Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 Next
Comments 17001 to 17050:
-
grindupBaker at 09:47 AM on 12 November 2017A Response to the “Data or Dogma?” hearing
If I'm understanding the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure correctly, then it measures a different physical aspect of Earth's atmosphere than is measured by a thermometer (either liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance) and it measures a lesser physical aspect. The underlying reason for the difference is that there is no long-wave radiation (LWR) inside a solid such as a platinum-resistance thermometer. I've never heard a climate scientist mention this.
If the lower tropospheric (for example) atmosphere warms then there is an anomaly in these forms of energy:
- molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat),
- LWR energy,
- molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form).The warm target in a MSU/AMSU is a solid blackbody whose temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers embedded in it. The microwave flux density from it is used to scale microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere. The issue I see is that this onboard calibration procedure causes the instrument to scale such that it measures only molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) in the atmosphere and excludes LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs in the atmosphere. This means that differentiation over time of this proxy measures only heat anomaly.
A liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer placed in the atmosphere at elevation 2m (for example) above ocean or land surface measures:
- molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) plus
- LWR energy plus
- molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form)
because LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs are transmuted to molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) upon impacting upon the molecules of the solid and I understand that there is no transverse electromagnetic radiation inside a solid. Placement of the thermometer inside an enclosure does not exclude the LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs due to GHG molecule collisions.Thus, differentiation over time of the liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer proxies for temperature measures the sum of all three anomalies but differentiation over time of the microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere at the example elevation of 2m measures only the molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) anomaly with the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure as described. In order for the MSU/AMSU to measure the same physical aspect as a liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer it would be necessary to calibrate with the warm target being atmospheric gases in close proximity to a solid whose temperature is measured by platinum-resistance thermometers, or a compensating adjustment could be made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR energy + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
Please inform whether:
1) I'm misunderstanding the physics, or
2) I'm not including another aspect of STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure that deals with this issue, or
3) A compensating adjustment for this is made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere, or
4) The ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere is so negligible (far less than uncertainties) that no compensating adjustment for it is required for analysis such as RSS and UAH.Thanks
-
RedBaron at 08:57 AM on 12 November 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Well Chris,
Interesting smattering of almost every denialist talking point known! You certainly came to the right place though! Because here we have very detailed rebuttles to all of them!
I will just point you to the most important and what just happens to be last on your list; your claim that we don't know the warming is human caused. The evidence is here. To give you the cheap and easy explanation though, basically follows like this:
- By the Natural cycles and natural trends like obital wobbles and solar activity combined with ocean currents, volcanos etc.... We should be cooling
- We are warming instead
- The factors causing the warming are either directly human caused like CO2 emissions or reinforcing feedback loops we started like water vapor increases and reduced albedo due to melting ice.
- Thus you are right. We are not 100% responcible for global warming. The actual % is higher than 100%, because otherwise we would be on the long slow decrease in temperatures towards a gaciation period.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you for attempting to provide appropriate guidance and suggestions for Chris. The relevant portions of his comment that pertain to this thread have been left; the remainder have been snipped and should be ignored on this thread. Thanks!
-
chrisblandis at 07:58 AM on 12 November 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
The author here has presented a very tendentiuos view on climate change and why people believe in it or not. Like most things in life, nowadays, everyone wants to be reductive - make everything a simple answer, reason or solution - however, the world and the people that inhabit it are extraordinarily complex.
As a democrat, a former catholic, and graduate from Columbia, I can tell you that I am skeptical for the following reasons. First, we live in a universe that we barely understand. Scientific beliefs one day are often proven completely wrong years later. Science is constantly discovering: "the more we live, the more we learn... the more we learn, the more we realize the less we know." Scientists cannot with any certainty predict the course of a hurricane or the weather, for that matter, let alone predict the overall course of our planet's global weather in the future. Computer models show many possible outcomes based on "information we know" but we know LESS than what we actually know, that's why we can't even predict the weather or storms courses accurately. The mystery of life still outweighs science. Next, NASA reported in 2008 that Mars and other planets have been heating up since we began recording their temperatures... are humans to blame for this as well? This information is rational and scientific and should be included in our assessment of the earth's climate changes. The earth and universe have been around for 4.5 billion years, going through a vast number of extraordinary climatic events and extinctions and rebirths... scientific man has been around for 400 yrs. If we reduce this to minutes... if the earth existed for 60 minutes, man's existence is a fraction of a second... to think that we know the earth's cycles or where our solar system is traveling as we speed through the universe... is absurd. With all that said, maybe, maybe, there is a correlation between man and the warming of the planet, it could be part of the reason, or not. 30yrs scientists noted the correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease and told warned people to stop eating eggs, butter and red meat... now science has come out and said "oops, it's more complicated that that," and now eggs and butter are being added back into our diets. Correlations aren't facts...they can be coincidental. Personally, I think that it can't hurt to try to reduce our emissions and be more conscious of our environment, but i do take issue when people try to shove theory down my throat as fact, and demonize or ridicule people if they are skeptical. Skepticism... is good. If we just accepted everything without question - we would never learn or grow. Is the earth getting warmer... yes. Are we to blame solely? Who the F knows. You don't and neither do I.
