Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
Comments 132201 to 132250:
-
John Cross at 06:34 AM on 21 February 2008It's the sun
Wondering Aloud: You may want to check your logic. Because your present a paper that does not support position A - it does not follow that you do support position A. If Mr. Taylor wishes to make a statement about global warming, he should produce the evidence that backs up his claim. Thus he is obligated to produce the research that supports his position - not say, my research does not contradict this position. And, as I indicated in my last post - he still appears to be the state climatologist so he does not appear to be fired. reagrds, John -
frankbi at 03:24 AM on 19 February 2008It's the sun
Wondering Aloud: "With $6 billion/year in the US alone tied to GW orthodoxy, most people who need to keep their jobs are pretty hesitant to be branded a `denier'." And somehow Al Gore The Antichrist managed to create a _world-wide_ conspiracy using the US's budget alone? The _entire_ _world's_ climate research -- from China to India, from Hungary to Sweden, from Canada to Brazil -- depend on this $6b/year from the US? Can't you at least cook up a more plausible conspiracy theory? Back to the "it's the sun" topic, I find this particularly hilarious... apparently the creators of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" decided in their infinite wisdom to fabricate their own data to "prove" that it's the sun's fault: http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html -- Frank Bi, http://zompower.tk/ -
Wondering Aloud at 12:53 PM on 18 February 2008It's the sun
Money figures? the $6 Billion? thats what is in the federal budget currently. the $170 Million is what the budget was just before George H Bush decided to throw money at the problem, first two numbers per Richard Lindzen, but I remember the numbers myself from back then. John gives $2.4 in 1993 which is after my $2 billion and $5.1 billion for 2004 which is before the current $6 billion. I think those numbers are right he just chose different years. As to the research question, you're the one making the claim "but key to the argument is that they stated positions that were not supported by their research". In what way did Mr. Taylor's statements fly in the face of his own research? How does writting a paper on Regional Precipitation Frequency or Observer Bias contradict his opinion that the warming did not seem catastrophic? Of course it doesn't. He was fired because his statements were not fasionable for politicians in power. In the case of Michels your claim that his statements were not supported by his research is rediculous. While you may not like it, any reader here who does read his papers will know that. Newell's work in particular shows no sign of bias and I think was very well done. His only mistake as far as I can tell was honesty. When his results didnt match what the climate models predicted... the end. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:14 PM on 17 February 2008It's the sun
WA, incidentally, where are those money figures coming from? -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:01 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
How significant that actually is remains to be seen. About the satellite record: The T2 channel, used for troposphere measurements is influenced by the stratosphere. The T4 channel is all stratosphere. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/rss-msu.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VinnikovGrody2003.pdf http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TrendsJGRrevised3InPress.pdf http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf About balloons: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5740/1556 -
John Cross at 04:58 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
OK, I went back to do a little digging and found out that first, I appear to be incorrect since George Taylor appears to still be the State Climatologist. Was he one of the ones that you were thinking of? Anyway, keeping with Mr. Taylor, I tried to get a record of his publications and there was nothing listed on his site so I went the Web of Science and found the following 4 publications. Going back to your statement, “ people who have lost jobs because they did perfectly competent research that didn't support the AGW idea,” Which of these do you consider competent research that does not support AGW and how does it fit in with Mr. Taylor’s statements. Title: Regional precipitation-frequency analysis and spatial mapping for 24-hour and 2-hour durations for Washington State Title: Observer bias in daily precipitation measurements at United States cooperative network stations Title: A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate Title: Spatial variability and interpolation of stochastic weather simulation model parameters In regards to Reginald Newell, thanks, the name change was a help. Unfortunately all I was able to find was a quote from an interview. Is there anything more substantive than that? Regards, John PS, For the thread with Victor, try It's the Sun -
Wondering Aloud at 03:15 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
Odd I google it and get tons or references of course I typed in "Reginald Newell MIT" I felt it was safe to use him as an example as he has passed away. I would disagree that any of the 3 stated positions that were not supported by their research. Also if that was the criteria look how many people on the other side would be unemployed. Hey folks what is the other thread where people were discussing the solar spectra Victor asked about I cant remember. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:09 AM on 16 February 2008It's the sun
