Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
Comments 132251 to 132300:
-
Barry at 17:14 PM on 30 January 2008It's the sun
I question the physics behind the response: a crucial finding was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975....... The assumption is that there is always an energy balance between heat radiated from earth and input from the sun. Lets say that solar activity remained above this energy balance, one would have to assume that temperature would still increase, until some new energy balance is achieved. This means that temperature can still increase as long as the input is greater that the output. basic example: take a pot of water at room temperature, it is in an energy balance, and temperature is constant. then take that pot and turn the stove on high the temperature will increase then turn the elopement down, and the water still warms up. until it reaches an energy balance. It does not seem reasonable to assume that reduced solar activity always equals reduced temperatures on earth. Reduce solar activity, that is still more active then in 1900 should then still result in increasing temperature.Response: If solar activity increases then plateaus, the climate will then be in energy imbalance with more energy coming in than radiating back out to space. The earth will immediately start warming. As it warms, the energy radiated back to space gradually increases until the climate reaches radiative equilibrium. Then warming stops. This period it takes to reach equilibrium is refered to as climate time lag.
However, this is not what is observed over the 20th century. Solar activity levels out in the 1950's. However, the modern global warming trend began in the mid 1970s. If the sun was the cause of global warming, the planet would've been at its highest energy imbalance in the 1950s. Then the planet would gradually have approached equilibrium over the next few decades.
The opposite has occured. The energy imbalance has in fact increased over the past 3 decades and is still increasing. Of course, we now know why the planet is in radiative imbalance - due to an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. -
Dodo at 06:33 AM on 30 January 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
Good evening. Maybe this discussion could be enriched with comments from the IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri and the United Kingdom's Meteorological office (Royal, I presume). From a recent Reuters' piece: "Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities." Source: http://tinyurl.com/3doxvc And then the Met office. They recently issued a forecast for 2008, stating this much: "The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-2007, given the uncertainties in the data." Source: http://tinyurl.com/2ezepk So, the IPCC is looking into "the plateau", and the Met Office says it persists into its' eight year, and who knows, after another eight years it may be very very cold again. Over at Tamino's Open mind there was some discussion about whether we should set 2015 as the year when the science could be declared settled;-). But the details seem to take some time to agree upon. The problem with outliers! -
frankbi at 04:05 AM on 30 January 2008Models are unreliable
Oh, and ClimateAudit is a barrel of laughs: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/climate_audit_comedy_of_errors.php -
frankbi at 04:02 AM on 30 January 2008Models are unreliable
"The models might be right but they haven't got a good track record except in hind sight. (After they've been fudged to fit the past)" "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?" Nonsense. Are you saying that Hansen, way back in 1988, was able to travel in a time machine to 2006 and back, so that he could make the adjustments to his 1988 models to make them agree all the way to the present? The denialists have nothing but nonsense. -
Roy Latham at 09:02 AM on 29 January 2008Has solar cycle 24 begun?
