Recent Comments

Prev  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  Next

Comments 131051 to 131100:

131051. Philippe Chantreau at 16:09 PM on 29 December 2007
        It's not bad
        What makes you think that the limits on Rubisco Activase will not manifest themselves? How could it be good to shift the ratio of ATP/ADP toward ADP? Since CO2 level is already quite a bit higher, those bumper crops should already start to show up. Examples? Universal benefit? How is it universal?
131052. Philippe Chantreau at 15:54 PM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Really, all you have is a set of ideas attempting to fit the data you're aware of in a way you like. However, you forget that there is an entire body of research out there that you must invalidate if you are to prove you're right. Santer, Ramaswamy and Schwartzkopf have a lot of research and modeling work on the stratosphere; the modeling of WV effects has been shown to be appropriate by Cess (2005). You must demonstrate all this stuff to be wrong, just saying it is does not make it so. Furthermore, where exactly is the increased solar activity capable of producing the kind of ocean heating we're considering? You talk joules, how are the very small variations of TSI in W/square meter (which could never be actually observed from the surface) converted into so many joules in the very short time during which it was witnessed? "The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component." From Levitus et al (2001). Does it really add up? Is the total energy really there only with the TSI? Is the delay consistent with what is observed? How does one know what the delay is? A delay without physical principles is an awfully convenient fudge factor. Since you're so gung-ho on evidence, I'm sure you have some on all that. Or do I need to just believe you again? I keep an open mind, however. You seem very confident in your theory, so you really should try to have something coherent reviewed and published. I will be happy to look at it then and integrate it to the extent of my abilities. Until then, all you have is an opinion, and as the saying goes, we all have one. Incidentally, your "I'm right you're wrong" comment is kind of moot, since, unlike you, I have not presented any personal theory or opinion. I have instead summarized what I've seen of the research published out there. So your comment should more accurately be: "I'm right and all those other guys publishing articles and studies are wrong." Who I will find more credible, however, is up to me. Usually, I am wary of people going "I'm right, you're wrong." Funnily enough, that's very reminiscent of those religious ideas you alluded to.
131053. Philippe Chantreau at 14:45 PM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        And why should I bother coming up with some evidence when you don't show any?
131054. Philippe Chantreau at 14:44 PM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Dr. Elmar Uherek from the Max Planck Institute has thought about this long and clearly and I find his views more compellig than yours: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html All you have is a funny theory, yet I'm supposed to think it's better thah anything else out there just because you say so? Sorry, no can do. This took me just a minute to find. However, I still had no luck so far with the sweating oceans. I really like your way of dialoguing, though: "Now I'm right and you are wrong." That's funny.
131055. GMB at 13:51 PM on 29 December 2007
        Climate sensitivity is low
        Do all of these people make the same basic mistakes as Annan? That is to assume CO2-warming with reference to volcanic cooling or solar warming? Annans snapshot of 20,000 years ago is an example of studiously IGNORING the empirical evidence rather than empirically showing anything. We know that glaciations come and go. We also know that the CO2 FOLLOWS AND DOES NOT LEAD the changes in temperature. So for him to grab that snapshot in time was just him filling out a troika of Unscience and non-evidence. Hopefully someone will let me know if any actual evidence is contained in any of the studies.
131056. GMB at 13:20 PM on 29 December 2007
        It's not bad
        "Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experiments conducted so far." 1. Every last open air experiment so far has CONFIRMED the fertilization effect. 2. Open air experiments may appear to be "streetwise" but they are very much likely to UNDERESTIMATE the CO2-fertilisation effect. Open air experiments sound to me like an appalling waste of money. You either control a factor in an experiment or you do not. Piping CO2 into the area isn't going to have the same effect as having the CO2 homogenised in the air. Since the plant is accessing the CO2 at the molecular level and not at the level of little eddies and wisps of unhomogenised CO2. What looks at first like the streetwise simulation on second thoughts appears to be hopelessly unrealistic. And it appears to underestimate the massive and universal benefit of extra CO2. But nonetheless these experiments CONFIRM this universal benefit. They underestimate the benefit but still they confirm the benefit.
