Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 Next
Comments 124851 to 124900:
-
Doug Bostrom at 19:11 PM on 30 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
Berenyi Peter at 08:32 AM on 30 January, 2010 That post sort of goes "splat" against reality. "as soon as solar power becomes cheaper than other sources, it would not need government subvention on taxpayers' money.." In the real world situation in Africa I described, there is no other electrical power source and the installations are not paid for by taxation. "Until that time it may make sense (on increased cost, not exactly for the poor) if there is no power grid nearby. " In the real world situation I described, the users are definitively poor by almost any measure, and there is indeed (as I mentioned) no grid whatsoever. "It is not just about solar panels, battery packs are of more concern (and pricey)." In the real world situation I described, these are not sufficient deterrents to stop people from enjoying the benefits of electricity, solar in this case because that's all that's available. "Earth is round, sun is not up all the time. " In the real world situation I described, that is apparently not a problem for the consumers. They do not complain, they simply use the watthours available. You were describing something hypothetical. You are intelligent and a gifted writer, but you spend a lot of time in your imagination. I was actually describing something that has the amazingly wonderful and irreplaceable virtue of existence. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:50 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
RSVP at 18:18 PM on 30 January, 2010 "I think hypocrites would be a better term given that every computer that hits this site is ultimately powered by oil. " If I prefer beans but the menu offers only toast, does that make me a hypocrite? If somebody botches a gratuitous insult directed at nobody in particular, am I likely to add them to my list of influentials? -
RSVP at 18:18 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
To CoalGeologist You raise some interesting points, but my bias doesnt necessarily coincide with yours, which I find humorous. What I do agree with is that the debate tends to have a psychological component which only addresses this theme through mild (or not so mild) insults. But the debate also has a political cast not unlike the progressive movement that challenged monarchisms going back for the last 300 years or so. The oil companies and deniers are the royalists, and the opposition in fact are the rabble. The problem of course is when you chop off the head of the king, then what? Maybe rabble is too generous. I think hypocrites would be a better term given that every computer that hits this site is ultimately powered by oil. -
iskepticaluser at 17:55 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
YES! The communications aspect is critical if public understanding of the climate issue is ever to reach a point that would allow an effective, escalating and lasting price on carbon. Several issues come to mind: 1) the possibility that evidence - no matter how solid, unequivocal and well-presented (by me) - is filtered through preconceptions, value-frames and habits of thought (by others) before it even reaches the stage of conscious evaluation ("The Political Mind" by George Lakoff and "Don't Believe Everything You Think" by Thomas Kida are two references I'm exploring); 2) the question of how compact the AGW narrative could be made for newcomers to the issue: what is the smallest and most defensible set of arguments (lines of evidence) - supporting the conclusion that the threat is real, urgent, and solveable by doing THIS - that would engage enough people to the degree where they would in turn engage others? 3) the possibility (or need?) to address the continuous onslaught of deliberate misrepresentation (and libel?) of climate science and scientists (can the effectiveness of formal rules of evidence and right of cross-examination so evident in the Dover trial a few years back (concerning attempts to introduce creationism into Pennsylvania classrooms) be harnessed? Any ideas on how we can further explore - and act - on this issue? hdmclean@consciousclimate.com -
j k purc at 13:12 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
An outstanding article on an important issue, well done! It seems impossible to have a resoned debate if one of the parties is prepared to lie. It is even more difficult if one of the parties repeats the lies of others as if they were fact. Trying to drill down to find the source of the lies adds so much heat to the discussion as to make it an aggresive exchange. This is the model for almost every discussion I have had with deniers, some of whom I love. I am now intrigued as to how these otherwise fine and rational people come to be active in a movement which is so vehemently anti social. I think the appeal of the deniers is essentially emotional and science is apparently piss poor at appealing to emotional motivators. CoalGeologist and stevecarsonr offer excellent examples of combining emotional truth with rational argument, Thank You. I strongly agree that slow and patient is propobably the only way to really address the communication gap. Unfortunately it is difficult resist the temptation of a dismissive reply. I shall try harder, by starting at the beginning and avoiding the arrogance I have displayed in the past. There is no quick fix to this or any other complex problem...damn -
stevecarsonr at 12:57 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
