Recent Comments

Prev  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  2527  2528  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  Next

Comments 126401 to 126450:

126401. thingadonta at 18:30 PM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." This isn't science, its arranging data to suit a pre- conceived agenda. And your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this, and the way you skip over this basic fact shows you are simply protecting the interests of your class-ie mainstream academia. This is a very common human trait, but it is not a scientific one. And its the very reason skeptics are so skeptical-its not about some 'nefarious conspiracy', its simply about human bias and the very common, but unscientific trait, of protecting ones social group/class interests. This is enough to distort data, and to allow it to go uncorrected/unregulated. Take a long hard look at what is being done in the above quote to the actual data, and just as importantly, to its presentation. A basic tenet of science is that the present is the key to the past. This is violated in the above 'trick', 'hiding', 'data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature' or whatever you want to call it. Fudging is fudging. The researchers choose to ignore the current, verifiable, tree ring data which shows the technique has major problems with the present, and yet use this same flawed technique to reconstruct the variable and dynamic climatic past, without due reference. They recognise, selectively, that the 'present' has a problem, and so they, conveniently, replace it with something else, but if they are to be consistent they shouldn't then be using the same, verifiably flawed technique, to reconstruct (ie 'arrange') the past. (He who controls history controls the future). This is a selective arrangement to suit ones pre-conceived agenda. They then further violate basic statistical presentation by splicing different datasets, and different methodologies, together, without proper referencing. Every one of these steps violates standard scientific principles. 'Data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature' my arse. It is misleading, at best, and wrong at worst, to present spliced data as a single dataset, especially if there are known and obvious flaws in any of the techniques used to obtain parts of the dataset, which are not then applied to the rest of the dataset, and not being properly referenced. Do you really think, that the Busang-like graph of Mann et al 1998 presented to the uniformed public (who are not aware of the splicing etc) does service to science? I don't. The point with the Busang fraud, was that they used spliced datasets which contained flawed collecting (salting) and analysing (eg non-duplicated) techniques within parts of the datasets, and then presented this as a single, coherant (pre-arranged outcome) dataset. This sort of 'hiding' and 'trick' and 'data handling technique available in the peer reviewed literature' cost billions of dollars. Sound familiar to Mann et al 1998? PS. Applying the 'present as the key to the past' to the "suggestion of a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades" implies that tree ring growth during abnormally warmer periods is inhibited, therefore further implying a strong MWP which is not being picked up the tree ring proxies-which is the exact opposite to the conclusions of Mann et al 1998, (because he doesn't use this basic scientific tenet, he simply replaces it with a pre-conceived agenda). Moreover both the Wilmking and Briffa papers refer to the 'divergence problem' as real, not as a statistical methodological problem; they don't attempt to 'trick' 'hide' or substitute it with 'data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature' to get a pre-arranged outcome, but rather they seek to highlight the connotations of such a divergence (which as I said above, includes a stronger MWP). Your references to the 'physical realities currently being observed' doesn't change the central issue, whether or not these 'physical realities' are being caused by humans (AGW). Th reason the skeptics focus on eg reconstructions, is that this is one particularly sensitive piece of the puzzle which has a large say in whether humans are causing the current warming. I for one, can agree, with a shove and a push, that all your 'physical realities' may well be true, yet the issue of whether humans are causing them remains, and so we go back to eg Mann et al 1998 and his 'tricks' 'hiding' etc. I disagree therefore that such things are only a small piece of the puzzle.
        Response: The divergence problem is not about obtaining a pre-conceived result - it's about compiling all the different pieces of the puzzle into a single, coherent picture.
        
        The divergence problem has no connection to the Medieval Warming Period - it is concerned with the last few decades of proxy records. But even if the MWP was much greater than currently thought, that would mean climate is more sensitive than currently thought - which means climate is more sensitive to the radiative forcing from CO2. This is the great irony in the skeptic obsession with the hockey stick. If climate scientists have been underestimating past climate change as skeptics claim, then the danger of CO2 warming is that much worse now.
        
        The "hockey stick" is not a particularly significant part of the evidence that humans are causing warming. It's suggestive, sure, that CO2 and temperature both show hockey stick like shapes. But correlation does not necessarily prove causation. The evidence that humans are causing global warming is found in observations of an enhanced greenhouse effect at CO2 wavelengths.
        
        If you can be pushed and shoved to agree that the physical realities (of accelerating ice loss in Antarctica, Greenland, glaciers, Arctic, etc) are actually happening, well, each journey begins with a single step. :-)
126402. DrMike at 15:56 PM on 24 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Fair enough. One last question on this topic. Royer's forcing calculations assume the solar constant to be 5.5% lower than today at the beginning of the Phanerozoic, and that it increased linearly until now. I was not able to find a citation for this assumption. Is this number just so broadly accepted that no citation is necessary? Where did the number come from. The site mentions 4%. Is the 5.5% assumed by Royer, and the 4% mentioned by the site author relevant?
        Response: A good question. I actually wondered this myself back when I first wrote this post and emailed Dr Royer asking the same question. He clarified that the solar levels were calculated in Crowley, T.J., 2000a. Carbon dioxide and Phanerozoic climate. In: Huber, B.T., MacLeod, K.G., Wing, S.L. (Eds.), Warm Climates in Earth History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 425–444.
        
        The ~4% value applies to the late Ordovician, the 5.5% to the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The article above gives an overview of geological time scales.
126403. DrMike at 15:06 PM on 24 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Thanks guys. I've read the paper carefully 2 times. I still have reservations regarding the conclusions when I look at the data at face value. I appreciate the efforts and tone on this site. I'll maintain an objective view, and as I learn more, maybe it will all become as obvious to me as it is to you guys. I'll read the paper again, maybe I missed something.
        Response: Your approach is much appreciated. Your question "Will higher anthropogenic CO2 substantially contribute to warming, or are we all just spectators to forces bigger than us?" is answered at CO2 is not the only driver of climate. It explains that there are many drivers of climate - basically anything that causes an energy imbalance. This can be the sun getting hotter, volcanic eruptions increasing the planet's albedo or more greenhouse gases trapping outgoing infrared radiation. Climate scientists have calculated the energy imbalance (otherwise known as radiative forcing) from many different causes and found that the effect from increasing CO2 is not only the most dominant forcing, it also is increasing faster than any other forcing.
        