131057. GMB at 11:36 AM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        There is no signature for CO2 warming. And no thats not right. Solar warming won't lead to stratospheric warming. It will lead to stratospheric cooling indirectly via higher water vapour levels and then subsequently lower ozone levels. This is in fact what has happened. You are talking about "SIGNATURES?". Well we know whats happened already. The signature in the stratosphere is such that the build-up in water vapour is robbing energy from the stratosphere. The signature comes from the wavelengths that are missing there. Which are the wavelengths primarily that water vapour absorbs and to a smaller extent the wavelength (speaking of long-wave-radiation) that ozone absorbs. Hence we can deduce that what is behind the cooling is the following transmission method. Really the only transition imagineable if you think long enough and clearly enough about it: INCREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY.....DELAY.....BUILD-UP IN JOULES IN THE OCEAN.....DELAY.....BUILD-UP IN WATER VAPOUR IN THE AIR.....DELAY.....BUILD UP IN HEAT ENERGY IN THE ATMOSPHERE....REDUCTION IN HEAT ENERGY IN THE STRATOSHPERE... So the signature you are talking about is not there. And where you are coming off the beam is you are imagining that this is some sort of instantaneous light-and-air show. So the factor of imbedded joules in the ocean is discounted. As is the factor of TIME!!!! No doubt if the sun starts up a major level of activity all of a sudden the first thing that will happen is that the troposphere and stratosphere will warm. But its what happens over years and decades that counts here. And whats happened is that the oceans have slowly absorbed energy. This leads to more water vapour in the air. This leads to on average a warmer troposphere and a cooler stratosphere. Now I'm right and you are wrong. And we can see that because my broad understanding of whats going on fits what we are seeing. Whereas you are yet to show me where the signature is for this alleged CO2-warming. You are going to have to come up with some evidence fella. Thats the problem with this cult. No evidence. You don't have any evidence. Lets see some evidence.
131058. Philippe Chantreau at 10:28 AM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        All I can do is repeat what I previously said. Physical laws allow to identify what the signature of a specific cause of warming is. Observations show whether or not that signature is found in Nature. For example, a signature of solar warming would be stratospheric warming, an observable feature (nowhere to be seen however). I don't know what an armchair inference is. If Physics shows that an effect exists, there is no reason to believe that this effect will somehow disappear. Spectroscopy shows the thermal behavior of CO2 and allows to calculate a radiative forcing. If you want to argue that this radiative forcing does not exist because of some reasons, go right ahead. You could also argue that the pressure differential afforded by Bernouilli's principle is just a hypothesis and there is no reason to think that it can make a wing generate lift. By your reasoning, this would have been a perfectly defendable position before airplanes started flying (there was no "evidence" for it). Let's examine the oceans "sweating" idea. I assume that you are knowledgeable enough about what sweating does in humans and used the analogy accordingly. If the oceans are "sweating", they are trying to dissipate heat by evaporation, relying on the thermic loss from the latent heat of evaporation. Why would the oceans do that? Because they have excess heat to dissipate (that's why we humans sweat, whatever the reason of the excess heat). This leads to interesting questions: Where is the excess heat coming from? If the "sweating" process is working, oceans should show a loss of energy, most noticeable at the surface under the form of decreased temperatures. Just like skin temperature drops (significantly) when sweat evaporates. Do sea surface temperatures show anything of the sort? Once the water vapor is released, what happens to it? After all, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, physics tells us so and it is bound to trap heat, regardless of what you think. Overall thermodynamic balance: if the "sweating" is working, what happens to the dissipated energy? You did not answer the following of my questions: -your credentials? -science worker vs. scientist? -biomass/CO2? -biomass as a bad metric of "better" times? -link between biomass and CO2? -What exactly are net and gross productions? -Scientific work exploring the idea of ocean sweating?
131059. GMB at 07:38 AM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Right. I just looked at the introduction of your second link. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to find evidence for CO2-warming. It merely assumes and asserts that CO2 has this warming effect. When people keep doing this they are not engaging in science. Rather they are engaged in theology. The spectroscopy is in the armchair inference that CO2 will make a difference on a global scale. We know about the spectroscopy. Thats already in the HYPOTHESIS. It cannot be used as evidence to test THAT hypothesisl. Now before I go to your first link can you tell me if there is any evidence there?
131060. GMB at 07:24 AM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Do your links make the same mistake that Annan does or not?
131061. Yves at 05:46 AM on 29 December 2007
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        "That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ?" The 5.06E+11 are tons of CO2 The (estimated) 2.10E+11 are tons of C which give 2.10*11/3 = 7.70E+11 tons of CO2. So, the net increase in the atmosphere is lower than the "manmade carbon flux". The difference have been taken up by mainly the oceans. "And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature?" The pertinent figure would not be 7% (btw raised to 26% if C is converted to CO2) but 65/385 = 17%. However such reasoning is still not pertinent since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and not linear. The preindustrial CO2 contributes to natural greenhouse effect (33°C) and the additional CO2 to enhanced greenhouse effect.
