the science is not settled and never will be. Well, ain't that a convenient excuse for doing nothing, if that is your criterion for actually doing something then I'm afraid that is not a) responsible and b) pragmatic and c) realistic. How does one even live in a world when one demands certainty? If SCAR calculates that sea-levels could rise by 1.5 to 2.0 m by 2100 (and that they will continue to rise beyond that), and we know that globally 160 million people live less than 1 m above sea level. Do you require absolute certainty before acting, or wait until the water is around your ankles? You might feel a little differently about impacts of se-level rise if you happened to live in Bangladesh.... While the science of global warming is not settled, we have known for decades now that we are very likely facing a serious situation in the coming 100 years (and beyond) if we continue with business as usual. The world's leading climate scientists and related disciplines get it, the leading policy makers (including economists) get it, the insurance companies get it. Interestingly, almost all of the advocates against AGW (those who steadfastly refuse to get it) have or have had ties with big business and/or with the FF industry. That is a fact. Back to uncertainty. We do not live in a world of certainty. The IPCC in AR4 went to a great deal of trouble to qunatify the uncertainty of the forecasts-- there are errors bars and probabilities. The IPCC has in almost all its important projections (sea ice, global ice sheets, sea level) been too conservative. That is hardly one sided or alarmist. Ranges for climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 have been provided (read this site for a discussion). The projections for warming in AR4 include ranges. The uncertainty is well communicated, and interestingly much of that uncertainty stems from not knowing exactly what GHG emissions will do in the future, and is not necessarily exclusively b/c of problems with the models. The range of warming expected for doubling CO2 is actually quite constrained. The current best estimate (not from models) for climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is +3 C. That is more than three times the warming that we have already experienced, and not all of that can be attrributed to GHGs. So +3 is significant, even +2 C is significant and reason for concern. To date, all projections have been for doubling CO2. Well, guess what? Because if inaction, partly b/c of the actions of people like Monckton, we are going to far exceed 560 ppmv post 2100. Think about the implications of that based on what we know, and the changes that we have already seen in the oceans and cryosphere and other metric. Dai et al. (2004, J. Hydromet.) used observations to show that globally, the area of regions in drought has more than doubled since the 1970s, with surface warming being cited as the primary cause. This thread was about Monckton and Plimer, that is why a was "trashing" them, and you should be too if you are being objective and if you claim to support good science. As for GP, yes, they tend to exagerrate. WWF, not so much. When they do make the mistake of dramatizing facts in order to get people's attention, and that hurts the credibility of the science. So yes, that aspect bugs me no end too. So one has to strike a balance, and from history we know that is a lot more difficult than it would appear. Right now, many agree that the IPCC is striking a good balance, understating many consequences of AGW, while sometimes making some mistakes in the other direction (e.g., the Himalayan glacier flop). If it is a choice between a self-proclaimed climate skeptic/scientist with an agenda or some political or pseudo-science blog on the internet (and I do NOT include this site in that list), I am going to choose the collective/integrated science and knowledge amassed over many decades by thousands of scientists everytime. Monckton et al. are doing society and science a huge disservice, it is sda that many are compleyely blind to that, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them. If in the unlikely event climate sensitivity turns out to be only +1C for doubling CO2, then we can thank our lucky stars! But do you really want to take that huge risk? That said, the "acidification" of the oceans from elevated CO2 requires no warming, so acidification alone is a huge reason for reducing our GHG emissions. I fail to see the up side of continuing with business as usual or how doing so is prudent or responsible or ethical. The risks are simply too great, and we already have plenty of warnings signs staring us in the face (Arctic sea ice, shrinking glaciers and ice sheets, increased droughts as referenced above). If we choose to ignore them we do so not at our own peril so much but at the peril of future inhabitants of this planet.
124731. Riccardo at 06:02 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Luckly, we stick to science. Forget about Al Gore, WWF, Monckton and Watt, look at what published science has to tell us. Or there's a plot behind them?