Jim Eager #24 Even then I am thinking that it would need to be demonstrated that the spatial distribution didn't matter to the climate result. Because albedo of solar insolation at the surface has a high variation, not so for LW flux received. From the billiard ball model it doesn't: heat in=heat out. But how about a 3-d model? I have a dumb question: ------------- I always assumed that the TOA figure for GHG was in relation to the effective SW climate absorbed radiation: E.g. 240W/m^2. Not referenced to 340W/m^2 of solar radiation averaged across the earth's surface prior to albedo effects, and not referenced to S=1367W/m^2. Then in "Radiation and Climate" by Taylor and Vardavas (only can see a few pages online) they compared GHG forcing to 1367W/m^2. Perhaps in a general non-technical way, it was only p9. So then I thought, maybe I have been making the wrong assumption all along. But I cannot find the answer anywhere. Everyone knows the answer. What is it? -
Doug Bostrom at 12:13 PM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
MattJ at 20:45 PM on 29 January, 2010 "But here is the real problem: scientists well aware of the threat of AGW have never taken a scientific approach to understanding how the general public forms opinions, and so is outmanouvered by professional deceivers like Monckton every time." Not by climate scientists, of course, but there is quite a bit of research being done into how people think about climate and what sort of mental models they employ in dealing with the topic. Some of the findings are encouraging, some are depressing. Significantly, the research says that differentiating between weather and climate really does continue to be a challenge for laypersons even when discussions on the topic are stripped of all distracting politics and acrimony. Is confusion between climate and weather a problem with listeners, or communicators? Looking at mental models research versus continued poor results with educating the public about climate change, I wonder if making surface temperature the main communications message regarding climate change is not a fairly big mistake. Surface temperature is a crummy proxy for measuring actual climate change, especially when oceans dominate the scene. We don't live in the ocean, after all, yet oceans are where most of the current energy perturbation is going. Look at Dr. Hansen's recent essay on winter cold snaps, how horribly messy it became because he had to deal with separating weather from climate plus natural variability. It may not be possible to convey a thorough understanding of surface temperature before eyes glaze over. Some means of expressing total heat content of the ocean-atmosphere system could well be a better way to go with communications. Calories might be a natural for this; laypeople do have a fairly good understanding of a calorie as a unit of energy. If Hansen had been speaking in his essay of total ocean-atmosphere heat content, none of the weather distraction would be needed and the variability portion would automatically be simpler and easier to convey. -
Berényi Péter at 11:37 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
"Greenhouse effect" of water vapor is determined not by column integrated moisture contents, but upper tropospheric specific humidity. There is a strong correlation between global lightning activity and upper troposphere water vapor contents, because it is deep convection in tropical clouds (also generating much lightning) that transports vapor up there. Global lightning activity can be monitored from anywhere on Earth through Schumann resonance amplitude history. Using this indicator, no long term trend is observed in lightning activity. So. There is no strong positive humidity feedback, climate models indicating otherwise are disqualified, climate sensitivity to elevated CO2 levels is low. Q.E.D. You can check it for yourself. $ wget -r -w 10 --random-wait ftp://www.ncedc.org/pub/em/sr/ UCB USGS NCEDC Magnetic Activity and Schumann Resonance http://www.ncedc.org/ncedc/em.intro.html ftp://www.ncedc.org/pub/em/README American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2001 LIGHTNING AND CLIMATE: THE WATER VAPOR CONNECTION C. Price and M. Asfur Tel Aviv University, Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Ramat Aviv, 69978, Israel http://www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1146.pdf 20th International Lightning Detection Conference 21-23 April 2008 - Tucson, Arizona, USA 2nd International Lightning Meteorology Conference 24-25 April 2008 - Tucson, Arizona, USA ABOUT SENSITIVITY OF CLOUD-TO-GROUND LIGHTNING ACTIVITY TO SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE CHANGES AT DIFFERENT TIME SCALES IN THE CITY OF SAO PAULO, BRAZIL O. Pinto Jr. and I.R.C.A. Pinto Brazilian Institute of Space Research - INPE São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil http://www.vaisala.com/files/About_sensitivity_of_cloud-to-ground_lightning.pdf "It is also generally expected that global lightning activity tends to increase at climate scale in response to global warming (Williams, 1992). However, at present time there do not appear to be any long term trends in the lightning activity (Price and Asfur, 2006b; Markson, 2007), although many recent studies indicate a high positive correlation between surface air temperature and lightning activity (Williams et al., 2005; Price and Asfur, 2006a; Sekiguchi et al., 2006). The lack of a long term trend in the lightning activity may in part explain why there is no specific reference to future changes in lightning activity in the last IPCC report (IPCC, 2007)" -
Riccardo at 11:28 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