131062. Philippe Chantreau at 05:02 AM on 29 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        You say there is no evidence that CO2 is warming things up. Although I beg to differ (that's what the links are for), for the sake of the discussion, it can also been said that there is no evidence that the Sun, or anything else is specifically warming things up either. For the Sun, there is actually evidence to the contrary. One can point to a source of warming if one can find a physical feature that constitutes a signature for that source. Stratospheric and tropopause changes are pretty good signatures for increased GH effect. What exactly is the difference between a scientist and a science worker? I am layman myself and would certainly not make such a distinction. You feel confident making it but still do not present your credentials, which, I assume, should include significant scientific background. "Total biomass is largely a function of the presence of CO2." This needs elaboration. My own knowledge of biology indicates that the availability of liquid water is a a much more important factor. Why is total biomass a bad metric? "The human race using a lot of net or gross primary production strikes me as an astoundingly good reason to keep the CO2 coming." Although I have a vague idea of what you might refer to, what do you mean by "production"? What exactly is the link between "keeping the CO2 coming" and the "production"? "You'll find my logic is quite unassailable. And that ought to be sufficient without any further references." Considering you're arguing against physics, I'll say no, it is not quite sufficient. I'll add that this is exactly the kind of argument that "skeptics" find unacceptable. In response to your last question, atmospheric physics suggest that the tropopause would behave in a certain way if there is warming in response to increased greenhouse effect. That behavior was modeled and observations of the actual changes in the tropopause matched the expectations and model results. As for your ocean dynamics ideas, surely, if the logic of it is made of steel, there should be no shortage of researchers using them to try understand oceanic thermal behavior. I would be very interested in having a glimpse of their work, so I don't see why you would withhold links to related scientific work.
131063. ATekhasski at 18:52 PM on 28 December 2007
        CO2 lags temperature
        birdbrainscan wrote: "What everyone needs to appreciate is that we have fundamental physics and really, really extensive laboratory analysis of the absorption spectra gases alone and in combination, at all sorts of temperatures and pressures. You can look up the raw data on HITRAN at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/ and you can read the conclusions drawn from this raw data about the greenhouse effect at, e.g. Ray Pierrehumbert's free access draft of his "Climate Book"" I am familiar with this book, it is really a university level physics textbook, under which I mean "entry level". One needs to realize that the explanation of GH effect inherently relies upon so-called "atmospheric lapse rate", to link the height of "effective emission layer" with surface temperatures. One really needs to realize that so-called "lapse rate" must be an average of all atmospheric structures and weather patterns over the whole globe and from ground up to the whole troposphere. One needs to realize that the atmospheric patterns include turbulent boundary layer, global circulation patterns (Hadley, Ferrel, and polar cells), jet streams, hurricanes and other tropical depressions. More importantly, the lapse rate is strongly affected by moisture, which, in turn, is strongly affected by sea temperature. What is more important is that the moisture tends to condense into clouds under certain atmospheric/aerosols conditions. The laps rate ("moisture adiabate") tends to DECREASE with higher moisture content providing a negative feedback. Clouds also provide negative feedback by reducing insolation. Needless to say that all of listed processes occur under strong non-isotropic turbulent conditions, and are way beyond the reach of any direct computer modeling. As result, either a hand-made parameterizations have to be used, or parameterizations of experimental data. Given the spatio-temporal complexity of atmospheric patterns, data from few weather balloons cannot be seriously considered as a good representation of average atmospheric structure. The reference to HITRAN/MODTRAN serves no purpose for this discussion since the code uses a pre-selected fixed MODEL of atmospheric profile. In MODTRAN, there are 84 different models for atmospheric profiles; each gives different result for amount of OLR and surface temperature. So, what would be your selection of models across the globe to include into a global greenhouse model? How objective or subjective it could be? As you see, the "fundamental physics" of absorption spectra or two-stream Schwarzschild equations are not all the sophistications you need to build a model of GH effect and calculate its amplitude.
131064. ATekhasski at 18:01 PM on 28 December 2007
        CO2 lags temperature
        Actually, Milankovitch hypothesis requires much more than WATTS_PER_SQUARE_METRE. The thing is that GLOBAL year-average solar flux does not change more than 0.1% during those cycles. Climatologists like to plot amplitude of "Milankovitch forcing" at one spot on Earth - at latitude 65N, which does not represent in any way or form the GLOBAL change in incoming radiation. I find this very misleading, especially when the whole talk is about GLOBAL warming. For the Milankovitch to have any effect on Earth, climatologists have to use a hidden assumption that Nothern Hemishpere controls the whole climate by having some sort of "rectifier effect". So far this rectifier has not been identified, and ony speculations exist that it has something to do with more land in NH than in SH, and maybe with Arctic ice having contact with land (Greenland etc).
