Recent Comments

Prev  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  642  643  Next

Comments 31751 to 31800:

31751. jja at 04:42 AM on 28 January 2015
       Climate change could impact the poor much more than previously thought
       

       And this is how a Yaley Skull and Bonesman established an economic analysis pattern that would justify the use of outrageously high multi-generational discout rates.  By asserting the kind of unlimited growth projections that were previously found only with the "Chicago Boys" who were advocating total economic dismantling of Chile under the ruthless dictator Pinochet.
       
       If (when?) we reach 3.5 C of globally averaged warming, there will be only a small shadow of the former global human civilization since mass migrations, sea level rise and wars, famines and plagues have destroyed most of the global infrastructure.
       
       Were these real impacts incorporated in the models, the reduction in global output would justify a negative discount rate.  But you aren't going to get that from Yale.

31752. Rob Honeycutt at 02:36 AM on 28 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       Not to pile on here... but I believe PaxInterra's response is more an emotional one than a fact based one. If KXL were not important to the extraction rate of the tar sands, then they really wouldn't care. As it is, investors are pulling out of tar sands projects because it's looking less profitable. If we can get carbon taxes installed, then those FF sources of energy become less competitive and tar sands become even less attractive.

       There are lots of reasons to have a positive outlook on how things are going to play out in the coming 10-15 years. Taking a defeatist attitude only plays into the hands of the FF industry.

31753. KR at 00:14 AM on 28 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       PaxInterra - We certainly need to engage in adaptation. But there's no reason to throw up our hands and say that mitigation is useless. Every bit of mitigation, of avoiding additional emissions, reduces needed adaptation down the line. And it's considerably cheaper to invest in mitigation now than that additional adaptation later. 

31754. CBDunkerson at 23:46 PM on 27 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       Paxinterra wrote: "I have very little faith that we will even begin that process [adapting to climate change] until people are dying on a large scale from famine, drought and conflict."

       The process of adapting to anthropogenic climate change began decades ago... people have been "dying on a large scale from famine, drought, and conflict" for thousands of years now. How many of the recent deaths from those (and other) causes are due to climate change is a matter of some debate, but certainly it has already been a factor.

       When New York city finally put in better flooding control mechanisms after Hurricane Sandy... that was adapting to climate change. The flooding from the storm wouldn't have been nearly as bad if not for the sea level rise from climate change. Without that extensive flooding damage the city wouldn't have (and for decades hadn't) bothered to act. The same cycle can be seen all around the world. Humans adapt to their environment... it's automatic. We could do so better if we more often anticipated future changes and prepared for them in advance, but the idea that we haven't begun adapting to climate change is inaccurate.

       As to your suggestion that we should not worry about reducing CO2 emissions because all of the tar sands oil and other fossil fuels will inevitably be burned eventually... if that is true then "there are going to be a lot fewer of us" no matter what attempts we make at adaptation. Burning all the known remaining 'easily accessible' oil and/or coal, let alone any further supplies made available by future technology and exploration would wipe out most of the human race. Fortunately, it seems fairly clear that fossil fuels are already on the way out... with no 'world economies collapsing' as a result.

31755. Kevin C at 20:40 PM on 27 January 2015
       Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
       

       Thanks Dana. That was an interesting exercise. Here are a few comments:

       • I only picked one point from Booker's article. He makes a load of arguments, most of which have been debunked many times before. The Paraguay one was new, interesting, and rather more complex than the rest.
       • We still don't know why there appear to be synchronized breaks across the Paraguay stations. Berkeley list station moves in 1971 for Puerto Casado and San Juan, but we don't have a documented reason for the rest. That's an interesting question for further research.
       • Trying to do this kind of work at the speed of the news cycle is hard. The video would be much better if we worked on it for a week. But it would be far less relevant.
       • One of the things we really hope to acheive with the MOOC is to equip anyone to be able to test claims like this for themselves.
31756. michael sweet at 20:35 PM on 27 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       Paxinterra,

       When there are two rules for getting out of a hole that you have dug.  

       1) Do everything you can to get out of the hole.

       2) Stop digging deeper.