Yes Victor, the change in output during high solar activity is not uniform for wavelength and I don't know how important that is. It does seem like a mighty large effect for such a small change so there must be something more to it. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:07 AM on 16 February 2008There is no consensus
It appears you have proved my point. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:00 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Back to comment 3 John V's post actually suggests that the CRN5 stations are introducing a poitive bias in the surface results since 1960. He graphs it fartherr down the page. -
Wondering Aloud at 00:52 AM on 16 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Yes I am 100% sure about that... if the surface warms more than the atmosphere than the atmosphere cannot be the cause as this would violate the second law of thermodynamics, think in terms of entropy and in terms of what is known as zeroeth law. I suspect that there must be something else in there that we aren't seeing, if they are using different reference periods for their anomaly calculations then combining them in the graphs as they have; that would be amazing incompetence so I doubt that's what it is. It could be what I have suggested on other threads we ought to quit using the land surface record until we get a better handle on what the heck the problems with it are. This meets enormous resistance because the warming signal from balloon measures has been so much weaker and the satellite record is so short. -
frankbi at 21:10 PM on 15 February 2008Scientists can't even predict weather
Will Nitschke, what a load of nonsense. I've already rebutted your arguments here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm#304 And... "Common sense dictates that his work will probably have to be reviewed at least independently before anyone should take his claims seriously." The peer review process of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America -- in which Hansen et al.'s 2006 paper was published -- isn't "independent" enough for you? -
frankbi at 21:04 PM on 15 February 2008Models are unreliable
Wondering Aloud: "because current models have been changed" You're clearly off spouting rubbish you don't know a thing about. Look at the temperature predictions in Hansen et al. (2006) and Hansen et al. (1998). They are _exactly_ _the_ _same_. The 1998 model has _not_ been changed at all, and it still agrees all the way to 2006. All your talk about "fudge factors" can't explain that. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:40 PM on 15 February 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Roy, there was no Arctic ice cap until the Isthmus of Panama closed. Changes in oceanic circulation, no TSI involved for the start of the first ice ages is a very plausible possibility. The most constant thing in Earth climate over the past half million years is solar energy input. That 4% variation would have to persist to trigger climate change. Look at the CERES and ERBE pages and see how many papers are there about clouds. There is nothing magic about CO2, the physics of it are very well known. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:34 PM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Are you saying that it is ok that the surface is warming more than the atmosphere? That would directly falsify the entire greenhouse hypothesis. Are you really sure about that? Did you also look at what reference period is used to compute anomalies? -
Victor at 10:52 AM on 15 February 2008It's the sun
About the sun. Whether the solar irridiance has increased or not during the past 50 years, I think it's important to know that solar irridiance changes most in the shorter wavelengths such as UV during a sunspotcycle. Part of this extra radiation will be absorbed by stratopheric ozone and shouldn't reach the earth-atmosphere system at all. But... 1) Couldn't the climate became more sensitive to solar activity because of the 'ozone hole' the past few decades? Due to less ozone a higher intensity of UV-light reaches the earth surface. These are just the wavelenghts that an active sun submits. 2) Another point is that shortwave radiation penetrates deeper in the ocean as longwave radiation does (this effect gives the typical blue light in deep waters). So an active sun heats the deeper layers of the ocean where it can be stored for years or, probably, several decades, before it comes to the surface. This means that climate responds delayed on solar activity and perhaps explains the lag of about 10 years found by Solanki and the higher climate sensitivity for longterm sunspotcycles. The oceans absorb most solar energy in the tropics. The small zenit-angle results not only in a high net radiation but also in a deeper penetration of UV-light, and the ozone layer is thinner around the equator. Furthermore the ocean is stratified here so the heat can be well stored before it can be transported by ocean currents. The ocean releases its heat especially on higher latitudes to the atmosphere, possibly modulated by fluctuations in thermo-halien circulations. It also seems that climate responds more sensitive on high latitudes. This hypothesis means that we should't under-estimate the solar influence on global warming. Though there is no significant increase in solar irridiance in recent decades, the climate may still warming due to the major increase during the first half of twentieth century and loss of ozone. This is my first post on this site and I like to discuss about climate more. I'm a dutch meteorologist (semi-professional) and very interested in climate change and its mechanism. I'm not convinced by AGW because there are some questions left. Thanks to John Cook for this forum and the possibility to debate here with open mind. Regards, Victor de Vries -