131065. GMB at 16:45 PM on 28 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Tell me. Before I go and spend a lot of time on the two studies you linked... Have they made the same obvious mistake that Annan made? I mean are they investigating CO2-warming? Or are they investigating solar variance warming, volcanic aerosols warming, anything but CO2-warming, and making invalid inferences from one to the other? Because you could put up 1000 studies and it wouldn't mean a thing if they didn't have actual evidence for specifically CO2-based warming.
131066. GMB at 16:22 PM on 28 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Total biomass wouldn't be a bad metric one supposes. And Total biomass is largely a function of the presence of CO2. The human race using a lot of net or gross primary production strikes me as an astoundingly good reason to keep the CO2 coming. You'll find my logic is quite unassailable. And that ought to be sufficient without any further references.
131067. GMB at 16:17 PM on 28 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        You cannot find any evidence that CO2 is warming things up. The whole movement is based on running down what the other guy says. No such evidence exists. Which means of course that the effect is not there or its just not strong enough to register. There's wiggle room for a sliver of warming but even me saying this is pure speculation. I don't know how you can have a study for something that isn't there. And these are hardly scientists we are talking about. More like "science workers."
131068. Philippe Chantreau at 13:54 PM on 28 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        GMB, do you have cites for your assertions on feedbacks? You're suggesting a large bunch of scientists have it all wrong. If I am to take your word for it, can you show your credentials or own publications? You address John Cook as "you", but he is mainly relaying the core message emerging from the existing body of research. The radiative properties of CO2 are known and there is a considerable amount of published science indicating that these properties are "warming things up" in the way physics would let you expect. Such as in these papers: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Santer_etal.pdf http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~deweaver/lorenz_deweaver_uchange.pdf Only examples, there is too much to list really. Refuting all of it would be quite an undertaking, you haven't really given much details on how that would be done. General ideas are fine but studies and publications are better. Any models exploiting the principles that you mention in post #9? About climate history, you're a little vague. What kind of ranges and timelines are we loking at? Are we comparing anything from the times after Panama closing with before (which would be kind of pointless)? http://marine.rutgers.edu/faculty/rosentha/rosenthal_files/Lear_NADW_inpress.pdf What are you criteria for "better." Total biomass? Human expansion? Are you considering only very recent history (past 2500 years)? If yes, can you substantiate some more? Besides, I could add that comparing our times, during which humans have become a major limiting factor on virtually all components of the total biomass, with times past, during which they were one component among others and going with the flow, might be inappropriate and lead to meaningless comparisons.
131069. GMB at 12:44 PM on 28 December 2007
        Neptune is warming
        rrrrriiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttt So its one feeble excuse after another. Here we have a general solar system trend and any excuse is enough not to blame it on the sun. Its this static equilibrium light and air model that is to blame here. If you thought instead in terms of accumulating and decumulating joules imbedded in the planet than this levelling of in the suns activity would be immaterial. So long as the sun was strong enough to keep the planets accumulating joules.
131070. GMB at 12:29 PM on 28 December 2007
        It's the ocean
        "If the ocean was feeding atmospheric warming, the oceans would be cooling." Thats very weird thinking. The transmission goes like this: 1. Increased solar activity leads to oceanic warming. Leads to more water vapour, leads to atmospheric warming. 2. Increased solar activity leads to less invasion of cosmic rays, leads to less cloud cover, leads to greater oceanic warming, leads to water vapour, leads to atmospheric warming. 3. Increased solar activity, leads to greater momentum in oceanic currents, leads to greater imbedded energy in the oceans via the Stefan-Boltzmann's law. With regards to point 3. Were there some basic change to the "resistance to circulation". If some change in oceanic currents led to a better circulation or less resistance to circulation then you would expect the oceans to accrue more energy and that would eventually have the side effect of greater average global temperatures.
131071. GMB at 12:07 PM on 28 December 2007
        Ice age predicted in the 70s
        But the idea that we will go into another glaciation is far sounder science than is this new and basically baseless stuff. We always have in the past. This planet is currently hard-wired with a one way catastrophic cooling bias. The case that we will have another glaciation is basically cut and dried. We have the capacity to cool the earth. We have no such capacity to warm the earth. In order to avoid another glaciation we ought to be looking at ways to hose down volcanic aerosols or something. Certainly we need to build up our nuclear energy production capacity. And our hydrocarbons as well.
131072. GMB at 11:29 AM on 28 December 2007
        Evaporating the water vapor argument
        "Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2." Here you've gone right over the edge into circular thinking. We need some actual evidence.