Moderator Response:[DB] Note that general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Further, please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Multiple off-topic, inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. You are welcome to find more appropriate threads for the individually snipped portions, but ensure you have read them before posting on them. Or a similar outcome will doubtless ensue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 12 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Using the term Conservative is a part of the problem.
The people who are not Open Minded cannot learn new understanding. No matter what amount of Good Reason is developed a close-minded person will not learn.
It is possible that there is a higher percentage of close-minded people in the Right-Conservative catorgory, but Conservative is not the proper label for the trouble-makers.
To pin down the trouble-makers, I have had some success by declaring that the Desired Objective of human activity is developing lasting improvements for all of humanity - eternally into the future. We are fortunate to have the potential to have humanity fit in as a part of the perpetual motion machine for life that this amazing planet can be.
Anyone close-minded who is locked into beliefs that are contrary to developing lasting improvements for all of humanity can only be perceived as a threat to the pursuit of those Good Reasonable Objectives And the best developed presentation of those Good Reasonable Objectives are the Sustainable Development Goals. And anyone who sees merit in achieving any of the identified SDGs should be Open to understanding the importance of achieving all of them. And that can develop a common sense understanding of the Good Reasons to identify specific individuals as threats who should be treated as threats unless they can prove they have changed their minds.
-
nigelj at 06:45 AM on 12 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Debate and discussion should mostly be polite and reasoned, but there are a few times when a strong, aggressive response is required. Otherwise you get walked all over.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Attributed to Einstein.
-
John Hartz at 05:05 AM on 12 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
Ceddars @16: Based on your summary, Heller seems to be conflating Arctic sea ice with the Greenland ice sheets. Is that the case? (I personally do not wish visit Heller's blog to find out.)
-
NorrisM at 03:25 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
Cedders @ 594
As one who is clearly a "lukewarmer", at least, I will look forward to any further posts you have while I personally try to get a handle on issues relating to the measurement of sea levels and actual measurements of global temperature rise.
My underlying concern remains that that the climate system is so complex that the models cannot adequately predict what is going to happen (yes I know this is the topic of another thread). It does not mean it is not going to happen but to ask the world to shift its FF use over a very short time frame is a hard sell. Perhaps you can deal with this in your suggestions to SKS. Another suggestion I have made to SKS (which seems to have fallen on deaf ears) is to address the alternatives and their cost to assure the Republicans in the US (which is surely what has to be done) that there is a reasonable alternative. I understand that this website is not dedicated to those issues but, in my view, those are so critical to convincing the public that they have to be addressed in one or more formal threads dedicated to same.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Cedders at 00:48 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
According to SkS's database this, 'Climate's changed before' is by a slight margin the most popular 'argument' used to protect against 'alarmism' (or action, whichever way you see it).
In the taxonomy, it's listed as a subead of 'It's not us', and this is the usual implication of 'no one denies the climate changes' by committed contrarians - they may go on to assert there's some (unknown) mechanism causing the current rapid warming instead of the predicted enhanced greenhouse effect.
However I would like to suggest that the conclusion reached from 'climate always changes' by most people fits more under the 'It's not bad' top-level heading. howardlee's 'rebuttals' address to an extent by talking about rate of change and past impacts, which are factual points. 'It's not bad' is not purely factual, because 'bad' is a value.
What I mean is that people will use weather, weather ranges, historical climate variations, glacial cycles over human development, or geological records back to the Precambrian to assure themselves, in combination with the self-evident fact that 'we are here', that civilisation, human life or life itself is more 'resilient' than fragile to substantial temperature or CO₂ changes. If it's happened before then it can't be too bad and is not worth regretting. Again, this stance is as much based on values as facts, as described in Mike Hulme's Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Possibly individualists think nature is less unstable than do egalitarians, although that link wasn't immediately obvious to me.
You can also see a ethical evaluation being superimposed in data when discussing 'dangerous' thresholds, for example J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms. What are the dangers? Although these are detailed in the IPCC WG2 reports, in some ways it's sketchy precisely because these are unprecendented changes or rates of changes. Very few think a runaway effect that destroys all life on Earth is likely, so anything less is a kind of survival, and it's possible to 'concertina' geological time with possible changes in frequency recent extreme weather events without fully appreciating what a mass extinction means. A few metres of sea-level rise has happened before, and if it happens over 200 years then it isn't the end of the world.