124732. sbarron2000 at 05:29 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Albatross, Near as I can tell, that post got deleted. Maybe because of my tongue in cheek "pee down my back" comment, maybe because of what I said about Mann, the IPCC, Jones. I don't even remember what all I said. To answer your one question. Hiding the decline was referring to divergence. I realize you think this is some key issue that no one understands but the AGW elite. Trust me, everyone gets it. It doesn't make the comment any less damning. Jones was doing PR work at that point, not science. You can't spin it any other way. And can you blame people if they then wonder, "if he spun this, what else might he have been willing to spin?" But I don't want to argue that in this post. My post that got deleted was not an attempt to show that "your" side was bad and "mine" was good. Quite the contrary. I was attempting to show that both sides had accountability for how we got here. And while my post was one-sided in its position, it was only intended to balance against your post to show that there are two sides to this story. I am fully aware that some prominent skeptics (Monckton, WUWT, whoever) don't provide answers to every question put to them. You can call this misleading if you want. Dishonest even. But these guys are not attempting to sway the science itself, or they'd be publishing in journals. They are trying to shape public perception. And you can argue this is a bad thing, I guess, since you disagree with their premise. But from 1990 until about 4 months ago, groups like WWF, Greenpeace, Al Gore, and dozens of others had already convinced most of the world that the science on AGW was settled. And yet while you rail against the injustices heaped upon us by the likes of Monckton and WUWT, you ignore the effects something like "An Unfortunate Truth" had on public perception. Who's being one-sided here? It’s highly likely that CO2 increases over the past 50 years are adding to global warming. But how much so is still very much in doubt. So the science is NOT settled. The public needs to know that. So next time you’re bashing Monckton's "gross and continued deception," think about what he is saying in the context of his debate with Al Gore, et al. And forgive him some artistic hyperbole aimed at wowing the crowd. Or don't. But if not, then when you're trashing Monckton next time, trash Al Gore or WWF a little too. They are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is not science.
124733. Albatross at 03:54 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Peter, I am surprised that Pinto and Pinto simply used the dry-bulb temperature in their analysis. As I and others have explained to you, an increase in temperature alone is not a sufficient condition to initiate convection or trigger more storms. Yes, temperature is important, BUT, most researchers who work on convection initiation or calculating thunderstorm initiation and intensity use metrics which include both the contributions of both low-level moisture and temperature. Examples include the equivalent potential temperature, wet-bulb potential temperature (theta-e), or simply the wet-bulb temperature. See the work by Reeve and Toumi (2007; QJRMS), they note that they found no correlation between changes in the wet-bulb temperature and lightning frequency (quantified by the OTD) over the tropical regions. As pointed out before, they note that the most likely area to experience more lighting with global warming are the mid and high latitude continental areas in the N. Hemisphere. Anyhow, I think Chris has done an excellent job of summarizing what the researchers actually did and concluded on this topic (thanks for all the links Chris), and where we are at with the science. PS: Peter I for one do not dispute that the Schumann resonance technique is novel and neat. That said, I think one should be cautious about making direct links to global lightning activity and SAT alone. How t'storm activity will respond to a warmer climate depends on several factors, of which SAT is only one. It is like saying as SSTs go higher we should have more tropical cyclones. Well, no, it is not that simple. As it turns out they are expecting fewer TCs overall, but an increase in the number and strength of intense TCs. And it could be that is how continental t'storms respond-- in the coming decades we will hopefully find out the answers as the AGW ramps up. For more info on TCs, I'd recommend (as a start): http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/tropical-cyclones-climate-and-consensus/ Unfortunately these complex topics are ripe for being misrepresented and distorted by 'skeptics' and lobby groups (from both sides).
124734. chris at 03:36 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        re #89 no problem sbarron re #90 neilperth, it's a good question. We obviously don't know what the temperature was at the MWP - we weren't there! So the best we can do is to use all of the information at hand that can be used as proxies for temperature. Pretty much all of the paleoreconstructions place the MWP in the N hemisphere near or a bit below the temperature of the mid-20th century (usually compared to the mid-20th century global temperature somewhat oddly). There is substantial uncertainty and in the original Mann et al studies the only conclusion that was considered robust was that the last decade of the 20th century was anomalously warm in the context of the last century. So the numbers I quoted are the most likely values within a range of uncertainty which was quite large in Mann's 1998/1999 reconstructions, and are less so nowadays with much more proxy data available. Incidentally, I didn't get my numbers quite right in my post #88. I think Moberg placed the maximum MWP temperature around 0.1 oC wamer than Mann's...but these reconstructions come out pretty much the same at the MWP - the main difference is that Moberg's reconstruciton is a good bit cooler during the LIA.