        We are not just spectators - we are having an impact that is greater than the natural drivers of climate. This is why climate scientists talk about CO2 so much. It's not because CO2 is the only driver of climate. It's because CO2 is increasing so quickly, it's having a greater impact than other effects.
        
        That CO2 is not the only driver of climate is important to keep in mind when considering past climate change when CO2 was much greater than current levels. You need to take into account other factors like changing solar levels. When you add up the various factors to calculate the net energy imbalance, what we observe in the past is consistent with our understanding of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
126404. neilperth at 14:57 PM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Chris .... "New concepts in global tectonics" thought Ollier's paper worthy of publication and as you are no doubt aware, if you want to criticise it, you should address the science he puts forward . On the question of sea level rise, surely you would be concerned about Morner’s comments ( see my previous post ) that the IPCC adjusted sea level data “otherwise we would not have gotten any trend”. Or is that not relevant ?
126405. billbrent at 14:48 PM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        John, You start the comments by saying, "...let me know when they find the e-mails that show our understanding of the physics is wrong." I cannot point to an email that shows that your understanding of the physics is wrong, but it has long been claimed by AGW scientists that "...the science is settled." This claim is used by policy-makers of many countries to promote drastic cap-&-trade-type measures that many see as draconian (if not outright totalitarian). Therefore, while I can't point to an email that shows that the physics is definitely wrong, I can certainly point out an email string that shows the physics is not settled, and indicates that it might be wrong. This exchange - http://tinyurl.com/yl5wz78 - between Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, Stephen Schneider, and one of Schneider's PhD candidates (read from the bottom, up) certainly indicates that the physics of where the heat went in that past decade is not well understood. Trenberth writes, "...we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Wigley responds, "I do not agree with this." Trenberth writes back, "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" Mann then tries to explain it in terms of natural variability: "...we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it." But Mann is not that certain this is a full explanation, so he continues: "But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?" Trenberth responds with his concerns again: "Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it." John, this is a very serious disagreement over the physics of planetary warming, or lack thereof over the last few years. It has the potential to profoundly impact policy-makers decisions. Can you explain the physics to Trenberth's satisfaction? Or to the satisfaction of the average layman - like myself - who is concerned about the social engineering being proposed based on this very physics?
126406. Albatross at 11:32 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Neil Perth, "As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground."" This is off topic, as have several of your posts. Are you a Canuck? I am, that is why I know exactly who Terrence (Terry) Corcoran is. He is a neocon editor at the infamous "and almost bankrupt" Financial Post (Canadian paper, I use the term "paper" loosely). Rumour has it is that he is on the take from big oil.... Anyhow, he alleged pillars of AGW are nonsense. That said, yes, scientists need to do a better job of clearly communicating their findings. I would strongly advise you not to solicit your 'scientific' knowledge from the likes of Terrence, but it seems that you think quite highly of him and his and others' pseudo science. PS: You do know the editors at the National Post (a sister paper of Financial Post) have even acknowledged recently that AGW is real (an editorial on 7 November 2009). PPS: THe NP and FP have NO ethical guidelines and are not a member of any group or organization in Canada which can hold them accountable for misconduct.
126407. chris at 11:25 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        "New Concepts in Global Tectonics" isn't a scientific journal neilperth. It's a newsletter, and it certainly contains some weird stuff. As I pointed out above, Ollier hasn't published anything in the scientific literature since 2007. It's pretty straightforward to establish that. What people say in newsletters isn't always very interesting or enlightening for dispassionate understanding.
126408. neilperth at 11:02 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Chris ........re your post stating that " Cliff Ollier hasn't published anything in the scientific literature since 2007," please find below the reference to the Cliff Ollier paper. Ollier C (2009 ), Sea level in the Southwest pacific is stable. New concepts in global tectonics. No 51, June 2009. I thought you were keeping up with such important research.
126409. shawnhet at 10:35 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        dhogaza, "Objectively" chosen or not, temperature reconstructions being what they are, it is virtually unavoidable to separate measurements into the ones that reflect a real temperature signal and those that do not. You have to make some assumptions one way or the other. If you already know what the "correct" answer is, it is human nature(at least IMO) to be more likely to reproduce that answer again. If you didn't have to choose which records reflected the true signal and which didn't, confirmation bias wouldn't matter. Cheers, :)
126410. neilperth at 10:28 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        I see that some posters on this thread are calling for it to be closed. The point is that the hacked Hadrut emails give an insight into what is going on at Hadcrut, This is where much of the scientific data comes form on which you people base your scientific analyses of the climate. The excerpts I have posted raise legitimate questions about the lack of impartiality shown by some climate research scientists. They also show that interpretation of the climate data often produces ambiguous results and that the science is far from settled. There is also correspondence between some climate research scientists and organisations such as WWF and Greenpeace with regard to when certain announcements on the findings of the scientists should be made to the press in order to have maximum effect on upcoming intergovernmental meetings and onferences. You are free to read the full email transcripts on the Net. Closing this thread will not look good and will be interpreted as a denial that the legitimate questions I have raised above exist.
126411. chris at 10:25 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        re #43/44 neilperth you're just cutting and pasting stuff..it's very boring and tedious. Cliff Ollier hasn't published anything in the scientific literature since 2007, unless he's decided to publish under a different name. Please cite or link to the "June 2009" paper that you are referring to. No one is going to be taken in by the Morner nonsense here. Surely you can find a more appropriate site to peddle this dreary stuff designed for the gullible. Dr. Morner is not the most reliable of sources [*] and hearsay and unverified allegations are boring. If you can't find any science that pertains to a subject, why bother posting. If you want to learn about contemporary sea level measurements, you can look at the science here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-sea-levels-rising.html and: http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-broader-view-of-sea-level-rise.html The long cut 'n paste nonsense from your post #44 is from an email sent by someone to a climate scientist. It contains a typical trail of previous emails, one of which contains the trash that you've cut 'n pasted for our edification. It would help if you were to think about what you post, before dumping junk. [*] www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
126412. dhogaza at 10:15 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Do we *really* have to put up with the cut-and-paste flooding?
126413. neilperth at 09:31 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        You mention above that “ seas level rise is accelerating”. But a recent ( June 2009 ) scientific paper by Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, states as follows : Abstract: Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives. Also, in an interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project – he has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years) by EIR (Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) [http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html] he talked about the IPCC misrepresentation of sea level data: “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications,... was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge... It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” ... I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. ... So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it! I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised.
126414. dhogaza at 09:10 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        