131073. GMB at 11:07 AM on 28 December 2007
        Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
        We cannot trust the surface data. Its cherry-picked for the purpose of showing warming and there are so many regions where there is no measurement. The balloon and satelite data correlate with eachother. That means they must be reliable. The satelite data it is. The satelite/balloon data leaves a lot less to explain in terms of divergence from solar activity. The only years to explain anything at all are probably 78 through 2000. The campaign against SO2 could explain some of this. But the real deal to consider is ACCUMULATING AND DECUMULATING energy lodged in the ocean. That solar cycle 23 was not as strong as solar cycle 22 isn't the main point here. For the air temperature to continue to warm solar cycle 23 only had to be strong enough for the ocean to continue to accumulate joules. Plus even if 23 was a tad too weak for accumulation over the long haul (that is to say if that strength of cycle was repeated many times) still the momentum of the oceanic circulation could have kept the ocean (and particularly the Far North) warming for a time before that ocean circulation momentum slowed down. When the solar scientists say that solar irradiance and air temperature move together in lock step.... but then they say that this only worked until 1978 or 1980 it must be remembered that they are not the ones who compiled the tainted surface data. And when they say this you can be pretty sure they are using the tainted surface data and falling over themselves to make a concession to the mob. Such is the pressure in this field. So we can discount this some since the surface record is tainted. In any case while each solar cycle strength is correlated with the air temperature the solar cycle prior is even better correlated. If this was STRICTLY TRUE rather than just a minor observation well then its only natural that the time period FOLLOWING cycle 22 would exhibit the higher air temperature. So it ought not be thought that there is a great deal of an anomaly to explain at all. Even that is not the full story. Its all about accumulating joules in the ocean and the air temperature is only a spin-off of that.
131074. GMB at 10:41 AM on 28 December 2007
        Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
        "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence." The two simply cannot be compared. For one thing, as an INSULATIVE influence the effect of CO2 is itself totally dependent on the effect of the sun. A jumper, a windbreaker and three blankets will not warm a dead body. But secondly, the series of steps that one goes through to produce these various hypothetical FORCINGS are riddled with untenable assumptions. Truly these are flat earth calculations. The environment of leftist abuse within the profession has prevented superior paradigms from being formulated. While the skeptics stick with the leftists paradigms they will be constantly undercut, though there objections be valid.
131075. GMB at 07:59 AM on 28 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        "However, warmer water creates more distinct ocean layers and limits mixing of deeper nutrient-rich cooler water with warmer surface water. The lack of rising nutrients keeps phytoplankton growth in check at the surface." This is a negative feedback. It means the deep oceans cannot warm as well. The stratification will mean more energy lost from the surface. If the mixing was more robust the ocean could retain more heat energy. An ocean-focus tends to change all these alleged positive feedbacks into negative feedbacks.
131076. GMB at 07:53 AM on 28 December 2007
        What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
        You are going to have to actually FIND evidence for a feedback effect. Alleging it or quoting someone who is alleging it isn't the same thing. There's insufficient evidence here not to assume a negative feedback effect on longer time scales.
131077. GMB at 22:55 PM on 27 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        You cannot make such conclusions about "climate sensitivity". Since we already know that volcanoes can cool things and we know that extra solar activity can warm things. But we have no evidence that extra CO2 can warm things. So its a big leap to say that CO2 can warm things on the basis of aerosols and solar variation. "A big leap" is an understatement.
131078. GMB at 19:07 PM on 27 December 2007
        Mars is warming
        If Jupiter, the earth, Mars, Pluto and so forth are warming... then its the sun. These alternative feeble excuses are really clutching at straws.
131079. GMB at 18:27 PM on 27 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Phillipe. Climate history is very clear on this. The warmer times are the better times.
131080. GMB at 17:15 PM on 27 December 2007
        CO2 lags temperature
        The problem with your comment birdbrainscan is that its already part of the armchair hypothesis so it can scarcely be included as evidence. The armchair thinking goes like this: If the colour of CO2 is such that it absorbs a little bit of the infrared spectrum then industrial-CO2-release ought to substantially warm things up on a global scale. Now the fact is that there isn't a scrap of evidence for this thesis. One-step inductive armchair inferences don't always turn out to be true. This one has failed all experimental tests. CO2 might well COOL the temperature of the earth in the long run. An armchair inference with billions of dollars behind it is still an armchair inference.
131081. GMB at 16:57 PM on 27 December 2007
        CO2 lags temperature
        This idea that Malinkovitch needs CO2 feedback to do the job is clearly false. Since it relies on a WATTS-PER-SQUARE-METRE model which is a light-and-air-only model. If we allow for the accumulation and decumulation of joules in the planet and the oceans then it is the factor of TIME ALONE that needs to be taken into account and not this sideshow of CO2-feedback. We ought to be looking at a model which relies on STRATA AND HEAT BUDGETS. Not on WPSM. The WPSM model is a first draught that people came up with looking through telescopes. They couldn't see anything else so they imagined the whole thing could be determined by spectroscopy alone. But what we are talking about is the accumulation and decumulation of joules. Another thing that these WPSM models fail to take into account is the distance travelled through the atmosphere. The stratosphere ends about 50km up in the air. But that doesn't mean that a "ray" of light hitting the stratosphere has to travel only 50km. This is only true at the equator and at high noon. And this is important since the climate guys talk as if only greenhouse gas and ozone can attenuate this radiation. But all gasses inhibit radiation and a lot of this radiation has a very long way to go. Not taking into account of this and failing to think about ACCUMULATION and DECUMULATION of joules over many decades and years is a fatal flaw to these climate models.