stevecarsonr, you are 100% right and, i belive, it's what people try to do in this blog thanks to the high signal to noise ratio maintained by our guest. But although it's the right thing to do, it might not always work. Your reasoning assumes the will to learn and an open mind. Take for example the claim that global warming has stopped. You can explain interannual variability, you can explain the statistics of trend, you can explain the effect of ENSO; but what if they reply "yes, but whatever those nice things say, still the temperature has been flat in the last 5 years"? If they do not have a scientific background you might understand why they say so but you're not going to convince them. If they have s scientific background and you know they may understand those things, you'll not convince them either. In a few words, sometimes is ignorance, sometimes is misleading information, but other times is something else, a sort of psychologic block. -
stevecarsonr at 10:58 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
CoalGeologist #19 - (also touching on Steve Sullivan #22): "I don't believe it's possible to understand the scientific issues without understanding the difference between skepticism, which is based on scientific reasoning, and denialism, which is based on ideology" I think it is. Radiative physics is just radiative physics. Statistics is just statistics. A scientific argument can be tested and falsified by the evil and the good - and you don't even need to know their inner motives to assess their science. It might be convenient to put labels on people. But even if it's accurate, your labeling will reduce your efforts. If you want a media friendly sound-bite to help circulate an "explanation" of why many people don't believe your position then labels are a good idea. If you want to analyze the various movements for psychology research, then the labels will be a good starting point. If you want to feel good about why you are right and others are wrong, then labels are a good idea. *But* if you want to win people over they are the worst choice. Who here likes being insulted? Oh, no hands? Who here thinks he or she has a "closed mind"? Oh, no hands? Who here thinks he or she refuses to listen to evidence fairly presented? Incredible, still no one.. Is the microphone working? Ask these questions of any group of people, and what results do you think you will get? Try an experiment ================= Take two groups of people who disagree with you on let's say.. climate science. Lecture the first group on why they are denialists and how they are not even skeptics and how they need to listen to real climate scientists - and then present a little evidence. Take the second group and ask them a few questions about what they know and what they think and pick up on a few points and help them understand that little part better. Present some information they might not of heard of. Tell them "you know a lot of people think that because it's actually quite a complex subject, but here's how some scientists try and explain it.." Compare the 2 groups afterwards. Will group 1 or group 2 have learnt more? Which will be more receptive to consensus climate science? Which will go away and possibly change their mind on a few points? I haven't made any great revelations about psychology and I'm sure it's not really controversial(?). And yet some of you are shaking your heads. My question was only: "do you want to change people's minds?" -
Marcus at 10:45 AM on 30 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Dead right Jim. More to the point, if rising CO2 levels were the result of a multi-century flood basalt event, then we should be able to tell its origin from the levels of C-13, C-12 & C-14 in the background CO2. The fact remains that the CO2 being analyzed is increasingly showing the same ratios of Carbon Isotopes as you'd find when you burn coal & oil-which kind of points the finger right at fossil fuels, if you ask me! -
Jim Eager at 10:38 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
stevecarsonr @17, I meant a 1W/m^2 forcing at surface. For sure an increase in solar output would have different effcts at TOA, such as warming the stratosphere. But it does not take an increase in solar output to increase solar insolation, orbital configuration will do the same thing locally. It's the climate sensitivity to a forcing at the surface that I was comparing. -
Marcus at 10:29 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
Hey CoalGeologist-a *very* good summary of Denialism vs Skepticism. The AGW also has its own version of the Denialist-what I call the "true believer": they accept the theory of AGW because someone *tells* them its true-not because they've seen the evidence (on newspaper blogs, the True Believers annoy me almost as much as the Denialists-because their unscientific, argumentative approach is usually counter-productive!) Anyway, by contrast, up until around 2002 I'd always ignored the role of the Sun in global warming (I thought CO2 was the *only* culprit). Then someone told me about this Danish Solar Physicist who had shown that global warming could be attributed to changes in solar activity. Rather than ignore inconvenient evidence against AGW, I actually sought out that paper-& became very well informed about the solar contribution to climate. Of course, the paper also showed that the correlation between solar irradiance & global temperatures fell away sharply in the 1970's-a fact which the person who put me on to the paper seemed to have conveniently missed. My point is that, if someone directs me to anti-AGW papers, I'll happily read them because I want to be fully INFORMED. Denialists & True believers tend only to read that which reinforces their belief, whilst ignoring everything else. Hence Monckton's reliance on ACRIM rather than PMOD solar data. -
Riccardo at 10:00 AM on 30 January 2010Guest post in Guardian on microsite influences
Berényi Péter, homogenization of a temperature time serie is not a statistical procedure. If, for example, a sensor is moved downhill you correct for the lapse rate. Homogenization means to take into account all the possible sources of bias one can identify. -
Steven Sullivan at 09:59 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