        As to the fact that other paleoclimate reconstructions agree, IMO this depends on which ones you use, of course(which is where confirmation bias comes in).

        They're selected objectively, but of course you'll never be convinced of this. But I love the way confirmation bias is *assumed*.
126415. SNRatio at 09:05 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        I second with chris here. I thought maybe the political/public impacts of this might be somewhat interesting, but I realize that is not an area of focus for this site, and I'm _very_ happy with that. Keep up the good work, John! For the subject matter of the leak, I think RC is the best place right now. That said, I think there may be quite a few points raised by the material that we might, perhaps even should, discuss here, if we want to be really skeptical. It's just quite pointless to go into it in a more general discussion like this one. Rather, it may be brought up where it properly belongs, like in treatments of proxies, different temperature reconstructions, energy budget balancing, forcing/feedback estimations etc. "Light" vs "heat". Yes, exactly.
126416. chris at 08:48 AM on 24 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        DrMike, a lot of the uncertainty you've expressed about the relationships between paleoCO2 levels and paleotemperature/paleo evidence for glaciations, would be resolved if you were to read the paper from which Figure 2 above was taken (click on the link "Royer 2005" in the legend to Figure 2 above). I think you'll find that Figure 2 in the top article of this thread was prepared to illustrate the broad effect of the slow relentless increase in the solar comstant over geological time, and that the temporal detail you need to answer the questions you raise are described in detail throughout the rest of the article.
126417. SNRatio at 08:25 AM on 24 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Sure I'm willing to adjust everything in the estimations - provided we get good reasons for it. That was, for example, why I asked about Roy Spencer's basic CO2 forcing figure here. But as it is not documented, and there are theoretical as well as empirical reasons to use the ordinary figure, I use that one for now. You should also note that if Roy Spencer (qualifies as a skeptic, dosn't he?) is right, the problem of explanation of the distant past is quite small - then we are down to a temperature rise of about 2.7 oC at 5600 ppm CO2. I have not looked into the details, but I _suspect_ this may be an indication that his multiplier is too small. OR that climate sensitivity is/was very high - something I think is a very strong assumption. I think we should be careful to talk about splainin' as long as we would need 450000 qualified estimates for solar activity and CO2 just to get a time series with 1000 years resolution. The error margins (temporally) for the present estimates are huge, and typically they found the ordovician CO2 depression to account for glaciation when they had a zero hypothesis to test: That of high CO2 in spite of glaciation. There may also be huge variations in the past that we will never be able to find in any records. I see problems, both pricipally and practically, with assuming that the temperatures reflect the forcing conditions, but using it as a first, crude approximation is probably the best we have got. And it has been very useful so far, I think. By this principle, we should have had a significant cooling during the last 10 years if the CO2/GHG effects are so small as, e.g Lord Monckton asserts. For the solar activity is at a minimum, ocean circulations have been negative for temperature, and new economic activity has led to a lot of aerosols. Methane increase has halted, too. You may assume that the earth automagically adapts its albedo to such changes.. something like Lindzen's iris hypothesis - but please check the theoretical and empirical support for it before you use it for anything. You may explain what has happened in many ways, all of which may be compatible with physics and the observations, but you can't disregard that the increase in CO2 is a very plausible explanation for the lack of cooling. The feedbacks just seem to be a bit smaller than the global models would like to have it. Which could, for example, be because feedbacks decrease a bit with increasing CO2 forcing, but we don't really know. With the combination of high CH4, very high CO2 and relatively strong sun, we have entered what seems to be new territory for the planet. But still, we are talking about forcings just around 1% of incoming solar radiation, so you may safely say that effects of changes in CO2 are small in the big picture. It's just that when everything else is held constant, these changes may play out. And when everything else is not held constant, you may not be quite sure what is playing out. That's the problem with refutations based on the paleoclimatic record.
126418. Albatross at 07:10 AM on 24 November 2009
        Record high temperatures versus record lows
        SteveL, thanks for the Hegerl paper. Yes, point values are not really/easily comparable grid tile data from models, especially AOGCMs b/c they have pretty large grid spacing (although the grid spacing is being reduced as computing power increases). This will translate into higher resolution, which will allow for better representation of ocean currents and moist convection etc.. What you say about precip may be true-- precip. is the integrator and net result of many physical processes. Unfortunately, measuring precip. accurately over long time periods even using an official gauge network is problematic. Fortunately, many national now have radar networks, and satellite microwave technology is improving, then there is TRMM of course (only to mid latitudes though). Anyhow, I am not aware of any papers out there which investigate **large-scale** trends in precip. (using the same data platform) the last 30 years. There are, of course, papers which discuss site-specific changes. There are also lightning detection networks (proxy for convective precip.), but reliable data for N. America only goes back to 1999. I'm presently using those lightning data to explore land-atmosphere feedbacks. Very interesting.
126419. Steve L at 06:50 AM on 24 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        You have another problem, Henry: you think about calculations without ever performing any. Now that you've moved the goalposts, show why you think AHF is wrongly calculated for Holland. Next calculation problem: you've already been shown that AHF is insignificant relative to changes in radiative forcing; do your own calculations and see how reduced transpiration owing to deforestation and desertification (not to mention changes in albedo) dwarf direct anthropogenic increases in water vapour. Or instead, actually read the stuff you've been pointed to. At http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/#more-1488 you should have read this: "For example, that 6 trillion Watts of waste heat from coal burning would amount to only 0.012 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface. Without even thinking very hard, you can realize that this is a tiny number compared to the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a general point of reference, the extra heat trapped by CO2 at the point where you’ve burned enough coal to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 4 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface — over 300 times the effect of the waste heat." Note: you shouldn't count the waste heat twice (once when it generates steam to turn the turbines and then again when the steam condenses, there IS a reason they're called "cooling towers" after all), but it doesn't make much of a difference if you do. Of course, by changing your argument to this, you should acknowledge the wrongness of your argument that AHF is mostly pumped into the oceans (which was a ridiculous claim given the small role of nuclear in power production and given the great distances between that power production and the Arctic). My last reply to you got scrubbed from the record. Let me just say (1) you don't have a coherent explanation for, well, anything and (2) you haven't demonstrated a grasp of the strongly substantiated explanation of AGW that you are trying to criticize. Do try and learn something, please, so that (in a couple of years when I've forgotten that I shouldn't reply to you) we won't cover the same ground.