There is not only an 11 year solar activity cycle, there are cycles running at periods of about 75, 300, and 1100 years. The cycles are not precise, but they continue with predictability. If you add up all the cycles, you get quite a complicated picture of ups and downs. Global climate tracks that complicated curve with remarkable reliability. This is nothing new, hundreds of papers have been published on the subject. What is new is proof of the physical mechanism that relates solar activity to global climate. The mechanism is that solar magnetic storms deflect cosmic rays. Cosmic rays strike particles in the atmosphere causing them to form nucleation centers, which in turn increases cloud cover. Cloud cover reflects the sun and causes cooling. So, few sunspots means a cold earth. For example, the Little Ice Age was a long period with very few sunspots. CO2 lags the temperature change because as the oceans warm they hold less dissolved CO2. -
Roy Latham at 08:41 AM on 29 January 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
What theory that explains how the miniscule variations in the earths orbit could produce the initial temperature rise? How is this theory reflected in climate models? BY contrast, there is a well-proven theory of how variations in solar flux are amplified to produce not only the initial temperature rise. Basically, the solar flux affects cloud cover, and clouds reflect radiation whereby the earth cools. This explains not only interglacial warming, but the up and down climate variations of the past century - warming then cooling then warming again, and for the last seven years cooling. How do atmospheric scientists model solar flux and cloud formation in climate models? These are critical because only a 4% variation in cloud cover would account for climate change. They do not model it at all. Instead they assume an unknown mechanism by which carbon dioxide effects are amplified. The dominant green house gas is water vapor. CO2 is less than 5%, so of course some magic is required to make CO2 dominate. -
Max at 10:41 AM on 28 January 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
Bob Carter’s article is almost 18 months old now, and we now have temperature records for both 2006 and 2007. Interestingly, both years were predicted to be “record warm” years, with the usual media hype about this being additional proof of alarming global warming caused by man. Both turned out to be rather normal years, but there was not much media hype, since (as we all know) “good news is no news”. But as I showed earlier, if we compare the past decade we see that there is still warming, but that the rate has slowed down considerably in comparison with the earlier record. Sure, there are two ENSO years in the record, 1998 and 2005 (which also turn out to be the two warmest years). But, then again, there will always be ENSO years and scientists have been unable to predict when these will occur or explain exactly why they occur when they do. The question that this site raised should not have been whether or not it has warmed since 1998 but rather whether or not the rate of warming has decreased since 1998 as compared to earlier decades, and if so, whether or not this indicates a trend of slowdown in temperature increase or just an anomaly caused by individual ENSO years. -
Max at 10:42 AM on 27 January 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
Has it warmed over the past decade? Based on the global surface record compiled by the Hadley Centre and the global UAH satellite record there has been warming over the past decade. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 Plotting the two temperature records for the last 10 years shows that: · The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.062 degrees C per decade · The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.059 degrees C per decade The two warmest years during this period were 1998 (a strong ENSO year) and 2005 (a somewhat weaker ENSO year). Both of these rates of increase are considerably lower than the average rate of increase over the past 28 years, when satellite readings first became available: · The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.171 degrees C per decade · The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.142 degrees C per decade -
Carrick at 02:54 AM on 26 January 2008Al Gore got it wrong
Gore mischaracterizes the effect of global warming on Greenland/Antarctica ice fields/sheets in a big way, and mischaracterizes the long-term consequences of global warming on them as a result. In my opinion, this should be bumped to the "he got it wrong" column. -
paledriver at 08:21 AM on 24 January 2008There is no consensus
addressing claims about the IPCC............... "John McLean and the NRSP Category: Global Warming Posted on: December 20, 2007 1:02 PM, by Tim Lambert Hey, remember John McLean? The guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls? Well he's teamed up with Tom Harris of the NRSP to accuse the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for its reports: In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft. Second, they mislead by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray's rejected comments include: Insert after "to" "the utterly ridiculous assumption of" Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)" Insret before "Calibrated" "Bogus" Dave Semeniuk has a more detailed analysis of Gray's comments -- 50 of them were Gray repeatedly asking for "anthropogenic" to be replaced with "human-induced". Third, as Richard Littlemore points out, it is pretty dodgy for the NRSP to complain about "vested interest" when their own vested interest is so blatant. But how did McLean and Harris come up with their claim that 55 of the reviewers had "serious vested interest"? McLean gives details in a piece published by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). Scientists were declared to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a "possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming". Basically that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well. John Mashey examined McLean's background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean's rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny." http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php -