stevecarsonr: "There are a lot of people out there really trying to figure stuff out. But they don't have physics degrees, have never read an undergrad book on radiative physics and have only a very hazy idea of "the scientific method". So pretty much anything can sound authoritative." Leaving aside outright ideological/political denialism, the problem is that a lot of those sincere people go right ahead and label themselves as 'skeptics', when in fact they are either misinformed or incompletely informed -- and are either unaware of that or refuse to consider it. You might be put off by what seemed an arrogant putdown of the sincerely interested, but there's an arrogant lack of self-awareness on the 'skeptic' side. -
carrot eater at 09:52 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
sbarron: I will refrain from commenting on the new US homogenisation method until I'm sure I understand it. I'll just say it's been updated, so if you haven't, then check out the description. This is yet another Menne et al (2009), this one in Journal of Climate. "Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons" In terms of whether there are large areas where there are no surrounding rural stations within a reasonable radius: I don't think you'll be able to find such a region. Anyway, we've seen so many analyses that would show that UHI is not contaminating the overall US mean - datasets that only include rural stations, comparisons of calm and windy nights, etc, etc. There's probably good articles on this site to refer you to other papers on that. Be careful; the station rankings here don't necessarily have anything to do with urban warming. In terms of whether there are enough 'good' sites to correct the 'bad', Menne (2010) shows that nicely. They show good and bad, unadjusted, adjusted only for TOB, and with all adjustments. You can see that the main correction in the 'good' is due to TOB, which does not use neighboring stations. For the most part, the neighbor-based correction takes the 'bad' and makes them converge with the 'good'. So that makes sense. -
Riccardo at 09:48 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
sbarron2000, you do not need to be hundreds of miles away from a even a large town to get meaningfull reading. Central Park in New York, for example, is almost free of the UHI effect. There's plenty of room in the west coast or Nevada or whatever to get meaningfull readings. -
Ed Davies at 09:39 AM on 30 January 2010Guest post in Guardian on microsite influences
RSVP: "It would be nice to know what the measurement accuracy of these systems have on their own. If, for instance, the Earth's temperature was actually rising 0.10 degree per decade, you would need at least +-.05 degrees to even begin to substantial this." If the results are obtained using many measurements from a each of a large number of instruments then the overall trend can be found to much higher precision than the accuracy of individual instruments (if there's no systematic bias in the errors, of course, which is the whole point of the article). You could easily see a 0.1°C/decade increase using only a few dozen thermometers which only had a resolution of 1°C using one measurement from each for each of the 3652 or so days in a decade. -
Riccardo at 09:16 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
It looks like a partial account of the difference between the two composites. Ignoring the acrim gap problem, ignoring the problem of the definition of the maximum of solar cycle 21 (NIMBUS 7 before the start of ACRIM-I), dismiss it like a choice of pro- vs anti- AGW theory and simply state that acrim is "most credible" while pmod "does not represent the most likely interpretation" is clearly a biased interpretation. The ACRIM team itself aknowledge the problems while you, despite your nick (that sounds like advocating one side) do not. -
Jesús Rosino at 09:12 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
acrim, I also thought that they may have used the acrim composite. However, it's flase that it is "the most credible compilation". All the intdependent proxies of solar activity have backed up the PMOD composite. In any case, the difference is insignificant. http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/here-comes-the-sun/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/24/here-comes-the-sun-part-2/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/there-goes-the-sun/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/pmod-vs-acrim-part-2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/acrim-vs-pmod -
sbarron2000 at 09:03 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Interesting. The "difference in means test" is what we're talking about? That seems like it would work great in an area that had one urbanizing site surrounded by several (up to 10) rural sites. But what happens if 7 of the 10 neighboring sites are also seeing some urbanization? There are a lot of (Figure 1, Menne 2010) in areas that have seen rapid poplation growth over the past 30 years (the entire west coast, Arizona, Nevada, etc.). I wonder how effective the differences in mean test works in states where there has been wide spread population growth. It might make finding neighboring sites that are uneffected by their own gradual urbanization increase difficult. And since it doesn't appear there is any specific correction for that situation, gradual locality warming could go unadjusted. And given that only 71 of the 400+ sites were actually deemed "good," There aren't many good sites correcting for the bad sites differing means. Or maybe I'm totally off base? :-) -
CoalGeologist at 09:00 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