126420. Tom Dayton at 06:32 AM on 24 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        Henry #72: When the vapor condenses it releases the same energy that it absorbed in the process of becoming vapor in the first place. That energy that turned it into vapor in the first place is indeed counted in the anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) calculations I pointed you to. If you don't believe me you can simply look at the papers and even raw data that I pointed you to in #70.
126421. Henry Pool at 05:57 AM on 24 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        @ Steve 71, I think AHF might be wrongly calculated, even in Hld. But can you answer me on 68? See also below. @ Tom on 70: yes I would assume that the water soon condenses back to water - but do you know what happens when water condenses? well the converse of that process - namely water turning into vapor is being used by everyone in industry who has a process or a place that needs to be cooled. You can see these cooling towers in almost every factory. I know a lot about that. It is exactly that heat when the water vapor from human activities condenses that nobody seems to be counting.
126422. Steve L at 05:34 AM on 24 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        Henry Pool @63: Are you saying you think the Anthropogenic heat flux is improperly estimated, and therefore calculations of its negligible impact give the wrong conclusion? As Ricardo points out, it would serve you well to do some calculations. Holland AHF = 4.2 W/sq m, Holland population = 6.1 million, Holland area = 5,500 sq km ... turn that into AHF per capita = 3,800 W. Now assume 7 billion people on Earth all have the same AHF and then divide by the surface area of the planet (510 million sq km) = 0.05 W/sq m. I imagine that Hollanders have AHF about twice the average human on Earth. As pointed out elsewhere, this is a very small amount relative to changes in radiative forcing owing to CO2. If you want to blame water vapour instead of CO2 you're wrong**, but you're less wrong because you're now saying that greenhouse gases are more important than AHF in contributing warming. And, just so you know, this contradicts your position that increasing greenhouse gases such as water vapour should cool the Earth. (**Read the stuff Tom links for you in 70 and elsewhere.)
126423. chris at 04:56 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        I wasn't going to bother addressing this thread at all, then felt compelled to respond to some obvious howlers. There's an interesting bit of sociopolitics involved, with some nasty precedents. In fact I think climate scientists are maybe allowing themselves to become rather over-involved with the rubbish from the pseudoskeptics. Why not just ignore all this crap, don't have anything to do with it, and just get on with doing and publishing the science? Unfortunately, it just isn't that simple. There's a similarity with the McCarthyist calamity of an earlier age (apols for a slight descent towards breaking Godwin's Law, but some specific similarities are quite strong) where the very act of accusation to contrive a psychology of distrust, forces a response in the accused which may well come across as sounding a little defensive (although in fact the responses have been admirably robust!). Inevitably, by responding to contrived accusation, a "controversy" is constructed where the focus is shifted away from the science into a sort of miasma of real and imagined deceit in which the pseudoskeptic "accusers" are comfortable. And those that may not care to engage with the science but surely know how to enjoy a witch-hunt, are all too happy to chip in with their own "interpretations"... So yes, this site should be encouraged to continue to focus on the "light" and leave the "heat" elsewhere, 'specially since John Cook does such a fantastic job of fairly dispassionate description and documentation of the science.
126424. Albatross at 04:30 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        John, I must say that I was disappointed to see you weigh in on this CRU fiasco. The first 24 comments here were pretty constructive, but now it seems that some people feel it is OK to adopt a 'carpet bombing' approach to posting. Isn't that trolling? Others, RC et cetera are doing a good job of stemming the tide of nonsense that can be expected to arise out of this fiasco. Not that those in denial will pay any attention to context or reason, they made up their minds years ago and now this fiasco is just feeding their bias and preconceived ideas. They will read and see what they want to, regardless of the truth. This CRU hack story is about egos and politics and money for those in denial. It is best left up to the police, lawyers and judges to sort it out now. I sure do hope ClimateAudit and AirVent and WUWT have good lawyers..... Anyhow, the planet continues to warm, and there is still much science to discuss and advance; and you do an excellent job of that. Can we please stick to that much more interesting and important task? Thanks.
        Response: My initial reaction when the news first broke was to ignore it. But as it unfolded, I realised it would be a mistake to let skeptic blogs write the narrative on this issue. The whole approach of Skeptical Science is to point out that global warming skepticism misleads by focusing on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture - the job of Skeptical Science is to communicate the broader picture. The case of the CRU hack is a textbook example of this tactic - focusing on a few suggestive emails to discredit the entire field of climate science while neglecting the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming. This point needed to be made but I'll be happy to move on to worthier topics as soon as I can (believe me, I'm working on it).
126425. shawnhet at 03:36 AM on 24 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        dhogaza, I personally don't find tree ring reconstructions all that interesting so I won't debate them at length. I think it is pretty clear though that we don't know why tree rings stopped being good temperature proxies(Briffa 1998 says this). If the tree ring proxies currently suggest that the temperature should be 0.5C cooler than they actually are, how do we know that the last time they read as 0.5C cooler than now, they aren't equally warm as today(or warmer)? As to the fact that other paleoclimate reconstructions agree, IMO this depends on which ones you use, of course(which is where confirmation bias comes in). CO2 science has at least a couple of dozen papers that would argue that the MWP was warmer than currently. Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or another, but temperature reconstruction is very tricky IMO. Cheers, :)
126426. DrMike at 02:54 AM on 24 November 2009
        High CO2 in the past, Part 2