Wondering Aloud at 06:10 AM on 23 January 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
According to Carter the slope is indeed negative since then. However, I believe he is quite clear in saying the amount is not really significant. The data above does not match the data set he is using.Response: I have corresponded with Bob Carter about the data he uses - in articles where he states the temperature trend is negligible or even cooling, he's erroneously using upper troposphere data. See the footnote of Satellites show no warming. -
paledriver at 10:15 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
420? In the original 400 I found many who were completely unqualified, some of whom are skeptical, some of whom are not. Many who are qualified who are either not actually skeptical, are skeptical only of some proposed solutions or who have actually stated their agreement WITH the consensus. The list was not made to hold up to close scrutiny. I imagine it's the same with the additional 20. -
Wondering Aloud at 09:50 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
Well that awful Inhofe 400 is now over 420 as in the time it took for you to complain about the one that didn't sign 20 more "scientists" did. But, it isn't important. My problem with this is, it isn't an election, you claim the skeptics inflate their numbers, maybe so, beyond question the AGW catastrophy folks inflate theirs. At least two of the best known "deniers" are IPCC lead authors. Dozens of others are listed as contributers or reviewers, several have been so disgusted with the process they withdrew and asked their names be removed. This means they are counted on both sides. What is that overwelming consensus? Here is what is presented as that consensus: Human CO2 emissions will cause massive catastrophic warming, It will cause disaster in the near future ruining the world for our children. This warming will lead to massive flooding, drought, wide scale starvation, wars, plagues, melting of the polar ice, flooding of huge areas of the world... Refer to my post number 2 above. Which is closer to the consensus? Al Gore with 23 feet of sea level rise this century or the "deniers" with 15-20 cm ? Al Gore with his talk of "unprecidented warming". Or the "deniers" claims that the world seems to have wamed about .6-.7 C over the last century and that may be somewhat due to human activity. Most of the "deniers" probably don't even have that much trouble with the consensus as stated in the first paragraph of the original post. They are vilified largely because they refuse to accept the supposed consensus I just described. In general I agreed with the stated consensus in the original post, though based on the recent data and the trouble with the historical record I think now I would not use the word "most". -
paledriver at 08:41 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
p.s. I'm not claiming that there's no dissent. Just that there IS a consensus. An overwhelming one. -
paledriver at 08:35 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
the point remains that the deniers flesh out their "petitions" and "lists" with fakes, fraudulent claims, and people who in no way have made any claims against the consensus and pointedly say so. I've pointed out one of many, (which I've linked to above) And the "400" was brought up on post#3, which is why I even referred to fraudulent "Petition Project" in the first place. -
Wondering Aloud at 07:45 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
Again? now its one out of 400 and who the heck was talking about the Inhofe 400? The point remains it is not a popularity contest despite all the attempted score keeping by the IPCC fans. Also many of the prominent scientists counted in that score are in fact the so called deniers. -
paledriver at 06:49 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
Let's take a look at the "Inhofe 400" Meteorologist George Waldenberg was named. In response to his inclusion ,Mr. Waldenberg sent an email to Senator Inhofes' staff that began "Marc, Matthew: Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus". You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research". One shining example. I have many more. -
paledriver at 06:42 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
I'm sorry. Are you a Packer fan? Picked another losing cause? I'm sorry again,but I couldn't help myself on that one. Great game though. -
Wondering Aloud at 04:09 AM on 22 January 2008There is no consensus
Wow, that was terrible punctuation. Darn Packers -
Wondering Aloud at 13:59 PM on 21 January 2008There is no consensus