131082. GMB at 16:43 PM on 27 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        You would have to say that extra water vapour was a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. The idea of it being a positive feedback only comes about because of the climate scientists looking at the wrong metric. The metric has to be accumulated joules in the ocean. And if we could find out the information, accumulated joules in the planet itself. But it looks for now like we will soon have pretty good data for accumulated joules in the ocean. The air temperature is a SYMPTOM of the accumulated energy in the ocean. Because that accumulated energy will cause extra water vapour. But in no way is this a positive feedback. In fact water vapour is like the oceans sweating. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be considered in this way as well. What at first looks like a positive feedback may well turn out to be a negative feedback.
131083. Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 27 December 2007
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        Thanks John, I added some interesting links on that thread, hope they show up OK (the medmail ones are kind of funky). The idea of CO2 fertilization is far from being a "fact" on which future yields can be reliably estimated.
131084. Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 27 December 2007
        It's not bad
        Malaria is one among others. Italy recently had a brush with Chikungunya (more fun to pronounce, if not to experience). Dengue fever is also to be considered Furthermore, "skeptics" take as fact the idea of "CO2 fertilization" popularized heavily by the propaganda site called CO2Science. However, that fact may not be nearly as much good news as they imagine. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918 Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experiments conducted so far.
131085. Alan McIntire at 13:31 PM on 26 December 2007
        Was Greenland really green in the past?
        There's a recent paper on Greenland: AB: Radiocarbon dates of emergent organic remains along the western margin of Istorvet ice cap (70.8°N, 22.2°W) indicate a time when the ice cap was smaller than at present. This ice cap, similar to others in east Greenland, exhibits "historic" moraines ~1-2 km in front of the presently retreating ice margins.... Moreover, it indicates warm conditons at this latitude at the time of Norse colonization of Greenland."
131086. Alan McIntire at 13:20 PM on 26 December 2007
        Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
        http://www.physorg.com/news116687408.html "Titled "Effect of Remote Sea Surface Temperature Change on Tropical Cyclone Potential Intensity," their study found that long-term changes in potential intensity are more closely related to the regional pattern of warming than to local ocean temperature change. Regions that warm more than the tropical average are characterized by increased potential intensity, and vice versa. "A surprising result is that the current potential intensity for Atlantic hurricanes is about average, despite the record high temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade." Soden said. "This is due to the compensating warmth in other ocean basins." "As we try to understand the future changes in hurricane intensity, we must look beyond changes in Atlantic Ocean temperature. If the Atlantic warms more slowly than the rest of the tropical oceans, we would expect a decrease in the upper limit on hurricane intensity," Vecchi added. "This is an interesting piece of the puzzle." - A. McIntire
131087. Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 25 December 2007
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        Sorry John, this OT, but I was wondering why you have no topic on the ubiquitous claim from skeptics that more CO2 is good for plant growth and will more than compensate for other inconveniences? Sorry again for the OT comment.
        Response: This is covered somewhat in Positives and Negatives of Global Warming. The general gist is that while there are some positives to global warming (increased CO2 enhancing plant growth, increased agriculture in higher latitudes, etc), the negative impacts from global warming far outweigh
        the positives.
131088. Philippe Chantreau at 05:55 AM on 25 December 2007
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Wondering Aloud, I find your view overly simplistic. In my opinion, and from reads like those of Jared Diamond, it seems that what is really favorable is a temperate climate without too much excursion one way or another. It is interesting to note that, for a while, the expansion of white colonization northward from South-Africa was stalled by a number of climate related factors: no crops, diseases etc... "The economy does not share your preference for cold." How does that translate when comparing at a macro level (not only real estate prices) the economies of, say, Sweden and Mauritania? Norway and Central African Republic? I find this statement so vague as to be meaningless. How about comparing the economies of various regions in Australia according to average temps? What results do you get with that? Also, when considering land area, it is better to look at a globe than a map (except a conical lambert projection, not very suitable for very large areas). It is also necessary to think about positive and negative there, i.e. how much land will no longer be available due to change in rain patterns or simply excessive temps. In a (overly) simple representation in which you map good agricultural regions as a belt defined by a latitude range (that's what you seem to allude to), moving that belt poleward will decrease its total area, there is no doubt about that. Furthermore, you seem to confuse global and regional just for the sake of your argument when you ask "am I the only one hoping for warming?" Global does not mean local, there will still be local variations and, while Baikal may see slightly warmer weather, other changes in precipitation, wind or whatever might not be to your liking and won't be compensated by the warming. If you really don't like it up there, you should move to a warmer place now, rather than wait for a phenomenon whose existence you doubt.