Largely I think these are still tacit positions when people seem to be discussing topical issues, but they are things on which scientific research and reason can be brought to bear. We can make partial projections based on past evidence of harms and benefits, such as at the Royal Society meeting on hyperthermals. But the possibility of unexpected dangers are harder to evaluate, and most people may assume the existence or otherwise of precedents is the only way to decide whether climate change is a bigger environmental problem than habitat fragmentation or plastic pollution, or how the amount of human endeavour to mitigate it necessary for long-term survival compares to that put into education or defence. Integrated Assessment Models are not the only way one can form an opinion on what the carbon price should be. 'Lukewarmers' presumably hold these kinds of thoughts along with a historical knowledge of previous millennialism and mass hysteria to evaluate the current situation, while others passively dismiss climate concern using similar reasoning.
So there may be several related deeper objections or questions where SkS can summarise evidence. These may often underlie the search for, or adherence to, pseudo-scientific arguments used by contrarians. I may post again on what these are specifically.
-
Cedders at 00:06 AM on 12 November 2017Climate's changed before
The Campbell article John Hartz mentioned is well-written but doesn't present a lot of historical or archaeological evidence, and the conclusions to me seem understated.
-
Cedders at 23:33 PM on 11 November 2017Greenland is gaining ice
I've noticed new claims that Greenland is gaining ice. It seems Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) a graph by Danish researchers on a web page 'Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet'. It was picked up in Goddard's "Deplorable Climate Science Blog" as "Massive Growth In Arctic Ice Since Last Year" and that has been amplified by contrarians who in this case prefer to believe models to satellite data (eg "Grace data update reveals NASA Greenland mass-loss fraud").
The confusion is simply resolved by reading the explanatory text.
Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
-
bozzza at 21:12 PM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Tamino says , essentially, that the relationship is still rock solid between arctic sea ice and co2 concentration!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
nigelj@5,
Thanks for the pointer to Chapter 6, Box 1 in IPCC WG1AR5.
It is important to note that the CO2 levels we are currently seeing in the atmosphere are the levels after a significant portion of the emissions that will be absorded in the land and ocean as described in Phase 1 have been absorbed.
So Phase 1 will not be rapidly removing 60 to 85% of the 120 ppm of excess CO2 we currently are measuring (400 ppm - 280 ppm = 120 ppm excess still in the atmosphere). The measured excess CO2 after human activity stops creating new excess CO2 will essentially be the levels for a much longer time, very slowly being reduced by Phase 2 and 3 actions.
Admittedly there will still be some Phase 1 reduction occurring after humans stop creating new excess impacts if the termination is abrupt rather than gradual. But the rate of reduction of the later stages of Phase 1 are also rather slow.
A slightly expanded description could be given, but the detailed descriptions of the 3 phases provided in Box 6.1 say it better than I could paraphrase and they make reference to additional related information.
But the bottom line is that everyone who is benefiting or benefitted from the creation of excess CO2 owes others, particularly future generations of humanity, whatever it costs to reduce the created excess to 350 ppm (those benefiting must pay to eliminate the negative consequences they created - with the bigger beneficiaries paying more to neutralize the impacts of their actions). The inter-generational inequity, and the inequity of benefit in the current generation, of what is being gotten away with is the real matter to be focused on by Responsible Leaders in Politics and Business.
The lack of responsible leadership due to the competitive advantage of getting away with behaving less acceptably and the powerful popularity of misleading marketing are the real problems that climate science has exposed in a big way (or Bigly as one of the biggest trouble-making Winners is often misquoted as saying - he said Big League in a fuzzy way).
-
nigelj at 05:25 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
The following is from IPCC report on Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
The graph in box 6.1 shows rates carbon is absorbed by land and ocean sinks and other geological processes after we stop emissions. Briefly about 60% 0f CO2 is absorbed in first century, remaining 40% takes up to approx 10,000 years to be absorbed.
-
gws at 01:53 AM on 11 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
quick answer to DS at 1.
On first order, it would probably be corresponding to ...
(1) CO2 emissions are increasing each year
(2) CO2 emissions are near constant each year
(3) CO2 emissions are decreasing each year
(4) CO2 emissions are approximately net zero
(5) CO2 emissions are net negative, meaning it is actively being removed from the atmosphere faster than it can outgas from the ocean at atmospheric levels are dropping
We are currently somewhere between (1) and (2).
For those interested in getting more answer to tsuch questions, there is a Reddit AMA going on today (from AGU):
10 November, Dr. Sarah Doherty and Dr. Radley Horton, two authors
of the Climate Science Special Report
(http://www.globalchange.gov/content/cssr), part of the National Climate
Assessment, are hosting a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) from 1-3 pm EST as part of AGU’s AMA series. The recent Climate Science Special Report
focused on climate change in the U.S. and Sarah and Radley will answer
questions on how our climate is changing, what causes it, and what to
expect in the years ahead. link -
One Planet Only Forever at 15:19 PM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Bob@2,
I agree that there are Feedback mechanisms to be concerned about. But all of those feedbacks are triggered by Anthropogenic emissions.