       If the oil sands and other alternate fossil fuels are all dug up it will be a disaster.  We have to stop digging and take all measures to deal with the problem.  Today, in the developed countries, adaptation is not too bad to deal with.  We focus on stopping digging to prevent the problem from growing out of control. 

31757. PaxInterra at 15:11 PM on 27 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       I wish people would stop talking about how we need to do this and that to stop global warming.  We have already done enough that global warming is a given.  It will happen.  If we stopped every emission today, we will still have a warming climate for the next 25 to 50 years.  In that regard, it really doesn't make that much difference who or what caused it.  What we need is to start thinking about how to cope with it.  Shifting crops, drought, insect infestations, disease migration, lost animal habitat and extinctions, population migrations, weather pattern adaptation, and so on.  

       If we stopped trying to place blame and simply look at the trends, perhaps we could begin the process of adapting.  Unfortunately, I have very little faith that we will even begin that process until people are dying on a large scale from famine, drought and conflict. 

       There is roughtly $15.7 trillion of sellable oil in central Canada's tar sands.  If the XL pipeline is not built, then they will resort to trucks or trains.  There is no way that the owners, investors and the government will agree to leave $15.7 trillion in the ground just because of the damage it will do to the atmosphere.  Money is power and money has absolute control over the US government and msot of the Canadian government.  Even if Saudia Arabia is successful in its current effort to undersell oil so that the tar sands are not profitable now, there will come a time in the future when it will be again and eventually they will sell all 178 billion bbls of tar sand oil.  The money involved is so large that world economies would collapse if we suddenly stopped using oil.  

       So let's stop talking about who or why or reductions and get on with simple survival.  If we don't, there are going to be a lot fewer of us to continue the arguing.

31758. billthefrog at 10:29 AM on 27 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       jja #46

       The full text of the additional paper from Berkeley Lab to which you refer can be found here.

       This has caused some predictable responses from the ostrich brigade along the lines of "new study proves climate models are crap, blah, blah, blah". What does not seem to have penetrated various skulls is that this paper basically suggests that Arctic Amplification could be even worse than otherwise expected.

       The Berkeley paper strongly suggests that emissivity values used in radiative transfer calculations may be incorrect under certain conditions - e.g. at high latitudes and/or altitudes, and low water vapour content. In particular, this would seem to be of importance when linked to the presence or absence of sea ice.

       Surface properties apparently can greatly affect emissivity in certain spectral regions. The paper states that, in the far infrared region of the spectrum, a frozen surface can radiate more effectively than open water. So, when sea ice disappears, the amount of far infrared lost to space would appear to be less than previously expected.

       The Ice/Albedo Effect is a well known example of a positive feedback mechanism. Less well known perhaps, is the fact that it also has a built-in negative feedback: temperatures over open water do not plummet the way they can over ice, and this in turn allows easier transfer of heat energy from the ocean into the atmosphere which, in turn, is lost to space. (There is a very strong analogy with ENSO: when el Nino conditions prevail, although this leads to a surface warming, it also enables heat energy to escape from the ocean into space.) If this negative feedback is diminished, then the overall heating effect is enhanced.

       (NB The authors actually characterise this as a positive feedback, rather than as a reduced negative feedback as I described it. To be honest, I can't be bothered arguing semantics.)

       If the Berkeley paper stands the test of time, we could quickly see a deleterious effect on Arctic winter sea ice area/extent, which will inevitably feed back into summer values. Once we start regularly getting significantly reduced sea ice levels by mid May (or thereabouts) then it's game over for the September minimum. 

       With truly delecious irony - that is obviously lost on some - Berkeley use a climate model to do the donkey work for this paper.

       Cheers    Bill F

31759. John Hartz at 05:37 AM on 27 January 2015
       Climate change could impact the poor much more than previously thought
       

       As documented in the following article, the leaders of the U.S. and India have just agreed upon a plan to simultaneously fighting warming and fighting poverty.