131089. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 22:26 PM on 22 December 2007
        Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
        Your list of potential catastrophes makes interesting reading. But there are no citations, so I wonder how many of these items are speculations and how many have any scientific backing to them. Presumably if the global temperature dropped 2C then we could construct an equally long list of potential catastrophes. It seems that the implications of all this is that somehow, miraculously, the current average global temperature must be perfect.
131090. plfreeman at 21:49 PM on 21 December 2007
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        While I don't disagree with the statement that the overall warming trend continues, the line-of-best-fit-graph is a bit disingenuous. You should show the 2 sigma bounds on the fit line, which would likely show that the probability of no increase in the last 10 years is not unreasonable. Further I presume that you used least-squares to fit the line. This assumes that temperature anomalies are normally distributed. Glancing at the graph, this doesn't seem to be the case (several major excursions from the mean trend line), so the outliers will unduly influence the line of best fit. Least squares is extremely non-robust to non-normal data. The second graph doesn't help your argument much, and might actually hinder it some. If you could send me or point me to the raw data, I'd be happy to do a different analysis on it and see if there is a meaningful trend in the data.
        Response: Good question, the data comes from GISS Temp, using the Global-mean monthly land-ocean temperature index.
131091. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:47 PM on 21 December 2007
        Scientists can't even predict weather
        According to the graph and the station data Hansen uses, 2006 is apparently the warmest year on record, not 1998...? Is he therefore selecting the best data or perhaps the data that best fits his prediction? I would feel more confident in the accuracy of his prediction if the paper wasn't written *by* Hansen explaining to everyone how *clever* Hansen is. No bias, eh? Are there assessments of Hansen's predictive powers made by independent scientists or statisticians? I've already quoted in the other article a link to an assessment that is not favourable. Common sense dictates that his work will probably have to be reviewed at least independently before anyone should take his claims seriously.
131092. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:22 PM on 21 December 2007
        There is no consensus
        The fact that there are so many Academies of Science endorsing the global warming position is probably the strongest argument for supporting it. The question to ask is how mature is this field? If the answer is 'very mature' then this type of support has high credibility. If the answer is 'immature' then it's significance is considerably less. Here is a link to US Senate Committee on the Environment that lists in detail 400 scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport That there are so many when we repeatedly hear on the news and radio that the actual number of dissenters is 'miniscule' will have the tendency to turn believers into sceptics. I would also feel more confident if the 'hockey stick' graphics that predict rapid change and global catastrophe would not all be linked back to a small handful of researchers and students who work together and presumably have the same preconceptions and modus operandi. If there are no 'hockey sticks' then the small increase in global temperature over the last century does not statistically look different from what one would expect from natural variation.
131093. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 00:15 AM on 21 December 2007
        1934 - hottest year on record
        A further observation: The seasonal Arctic ice melt is significant (based at least on the short observational records that we have) and it's been argued that it is strong evidence in support of global warming. Yet this area covers only 3% of the planet. Could you please clarify why the 2% land mass of the United States has only an 'infinitesimal effect on global trends' yet the 3% land area of the Arctic is apparently significant 'concrete' proof? Wouldn't the way such information is selectively used or ignored, indicative of certain biases?
131094. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:50 PM on 20 December 2007
        Models are unreliable
        Leaving aside the silly notion that you can 'prove' a model's accuracy by checking it's fitting to the historical record--I mean honestly, you are aware that these models are tweaked *until* they fit the historical record, aren't you? The past is not the problem. The Hansen forecast sounded impressive, so I looked over the paper and did some googling. There is definitely a different spin on the accuracy of the forecast. Discussed here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796 which demonstrates that scenario B is nowhere near the perfect fit implied by your article or Hansen. Hansen could be right, but he doesn't seem to explain where he is getting his data from. I can only find vague references to 'Station Data' and 'Land-Ocean'. What data is it he is using? How has it been adjusted? At least the sceptical article above is up front on where the data is coming from. This doesn't prove that Hansen is wrong. But it doesn't leave one with a high degree of confidence either.
