Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 Next
Comments 132401 to 132450:
-
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. -
jimdk at 14:07 PM on 2 January 2008Models are unreliable
Well, here is NASA telling us there is no meaningful comparison of models to observed global temp change "The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2005b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006), indicates that the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change. These uncertainties must be reduced significantly for uncertainty in climate sensitivity to be adequately con- strained (Schwartz 2004). Helping to address this chal- lenging objective is the main purpose of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glory mission, a remote sensing Earth-orbiting observatory" http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/5/pdf/i1520-0477-88-5-677.pdf -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:42 PM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You need to get on Google scholar and do your research, or ask one of your teachers, if you're a student. There is only so much I can do. I assumed that they focused on long wave bewcause that's heat and that's what the graph was about. The d is for day: cooling per cm per day. -
GMB at 08:57 AM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
"Colour scale x 10-3 is in units of K d-1 (cm-1)-1" Thats commentary on the selfsame graph but from another link. I copied it the d to the negative 1 looks like a d-1. BUT WHAT DOES "d" MEAN? I think I might be finally able to figure out the implications of this graph if I only found out what "d" means? -
GMB at 08:05 AM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Just another thought. Supposing that radiation with a wavelength of 15 microns peaked on a blackbody with a temperature of -18 degrees or so like it appears to in this graph in the link below. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/absorption.gif Now I calculated it at -80 degrees but I likely made a mistake. So going with this graph we can see intuitively that this would be a good range to block for the melting of ice. The earths surface may well be giving off this sort of wavelength where the earths surface is ice. So for example when you have a wind blowing and sun beating down on the ice it would absorb, disperse and reflect light. But it would disperse a lot of this light within itself. But its actual surface temperature might be such that its giving off radiation particularly around this 15 microns frequency. Think of the ice at night so as not to complicate matters with what the sun is doing. Its possible that the extra CO2 could be having no effect on the heat budget more generally, or even having a cooling effect, but it could at the same time be having a dissproportionate ice-melting effect in the scenario I'm outlining. We have to dissaggregate the world spacially to see what effects the extra CO2 is likely to be having. It could be cooling things over the oceans at the equator and warming things over a snowy mountain. We don't really know unless we check these things out. Intuitively one might imagine a high CO2 world helping us prevent frost damage even if it was doing nothing to the imbedded energy in the oceans and therefore to cumulative warming. -
GMB at 07:42 AM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You see we don't want to be bigoted or discriminatory about light and colour. We ought to want to see what these gasses do all the way across the spectrum. To take in everything thats done right up to ultraviolet light would mean going down to 280 nanometres. Which means we have to go all the way up to a wavenumber of 37000. The other thing is the graph stops at the ground. But we need to know how things go right down to the bottom of the photic zone in the ocean. Whats happening 15m under the water? So we don't want to be bigots when it comes to greenhouse liquids versus greenhouse gasses. For that matter, if I want to take this principle to its logical extreme, we might wish to know what happens under 5m of ice on a Mountain somewhere. We don't wish to discriminate against greenhouse solids. This graph we are talking about centres itself over the only absorption region for CO2 that is relevant for outgoing. Thats giving us a skewed picture. Take the ozone band for example. Its showing warming in the lower stratosphere. Clearly this is coming from blocking long wave radiation from the ground. And its at that wavelength that is more appropriate than any other for typical earth temperatures. So at that wavelength the CO2 is warmer for the lower stratosphere. But thats not the whole picture along the spectrum. Its all light in my way of thinking. Why have we excluded every last part of the spectrum that would show these gasses blocking radiation from the sun before it gets to where we live or before it lodges itself in the ocean? This is just madness. We are not taking a balanced view. The absorption bands of 2.7 and 4.3 microns are highly relevant to blocking energy from the sun before it hits the ground. -
GMB at 06:59 AM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Great stuff. So is there anywhere an extended version of this graph that goes right up to at least a wavenumber of 4000? And the other thing is, whats the time scale of the observations that make up this graph? Is it some sort of instantaneous thing? Like it would be more meaningful if it showed a change in average radiation levels between 1978 and 1995 since presumably CO2 has gone up in that time and under that scenario the higher CO2 effect would be a real standout, at least at the 15 micron level. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:18 AM on 2 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
The colored scale is a heat absorbtion scale, i.e. a cooling scale. The negative part of the scale indicates a negative heat absorbtion, i.e. warming. -
BestTimesNow at 23:42 PM on 1 January 2008Evaporating the water vapor argument
I think the water vapor issue is viable, as humans force 37 times more water vapor into the air than CO2 in the US. This ratio could be much higher in other parts of the world. Forced evaporation does have an effect because you are doing it daily, in the most arid parts of the US. Here’s my two part video on it. -
GMB at 19:02 PM on 1 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
You have to establish yourself as a faithful alarmist to get any information out of those realclimate guys. They aren't in any way the professionals you make them out to be but I do need their specialist information. -
GMB at 18:54 PM on 1 January 2008Empirical evidence for positive feedback
Right thanks for that. At first I thought they had screwed it up and that the CO2 thing was mislabelled. But I finally figured out that we need to convert wavenumber to wavelength: http://www.impublications.com/convert.php See if you can find out whats wrong with the labelling. Because on the face of it, it appears to be showing us that CO2 is making a WARMING CONTRIBUTION to the stratosphere. Why is that not right? Look at the Ozone. Higher up it appears to be making a WARMING CONTRIBUTION but in the lower stratosphere a COOLING contribution. I know that souonds wrong for CO2 but look at the scale? The positive scale is highly coloured as is the CO2-region. That main stratospheric-warming(?) band is at around 15 microns or 15000 nanometres. Since if you stick 650 in the converter it spits out 15,384 nanometres. The ozone absorption kicks in at about 1050 and that converts to 9.5 microns. Which is about right for Ozone too. Putting 2700 nanometres into the converter we find that comes to a wavenumber of 3703...which goes right off the scale. But we need to investigate that part of the scale since I showed the extra CO2 ought to be blocking incoming at that level. 2.7 microns ought to be irrelevant to outgoing radiation. 4.3 microns? 4300 nanometres? This converts to a wavenumber of 2325 which is also off the scale and suspiciously so. But note that on the face of it the 15 microns CO2 level appears to be warming and not cooling the stratosphere. And it appears to be achieving next to no effect at ground level. If anything it appears to be slicing what the authors think of as the H2O band in two. Almost as if it was neutralising the effect of water although that might be a natural break in water vapour absorption. There's a solid mild warming from halfway up the troposphere all the way through the stratosphere. It appears to be all the way from about 30 to 200 microns. What could that be? Well it might be direct from the sun???? That is a reflection of a tiny growth in solar brightness. That appears to be the case to me since its attenuating mildly most of the way down. Nothing conclusive can be taken from this. But its a good start to figure out the information we really need. But what I want you to suss out is........ why the 15 microns appears to be making a WARMING contribution and not a COOLING contribution to the stratosphere. Whats wrong with the scaling on the far right? I'll just have to assume its making a warming contribution if I can't find anything wrong with the scaling on the right. Great work anyhow. Thanks.
Prev 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 Next