re: stevecarsonr (Post #3): Your comment and John's reply, address one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of the climate change debate. I don't believe it's possible to understand the scientific issues without understanding the difference between skepticism, which is based on scientific reasoning, and denialism, which is based on ideology, yet even using these terms "raises hackles" and causes animosity. But unless one recognizes that denialism is a) real and b) not about scientific evidence, it will be very difficult to ever sort out truth from fiction. I know too many people—decent, intelligent people—who have effectively been sucked down into the vortex of "denialism world", where they give credence to arguments that are not scientifically defensible, and can become fixated on "debunking the myth" of anthropogenic global warming. No matter how sincere their intentions initially were, or are currently are, I do not believe they retain the ability to recognize how biased their approach to the topic has become. One colleague of mine, with the very best of intentions, sent me a copy of Ian Plimer's book as a Christmas gift, hoping that it would help me grasp the truth about climate change. How can I convey to him how biased and misleading the science content is without offending him, which I really don't want to do? I agree that there are many people who are legitimately confused and sincerely want to understand the scientific evidence, which is why I so resent the denialist approach. Denialism doesn't increase understanding. Rather it sews confusion. Worse, it nurtures suspicion and mistrust. The issue here is not about being "smart" or "dumb". Rather it's about the ability to recognize bias. This is often very difficult. Understanding the scientific evidence can be challenging enough but when you add in all the bogus arguments and faulty reasoning of denialism, a topic that starts out as merely “challenging” can quickly become overwhelmingly confusing. A key question is whether we sincerely want to understand the science, or whether we are simply looking for validation of what we would like to be true. It's so easy to do the latter, while believing we are doing the former. I have no other way of explaining “skepticism” among many (although certainly not all!) of my colleagues in the fossil energy industry. Yet how can I possibly say this without alienating the very people I would most like to reach? I don't have an answer. -
Berényi Péter at 08:32 AM on 30 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
doug, as soon as solar power becomes cheaper than other sources, it would not need government subvention on taxpayers' money and would replace traditional power plants soon. However, a level playground is a must, otherwise economy would suffer. Until that time it may make sense (on increased cost, not exactly for the poor) if there is no power grid nearby. Otherwise the best investment right now is to R&D, not installation. It is not just about solar panels, battery packs are of more concern (and pricey). Earth is round, sun is not up all the time. -
acrim at 08:32 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
Re your statement: "As direct measurements of solar activity show solar output decreasing since 1980, I was interested to see where his data came from but the graph was gone before I could locate the reference." He was quoting the findings of the ACRIM Compsite total solar irradiance (TSI) - the most credible compilation of satellite TSI observations, which shows a net upward trend during the past 30+ years. The ACRIM Composite uses the results of satellite experiments published by their science teams without alteration. You are familiar with the PMOD Composite TSI which shows a slight downward trend over the past 30 years of TSI observations. Unfortunately the makers of the PMOD Composite made unjustifiable alterations of the published satellite data to conform it to the approximate predictions of TSI proxy models. Use of the PMOD Composite is useful to the AGW GHG hypothesis because it makes solar variability a less likely competitor of Anthropogenic GHG climate change. However the PMOD does not represent the most likely interpretation of the extant satellite TSI database. For a discussion of this and related topics see the ACRIM website: acrim.com. -
Tom Dayton at 07:33 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Thanks for the correction and detail, carrot eater! -
stevecarsonr at 07:18 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
Jim Eager at 04:11 AM: I don't understand that claim. I thought it was convention to look at TOA results as being equal because it makes it easier to compare the relative forcings. At some point you are correct, but 1W/m^2 of solar insolation is not the same as 1W/m^2 at TOA due to increases GHG. How much absorption of S/W radiation by the atmosphere? And what profile? How does the atmosphere respond to this absorption? What are the changes in the atmosphere as a result? How much absorption by the surface? And due to the different albedos of different surface materials, the heating will be different at different locations, causing temperature differentials and so on. Compare that with more long wave forcing. A different surface absorption (geographically). A different atmospheric profile. Different effects on the atmosphere. Perhaps it all "comes out in the wash" and perhaps someone has already demonstrated that it is irrelevant what source? -
carrot eater at 06:33 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
sbarron2000: In asking about gradual changes at a site, you are asking the correct question. Gradual changes affect the trend, and require attention. I refer you to Menne, Williams and Vose (2009) in BAMS. They discuss this problem, and find that their method can handle it; they show an example for Reno, Nevada in Fig 8. This adjustment method is new, and I haven't yet digested how it works, or why it's better than the previous.Response: Here's a direct link to the 2009 Menne paper - Menne 2009 - this is where they also discuss the influence of the switch from CRS to MMTS. -