So the concern must remain focused on the rapid ending of Anthropogenic GHG impacts because of the potential for massive feedback magnification of those impacts (primarily the burning of fossil fuels, but also many other human actvities).
And, as metioned by Digby Scorgie@1, the obvious requirement is to get back down to a 350 ppm CO2 level. That will require human actions that remove GHG from the atmosphere in a truly lasting way (more Anthropogenic GHG impacts, but ones that reverse the tragic irresponsible developed history of impacts). Tragically, the reduction/reversal of the CO2 impacts in the oceans may be more difficult.
And the greatest tragedy is that the people who benefited most from creating the daunting challenges and damaging consequences now faced by humanity will not suffer any personal loss of enjoyment 'in their lifetime'. And that is the tragedy that really should be focused on.
-
Bob16215 at 12:56 PM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
Anthropogenic carbon emissions are not the key value, it is total greenhouse gas emissions less natural reductions from all natural systems. The other most important number is the rate of increase of all greenhouse gases from feedback mechanisms. These two will determine how long we can survive. Too much emphasis is put on just our emissions. There are many huge natural sources waiting in the wings.
-
nigelj at 12:30 PM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks says ocean acidification from CO2 is "insignificant". The following is from NOAA:
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years."
Doesnt look very "insignificant" to me. Ph change also differs from Aleks calculation.
The article has information on impacts currently on sea life including pteropods, coral, shellfish etc, and also projected impacts. None of it looks "insignificant". Also detail on data collection etc.
Relatively small changes can often have large repercussions. We see this as a constant feature in natural world and also technology.
-
sailorman at 11:54 AM on 10 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
To change the topic somewhat. We know that CO2 has increased by 43% over pre-industrial measurements to 400ppm in 2013. The crucial question, it seems to me is, how much of that 43% increase is from anthropogenic causes and how much is natural? I would very much appreciate if someone coud answer that.
Moderator Response:[TD] 100%. See Human CO2 is a Tiny %. Please put further comments there. There are several more relevant posts, but due to me having just my phone right now, plus Elysian Space Dust, I am poorly situated to provide those right now. Comment there to ask for those if you want.
-
John Hartz at 11:28 AM on 10 November 2017Climate's changed before
Recommneded supplemental reading:
The climate has changed before. But this is different – look at the archeological record by Peter B Campbell, Guardian, Nov 9, 2017
-
michael sweet at 10:19 AM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
From the preface of your reference:
"Ocean acidification is an undisputed fact. The ocean presently takes up one-fourth of the carbon CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from human activities. As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, increasing ocean acidity and shifting the partitioning of inorganic carbon species towards increased CO2 and dissolved inorganic carbon, and decreased concentration of carbonate ion. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, surface-ocean acidity has gone up by 30%. The current increase in ocean acidity is a hundred times faster than any previous natural change that has occurred over the last many millions of years. In the case of unabated CO2 emissions the level of ocean acidity will increase to three times the preindustrial level by the end of this century." (my emphasis)
Chemists who actually work in this field think that ocean acidification is an important problem. Your assertions are not scientificly based. Next time try to find a reference that supports your position.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:02 AM on 10 November 2017“Toasted, roasted and grilled” or already over the hump?
I think that part of the problem is that many people are not clear on the difference between carbon emissions and concentration of atmospheric CO2. I understand the difference but not how they are related.
The Keeling curve is currently rising at an accelerating rate. It has to stop rising and instead trend downwards to 350 ppm at least. But what would our emissions be doing while this change occurs?
I envisage five states of the Keeling curve:
(1) CO2 concentration rises at an accelerating rate
(2) CO2 concentration rises at a constant rate
(3) CO2 concentration rises but at a decreasing rate
(4) CO2 concentration stops rising and remains constant
(5) CO2 concentration starts decreasing
For each of these five states, what would our corresponding emissions be doing? Please enlighten me.
-
aleks at 08:19 AM on 10 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
As a chemist, I'd like to comment the author's statement: "As humans emit more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, in particular) into the atmosphere, the chemistry of ocean change". At first, it's necessary to clarify that in IPCC list of greenhouse gases only CO2 can dissolve in water and change its acidity (not CH4, N2O, CFCs, etc.). So, the question is: how can the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to impact on the ocean acidity?
Simple calculations based on Henry constant for CO2 in pure water and H2CO3 dissociation constant show that change in CO2 partial pressure from 0.0003 to 0.0004 atm (that takes place in last 100 - 150 years) will decrease pH by 0.06. Indeed, this difference will be negligibly small because the solubility CO2 in saline water is less than in pure water, and ocean water contains carbonate-hydrocarbonate and boric acid-borate buffer systems. The composition of ocean water and its acidity are examined in detail in the comprehensive work of the Europen Comission
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf
Estimation of pH in this work (p.26) gives the value of 8.1 (not acidic!). Of course, the local temporary acidification of ocean is possible, but it is caused not by CO2, but by SO2 and NO2 that are much more acidic than CO2.