I have the article you claim was "formatted to mimic..." sitting right here. It doesn't look like it is anything of the sort. In fact it clearly lists Author and who puplished it. It looks like a review of literature type paper which...it is. As for mass mailing as it was done with a tiny budget it was nothing of the sort. In fact I never even got one despite being on one of the main mailing lists they supposedly used. How many copies of this supposed mass mailing did you get? Aren't you bothered by a clear attempt by the "enviros" to commit fraud with fake names? Shouldn't you question why they think this is needed or something to be proud of. Is it ok to be dishonest as long as they are on your side? A sample of 30 in which some back down (people get fired for being skeptics in this field you know)is instantly credible to you while you arm wave away 17,000 You are pointing out 1 fake signature out of 19,000! Really? It was caught, we had thousands of Fake names on our voting list in one nearby city alone. You are avoiding the main issue. Consensus is not science but if it was the supposed 2500 scientists of the IPCC report have every failing you mention of the petition project and more important the people who signed the petition agreed with what it said. The same can not be said for the IPCC and its supposed 2500. Counted in that IPCC number are hundreds of non scientists, NGO reps (these are people with an agenda)and most importantly reviewers, many of whom don't even agree with the conclusions of the IPCC report. In fact most of the famous "deniers" are included in the 2500 IPCC counts. Someone made the mistake of asking them after the second IPCC report (surveyed participants) and found that over 60% did not agree with the summary for policy makers. Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me. -
paledriver at 01:35 AM on 20 January 2008There is no consensus
i will anyways......................... The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[3] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute". The Petition Project itself used to state: “ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ” In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote: “ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15] ” In 2005, Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ” In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote: “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17] -
paledriver at 01:27 AM on 20 January 2008There is no consensus
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001. They openly lied about endorsement from National Academy of Sciences, were caught, the Academy issues a statement disclaiming any connection, they re-release it again anyways, and you're foolish and gullible enough to buy it and defend it. Would you like me to post a sample of the signers? That would be embarrassing for you. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 08:32 AM on 18 January 2008Models are unreliable
Here is another posting assessing Hansen's model work in a not very favourable way: Whether these alternate assessments of Hansen's work stand up is a separate issue. I would point out we should not accept them blindly any more than we should blindly accept Hansen's paper on how brilliant Hansen's previous work was, as this naive article does... -
Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 16 January 2008There is no consensus
I think I'd put the list on the petition project up against the IPCC list, many of whom disagree with IPCC conclusions, any day of the week. The listed expose here paledriver is pure rubbish. Maybe you should investigate the actual list rather than the fake and distorted claims about it. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:01 PM on 15 January 2008Mars is warming
Mars cooled down signficantly between the Viking landings and the recent "warming" trend, while Earth was consistently warming throughout that time, making the correlation highly doubtful. Pluto has not been observed through a complete orbit yet, arguing about its "climate" is pointless. The observations match expectations from its seasonal cycle and the albedo changes seen since the 50s (likely due to collection of space materials). Furthermore, if the Sun could really throw out the energy to affect Pluto so much, we would be frying. There is no convincing evidence that Jupiter's "climate" (once again more a figure of speech than a observed reality) is prone to be affected by variations in TSI so minute that we had to have satellites around Earth to actually mesure them. Among the inner planets, Venus, most likely to show changes due to its proximity to the Sun and huge greenhouse effect is not showing any warming. -
BestTimesNow at 00:24 AM on 15 January 2008Evaporating the water vapor argument
During the Cretaceous Period the earth was about 80% covered with water and tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present and deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's. (Per Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous ----------------- “CO2 levels are usually invoked to explain Cretaceous warmth and the flat Cretaceous temperature gradient. This makes sense, since the very active mid-ocean spreading ridges might well have bee associated with out-gassing of CO2 from deep within the Earth. Unfortunately, the geology of the period and stable carbon isotope records, don't really support the idea as well as they might.” “Even the most sophisticated quantitative models can't reconstruct the flatness of the Cretaceous temperature gradient. Either our temperature estimates are off, or some important factor is missing from the models. Since dinosaurs and semi-tropical vegetation are known from within 10° of the Cretaceous poles, the problem is likely to be with the theory.” http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Mesozoic.htm Take a look at the temperature vs latitude chart. With the earth being cover 80% with water, the “Water World” type moisture effect was coming into play. IMHO -