        Thanks for the discussion. Sorry for the term climate change advocates. I'm just trying to make sense of the issues at hand. I really only have one question. Will higher anthropogenic CO2 substantially contribute to warming, or are we all just spectators to forces bigger than us? I think we have a disconnect in our discussion because I think you have already made that determination. Or maybe I'm confused about the nature and details of the skeptic's argument here. How exactly do you interpret the argument of the skeptics as it pertains to higher CO2 in the past? I thought they were arguing that the data is the data. We had lots of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and no runaway greenhouse effect. In fact, we even had glaciations. The counter argument (which is explaining away the high CO2 levels) is that we can't compare the past to the present because the solar conditions were different. The idea of forcing is applied and forcing approximations are calculated to support the counter argument. Furthermore, glaciations as very rough proxies for global temperature extremes are superimposed over the calculated forcing to give these approximations some empirical support. Presumably, if the forcing approximations are accurate (even to a first order), the global temperature conditions will reflect the "state of forcing" at any given time. What I am saying is that I don't think the glaciations provide empirical support to the forcing calculations. The time periods in which the glaciations take place don't correlate well enough to draw any reliable conclusions. Now, if you and everone else have already decided that we don't even need to look at empirical support for the forcing numbers, then this discussion is pointless. I have not misinterpreted the physics of forcing, I'm just questioning the application of those physics since there seems to be an absence of convincing empirical support for the calculated approximations. The application of the calculated forcing factors as the primary driver of global temperatures would be much more convincing if we had a permafrost through the minimum calculated forcing periods, and no glaciations before or after. It didn't work out that way, so there seems to be a lot of splainin' to do. That's all. Thanks again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Just skeptical (which I think just makes me "uninformed" on this website.")
126427. Tom Dayton at 01:30 AM on 24 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        Henry, water vapor added by humans merely falls out of the atmosphere within an average of 10 days. See my explanations on the water vapor thread both here and here.
126428. Tom Dayton at 01:21 AM on 24 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        h-j-m wrote "for quite a long time now it is known that nature no way can be understood in a linear fashion as your argumentation suggests." The role of water vapor in global warming is not at all "linear." It is rather complicated, and so is scientific knowledge of it. Introductory explanations of it are less complicated to suit readers who "did not want to delve into the complexities we are dealing with here if only for the reason I don't know enough to argue in any specialized field," as you wrote. If you suspect an explanation is unrealistically simple, you should pursue a more complete explanation. That is easy by clicking on the links to scientific papers provided in John Cook's original post, and indeed by clicking on the link I provided in my earlier response to you. One particularly relevant and short article is by Dessler and Sherwood (2009, Science, available for free), which specifically mentions local versus global effects, and which I think you in particular would find very informative and comprehensible.
126429. Ned at 23:36 PM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Eh. This is being discussed at great length everywhere else. Why bother to jump in? As far as I can tell, it's all about personalities, not so much about science. Your site's niche market is presenting well-written, clear, informative, and interesting explanations of science topics, often with mentions of papers that don't receive a lot of publicity elsewhere. My opinion doesn't really matter, but I'd encourage you to generally ignore whatever the manufactured controversy of the week may be, and just keep writing about the science. Cheers, Ned
126430. h-j-m at 23:32 PM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        Dear Tom Dayton, deliberately I war referring to applied logic in my argument because I did not want to delve into the complexities we are dealing with here if only for the reason I don't know enough to argue in any specialized field. But I fear your reply forces me to elaborate on my point. As to my knowledge anything happening in the atmosphere is occurring locally depending on a lot of causes that are satisfied just at the spot. Any method of generalizing and narrowing down to only a few or even one cause (atmosphere temperature in this case) is not appropriate in my view due to the fact that we are dealing with nature here and for quite a long time now it is known that nature no way can be understood in a linear fashion as your argumentation suggests. I might mention that only a few decades ago it was the complexity of the earth's atmospheric system that triggered a whole new branch in mathematical science known as chaos theory. The atmosphere being a chaotic system clearly rules out any notion of insignificance due to amount unless any significance is disproved. Anyway to state my point in a somewhat broader consent: The matter of water and how we handle that should be given a much higher priority not only but also with respect to global warming. The reason should be obvious: The fact that it got harder in the last decades to get access to fresh water due to dwindling surface reservoirs and by now we already started using fossil reservoirs of it poses an immediate threat to mankind's existence as devastating as global warming if not even worse.
126431. Henry Pool at 19:05 PM on 23 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        I will look at your interpretations of the definitions later, but I think we are straying now from the the two experiments that I have suggested. 1) Are we agreed that in experiment 1 there will definitely be a measuruable difference between the surface areas of A and B, meaning that AHF must/may have some significant bearing on global warming. 2) Are we agreed that in experiment 2, if we do not use air but add 350 ppm CO2 to the 80/20 mixture, there will be no measureable heat retention, i.e. no difference in the surface areas between A and C and between B and D. My conclusion would be that the concentration of CO2 is too small to make any difference. In this experiment, it will not be possible to prove that the increase by 25% of CO2 since 1960 has any significant bearing on global warming. As it is in this experiment so it is probably also in practice. And that, in my opinion, means that the influence of CO2 on global warming is probably grossly overstated. Now if instead of CO2 we were to add 1 or 2 % water vapor in experiment 2, I am sure that there may well be some measurable influence on heat retention. And that brings me to some human activities that were probably never included in any measurements of AHF: namely those activities that produce water vapor a) nuclear plants b) burning of fossil fuels c) building of shallow water reservoirs and dams for consumption and irrigation - also swimming pools; the sun heats the water up and subsequently causes more water vapor. I am sure I have not covered all human activities causing more water vapor, for example, when we cook, or have a bath or shower. Washing dishes. The list is endless. We boil. We make water vapor. All the time. MY point is that the increase in water vapor caused by human activities is probably much larger than the increase in CO2 and the effect on heat retention much more pronounced. I think even Tyndal would have agreed with me on that?