Moderator Response:[TD] See the multipart series "OA Not OK."
[DB] Also, please see "Seawater Equilibria" and "The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption".
-
NorrisM at 05:33 AM on 9 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
MA Rodger @ 250
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect that when I get through this thread I will tackle Chapters 3 and 13 in IPCC AR5. Probably should read those first but this is easier reading (I do not want to say more entertaining).
-
william5331 at 05:22 AM on 9 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Another thing that jelly fish teach us is that we have destroyed our population of sea turtles (who eat jelly fish). We continue to destroy them by not protecting their nesting sites and by letting plastic bags enter the oceans which they mistake for jelly fish. The jelly fish then hoover up the larvae of all our commercial species which have a planktonic stage (virtually all of them). Unless we smarten up and set aside more and more of our Exclusive Economic Zones as strictly no fishing areas, eliminate plastic bags and protect turtle nesting sites, we better get used to eating jelly fish.
-
Oriolus Traillii at 22:54 PM on 8 November 2017Temp record is unreliable
Link http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png is broken (see "other lines of evidence for rising temperatures", bullet point 3 under "intermediate")
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed; thanks! (I also fixed the missing video on that page)
-
MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
NorrisM @249.
As you become interested in IPCC AR5 Fig 3.14, do note that the three data sets presented are derived from tidal gauges using two significantly different approaches. The first used by Jevrejeva et al (2008) attempts to reconstruct a global coastal SLR and the second used by Church & White (2011) and Ray & Douglas (2011) attempts to reconstruct a global ocean SLR. The full set of approaches employed across all the various studies is listed out in AR5 Section 3.7.2.
-
NorrisM at 14:19 PM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
John Hartz @ 248 and squishy
I think I will get back to reading the balance of this thread. Indian Ocean discussion interesting but seems to suggest that talking about an average SLR over all oceans is challenging.
DB could have been clearer but I see that he was clearly referring only to the contribution from ice sheets.
Do you agree that the IPCC reference to the 1920-1950 period had to be referencing the two studies other than Church & White shown in the 3.14 graph?
-
John Hartz at 13:41 PM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
Norris M: As I stated updthread, sea level rise is a very complex subject matter.
One of the major complexities of sea level rise is that it is not uniform throughout the global ocean system. The following article dramtically illustrates this key fact:
Scientists may have solved mystery of rapidly rising Indian Ocean sea level by Olivia Trani, GeoSpace, AGU Blogosphere, Nov 7, 2017
-
Eclectic at 11:30 AM on 8 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero, I suspect you and I have very little difference when it comes to realities (rather than abstractions).
I agree that it would be completely inappropriate to describe President Trump as a political extremist. Trump is sui generis, and does not really fit on the left/right political spectrum, despite his numerous "extremist" policy efforts (as pointed out by Nigelj in #25 final two paragraphs). But I am getting off topic!
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:25 AM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
"235 is clearly talking about ice sheet contribution to SLR, NOT total SLR"
Yes, indeed. And that the ongoing mass losses from our dwindling, land-based ice sheets are now the dominant contributor to SLR...and will continue to be so, for longer than any now alive shall live.
-
wili at 09:42 AM on 8 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Thanks for this excellent piece. For those who want to read further on jellyfish, they might start with the cleverly named "Spineless."
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 8 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero, and yes thanks for your rational debate as well. Makes a change from the usual war zone of opinion.
-
squishy at 07:34 AM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
Daniel Bailey @ 235 is clearly talking about ice sheet contribution to SLR, NOT total SLR.
"Ancillary to Bob Loblaw's fine comment at 232, previous research has shown that ice sheet mass contributions from land-based ice sheets have exceeded thermal expansion as the biggest contributor to global sea level rise. Recent research just submitted now has isolated the individual ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.
Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014 global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers.
Hsu and Velicogna 2017 - Detection of Sea Level Fingerprints derived from GRACE gravity data"
-
nigelj at 06:00 AM on 8 November 2017We have every reason to fear Trump’s pick to head NASA
Yes Bridinstine may change his mind when he talks to the real experts. We can only hope. Trump might then fire him but may find whomever he appoints ultimately has the same reaction! Think the Russian investigation.
A lot of climate sceptical people probably get their information mostly from radio talkback and denialist websites and third hand distorted information from friends and associates etc, or the maintream media (cnn etc) or Al Gores book which was ok, but over simplified a few issues. And some people are so intensely partisan they would dismiss his book on that basis, sadly to say. The end result is they often get very poor quality information.
What convinced me we were altering the climate was graphs and data on solar trends, cosmic ray trends, etc that sort of thing. Bridinstine will hopefully get exposed to this sort of material and some expert commentary.