stewart at 01:14 AM on 13 January 2008It hasn't warmed since 1998
These posts are useful. plfreeman, there's enough data from monthly, weekly, or daily summaries, that the regression and correlation are both statistically significant, even after correcting for autocorrelation and using various methods. Here's a good link to check it out, by a mathematician specializing in time series analysis: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/ The strong version of Carter's claim that warming stopped in 1998 requires the slope to be zero or negative since then. It isn't, therefore the strong version is proven false (and the 60 individuals who signed that have demonstrated their commitment to ideology over data). Even the weak version ('no significant warming') is shown false. -
BestTimesNow at 12:23 PM on 12 January 2008Evaporating the water vapor argument
“When looking at water vapor, the amount humans have added to the atmosphere today is the sum of the past few weeks (at MOST), since water has its own equilibrium and just rains out.” ------------------ I agree that the water vapor will rain out, but we are adding the water vapor in a daily process, making the land areas artificially more humid (every day) than they would have been. This man made humidity reduces the heat that is radiated back into space. Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water. Let’s look at a “Water World” type earth with no land. The humidity created by being 100% ocean would cause the planet’s temperature to increase. We would have very small daily temperature swings, at any location and I doubt that we would even have ice caps at the poles. What if the earth was 100% land with no open water? The result would be a planet with no humidity, with big daily temperature swings, but with the net effect of having a much colder planet. The effect of our forcing water into the atmosphere is similar to changing the surface water from 70% to say 75%. It will have and effect on the earths temperature. CO2 is not a factor in these examples and it’s not a major factor in global warming. -
paledriver at 10:07 AM on 10 January 2008There is no consensus
sorry about the double post, and for the unintended smarmy tone. -
paledriver at 04:57 AM on 10 January 2008There is no consensus
that list of 400 is about as big a hoax as the "Petition Project" was. Here's one of many sites exposing it. http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler would you like to try again, Mr. Nitschke? -
BestTimesNow at 16:12 PM on 9 January 2008Evaporating the water vapor argument
My video did not include contrails, but the moisture from airplane contrails also causes the daily high to low temperature range to decrease. The daily temperature swing from high to low increased in the few days after 9/11 when all planes were grounded and the upper atmosphere had less forced moisture. http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 12:28 PM on 9 January 20081934 hits the top ten!
The Arctic is 3% of the land mass of the planet. Following your logic does this imply that any reporting of global warming in this region is also of infinitesimal significance globally? Perhaps you can elaborate in this article on why some regions of the planet have infinitesimal significance while others have enormous significance when they are more or less of comparable size? There could be plausible reasons why some regions of the planet have more significance than others, perhaps. -
Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 12:13 PM on 9 January 2008Models are unreliable
Here is an interesting quote from IPPC's AR4 found in chapter 1: "The strong emphasis placed on the realism of the simulated base state provided a rationale for introducing ‘flux adjustments’ or ‘flux corrections’ (Manabe and Stouffer, 1988; Sausen et al., 1988) in early simulations. These were essentially empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles, and that consisted of arbitrary additions of surface fluxes of heat and salinity in order to prevent the drift of the simulated climate away from a realistic state. The National Center for Atmospheric Research model may have been the first to realise non-flux-corrected coupled simulations systematically, and it was able to achieve simulations of climate change into the 21st century, in spite of a persistent drift that still affected many of its early simulations. Both the FAR and the SAR pointed out the apparent need for flux adjustments as a problematic feature of climate modelling (Cubasch et al., 1990; Gates et al., 1996). By the time of the TAR, however, the situation had evolved, and about half the coupled GCMs assessed in the TAR did not employ flux adjustments. That report noted that ‘some non-flux adjusted models are now able to maintain stable climatologies of comparable quality to flux-adjusted models’ (McAvaney et al., 2001). Since that time, evolution away from flux correction (or flux adjustment) has continued at some modelling centres, although a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it." A 'flux adjustment' is where you discover that the model's predictions start to vary so much from the historical record that you have to go in and change the values inside the software to re-fit the model to what's actually happening. Very confidence inspiring. And what does 'a number of' mean? 50%? 20%? 80%? How many of these models are manually fiddled with to get them to continue to work...? -
Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 8 January 2008It's not bad
In other words Malaria should be removed from the list. Maybe there are other diseases but Malaria which already exists in the Arctic is not one of the bugs that is likely to increase its range due to climate change so its inclusion here is simply wrong. Other diseases would also have to be evaluated case by case and there are many if not more illnesses associated with low temperatures. I haven't had time to research many of these claims but the few I have researched on the negative side are very doubtful, like polar bears being threatened, which is directly contradicted by the available data. This is an old salesman trick of inflating the number of arguments on your side and minimizing the number on your opponents side. It doesn't impress me and it does the AGW argument more harm than good. -
GMB at 11:45 AM on 6 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
We might compare the campaign to restrict industrial-CO2-release to the book of Mormon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08&feature=related No archeological support can be found for the Book Of Mormon. The events within it leave no remnants of the technology, coinage, animals or plants that are talked about within it. Yet the Mormons still go in for this crap. Same goes here. No evidence whatsoever has been found in support of the contention that industrial-CO2-release ought to be restricted. But these alarmists, far worse and more harmful nutters than Mormoms, continue to go in for it anyway. Now French fellow. Do you have that evidence or not? Come up with the evidence or admit you are wrong. -
GMB at 09:48 AM on 6 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
"My point Phillipe is that the assumption that warming would cause more economic hardship than benefit is not at all evident from the historical or the archeologic record." Thats totally understating the matter. Don't softpedal these lunatics. The historical and archeological record speaks with one voice on the matter. But its not a question of WARMING VERSUS COOLING. Its a question of whether the extra CO2 will mitigate the natural cooling. The idea that extra CO2 will cause net economic costs is self-evidently ludicrous. And we have to come down on these science fraudsters with extreme predjudice. Don't pussyfoot around with these people WOL. They ARE charlatans. You know enough to know that the warm times are always the good times and the times with good rainfall. Whereas the Cold times are all about extreme weather events and drought. -
GMB at 09:43 AM on 6 January 2008It's ozone
This is another case of folks expecting everything to be simultaneous. Since temperature is a reflection primarily of ACCUMULATED joules in the oceans and planet, leading to a buildup of water vapour in the air, there is no reason to ever suspect that the peak of anything else would match to the hour the peak of temperature. Ozone is thought to be a strong greenhouse gas. But thats far less relevant then its blocking potential for UV since that affects joules punched directly into the oceans. So if industrial chemicals were destroying ozone there is the very real potential for less ozone to account for part of the alleged 1978-2000 divergence between solar irradiation trends and global temperatures. -
GMB at 08:48 AM on 6 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Oil will go a lot higher. The price will go up soon, often and by large margins. The only thing which might delay this is an American recession which appears to be happening even now. Oil will keep going up because the normal market corrections have been hampered by this science fraud. Since the science fraud that this "global warming" racket involves is part of a wider energy-deprivation-crusade. We would by now be bristling with nuclear power reactors and coal-liquification plants. "Peak Oil" would have been a concept with some predictive value but it would have been nothing that need concern the public since substitution towards liquified coal would have begun many years ago. This Malthusian/Marxist racket, posing as science, though oddly incapable of finding evidence for itself, has already slaughtered people by the millions insofar as it bureaucratised DDT. Over at Tim Lamberts site they are voicing their grave opposition to malaria eradication. This is a poisonous movement and these are very sick sick people. Dude if you knew more than me you'd just explain the diagram. What we see is that its no evidence for anything. It won't even tell you the time period involved. No evidence has been presented that CO2 is cooling the stratosphere. For that we would need to have something similiar that was working over a number years giving enough time for the CO2 level to change. Also we would need something which went out of its way to show both incoming and outgoing absorption. Not just pick out the 15 microns and ignore the other parts of the absorption spectrum. Now have you got any evidence that CO2 is warming anything globally? We've got to have everyone admit they were wrong so we can get this energy production off the ground. -
Wondering Aloud at 09:26 AM on 4 January 2008It's the sun
So what is the data source for the dotted blue line? Is it USHCN? Or partially USHCN? -
Wondering Aloud at 09:13 AM on 4 January 2008Mars is warming
I haven't seen anything on Jupiter system as a whole that would convince me it is warming to any significant extent, and Pluto is likely caused by orbital eccentricity it has been closer than average to the sun in recent years -