126432. SNRatio at 17:59 PM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        I just want to give an example of how this is playing out around the world. Aftenposten, the most influential Norwegian newspaper, has been running a lot of good articles on climate change. But when this turns up, it is handled as classical conflict stuff, and the basic journalistic principle is to give both sides equal opportunities and weight. In today's article, the "skeptic" side is represented by a well-known "skeptic", professor Olav Martin Kvalheim, University of Bergen. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3385865.ece Kvalheim refers to "Mike's Nature trick", and I have no doubt he is able to understand this, but he still presents this as proof of data manipulation: "This, in Kvalheim's opinion, shows how temperature measurements are manipulted to fit with the model of temperature rise in cliate crisis". He then continues to talk about big research money, to end up with: " - Aren't there even stronger economical interests on the skeptics' side? - You mean that the oil and car industry support the skeptics? No. From the skeptics' side this is pure idealism - many view the climate panel as a propaganda machine, and want to defend scientific principles. " I really hadn't believed he would spin it in such a cheap and dirty way. But the impact is much more short-lived this way, and he surely isn't increasing his credibility in the informed public debate in Norway.
126433. HumanityRules at 17:52 PM on 23 November 2009
        An overview of Antarctic ice trends
        Why delete the discussion on GPS data?
        Response: I haven't deleted the GPS discussion, it can be found at the "official" Antarctic ice page as opposed to this page which is just a blog post. I know it can be a bit confusing, especially when content is duplicated (the website was originally never intended to have a blog - I caved to peer pressure on that point). For the record, the exchange between SNRatio and Chris about Bevis 2009 is the kind of discussion I like to see on this website - poring over the peer reviewed research to gain a clearer picture on what's happening with Antarctic ice.
126434. Tom Dayton at 15:44 PM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        h-j-m, I'm sorry, my previous reply regarding extra water falling out of the atmosphere did not answer your question. Please let me try again: There are vast pools of liquid water available to go into the atmosphere, and vast seeds for condensation to help water vapor drop out of the atmosphere. Indeed, both those activities happen constantly. So neither of those is a limitation on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any one time. Humans' provision of more water is only a drop in the bucket. What does primarily limit the amount of water vapor in the (Earth's) atmosphere is the atmosphere's temperature. At a given temperature, adding more water vapor "nearly instantly" forces water vapor to drop out of the atmosphere. "Nearly instantly" in this context means "so fast that there is no time for significant atmospheric heating from the extra water vapor." The opposite happens as well: Water vapor removed from the atmosphere merely leaves room for the other water vapor that is constantly being added. The net effect all those processes is no change in temperature nor in the amount of water vapor. Water vapor is not a "forcing" of temperature. All the above is not just theory; it is observed fact. It was true before humans had even evolved. If it were not true--if water vapor was not limited by temperature--then there would no longer be liquid water on the Earth's surface. It would all have evaporated and none would have condensed. Water vapor could be a forcing if there weren't any liquid water lying around. On some other planet that doesn't have enough water to fill its atmosphere's capacity for water vapor, adding water vapor to the atmosphere certainly would cause that vapor to stay in the atmosphere. But here on Earth, we've got an abundance of water. What's needed to increase water vapor for more than 10 days is an increase in atmospheric temperature. That initial increase can't come from added water vapor (as I just explained), but it can come from anything else--anything that is a temperature forcing. For example, it can come from an increase in the Sun's output, or an increase in greenhouse gases. Once the temperature has increased, less water vapor drops out of the atmosphere. That does indeed then increase the temperature, which is why water vapor is a "feedback" from other causes of temperature increase. But the amount of temperature increase is strictly limited by the converging series I described in my previous comment.
126435. Tom Dayton at 15:14 PM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        h-j-m, evidence supporting my contention of the triviality of energy humans add directly to the atmosphere is in my two comments on another thread here and here.
126436. Tom Dayton at 14:41 PM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        h-j-m, the amount of energy added directly to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing of less than 1% of the forcing from greenhouse gases added by humans.
126437. HumanityRules at 14:39 PM on 23 November 2009
        Antarctica is gaining ice
        I think the point in #11 is that most attempts to estimate ice mass balance in the antarctic reply on IJ05 or ICE-5G to estimate PGR/GIA. Just to point out that similar work has been done for Eastern anarctic, here, with similar conclusions. Suggesting further error in the previous ice mass estimates including Velicogna 2009. This publication suggests the green line in Fig1 should maybe showing a gain over time. I'd highlight the second half of the Bevis quote in #12 which states that the 33Gt yr-1 is only a provisional figure (and covers only part of Western Antarctic) I'd be keen to see some full estimated that take into account the GPS data.
126438. Tom Dayton at 14:36 PM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        h-j-m, there is no actual contradiction between "extra" water falling out of the atmosphere, and the increased temperature due to the presence of extra water vapor allowing more water vapor to stay in the atmosphere. Additional water vapor increases the atmosphere's temperature by enough to allow an increase of the atmosphere's water-vapor-holding-capacity by only a fraction--a proportion less than 1. That resulting increase in water vapor then repeats the cycle, but now only that same fraction of the previous fraction. It is a converging series. The increases are the same percentage each round, but since the percentage of increase is less than 100%, the increase gets progressively smaller until it reaches zero.
126439. ubrew12 at 12:55 PM on 23 November 2009
        Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating?
        Your figure 2 seems to indicate that ice-mass loss in Greenland seemed to accelerate around 2000. This is also around the time global atmospheric temperatures seemed to flat-line. Isn't it classic thermodynamics, that the temperature of a system won't increase while a material is changing phase? Is it possible that the 'acceleration' of ice-mass loss from Greenland, and perhaps other ice-areas of earth as well, is responsible for the perceived deceleration in global temperature increase seen in the last 10 years?
        Response:

        The amount of energy that goes into ice melt is fairly small compared to the amount of energy being absorbed by the oceans. In the figure below, all the energy gone into ice melt is included in the red "Land + Atmosphere" segment:
        
        
        
        Note that the oceans are still absorbing massive amounts of energy even during recent years when surface temperatures have either flattened or shown short term cooling.
        

126440. Ian Forrester at 11:56 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        Readers of this blog may be interested in a very recent paper which seems to be able to solve the tree ring mystery: "Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes". Matthew W. Salzer, Malcolm K. Hughes, Andrew G. Bunn, and Kurt F. Kipfmueller http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106.full.pdf+html
126441. David Horton at 11:29 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        "places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales" John, excellent explanation - after following all the RC thread I still hadn't understood what was being said until I read your few lines. And dhogaza - "The decline isn't real. The instrumental temperature record shows that it isn't real. Global temps over the last fifty years have not declined, they've increased, despite the tree-ring data" - full marks too for a clear explanation. Astonishing to think that this nonsense is the thing that is getting Deniaworld excited. I have a discussion here http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/182891/Dream_of_money-bags_tonight.html about the context what is going on.
        Response: Normally, WWII analogies in climate discussions are a bad idea. But the dropping of foil plates to mask the Allied invasion is an apt metaphor.
126442. Steve L at 11:02 AM on 23 November 2009
        Record high temperatures versus record lows
        I'm talking to myself on this thread a lot; here I'm responding to my own question regarding a potential disconnect between model expectations of more extreme weather and the surface station record described above that shows, overall, less extreme temperatures. I've skimmed the draft Hergerl et al paper because it was a draft and because it is not new: http://www.env.duke.edu/people/faculty/hegerl/hegerlextremesresub.pdf There is probably better info out there now. I found the following enlightening, though: "daily station data are not readily comparable with daily model output." The model works on larger spatial scales and, despite what this sentence implies, longer temporal scales are also better for comparison (according to text shortly following the quotation). How poorly comparisons work will depend on how the shape of the distribution changes (can be read as how the extremes relate to the mean as the climate changes). The abstract summarizes how the mean and extremes are expected to change: "The estimated signal-to-noise ratio for changes in extreme temperature is nearly as large as for changes in mean temperature. Both models simulate extreme precipitation changes that are stronger than the corresponding changes in mean precipitation." I've glossed over a lot of detail here, and probably the issue deserves better investigation than I've given it. But I think a safe summary is that (1) station data don't make great comparisons to model outputs and (2) increases in extreme weather may be manifest more strongly in precipitation than in temperatures.
126443. Riccardo at 09:52 AM on 23 November 2009
        How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
        Good that it has not been deleted. The endless repeating of the same faulty arguments is enlightening of the deep will to not to look at the science. "coincidence is claimed to be proof of causation" true that coincidence (correlation?) is not a proof, but it's not used for sure on the AGW part. I've seen many more correlations used against AGW, even that the sun (or GRC, or clouds, or magnetic field or even length of the day!) correlates better than CO2 with the temperature record. "admission that AGW is a matter of consensus (political, not science)" Yes? I've heard this somewhere ... on skeptic blogs ... they admit that someone else admit that ... oh Lord ... "we should eliminate any speech of those who don't automatically agree with everything we say" well, and how comes that there is so much discussion around? How comes that scientific papers against AGW continue to appear (though from the same few guys)? Because of their super power that can not be defeated? "the primary "proof" of AGW theories is still based on computer programs" I bet this is just lack of knowledge of the discovery of global warming. No need for computers, simple calculations can be done by hand. On the contrary, including in the picture as many details as possible and having future projections as accurate as possible require intensive calculations.
126444. chris at 09:07 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        re #13 HumanityRules, I'm not going to link to the email you're referring to, since it's a personal email that refers to the inability of a distinguished scientist to sttend a meeting due to illness. It's pretty obvious that the phrase is part of a general personal reminiscence between scientists. The CRU is a leading institution in climate research. It's one of the three centres that compile surface temperature data for constructing past and contemporary temperature anomalies from direct surface temperature measurements. You can learn about it here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
126445. chris at 08:46 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        re #24: Your points don't make a lot of sense TruthSeeker. 1)-3) a). There isn't really anything hidden. Briffa et al. themselves highlighted the divergence issue already in 1998 in Nature, and pointed out the late 20th century lack of response of high latitude trees to rapid warming meant that this part of a reconstruction was demonstrably incorrect [*]. However the tree response to temperature was reliable over the previous decades of the 20th century and back to the 1880’s. So that defines a range of temperature responses (range/rates) in which the proxy is expected to provide reliable temperature reconstructions in the past. b) Since we now have paleotemperature reconstructions from a large range of proxies and that don’t involve tree rings (e.g. [**]), and cover the same period as the ones under discussion in these very old emails, we can see that the analyses of 1998 have pretty much held up to the test of time. 5) Not sure what you mean there. Please clarify. 6) This is about one paper out of 1000’s of papers published in the climate-relate field. It was so obviously dodgy that the failure of the review process caused the editorial board of Climate Research to resign, and the publisher himself stated that the paper shouldn’t have been published as it was. If we have to pretend that we can’t recognise rubbish when we see it, then we’re in trouble (and easy prey for propagandists and other charlatans). 7) Not sure what you’re referring to there. No-one decides what is or isn’t peer-reviewed other than an editor, and it’s very unlikely that an editor wouldn’t send a paper for peer-review, unless possibly if it didn’t conform to the requirements of the journal (character length, number of figure in a communication, etc), or if it's a paper sent to Nature or Science, in which case an editorial decision is made about whether a paper makes it past a preliminary hurdle based on “general interest”, “sexiness”, or “newsworthiness”. [*] K. R. Briffa et al. (1998) Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes Nature 391, 678-682 [**] M. E. Mann (2008) Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:13252-13257
126446. h-j-m at 08:07 AM on 23 November 2009
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        The article states: If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapor levels to 'normal levels' in short time. Implicitly that says that humans can not add water vapor to the atmosphere. But from the pure logical point of view this contradicts the very first statement (from the green box): Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas. If it is a greenhouse gas then it will act as such i. e. warm the atmosphere in effect. As a result the atmosphere will hold more water vapor including a fraction of what was added by men. If it's not, then all the talk about feedback is just gibberish and all conclusions from it, including (I assume) all the models, can surely be entrusted to the trash can. Please don't even consider the argument about the tiny amount by comparison. That has clearly been ruled out in the global warming debate. What I'd like to see are some serious estimations about the anthropogenic part when it comes to water vapor. Including besides the obvious ones e. g. the amount of water contained in a swamp vs. a palm oil farm per square kilometer or tropical rain forest vs. Cattle pasture or corn field. So if you start thinking about it there is hardly an end to find even restricted to the respect of land use that might result in releasing water to the atmosphere. Which then leads me to my last point. That is about direct heating the atmosphere by our energy production (of cause from burning fossil fuels and using nuclear - because all other sources are more or less conversions from sunlight). I think this belongs here because in most cases water vapor acts as a transport medium in the process. It gets vaporized by the produced energy and releases it due to condensation in the atmosphere. Due to the overall efficiency of our industry we speak about 50+ % of all energy generated. So far I have been unfortunate in finding anything about that matter so I thought it might be a good idea posting this question here.
126447. dhogaza at 08:05 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        