Wondering Aloud at 06:06 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Yeah but they are anomaly numbers, in other words how far they are from some mean. if surface anomaly is +.75 degrees are you saying it's ok that troposhere numbers are only +.25 degrees? Are you saying that it is ok that the surface is warming more than the atmosphere? That would directly falsify the entire greenhouse hypothesis. That can't be right. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:45 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
That's because they are troposphere numbers. They should be like that. The trends are in agreement. -
Wondering Aloud at 04:39 AM on 15 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
I can see why you think the MWP was regional some proxies don't show it as being much but others show it as larger than the current warming. It at least affected some mighty big regions. Like Europe, Greenland, North America and Asia. I don't think the LIA was regional unless our entire climate record and the explanation of the ice ages is wrong. I suppose that is a possibility. You might note that the current warming is also not universal on the regional scale. -
Wondering Aloud at 01:10 AM on 15 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
I don't know what you want me to look at. The giss data is clearly surface only. From what I can actually open of the remss data which appears to be similar style data sets, it is clear that the anomaly numbers in the remss data are very much lower that the giss data. for 2007 for instance they appear to be more than a half a degree C lower! We have been discussing the surface station data. I am not familiar with all of the ways these different data sets are compiled. I am pointing out that the USHCN has clearly got problems in their data collection end. Is it your contention that the balloon and satellite data show the large anomaly that the surface stations data does? The satellite and ballon data match each other well but neither is nearly as dramatic as the "surface record". -
John Cross at 02:12 AM on 14 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
Wondering Aloud: I generally don't consider the paleoclimate stuff as important as the current physics so I don't focus on the reconstructions. However you are very clearly wrong on a couple of your points. Mann's hockeystick has not vanished from AR4. Mann's 1998 paper is mentioned at least 9 times in the Paleoclimate chapter and there is at least 1/2 page devoted to the criticisms of it. The actual diagram is also used but is combined with other reconstructions. I would also disagree with your comment about the MWP and LIA unless you are talking about regional events. The MWP seems to be most pronounced in the Western European areas. What climate reconstructions are you using to draw your conclusions? Regards, John -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:37 PM on 13 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
What are you talking about? The comparison is between GISS and MSU. You say there is a problem with USHCN and by extension GISS, this graph compares the "problem data" to satellite (MSU). Did you even look at REMSS.com? Tamino's graph puts them nicely together so as to compare the trends. I don't see any significant disagreement. You say: "Compare to the Balloon data and the satellite data where the anomally is much smaller, and the trend much less pronounced." Graphs, sources, data, links? -
Wondering Aloud at 07:31 AM on 13 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
"Historic Climate Network surface stations only" That is the graphs and data sets that your post leads to Phillippe. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov.gistemp/) Exactly the portion of the data with which there is a problem. Compare to the Balloon data and the satellite data where the anomally is much smaller, and the trend much less pronounced. Yes the graphs from the surface data agree with the graphs from the surface data. -
Wondering Aloud at 07:12 AM on 13 February 2008Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
Mann itself was a compilation of some of the same proxy studies you are giving as independant confirmation. It so happens he made some rather significant method errors which created the exaggerated "Hockey Stick" graph. It appears that McIntyre's actual contention is that it is not possible to check Thompson's graph as the ice core data sets it was supposedly derived from have not been archived. This by definition makes them not science because they can not be independantly reproduced or checked. Mann's famous hockey stick from the IPCC 3rd report has vaninshed from the 4th report without comment but for darn good reason. It might be a good idea to admit it was incorrect and move on. While CO2 increase may be a contributor to 20th century warming, the MWP, LIA and the Holocene Maximum are all strongly supported in the paleo record unless you cherry pick like crazy. All of these events had temperature changes as large or larger than the 1975-1998 one we're all worried about, and the rate of change coming in or out of them appears to have been at least as great. -
Nick Palmer at 11:56 AM on 12 February 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
A new sceptic argument that a "faith" based sceptic that I am arguing with currently has raised is that it is increased undersea volcanoes that are warming the oceans and therefore causing the current observed warming... I have not found too much to counter this apart from a few lines on Real Climate but those weren't too helpful - any suggestions? -