Wondering Aloud at 08:51 AM on 4 January 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
GMB seems someone disconnected from the topic of this post. But, what I still want to know is what is currently happening with the Earth's orbit? What causes the sudden dramatic cool down and is it expected to happen soon? If not, why not? looks to me like the interglacial is due to end at least in terms of the last 4. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:40 AM on 4 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
From reading your posts, it is obvious that I understand these things much better than you, GMB. You should shoulder the money to actually get that paper from AGU, it's not that expensive and you might actually understand something, provided you can focus your attention long enough to read it. I understand your point, WA. There are a lot of unknowns in this issue. The historical and archaeologic records apply to periods during which the human population was a tiny fraction of what it is now and what it will be in 2040. Thus, its usefulness has limitations. For myself, I am skeptical of catastrophic scenarios, but I do not see any reason to believe that there will be more benefit than hardship either. Any change requiring "geographic" adaptation will run into geopolitical considerations that have no comparison in history (esp. for the number of people involved). Furthermore, you don't really know how unlikely the adverse changes you mentioned actually are. There are also other considerations. Oil just hit $100/barrel. How high will it go? With China and India increasing their oil consumption at an enormous pace, what is the chance that other countries that are lagging will ever be able to afford any oil? What will be the price of a barrel in 20 years? Even if reserves are found and exploited in the Arctic, and the shales are sqeezed to the last drop all over the world, is there any possibility that 9 billion people can live like us now for any length of time? -
Wondering Aloud at 06:54 AM on 4 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
My point Phillipe is that the assumption that warming would cause more economic hardship than benefit is not at all evident from the historical or the archeologic record. The assumption made above my comment was that warming would have overwelmingly negative impacts. I find that unlikely to say the least. Your counter examples are also regional and focus on inadequate rainfall. To get any net negative economic effect you have to assume that there will be some significant regional changes in rainfall and that the changes will produce negative effects. For example that deserts would expand more than arable land elsewhwere would grow. That is already a mighty long and unlikely string of assume. -
cce at 19:37 PM on 3 January 2008Ice age predicted in the 70s
Ice ages cannot be explained without the GHG feedback. The same science that tells us this, tells us we are heating up the planet. -
GMB at 16:24 PM on 3 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
"On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation to space. In the stratosphere this emission becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption. " You don't have that information. Certainly not from that graph. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:21 PM on 3 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Really, you don't seem interested in finding out anything that disagrees with your worldview. It is unfortunate, because if you want to refute something, you need to at least read and preferably understand it. All the talk about blackbody and wave length makes it look like you know about radiative physics but in fact you revealed post after post that your knowldege of the subject and scientific understanding in general is rather lacking. You insist on saying that you have refuted stuff that you don't even read, I don't understand that attitude. You rant about the idea of validation, which is almost as ancient as science itself. The first light bending observation in 1918 validated Einstein's theory of General Relativity (even though the observation was botched). Observations validated the calculated existence of Pluto, and countless other space bodies. Advanced microphotography validated the Sliding Filament theory of muscle contraction, etc... Furthermore, I take offense of being called (among other things) an alarmist while I have not mentioned any kind of alarmist belief/scenario/whatever anywhere in this thread (find one if you can). I don't know what you mean by "the inside." I can't even get the Clough and Iacono paper without paying. I can not find any more details than anybody else. The reason why there is heat absorbtion in the stratosphere in those IR wave numbers is because GH gases, in the STRATOSPHERE, RELEASE HEAT TO SPACE. If you had read Dr. Uherek explanation linked in post 19, you would have seen this: "Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) generally absorb and emit in the infrared heat radiation at a certain wavelength. If this absorption is very strong as the 15µm (= 667 cm-1) absorption band of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas can block most of the outgoing infrared radiation already close to the Earth surface. Nearly no radiation from the surface can, therefore, reach the carbon dioxide residing in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation to space. In the stratosphere this emission becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption. In total, carbon dioxide in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere looses energy to space: It cools these regions of the atmosphere. Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone (as we saw) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), have a weaker impact, because their absorption in the troposphere is smaller. They do not entirely block the radiation from the ground in their wavelength regimes and can still absorb energy in the stratosphere and heat this region of the atmosphere." -