carrot eater at 06:24 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Tom Dayton: I may be reading you incorrectly, but you appear to say that the bias due to switching from liquid thermometers to MMTS stations was recently discovered. It was not. It is mentioned as early as 1991. See Quayle et al, "Effects of Recent Thermometer Changes in the Cooperative Station Network." In that paper, it was found that the MMTS stations reported lower max temps and higher min temps, and it gave some possible reasons why. Menne (2009) revisited the issue, and Menne (2010) suggests that the adjustment may not be complete, leaving behind a slight cooling bias in the adjusted MMTS figures. That would take further work to confirm. I hope I'm correct on that myself, but hopefully that is of help. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:13 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
sbarron2000 at 04:40 AM on 30 January, 2010 "Further, what about the classification of a station by type? Is that historical at all, or are stations considered to have always been the type classified when they were evaluated by surfacestations.org? " If it had been designed for scientific research, Watts' survey could have really helped with quantifying the questions you ask. Unfortunately the information solicited includes little that would have made all the effort performed by volunteers more useful. All sorts of data including development density changes, prevailing winds, etc. could have been gathered by volunteers if they had been competently directed, provided with specific and unambiguous instruction as well as a carefully crafted collection system. surfacestation.org has instructions and data collection sheets on the site. Collection sheet: http://www.surfacestations.org/downloads/StationSurvey_form.doc As you can see, normalizing the results of the questionnaire would be hugely labor intensive given the open-ended nature of the response solicitations. The whole effort appears to have been about generating embarrassing photographs. All the same, Menne was able to salvage something from Watts' disaster; photographs did allow at least a rough qualitative division of locations. So for Watts it was temporarily at least a PR win but permanently a science botch. If he had approached scientists with a proposal for collaboration instead of wasting himself flinging baseless charges of incompetence and corruption maybe he would not have wasted so many people's time. Nice that Menne was able to tease out what was useful from the wreckage. -
jpark at 06:12 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Sorry I meant 'sunk' in terms of public opinion and policy not in terms of science. -
jpark at 06:11 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
A bit off topic but it did make me laugh! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/diverging-views/#more-15833 And this line jumped out "the land based extrapolation actually turned those sea based cells more than 3C hotter." To go back to the topic - if this is the best info we have then AGW is sunk. I am learning all about PC analysis by the way - really trying to get educated! -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:48 AM on 30 January 2010Guest post in Guardian on microsite influences
Meanwhile, we are seeing just in the past week significant numbers of record high temperatures at the highest latitudes of the continental US. I guess RSVP must be living in the wrong neighborhood. http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin&s=20090913&e=20090913 -
sbarron2000 at 04:40 AM on 30 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
How would a slow urban build-up around a rural temp. station be treated via microsite and UHI adjustments? Are these adjustments historical at all, other than major events like changing instruments, or locations? Basically, if a site was rural at one time, and over time has become urban, is the UHI adjustment applied at increasing levels over the peiod of this transformation, or is it just applied all at once? Further, what about the classification of a station by type? Is that historical at all, or are stations considered to have always been the type classified when they were evaluated by surfacestations.org?Response:"How would a slow urban build-up around a rural temp. station be treated via microsite and UHI adjustments?"
This is a good question and is addressed in Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China (Jones et al 2008) - I give a summary of the paper's results here.Re the classification of stations, the NOAA have classified their stations also - Menne 2010 performs their analysis with the surfacestations.org classifications and their own.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:16 AM on 30 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
Berényi Péter at 01:02 AM on 30 January, 2010 "Solar power is hopeless until..." Actually Africa is a place where little teeny-tiny solar panels have made a huge difference in a lot of folks' lives. There is no power grid at all over much of the continent, a problem for industry and shocking for those of us who grew up with electricity available in arbitrarily large quantities. Yet there are literally millions of persons in Africa who are able to enjoy a modicum of lighting, radio broadcast reception, and a few other small amenities thanks to the common use of a ~15W panels attached to batteries. Selling parts for these is a thriving industry. Benefits include being able to read, burning deaths avoided, money saved by not purchasing kerosene. On the other hand, when you've grown up with grid power, a different story. 15W is not going to make most of us happy, but Africa does afford an interesting perspective on how little electricity is required to obtain a large benefit. -