        The decline is the divergence problem, you can't say one is real and not the other. IAC, the point is, if we know that recent tree ring data for which we have independent temperature data shows that tree rings are not (currently) a good temperature proxy, why should we assume they were a good proxy for times when we do not have much independent temperature data? Confirmation bias, anyone?

        No. 1. Not all tree ring data sets show the divergence problem, yet they show the same general pattern of climate in the past than those that do. 2. There are a dozen or so paleo reconstructions that DON'T USE TREE RING DATA AT ALL that show a similar pattern in past climatic conditions. 3. We know from tree physiology unrelated to paleoreconstructions that trees near their altitudinal and latitudinal range limits are frequently growth-limited by temperature. 4. They don't just count tree rings, but rather for variation in tissue that is known from studies into tree physiology to be due to temperature being a limiting factor in growth. etc etc etc. The problem with simplistic rejection of science you don't understand is that unlike you, specialists *do* understand their subject very well. Which leads to statements like:

        4)Libel?? see tree rings, they use it when it supports their claims and through it out when it contridicts. That isn't libel that is true and has as you say "something that's been widely discussed in the open professional literature for a decade."

126448. Bodhisattva at 07:29 AM on 23 November 2009
        How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
        I find it sad that those who point to the attached papers as further or any "proof" of anthropogenic warming apparently failed to critically read the papers. In the various pro-AGW arguments presented I see the idea that coincidence is claimed to be proof of causation, admission that AGW is a matter of consensus (political, not science), and the usual "we should eliminate any speech of those who don't automatically agree with everything we say". It's sad, really. The simple fact is that the primary "proof" of AGW theories is still based on computer programs which were designed to prove just that and which, if you've been paying attention for the past ten years, deliberaetly flawed presentations of temperature data aside, have been proven wrong once again. Over the past decade human production of CO2 went up and temperatures did not. You can deny it all you want, you can delete this post all you want, it's still true.
        Response: I must confess, my finger was hovering over the delete button when I first read this comment. But instead, I will follow Riccardo's example in the following comment and use this as a teachable moment:

        • Firstly, you describe several claims of pro-AGW arguments. Eg - "coincidence proves causation", "it's based on computer programs", "AGW is a matter of consensus". They are not the claims made by climate scientists. These are characterisations of pro-AGW arguments made by skeptics. The evidence for man-made global warming is based on direct observations and direct causation.
        • In fact, that is the main point of this post - empirical measurements prove that more CO2 leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. This means CO2 is "trapping" more heat. Therefore the planet is accumulating heat. And more heat means higher temperatures. That's not coincidence but direct causation.
        • Over the past decade, the enhanced greenhouse effect continues to trap heat. Observations show that the Earth's total heat content continued to rise past 1998, the year when skeptics claim global warming stopped. More than 90% of global warming goes into the oceans. Direct measurements of ocean heat content find that the ocean is still accumulating heat. The empirical data is clear. Global warming is still happening.

        It's quite easy to set up straw arguments like "coincidence is not causation" or "AGW theories are based on computer programs". But the evidence for man-made global warming is empirical, based on direct measurements of an enhanced greenhouse effect. I'm not sure if you read the article above but I would strongly recommend rereading it then reading a broader overview of the empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
126449. shawnhet at 07:18 AM on 23 November 2009
        What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
        dhogaza, The decline is the divergence problem, you can't say one is real and not the other. IAC, the point is, if we know that recent tree ring data for which we have independent temperature data shows that tree rings are not (currently) a good temperature proxy, why should we assume they were a good proxy for times when we do not have much independent temperature data? Confirmation bias, anyone? Cheers, :)
126450. Riccardo at 03:46 AM on 23 November 2009
        The albedo effect
        Henry Pool, apart from the erroneous interpretation of the Wikipedia article (by the way, better study these topics from a textbook or a specialized site like Tom Dayton suggested), your idea point to a constant albedo of 0.5 for any plane with an atmosphere, which is definetely wrong. You should always contrast your undesrtandings with numbers and with other situations. The formula of the inrreased forcing is one of the many that can be used; it's of the most used and is found many aproximate calculations and in the IPCC reports. Sometimes the coefficient is slightly different from the one i gave you.

Prev  2521  2522  2523  2524  2525  2526  2527  2528  2529  2530  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  Next