124735. From Peru at 03:14 AM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        There is some discussion about a "slowdown" in Global Warming after 2000. What slowdown? In surface air temperatures the "slowdown" was an artifact of the 2007-2008-2009 La Niña. Now that it is over, we are back to record-breaking temperatures. In Sea Surface temperatures instead, there IS a flattening of trends after 2000. Also in upper 700 m Oceanic Heat content after 2003. As oceans absorbs most of heat, this indicates a slowdown in Global Warming? The answer seemed to be yes, until the paper of Von Shuckmann(2009) "Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008". It found a warming trend of 0.77 +- 0.11 W/m^2 in oceans DOWN TO 2000 METERS. Sp for some reason nearly all the heat accumulated below 700 m. Most of deep warming occurred in the North Atlantic, so I guess the reason was a strong Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) that subducted nearly all the heat to the Deep Ocean. Another evidence against slowdown in OHC trend is sea level rise. The mean trend for 2000-2009 is 3,3 mm/year. According to the Cazenave et al paper (2008) "Sea level budget over 2003–2008 (A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo)" the ocean mass contribution to sea level rise was near 2 mm/year. So, let's calculate the termo-steric SLR rate: Total SLR - Ocean mass SLR contribution = Thermo-steric SLR (3,3 mm/yr)-(2 mm/yr)= 1,3 mm/yr This is the thermo-steric SLR for 2003-2008 period. For 1993-2003 period the thermo-steric SLR was 1,2 mm/yr, according to the J. I. Antonov, S. Levitus, and T. P. Boyer 2005 paper "Thermosteric sea level rise, 1955–2003". So we have for thermo-steric SLR the following: 1993-2003: 1,2 mm/yr 2003-2008: 1,3 mm/yr There is no sign of slowdown. The rates of SLR were almost equal. The conclusion is that the ocean still absorbs heat, with no sign of slowdown. If upper 700 m show no trend, then the heat must have been accumulated below. Any idea why most of warming occurred below 700 meters? AMOC Themo-Haline Circulation?
124736. Chris G at 02:31 AM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        @yocta, #11 ++ I think water vapor has a short enough lifetime in the atmosphere that it is better to ask the question as, "What caused the change in balance?", rather than "Where did it go?" Also, I found David Archer's book, Global warming: understanding the forecast to be in the right spot for me from a technical difficulty vs. comprehensibility standpoint. John, just wanted to say thanks for keeping this site up to date and well moderated. I often engage in climate debate in the local paper, and it is so much easier to link and say, Bob #8, Jim #12, than it was to keep repeating the same arguments and counters continually. This site would not be as useful if it were filled with insults.
124737. neilperth at 02:19 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Chris re your comment : "The first reconstruction that covered the period of the MWP (just!) was Mann et al (1999) [****]. This analysis does show an MWP. Their warmest period (around 1150 AD) showed a temperature anomaly of around 0.1 oC (compared to the mid 20th century value of around 0.2 oC). i.e. the MWP max was around 0.1 oC cooler than the mid-20th century value." Is it really possible to measure the Earth's mean temperature to within an accuracy of 0.1oC as you seem to imply by this statement ? Especially when the MWP was hundreds of years ago.
124738. Marcel Bökstedt at 02:16 AM on 3 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        It seems that the textbook "Principles of Planetary Climate" is not online any more, and also not available in print until summer.
        Response: Whoops, just noticed that and noted it in my response above. Thanks.
124739. sbarron2000 at 02:02 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        Chris, You're clearly right about Mann et al 1998. Mea cupla to that. That's what I get for skimming all these documents rather than reading them.