I would love the mainstream media do more to show relationship of temperatures to solar trends etc because the first thing ppeople ask is could it be natural causes? It has to be answered convincingly. The general media are probably are afarid of over complicating things with data and graphs, but over simplification can be a bad idea.
-
nigelj at 05:34 AM on 8 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero @24, yes ok the 20% - 40% is unexplained. I recall seeing some other source saying about 25% somewhere was gender discrimination.
But its hard to measure the gender discrimination component accurately, and we agree it is at least a smaller component of the overall problem.
But how much smaller? I would say its still a very significant component although my evidence is a bit anecdotal and partial as follows:
For example in New Zealand we get a few cases of gender discrimination going through the courts each year so it does happen. Its a hard thing to prove, so many cases likely dont make the courts. Employers can come up with numerous spurious justifications if they want. I still think its likely about 25% of the problem, but clearly the trend has improved since middle of last century.
It also depends on how you define gender discrimination. We also recently had a case of low paid home care workers employed by the state who are mostly women taking a case to court against the government on the basis they were paid less than other occupations of similar skill levels. They won. Perhaps they were low paid because they were women, or perhaps it was just because the government could get away with it. We will probably never know. This is why having good laws and procedures is more important than over analysing and debating the exact cause.
IMO Trump is not a political extremist as in hard right / conservative or hard left /liberal. His politics are complex and self serving, and have fluctuated all over the place. He used to support the Democrats.
Rather Trumps specific ideas and policy responses tend to be extremist if you think about it. And I have to say for the record almost all his policies and ideas are most unwise.
-
NorrisM at 05:30 AM on 8 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
MA Rodger, Bob Loblaw and Michael Sweet,
After more carefully looking at Figure 3.14 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment, I think the real answer to my question is that the IPCC is not relying on Church & White but rather on Jevrejeva el al and Ray and Douglas estimates to come to the conclusion that "similar rates" (ie 3.2 mm/yr) were found in the period of 1920-1950.
So then, just when some papers are coming out with projected 4 mm/yr rates, here we have Daniel Bailey at 235, in the course of discussing that there is a larger contribution to SLR from ice sheets rather than thermal expansion he states as follows:
"Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014 global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year"
What gives?
It would seem that there is a lot of disagreement on one of these basic issues, namely, how much SLR are we experiencing?
-
william5331 at 04:39 AM on 8 November 2017We have every reason to fear Trump’s pick to head NASA
Does he take up an office in NASA. Presumably so and he will be in contact with some of the most intelligent, most articulate scientists and engineers of our generation. Sort of like putting a snow ball in a blast furnace. Let's see if he can continue to hold his opinions in the face of a constant bombardment of facts. I bet Trump replaces him when he has his epifany.
-
cero at 03:16 AM on 8 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
@nigelj:
I think we've gotten to common ground with your post. I agree with your points.
Just one small side note to the gender pay gap:
The 20-40% is not the part due to discrimination, but the currently unexplained part (which may be - at least in part - due to discrimination). In Wikipedia they talk about discrimination or being "less willing" to negotiate salaries. Also they state, that in the EU direct discrimination is relatively rare due to strong laws against it (but without source).@Eclectic:
(E) Yes, of course, I am talking about some specific first world countries nowadays. It is undisputable that some time ago there was heavy discrimination against women (and still is in many countries).
In fact, even in some first world countries like Japan and South Korea I suspect there is still a lot of discrimination going on.
I get your argument, that having discrimination is in some sense the status quo. So yes, you are right, the research is not conclusive enough to completely dismiss discrimination as a significant factor for the pay gap.
However, I do not reject that there still is real discrimination in some places, but I state that the effect of that is probably much smaller than commonly communicated.
I didn't want to imply, that the pay gap is anecdotical, but your evidence was. I work at a university in Germany by the way, there we get equal pay for equal work by definition. But also for my friends I did not get the impression, that the women are paid less than the men in the same area (just that the percentage of men in engineering is much higher). However, as I said, this is anecdotical. ;-)
(D) "Yet that is not at all to suggest that education (and possibly intelligence) could be the cause of such self-harming & deeply insane stances. But merely that (insane) motivated reasoning is facilitated by above-average education."
Yes, I agree. I just wanted to dismiss your point, that something is probably true if more highly educated people believe it to be true.
"The unreality of the (American) labels "liberal, or conservative" . . . is hampering the (American) ability for logical thought on these issues — and is fanning the false-dichotomy"
Yes, of course. However other labels such as "left" and "right" aren't much better either. I agree, that one should therefore not overuse those categories. However, people who agree with e.g. some "left" positions are more likely to also agree on other "left" positions out of partisanship. So those categories are not completely useless.