GMB at 18:49 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You haven't posted a link. But in any case what I want to see is some plausible evidence in the first place. I cannot see how this CO2 would be all that relevant unless it was so abundant as to increase substantially air pressure or we are talking about the planet being so hot as make the other two absorption spectrum relevant….. …. or again so cold as to make the first absorbtion region more relevant. Its not really anything much of a greenhouse gas for this planet once the early work has been done to get the planet above 0 degrees Celsius. And yet those with a contrary view don’t bother showing why it is that they take this view from first premises. They certainly don’t disaggregate matters for the different parts of the earths surface or yet even for the different times during the day. Once we ignore the phrase “greenhouse gas” and disaggregate the specific absorption regions of CO2 we find that these energy-deprivation-crusaders don’t even have the beginnings of a case. Can anyone come up with even so much as the beginnings of plausibility to this this global warming racket SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE THREE ACTUAL ABSORPTION SPECTRA OF CO2. Now are any of you able to make that case? The absorption spectra of OZONE is just right to heat up the earth so long as we could get heaps of ozone actually at surface level. Which would of course be poisonous. But what I’m saying is that the light frequency of the area that OZONE absorbs at is far more relevent to the temperature coming off the earths surface. But 2 of the three absorption regions for CO2 are just not relevant at all for Earth. For Venus yes. But not for earth except to block incoming. And the one that is relevant is more relevant for heating the earth above zero. Not for heating it above where it is now. At least thats what it looks like to me. But I cannot find any of these fraudsters making the case from the ground up. Its hard enough to get them to make any sort of scientific case. They prefer to talk about whether to destroy the economy in its entirety, or whether to force multi-billions of costs upon us in terms of carbon sequestration. -
GMB at 18:33 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
No if the oceans were radiating greater heat you'd see a more active absorption in the bands of greenhouse gasses present. Which is what you have seen is it not? Your jumper works better if you aren't suffering hypothermia already. Same principle. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:32 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
So if the oceans were radiating greater heat, you'd see less heat radiating out to space? That makes perfect sense in your mind I'm sure. Do you even read what you post? you make no sense whatsoever. What is relevant pertains to heat, LW radiation. I did post the link to that paper. Your abusive language and your incoherence speak volume. If you did not appear to be also relatively simple, I'd say you're a mole trying to discredit the all skeptic side. Enjoy the ranting, I have better things to do than read your delirium. -
GMB at 14:36 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I think its time to remind people of the theses for which we need to find evidence for. 1. Have we any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming? 2. Have we any evidence that suggests that a little bit of human-induced warming IS A BAD THING during a brutal and pulverising ice age? 3. Have we any evidence that industrial-CO2-release is BAD for the environment when so far its wall-to-wall evidence that it enhances the biosphere. 4. Do we even have any real evidence that the extra industrial-CO2-release heats up the planet on a global level in any substantial way? So far the science tells us that there is simply no chance of catastrophic warming since we live on a planet with a one-way catastrophic cooling bias. So far the science tells us also that industrial-CO2-release is good for man and the environment. These two propositions are so uncontested by the scientific evidence that this movement is shown to be an obvious malevolent and repulsive fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is the evidence that goes contrary to all this? No-ones got it and they are all bullshitting about it. Now about this new study which this Frenchman has failed to link. Here we see no attention to inward absorption whatsoever. Thats a total gyp right there. Only outwards absorption is even so much as considered. Only looking at one side of the income statement. This despite the fact that two out of the three spectra that CO2 absorbs are not relevant to outward absorption and ought to be more relevant to blocking inwards absorption for a planet at our current temperature. What we see in the study is nothing new at all. What did we EXPECT from such a study? WHAT WOULD WE HAVE EXPECTED IN ADVANCE FROM SUCH A STUDY? If there is more of some gasses we would expect them to be absorbing a little more of the outwards radiation (and the inwards radiation too for that matter). Did we find this? Yes we did, big deal. And if the oceans have accumulated more heat energy since 1970 we would expect the amount that these gasses are absorbing to be greater again to reflect this accumulated heat energy. Did we find this? Yes we did big deal. But did we find anything to contradict the actual hypotheses we are trying to refute or add credence to? Now we didn't. So the science-fraud remains the same. -
GMB at 13:51 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Look Phillipe. If the oceans had accumulated greater heat and were radiating out greater heat....... Its obvious that this in itself would give the result that you see. For Petes sakes man. Its like you cannot seem to grasp the obvious. -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You're too kind, John. I did lose it at some point, but nothing like the verbal assault I had to endure could have justified. All that stuff was edited (although I'm glad the fiat lux comment was kept, it is kinda funny). The paper you linked looks might interesting, thanks for that. -
John Cross at 05:26 AM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