124740. chris at 00:23 AM on 3 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        That's not correct sbarron: (1) Mann et al 1998 used proxies going back only 6 centuries (to 1400) [*] The McIntyre/McKitrick (MM) "critique" analysed data going only back to 1400 [**] Since Wahl and Ammann were addressing very specifically the original Mann analysis and the critiques of MM it was obviously appropriate to use the same data and same analysis period. That's obvious I would have thought. So no "goal posts" were "moved". (2) The question of the MWP is an entirely different matter and is not part of the methodological disagreements (which came down rather strongly in favour of Mann and against M&M as Wahl and Ammann showed in great detail [***]). The first reconstruction that covered the period of the MWP (just!) was Mann et al (1999) [****]. This analysis does show an MWP. Their warmest period (around 1150 AD) showed a temperature anomaly of around 0.1 oC (compared to the mid 20th century value of around 0.2 oC). i.e. the MWP max was around 0.1 oC cooler than the mid-20th century value. If one compares this with the reconstruction showing the most historical variability (Moberg et al (2005) [*****], the latter shows an MWP max of around 0 oC compared to a mid 20th century value of around 0.2 oC. In other words the MWP was (in Moberg's analysis) around 0.2 oC cooler than the mid-2th century value. So I don't think one could say that Mann's paleoreconstruction doesn't show an MWP. Their MWP was pretty much equally as warm relative to the mid 20th century as Moberg's which is the most variable of all the reconstructions. Where Mann's 1998/9 reconstructions differ from Moberg's is (a) they don't have data pre-1000 AD. This is substantially cooler in Moberg's reconstruction (temp around -0.3 to -0.4 cooler than MWP), and is partly what makes the MWP "standout" somewhat in Moberg's analysis. Mann et all might have come to a similar conclusion if their analysis went further back...but it didn't. Secondly, Moberg shows a larger temperature decrease to the LIA (down to around -0.7 oC relative to mid 20th century baseline), whereas Mann et al decreases to only around -0.5 oC relative to mid 20th century baseline. Which of these is closer to reality? I don't think we know do we? [*]Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK (1998) Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries Nature 392, 779-787 [**] Mclntyre S, McKitrick R (2005) Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophys Res Lett 32:L03710 and a 2003 paper in the magazine Energy and Environment [***] Wahl ER and Ammann CM (2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence Climatic Change 85, 33-69 [****] Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK (1999) Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, limitations. Geophys Res Lett 26:759–762 [*****] A. Moberg et al. (2005) Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data Nature 433, 613-617
124741. sbarron2000 at 22:49 PM on 2 February 2010
        Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
        chris at 08:11 AM on 31 January, 2010 The goal posts were moved from Mann 1998 to Wahl ER, Ammann CM (2007). Mann 1998 used proxies to show temps going back to 1000 AD. Wahl ER, Ammann CM (2007), and most later supports of Mann 1998 that I have seen, only address temps from 1400 to the present. I hear a lot of arguments from Mann's supporters like, "Mann's basic premise has been proven sound." The basic premise, I guess, being that its warmer today than it was during the Little Ice Age? I'm not sure that too many people, including McIntyre, have argued this point. The reason McIntyre even looked at Mann's 1998 hockey stick chart was because it showed no MWP. I won't speak for the guy, but I'd guess he feels vindicated that Mann and his supporters changed their argument to a time period that they were better able to scientifically prove. So why would he need to say anymore on the matter?
124742. Philip64 at 21:58 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        "I've been deleting a great number of comments lately (from both sides of the debate)." John, this is off the topic in hand, but I'd be interested to know if you've been getting more intemperate posts than usual. If so, I think it's an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment to the site's success, both in terms of reaching people and in terms of the quality of its content. I fear it is also because an increasing numbers of newspapers and columnists have been weighing on one side or the other. In some cases the polemic has been frightening. One notorious British columnist last week published (on his official newspaper blog) the name, address and phone number of a man who had written to one of his prospective parliamentary candidates, asking him to clarify his position on the climate change issue. The columnist took down the post after 12 hours or so and apologised, but not before the man had been telephoned and visited by people hostile to what he had done. Amazingly, the columnist, who works for the Daily Telegraph, has not been disciplined.
        Response: I do seem to be hitting the delete link a lot lately. And what's surprising is I seem to be deleting "pro-warming" comments just as much or more than skeptic comments lately. The debate is intensifying and everyone is getting a little excited. It's at this time more than ever that we need calm voices pointing us back to the science.