GMB at 14:36 PM on 3 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
I wouldn't count it as cut and dried that its a cooling signature at all. You look at that graph and it appears on the surface to be immensely clear in what its telling you. It appears to be an immensely user-friendly graph. But this is likely a lie. A skewed snapshot, taken througha prism, tricked out to look like a clear narrative. If CO2 is absorbing "LIGHT" (ie electromagentic radiation) in the stratosphere then it is doing its best to WARM AND NOT COOL THE STRATOSPHERE. That energy goes somewhere. If energy is absorbed in that part of the spectrum it will be reconverted to kinetic energy in Brownian motion as well as radiated out in a fuller spectrum in accordance with the molecules temperature yet allowing for its absorption characteristics. Environmentalists must be thought to be lying or wrong until proved true. Thats the only productive attitude. That is their track record. I see not one scintilla of evidence here that CO2 contributes to Stratospheric cooling on some sort of net basis. Not a scintilla. Its just pretty pictures. In this game your mind can be turned four of five times over contemplating a single diagram such as this. You are on the inside as a certifiable alarmist. You can find out the technical details. Whereas I, as a human, am excluded. Go forth and do your duty. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:01 AM on 3 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
A day is 24 hrs. 3 pm to 3am in the morning is only 12. Once again, you need to read the paper if you want to know all the details. The graph is a nice one glance summary of the findings, but it's not the all paper. It is likely that the people pointing to the CO2 cooling signature know what the graph is about, especially the authors themselves. -
Den siste mohikanen at 02:10 AM on 3 January 2008It's cosmic rays
First, the Harrison paper of 2006 state "...Furthermore, during sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction, showing that the diffuse radiation changes are unambiguously due to cosmic rays." http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/07661/EGU06-J-07661.pdf Hence, it is pointless to argue that cosmic rays do not affect cloudiness. The correlation is there on a timescale of hours to decades, and as others have shown, on centennial to billion of years. The mechanism might not be what Svensmark has proposed but it doesn't change the basic fact if he is wrong about that. Secondly, your argument is nonsensical, as what Svensmark and other argue is not that cosmic rays can account for all climate influences. But if he is right - and evidence is piling up that he is - two things follows. 1) the parametrisation in current GCMs are wrong as they fit past temperatures without taking this effect in consideration. Hence they are not reliable as tools for forecasts. 2) climate sensitivity is overestimated by earlier attempts such as Hansens, as one major forcing was not considered when calculating those sensitivity values. What "sceptics" such as me claim is that there is precious little evidence to support the higher estimates on future temperatures as presented by UN (IPCC). And quite a bit of evidence against it. Emission scenarios is, well, rather extravagant, as they include projections of emissions many times higher than todays in year 2100 in spite of our likelhood to develop good alternatives to the ever more pricier fossile fuel (current trends are cutting the cost of renewables at half each decade). Climate scenarios based on these extravagant emission scenarios is then calculated with GCMs that are likely overestimating the response to a particular forcing. In general I would say sceptics accept that the climate warms when we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we believe its effect will be muted by the climate systems rather than enhanced. I also want to add that I recognise all other environmental (and geopolitical) problems associated with burning fossile fuel and find that a compelling reason to put higher efforts in developing alternatives. -
GMB at 16:19 PM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
But they don't say from which to which day? It meaningless if we don't know that. It would be meaningful if we knew it was from 3pm to 3am in the morning. People are very careless with the conclusions they take from things. Unless we know the time period there is nothing to learn from this thing. Its a radically different scenario if this graph is between 1978-1995 or if its 12 hours in mid-summer. You get people saying "Ho Ho look there is the signature for CO2 cooling the Stratosphere" but there is just no such thing unless we know what the damn graph is about. The other thing is if its a heat absorption scale thats a bit odd. Since after all if a molecule absorbs radiation IT HEATS UP. So far the graph can mean nothing. No conclusion can be taken from it. Certainly not that extra CO2 cools the stratosphere.
Prev 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 Next