OK, after reading through this series of posts I am convinced that Philippe is a saint and empowered with superhuman patience (and GWB, I have read the paper the Philippe links to in post #57 and as far as I can tell, your comment does not make sense). Philippe: . Here is another paper that presents an interesting result: It is not without its problems (one of which is the command of the English language) but it does a good job of measuring a very difficult quantity. I wanted to pick up a earlier thread about CO2 fertilization. There is a lot of misconception regarding CO2 fertilization. First, we need to recognize that there are two main types of plants that use carbon in a different manner – C3 and C4 plants. The C4’s are more efficient at using CO2 and thus elevated levels do not do them much good. Now, most of the plants are C3s but some of our most important commercial crops (e.g. sugarcane and corn) are C4s. In the C3 case, the main benefit from CO2 is that the plants are able to survive better in water stressed areas. If there is more CO2, the leaf stomata can close more and prevent transpiration. However, in regards to additional growth from CO2 fertilization, this is a good thing if you are trying to grow flowers or perhaps raise oranges. But enhanced CO2 growth is a problem because the nutritional density is changing (nutrition is primarily based on nitrogen, so more CO2 doesn’t do much good). So in fact an animal has to eat more of the material to get the same nutrition. John Cook - Sorry if I am repeating the stuff that you already have on here - I didn't have a chance to research. Busy times here and all! Regards, John Cross -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:24 AM on 10 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
What are they saying there? It's really obvious: more heat is retained. They measured how much. The heat is retained in the bands of the gases mentioned and consistent for each with the increased concentration of the gas, also measured. You can make the claim that additional heat retained will not affect the climate. I find it a less plausible claim than the opposite. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:00 AM on 10 February 2008Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
From none of those years would the trend line point downward. The most playng with statistics I've seen so far is from all those funny people who want to look at temp from 1998... -
GMB at 19:05 PM on 9 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
So whata are they saying here. The oceans are a great deal warmer then in 1970 and they ought be releasing a lot more energy. Its not good enough to make the claim that things have changed due to industrial-CO2 without actually demonstrating this. How are they backing the claim up? Don't be calling it MORE EVIDENCE when you didn't have any evidence in the first place and are yet to show why this latest is evidence. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:53 PM on 9 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
I don't see too much of a disagreement on this graph: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global2.jpg The sources are: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/ -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:45 PM on 9 February 2008It's the sun
I believe Leif Svalgaard paper (available as a pdf) might answer some of your questions. In any case, TSI and its reconstructions are thorny areas. See this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/ and part2 of it as well. Would be nice to provide links or references when you mention peer-reviewed stuff, it helps. As an aside, Energy and Environment is not a peer-reviewed science publication. -
Wondering Aloud at 10:39 AM on 8 February 2008It's the sun
I am seeing some papers that contradict the statement that the solar-climate connection somehow disappeared in 1975. To me it looks good at least through 2003, but, it seems the fit is good but the cause is too small for the effect. Neither the blue nor the red line in the second from top graph are right today, solar activity was most definitely not trending down in the 1998-2000 period for instance. Could you maybe update or correct them? -
Wondering Aloud at 10:25 AM on 8 February 2008Models are unreliable
No, we are saying that Hanson's model from 1988 does not fit the present, even his conservative projections are significantly high of actual observation at this point. (High relative to the ground based measurements and wildly high compared to satellite and balloon measurements to be more specific) If a model can't take past conditions and produce results that fit current reality it would be obviously useless. However since modelers are not simpletons that isn't the problem that was being discussed! The problem is just because current models have been changed so they can somewhat be used to fit past observations that doesn't mean those changes were the correct changes, therefore it doesn't mean that they are making correct predictions. The models still contain assumptions for various parameters that have not or perhaps can not presently be varified. Freeman Dyson is correct here, Models are improving but they have a long way to go before they are better than educated guesses. You should read Dyson's entire statement this is a bit out of context. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:21 AM on 8 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Yes satellite nad balloon data have good agreement, but isn't the important thing here that neither of them correlate well with the surface record? I should have sited the actual papers but I thought you'd rather look yourself now I'll have to remember to dig it back out. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:16 AM on 8 February 2008Has solar cycle 24 begun?