131095. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:06 PM on 20 December 2007
        1934 - hottest year on record
        The United States shows no warming trend but that doesn't matter because it's only 2% of the surface area of the Earth, correct? While this is true, the concern here is that the US surface temperature records are regarded as the best in the world. If they show no warming trend, how reliable are the records of countries such as China where there has been massive urbanisation (thus increased heat from cities)? This is an open question. And a legitimate one. It should also be pointed out that the land surface records we have don't show warming trends in South America or Africa or Antarctica. I suppose the only thing we can get out of this is to consider that global warming is perhaps more regional and local in nature and impact than the term would have us assume. Or perhaps we should focus on other temperature measures as the land surface record may not be particularly accurate in and of itself.
131096. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 21:07 PM on 19 December 2007
        Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
        I am curious to know why you say the attacks on Mann are overblown? Are you not concerned that he has not released substantial portions of his data so that elementary checking by other researchers could be done? Isn't replication fundamental to science? And if his work is solid, what has he got to fear? Wouldn't it be better to shut the critics up? Also, if some of the world's most qualified and respected statisticians conclude that his statistical analysis is in error, why do you regard this as a problem that is 'overblown'? I don't have any problem with proxy studies that replicate hockey sticks, so long as the studies do not disseminate from the same small group of researchers over and over again. I am not suggesting there is anything sinister here. The gold standard in scientific research is the double-blind test because everyone understands that scientists are human and subject to bias. If there is solid independent research to back up hockey sticks, why not use it? Why quote 'apparently discredited' research? Whether you feel it is discredited or not is a separate issue. My point is that quoting the same small group of controversial researchers while at the same time misleadingly asserting that the evidence thus presented is independent, is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. To put it more bluntly: if the science is solid, you don't need them, so don't use them. Get your hockey stick data from a true independent source and then you have a solid argument to shut the deniers up.
131097. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 17:43 PM on 19 December 2007
        Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
        I followed your link and noted that the article mentions 14 reconstructions. I did a quick search using Google to see what relationship there might be between the authors. In a few minutes--I am no expert in doing such searches and I am not particularly familiar with who these authors are--I found that 10 of the studies were authored or co-authored by Jones, Mann or Briffa. And according to the linked article, together with the search I just did, these researchers have all co-authored papers together. I suggest other people try the same by putting these names in Google and using key words such as 'collaborators', 'global warming', etc. I have no idea if the remaining authors are collaborators or have close relationships to this group. I am sorry but how can you call this research independently replicated or verified by independent scientists? Or at least, there is some cause for concern here...
        Response: Putting aside the fact that the attacks on Mann are overblown out of proportion, what problem do you have with Briffa, Jones or the other proxy studies that come to the same conclusion?
131098. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:09 PM on 19 December 2007
        Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
        A well balanced article. Excellent. Thank you! "It's important to remember that hurricane activity is just one possible side-effect of global warming. While the empirical evidence linking global warming and hurricane intensity seems robust, it has no bearing on the central question of whether human CO2 emissions are causing global warming." True, but if human CO2 emissions causing global warming do not have damaging consequences, such as increased storm activity, the 'central question' is no longer central, is it? Some interesting data on hurricanes: Fewest Northern Hemisphere Hurricane Days since 1977. 3rd Lowest since 1958 (behind 1977 and 1973). See: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
        Response: If the only consequence of global warming was increased hurricane activity, then you'd have a point. However, they are the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun). See positives and negatives of global warming for a more comprehensive list.
131099. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 13:51 PM on 19 December 2007
        Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
        Perhaps your article could be improved by pointing out that an 'appeal to authority' is a fallacious logical argument and therefore should not be used by either side. Unfortunately I doubt that 'alarmists' will stop using it, as prima facie it is one of the most convincing of their arguments for CO2+global warming. Consider Neo-Darwinism theory. Ask for a consensus view and you would probably find 99% of scientists in support of the theory up until only a few years ago. (Now with the growth in the field of epigenetics, the classic version of theory is being cast in serious doubt.) The plate tectonic theory you quoted went through such a period of rejection and then acceptance. Interestingly, deniers use the same arguments as you do *against* CO2+global warming. Perhaps it's better to realise that consensus viewpoints, whatever they may be, have to be considered very cautiously and that solid evidence will always trump opinions.
131100. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 13:38 PM on 19 December 2007
        Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
        "The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc)." What you've written above may be true but unless you can back it up with research to support your statement, it's at best just your opinion and therefore not a reasonable counter-argument. In other words it's Klaus-Martin Schulte assessment versus yours, but at least one did research to support the stated opinion. "Two of the papers conduct no actual scientific research but merely review social aspects of climate science. I'm baffled as to why they would be included other than to "boost the numbers"" Because presumably the paper was focused on the opinions of scientists (remember?) and not just scientific research. I hope that resolves your confusion.

Prev  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  Next