(There are btw some people in the US who refer to themselves as "classical liberals" to escape the false dichotomy.)(C) Well, I am unsure in the usage and definition of "extremist", therefore I avoid using that word. In Germany extremists on the right are blatant nazis while extremists on the left are anarchists and communists. His positions are in the spectrum of the main conservative party in Germany (which would ironically be called "liberal" in the US). And that party is mainstream enough to provide the chancellor. :-)
I would even avoid calling Trump an extremist, and he has a much more extremist attitude than James Damore (who didn't vote for Trump and frequently states that he doesn't support the alt-right).
(B) You are right, the idea is disputed. There are some hints, that the effect may only occur in Western countries and therefore may be affected by the environment. (There is also a study from 2008 which supports the hypothesis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_studies(A) Oh, I didn't say that. But I hope not everything I share at work will eventually be made public. ;-)
Again, thank you both for the rational debate!
-
John Hartz at 23:29 PM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
The following comment was deleted by mistake. My bad.
JohnSeers
@236 @yypo
"Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location ..."
I am no expert on sea level rise but the title says it all and says nothing. I hardly need a scientific paper to tell me that short time scales and one location are not enough. Indeed, the first point made in this Skeptical Science article is "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.".
What is the reputation of “Earth Systems and Environment"? And what is your justification for saying "the most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally"? Just asserting it does not make it so.
-
cero at 23:28 PM on 7 November 2017Climate's changed before
Thanks @MA Rodger. That was the kind of explanation I was searching for. :-)
-
Eclectic at 22:12 PM on 7 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero, a small addendum to (D) above :-
The unreality of the (American) labels "liberal, or conservative" . . . is hampering the (American) ability for logical thought on these issues — and is fanning the false-dichotomy (which seems to be the local mental fashion in recent decades). Unfortunate. But we (including you) must try to rise above that sort of nonsense. Regardless, it all reflects poorly on "the Memo-ist".
-
Eclectic at 22:04 PM on 7 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero @20 :-
(E) Look at human history: for centuries (millennia, actually!) the subordinate position of women has effected a "pay gap" [in monetary or other reward] for the female of the species. Exceptions were rare. In effect, the "pay gap" has been the default position. I accept your point that the difference is diminishing — in First World countries. There, because the situation is in a state of flux, it becomes less easy to distinguish between true preferences and true discrimination.
But the onus is on you to dismiss the default position by demonstrating the alleged absence of adverse discrimination. (Yet the point is fairly minor, in comparison to AGW . . . so please don't bother to put yourself to much trouble in doing so !!)
I am not sure what region of this planet you inhabit, Cero — but it must surely be a Utopian place, if you regard the "pay gap" as highly anecdotal. ;-)
(D) Pro-homeotherapy & Anti-vaccination stances are often correlated with higher-than-average education levels. Yet that is not at all to suggest that education (and possibly intelligence) could be the cause of such self-harming & deeply insane stances. But merely that (insane) motivated reasoning is facilitated by above-average education. [Sadly, the term "above average education" is a long way short of flattery, for anyone !!)
(C) In part, the [above] is why I say that "the Memo-ist" shows bias and lack of insight into his own nature and also into the nature of humanity/society.
But Cero, please call a spade a spade — and please do go so far as to attest him [having] an extremist attitude. I doubt it would hurt his feelings. Indeed, I strongly suspect he is proud of his extremist attitude [though he would never admit to himself as being anything other than a mainstream thinker ;-) ].
(B) The greater variance of men's IQ . . . is an old idea, and likely of dubious validity. There would be many confounding factors in such assessment — especially decades ago, when there were greater M/F social differences.
(A) I fear for you Cero, if you believe our modern world holds little threat to your privacy. I wish you good luck!
-
MA Rodger at 21:17 PM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
Bob Loblaw @241,
Further to this Boretti/Parker issue, my understanding as per @240 was that there was one odd date (likely explainable), and all else pointed to a simple name-change. In the Tamino discussion you refer to dated 26Sept2012, there is mention of 3 published comments, one of these from Boretti and one from Parker. The Parker comment is published 6Sept2012 and cites the Boretti comment as being "In Press". The authorship of the Parker comment must then post-date the Boretti comment. And they both must have been published prior to the Tamino post of 26Sept2012.
So here is the one odd date, the Boretti comment publication is dated 11Oct2012. I can but assume this for some reason was written, and published in some form prior to both the Parker comment and the Tamino post but has for some reason acquired a later date of publication in the form linked above. Beyond this, I initially saw no Boretti literature on this subject that post-dates the arrival of Parker.
That did suggest a name change (as per the commenting here on a different paper) and that Parker was not acting as a sock-puppet for Boretti. However....
...Boretti has acted as a sock-puppet for Parker (hat-tip DeSmogBlog who got no sense from Parker when they asked him abot the two names). And Parker also continues to use the name Alberto Boretti when publishing in his day job so Parker continues to be a nom de plume, perhaps used to build a firewall between the responses he gets to his purile writings on climatology (which "would be unacceptable in an undergraduate lab report") from his more serious Mechanical Engineering work (eg here).