Riccardo at 04:14 AM on 30 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
Bruce Cooke, probably 4000 years ago it was not hotter than now. A proposed mechanism for the drying of the Sahara is a shift of the monsoon due to the changing earth tilt angle; the reduced summer insolation was not strong enough to pull the monsoon north. -
Jim Eager at 04:11 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
fydijkstra, climate sensitivity does not depend on the source of the forcing, only on the magnitude of the forcing. A forcing of 1 watt/meter sq will produce the same warming plus feedbacks regardless of if it is due to an increase in greenhouse gases or an increase in insolation. The climate does not pick and choose which forcings it will respond to and by how much. -
Jim Eager at 03:53 AM on 30 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
But neither a Toba/Yellowstone nor a Siberian/Deccan traps event are happening right now, so Plimer's point is just another distraction. -
Berényi Péter at 02:01 AM on 30 January 2010The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Charlie A at 12:52 PM on 28 January, 2010 "I have found a peer reviewed paper from Geophysical Research Letters that supports the AR4 findings!" The peer reviewed paper in Geophysical Research Letters is this one: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L22503, doi:10.1029/2008GL035556, 2008 Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources Natalie M. Kehrwald, Lonnie G. Thompson, Yao Tandong, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ulrich Schotterer, Vasily Alfimov, Ju¨rg Beer, Jost Eikenberg, and Mary E. Davis Received 1 August 2008; revised 24 September 2008; accepted 21 October 2008; published 22 November 2008. http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Kehrwald%20et%20al%202008.pdf It actually contains the phrase "The surface area of glaciers across the TP is projected to decrease from 500,000 km2 measured in 1995 to 100,000 km2 in 2030 [Cruz et al., 2007]" Cruz et al., 2007 is of course IPCC AR4, WG II Report, chapter 10. No problem, AR4 was subject to peer review, even if a slightly redefined version of it. Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh (2007) Asia, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M. L. Parry et al., pp. 469–506, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter10.pdf The GRL quote is based on an IPCC/AR4 Figure 10.4 caption (Hotspots of key future climate impacts and vulnerabilities in Asia), which reads "Tibetan Plateau glaciers of 4 km in length are projected to disappear with 3°C temperature rise and no change in precipitation. If current warming rates are maintained, glaciers located over Tibetan Plateau are likely to shrink at very rapid rates from 500,000 km2 in 1995 to 100,000 km2 by the 2030s. [10.4.4.3,10.6.2]" The Kehrwald at al. quote is an abridged version of it. They omitted the generous 3°C temperature thing along with the restriction "no change in precipitation", and the tiny letter "s" after "2030" (it may be the source of the IPCC:2035 - NASA:2030 transition). BTW, the "glaciers of 4 km in length" is also omitted, a pity, for it is absolutely mysterious. Otherwise it is correct. To tell the truth, I would like to have a word or two with the anon referees of GRL who let this crap through. But IPCC GR4 Himalayan glacier claim got supported by a peer reviewed paper, even if it was done in retrospect, based on the very report to be supported. New Age science is supposed to work this way, isn't it? -
Ned at 01:52 AM on 30 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
I think there's some confusion there between (a) a huge explosive event at, say, Yellowstone, which could potentially inject a lot of aerosols into the stratosphere, and (b) a broad-scale, multi-century flood basalt event like the Siberian traps or Deccan traps, which would outgas a lot of CO2. Yes they're both catastrophic volcanism but the climate impacts are quite different. -
Berényi Péter at 01:02 AM on 30 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
canbanjo at 10:36 AM on 28 January, 2010 "what hope does africa have?" None. Solar power is hopeless until solar panel prices drop below that of leaves, a goal achievable only by self replicating systems. It requires brand new technology not developed yet. -
CoalGeologist at 00:54 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
MarkJ (Post #1), Here's one geologist's perspective (mine!). The argument can be broken down like this: 1) There is strong geologic evidence that surface temperatures have varied significantly in the Earth's past, both up and down. One of the indicators of this is the presence or absence of polar ice caps. (We can see evidence of glaciers in the sedimentary rock record, so we know when ice caps have been here in the past). Therefore, we know that surface temperature has changed a lot, and is sensitive to something... But what?? 2) Evidence shows that a number of factors can drive changes in temperature, including variability in Earth's orbit, variations in solar emissions, changes in atmospheric composition, changes in albedo, etc.; HOWEVER!.. The geologic record shows that elevated CO2 consistently shows up "at the scene of the crime" when the Earth has experienced past episodes of warming (For an informative, entertaining summary of this, listen to geologist Richard Alley's lecture from the recent AGU meeting. It will take an hour, and may be a bit technical, but I hope you'll find it worthwhile. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml 3) But even if periods of high temperatures are always associated with high CO2, how do we know which caused which? This one's harder to answer in just a few sentences, so you'll have to do some homework, but you can think of increasing atmospheric CO2 as being like adding more blankets on to your bed on a cold night. The more blankets you add, the warmer the bottom blanket will be, and the cooler the top blanket will be. That's why adding more CO2 keeps causing more warming, even though the absorption bands are saturated. 4) There's one final argument although it's a bit weaker: The CO2 model fits most of the evidence, and right now we have no other way to explain these past temperature changes other than CO2. The same argument holds for late 20th Century warming! In contrast, Lord Monckton claims that the atmosphere is self-regulating, and that there are negative feedbacks that prevent the atmosphere from getting warmer when you add CO2. Monckton is just smart enough to seem like he knows what he's talking about, but actual climate scientists see many flaws in his arguments. Monckton and Plimer may mean well, and might even believe what they say (?), but in the end science is not on their side. A Little Knowledge + A Lot of Bias = A Dangerous Thing -
Marcus at 00:03 AM on 30 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Actually, Chris, they reckon something similar happened around 4,000 years ago-a slowing of the Gulf Stream caused an extreme cool period in Europe whilst causing a major drought to Egypt & the Middle East-the drought which brought down the Egyptian Old Kingdom. -
Ed Davies at 00:01 AM on 30 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
fydijkstra: "...and Monckton says that the sensitivity of the climate for greenhouse gasses is much smaller than IPCC claims." The point is, though, that the sensitivity is determined by the feedback effects resulting from the temperature change due to a particular forcing irrespective of the forcing's cause, whether it be changes in the solar irradiance, the shape of the Earth's orbit or the composition of the atmosphere. -
Marcus at 00:01 AM on 30 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Ubique. From everything I've read on Yellowstone, if it erupts it won't cause warming-it will cause extreme, localized cooling (not unlike a nuclear winter). If it blows, you can pretty much say goodbye to the bulk of the human & animal population of North America for the next few centuries at least. However, just like the possibility of rogue asteroids, it would be extremely foolish to do nothing to prevent man-made global warming just because of the 1:1,000,000 chance of a super-volcano explosion. -
Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
The Sahara was more fertile before about 4K years ago when the temperature was hotter. Is it possible that it will become so again when global warming kicks in? -
Berényi Péter at 23:03 PM on 29 January 2010Guest post in Guardian on microsite influences
Could anyone provide a pointer to the literature of "data homogenization" as a statistical procedure? I mean the kind of study that would discuss it on its own right, independent of Climate Science. I looked hard, but could come up with nothing. There is something called data homogenization used in data warehousing, but in the absence of metadata it relies heavily on AI technologies like pattern recognition. It is not meant to be used to produce "objective" datasets, just hints. In other words it is woodoo magic, not a tool for science. BTW, Menne at al 2010 do depend on data homogenization. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:55 PM on 29 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
5. 4. Exxon - he depends only on the same subsidies for CCS as well as in Europe. If current warming would, for instance, such as the Older Peron, the money is better spent on protection against transgression of the sea. -
Marcus at 22:50 PM on 29 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
fydijkstra, either climate *is* sensitive to forcing or it isn't-you can't have an each way bet, as Monctkon chooses to have. The properties of the various greenhouse gases has been established over more than a century-especially its ability to capture Long-wave infrared radiation (heat). To try & claim otherwise is to refute more than a century of chemistry & physics. It comes down to this simple question-average global temperatures have risen by around +0.5 degrees over the last 30 years, yet solar activity has declined by around an average of 0.3 watts/meter squared per decade over that similar time period. So where is the extra heat coming from? Until so-called skeptics can produce a valid, alternative theory for the warming trend, then they really lack any credibility! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:41 PM on 29 January 2010Lessons from the Monckton/Plimer debate
3. A propos CHYŁEK - is not a skeptic, at most: "semi" skeptic. Skeptics believe, that the former: first followed the rise in temperature, then CO2 (soil bacteria and ocean heterotrophic bacteria - they are to blame), but CO2 - never had a significant effect on temperature. Water vapor, feedback is always neutralize majority of RF CO2. -
Ubique at 22:40 PM on 29 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
John, 'The burp from one volcanic eruption would overpower all the CO2 humans have ever emitted'. The numbers say otherwise as does the CO2 record which shows not a blip during the 20th Century's largest volcanic eruptions. Do you think he might be referring to the eruption of a super volcano – such as the one under Yellowstone National Park – rather than one like Mt St Helens in British Columbia in Canada? I lived in Canada down wind of that one when it blew and it certainly had an effect upon the climate locally. When Yellowstone blows (overdue they tell us) the impact will be global.
Prev 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 Next