We are on opposite sides here. I am freezing my ... off and warming would be such a relief. Getting to work at -22 is just not much fun. This winter is threatining to break low temperature and total snowfall records across the American heartland and I hope it's only La Nina. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:21 PM on 6 February 2008There's no empirical evidence
What speculative large scale effect could stem from more insulation with unchanged energy input? Could it be similar to the effect of more energy input with unchanged insulation? That insulation's extent has been verified. Changes over time of outgoing long wave radiation have been measured and shown to have decreased by the amount expected from increased GH gases: Harries et al, Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature. 2001 Mar 15;410(6826):355-7 Abstract here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html "The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." It essentially means that there is more heat retained in the system in the bands of the mentioned gases. It is claimed that this additional heat is warming the climate. Is that such a bold claim? Now, I'm sure Will Nitschke will find objections. This is where the logic breaks down. When ample evidence has been gathered and critics of a theory continue to refute it, because no amount of evidence can ever be satisfying and they will not state what kind of evidence would be so, or define it in a way that they know is impossible to reach. Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. -
Dodo at 08:37 AM on 5 February 2008Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Yes, John, you are absolutely right. If warming resumes after an almost decade-long "plateau" (Pachauri promised to look into it), most reasonable skeptics may well join the AGW camp by 2015. No big deal. But what if the opposite happens?Response: If the opposite happens, I'll be embarrassed but delighted to be wrong :-) -
Dodo at 08:32 AM on 5 February 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
Not that one month means much, but the RSS temperature reading for Jan. 2008 has arrived. It was the coldest month since 2000, enforcing the current decadal cooling trend.Response: The cool temperatures of Jan 2008 are due to an unusually strong La Nina effect (the strongest in a decade). -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:41 PM on 4 February 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Here is another interesting piece of evidence, measuring escaping long wave radiation: Abstract: "Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." Harries et al, Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature. 2001 Mar 15;410(6826):355-7 -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:39 PM on 2 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
I mistakenly included both UHI and microsite effects in the previous remark, UHI would still apply. -
Philippe Chantreau at 23:38 PM on 1 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
Another point, mentioned by John Cook on the "More on Urban Heat Island" thread, is that there is also good agreement with satellite data and weather balloon data, both immune to the micro site effects as well as UHI. If these were really that much of a factor, there would be significant discrepancies, but all the trends are consistentt. -
Philippe Chantreau at 21:26 PM on 1 February 2008Temp record is unreliable
It would be nice to give us a little more detail, W.A., especially considering the terminology employed (fraud). What are the papers criticized by E&E (which is itself not a peer-review science publication)? Have the authors responded to it? This journal is far from being an objective reliable source: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html This article treats of how UHI affects observations: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf As mentioned higher, John V has plotted the data from the "good" sites (per Watts definition) and has found very good agreement with GISSTEMP, so they must be doing something right. It is worth emphasizing that Watts'effort concentrated on micro site effects, a different problem than UHI; nevertheless, agreement was still there in the data. I would not venture to say that climate science dispenses from going through and evaluating actual data. This RC post is of some interest as to how the UHI effect is accounted for: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454 I believe the post references this article: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article3abstract.pdf Is that one of the 2 criticized by E&E? -
Philippe Chantreau at 20:32 PM on 1 February 2008It's the sun
There is new evidence that TSI may have varied a lot less than previously thought, which would require an extremely high sensitivity to allow for such small variations to influence climate. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf -
frankbi at 04:56 AM on 31 January 2008Models are unreliable
And besides, if models can be "fudged" to fit anything -- as our `skeptics' claim -- why are the _same_ `skeptics' saying that they can't get Hansen's model to fit the data? Can it be because our `skeptics' are simply full of junk?
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