Which ever way you see it, Parker/Boretti's use of different names within scientific publications is unacceptable.
-
bozzza at 19:51 PM on 7 November 2017Climate's changed before
Answer is: whether it's going too fast or not!
(Did I win?)
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:09 PM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
As Mal Adapted points out, the journal this recent paper came out in is quite new.
I noticed that issue #2 has a correction in it, for a paper from issue #1. Although it is to the credit of the authors and journal to correct errors, I hope that this is not the start of a pattern of error-riddled papers.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
MA Rodger:
In addition to the link michael sweet gave to a Tamino article, there are several other blog posts that Tamino has done on Parker/Boretti's work. A search at Tamino's provides a list.
One of those posts (also linked to in the Tamino post michael points us to) has more details on the paper that Boretti/Parker sent in two comments on (both published). Although I haven't read the comments to see if Boretti said anything about Parker, it is clear that Parker did not stop using the Boretti name just because it wasn't his legal name any more.
Perhaps he just forgot some of the tnings he wanted to comment on when he sent in the first comment, and then forgot he'd already sent in a comment using his other name when he sent in the second comment.
-
MA Rodger at 08:42 AM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
michael sweet @239,
I think it is more correct to state that "Albert Parker" was known as "Alberto Boretti" and that at some point prior to September 2012, as confirmed by the University of Ballarat on October 1st 2012, "Alberto Boretti ... changed his name to Albert Parker." Of course, this allows Parker to say nice things about Boretti. But is there actually evidence of Boretti returning to say nice things about Parker?
And let us not forget Parker's co-author in this allegedly "most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally" who is an octogenarian with a bit of a problem accepting there is significant ice loss from the Greenland & Antarctic ice caps.
-
nigelj at 08:39 AM on 7 November 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
Cero @19
Thank's for your response. I dont have the time for in depth response, but here are the essential things to me:
I still think the memo writers position is essentially and mainly that biological and deep seated temperamental differences are the main issues in this particular career choice.
He has provided a couple of peer reviewed papers, but thay could be non typical and other research might find something different. Refer to my prior comment that he needs to look at full range of evidence. Its not totally clear if women preferring people jobs is biological or learned.
The evidence in the articles I linked to is actually pretty compelling. However ultimately we dont know for sure either way. It may be a combination of all these factors biological differences, learned differences, barriers, and perceptions etc.
But the bottom line is the memo writer made a claim he hasnt been able to prove adequately, and its on a contentious matter. This puts him in a difficult position, especially as she did it in work time and spread it around the office. It could be interpreted as spreading sexist opinion. If he was writing a book, no problem he can claim what he likes.
He did make a number of political comments about marxism, liberal media bias etc. I think that is unusual material to be circulating in office time at a technology company and rather inappropriate, and his views are pretty dubious as well.
I accept he made several other good points as you noted, but these get lost once he started ranting about liberals in the media. I dont actually see many liberals at Fox. And this is the problem, once the issue is policised it gets argumentative, and away from the issue of women in technology
Regarding the gender pay gap, we do have a reasonable idea of cause. The main factor appears to be career choices women make and just low paying jobs in some industries. Gender discrimination appears to be about 25% of the problem. Read the research linked on wikipedia.
However I dont think it matters what the exact proportionality is, gender discrimination is still a part of the problem, and is easy to address with appropriate laws, and we have those in my country and they work quite well. I assume America has some sort of laws.
-
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
yppo: "Albert Parker" or "Alberto Boretti", the nome de plume that he sometimes writes under, is well known to make up his data on sea level rise. Please suggest a reason we should listen to his prattle now? (for those new to science, writing under two names in considered dishonest in science. "Alberto Borelli" has written positive comments about "Albert Parker's" work.)
-
Mal Adapted at 06:58 AM on 7 November 2017Sea level rise is exaggerated
yppo: "the most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally."
Sorry, I'm skeptical. Your citation is to the second of two issues of a brand new journal. From the 'Preface' to the first issue, published three months ago:
It is our great pleasure to present the inaugural issue of our newly launched scientific journal “Earth Systems and Environment,” the official journal of King Abdulaziz University, which has now become a reality with Springer Nature in Germany. Our main objective is to establish very high standards for the journal so as to support research and innovation in the greater Middle East region and to promote the exchange of scientific knowledge between local scientists in the region and the international community.
With all due respect to King Abdulaziz and his namesake University, its new house organ has yet to establish how 'authoritative' it is. As for whether Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration will "finally put this issue to bed", that's up to post-publication peer review to decide.
As an armachair climate scientist, I'm hardly a 'peer' of any working SLR specialist, but I'll offer my two cents. I noted this in the article's Introduction:
The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.
Candidly, citing the likes of Mörner and Scafetta to support a claim of "loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory" won't help to "establish very high standards for the journal."
Prev 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 Next