124743. Berényi Péter at 21:53 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        @30/Response: "A good discussion on possible mechanisms can be found at the Wunder Blog" The discussion there is good indeed. This is why data homogenization is impermissible if metadata are absent. Sudden shifts do occur: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/strato_temps_SST.png However, it is routinely done to datasets in mainstream climate science, both to surface temperatures and upper troposphere radiosonde humidity values. Looks like actual climate does have jumps, sometimes even in the downward direction. Time to reconsider automatic pattern recognition based data enhancement. If meaningful structure is removed this way, one may be left with pure noise plus a spurious trend. I am still waiting for references to peer reviewed papers on data homogenization as a legitimate statistical procedure.
124744. HumanityRules at 20:50 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        John if you plan to present what the paper actually says you should be careful with your language. "They observed a slight increase from 1980" "a significant drop in stratospheric water vapor around 2000" Now lets see what the paper says. 1980-2000 increase of 1ppm (supported by increase of 0.5ppm during 1990s) After 2000 drop of 0.4ppm How can an increase of 1ppm be slight while a drop of 0.4ppm be significant? "In fact, what this paper shows is the effect from stratospheric water vapor contributes a fraction of the temperature change imposed from man-made greenhouse gases." What is that fraction? Well based on actual satellite data it's ~40% of CO2. Quite significant impact on radiative forcing over the period of measurement. They also modelled the maximum increase over the whole of the stratosphere and effect was "close" to CO2 "This seems to speak against the possibility of a negative feedback." Whether there are negative feedbacks to climate change I'm not sure. This just speaks against this being the mechanism. What it does speak for is the fact that potential natural variation can have a significant impact on radiative forcing (at least on the decadal level). And secondly that there are processes out there for us still to discover. The equation is still not complete. You can complain about some blogs overstating this but please don't understate it either.
124745. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:41 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        For me, here, an interesting is idea another scientific outsider: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/a-cooling-story-involving-ozone-the-sun-and-the-sea/ P. S. I appeal for failure to use - here; the concept of denialism - comparing a de facto, denial of the Holocaust - is simply unethical.
124746. RSVP at 17:40 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        typo in fourth paragraph Says Figure 2, should be Figure 3.
        Response: Fixed, thanks for the tip.
124747. Albatross at 17:28 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        Regarding changes in levels of SWV, did the authors consider tropopause folding as a mechanism for adding or removing WV to/from the stratosphere? For example, analysis of reanalysis data could be used to identify the frequency of these events and see if there is any connection. Have aircraft changed their cruising altitudes for some reason? Just some thoughts. ReJohn's comment at #30. I think Santer has done research which has shown that the height of the tropopause has been increasing in step with the tropospheric warming.
124748. carrot eater at 15:47 PM on 2 February 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Leo G: Yeah, I see that context. desmogblog had a poorly written headline, and Watts went after the low-hanging fruit of showing that UHI exists in some places. I had no carrots today, so I'm grouchy.
124749. yocta at 14:11 PM on 2 February 2010
        The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
        I think the author has removed the link for the actual text book as he says it is getting published, but you can still get to it by looking at the index directory from the site. (It is a public site so I am assuming that what I have done is copyright ok.) Go here: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ and open the file "ClimateVol1.pdf"
124750. Leo G at 13:24 PM on 2 February 2010
        On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
        Mr. Eater of Carrots (Love the name bytheway) - {It's funny that Watts chose to highlight Reno NV, without telling you that the USHCN's method removes the urban heating for that station. See Figure 8 in Menne, Williams and Vose (2009) BAMS, 90: 993-1007. Link was given above somewhere} The blog that jpark refered to was Anthony's response to desmogblog and another that had declared UHI a non-issue, as in the parrot skit - Dead! He shows where in peer reviewed papers the authors have corrected for UHI. Kinda like when a sceptic says that there is no basis for energy trapping from CO2, and John here, shows the absurdity of that claim. Nothing nefarious really.

Prev  2487  2488  2489  2490  2491  2492  2493  2494  2495  2496  2497  2498  2499  2500  2501  2502  Next