       Obama & Modi Link Zero Carbon and Zero Extreme Poverty by John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News, Jan 26, 2015

31760. jja at 04:37 AM on 27 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       http://postimg.org/image/iv4cty0df/
       
       This is the top of atmosphere energy imbalance data sheet I came up with.
       
       by the way, another paper published about the same time as the Caldeira paper above showed that the far-infrared response of sea ice is vastly different than that of open ocean. This calculus was not included in the Caldeira & Cvijanovic modelling.

       http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/03/far-infrared-arctic/ 

31761. jja at 04:31 AM on 27 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       dr2chase, BtF,

       The paper refers to the arctic only.

       http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00042.1

31762. Far North Wind at 04:09 AM on 27 January 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #4
       

       Here's a actuarial article

       http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/07/science-of-risk/

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. Please note that comments policy discourages posting of links without comment.

31763. dr2chase at 04:01 AM on 27 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       billthefrog #43 - the reference to June 1 blew right past me so indeed this might be about Arctic only, but is that the paper, or jja#38's interpretation of the same?

31764. PluviAL at 01:59 AM on 27 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       I guestimate we will settle at about 4 meters for the first century of this challenge. Just for reference I roughly calculated what 1% of insolation retention would do to the cryosphere, if all that additional heat went there. I was guessing centuries, or millennia for 20 meters of sea level rise. If my back of the envelope is right, its only about 14 years of such retention rate. What is the maximum that increased CO2 and methane and other GWG can cause? We don't know. Fortunately, just like Pluvinergy can resolve our energy issues, Pluvicopia, not published becasue of patent processes, can resolve 20 meters of sea level rise in 500 years. These technologies are geoengineering of the good sort, but it is totaly upon us to decide what this means. If we convert the deserts into gardens, what kind of moral statement is that making? Etc. 

31765. PluviAL at 01:50 AM on 27 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       sgbotsford, good argument on logical response, although I do feel terrified when I consider the implication of the coming changes for my kids and grandkids. When 40% of civilization's infrastructure is threatened or destroyed, and when reconstruction will worsen the case, it will be terrifying. In net, it may be good for Canadians, but for the rest of the world it is bad. Terrifying is appropriate if one can see beyond one's little life, which this problem requires.

31766. billthefrog at 01:05 AM on 27 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       dr2chase #42

       In your first point, you correctly state that total loss of sea ice in the Antarctic is not going to be happening any time soon. (Centuries? Millenia?)

       However, jja#38 did actually write...

       "FYI Caldeira & Cvijanovic (2014) showed that the removal of all sea ice produced a global forcing factor of 3 watts per meter squared. If we attain an ice free condition by June 1st we will experience a significant portion of this forcing."

       Although not explicitly stated as such, the reference to June 1st (my underlining) makes it implicit that the Northern Hemisphere is being discussed. (There being not much of an Ice/Albedo effect in the SH that close to the boreal summer solstice.)   :)

       As regards your second remark, whilst it is certainly in no way contentious, I don't know where it is being directed. I did a "Find on Page" for "1000" and for "much", but I couldn't find what you were referring to.

       (On the other, as my wife never tires of reminding me, I did once fail to find a pair of tracksuit bottoms in an otherwise empty sports bag!)

       Cheers    Bill F

31767. CBDunkerson at 00:05 AM on 27 January 2015
       Just when did humans first start affecting the climate?
       

       william @8, in addition to Tom's comments about rate of change, it should be noted that "a new ice age" due to low atmospheric CO2 levels is off the table unless we develop some technology which rapidly decreases the CO2 content of the atmosphere and then use it to excess. Take a look at natural CO2 shifts over the past few million years;

       

       Repeatedly, CO2 spikes up ~100 ppm over the course of 10 to 20 thousand years and then slowly declines back down ~100 ppm over a period of 90 thousand years or so. We've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 ppm to ~400 ppm over the course of the last 150 years or so. That 120 ppm increase, let alone however much further we drive it up before we get emissions under control, will take tens of thousands of years to reverse naturally. If we could somehow stop fossil fuel emissions today we'd be getting back to ~280 ppm right around the time the next 'interglacial' warming period / CO2 increase was set to start.

       Human technology and society today is radically different from that of a thousand years ago. What human technology and society will be like more than 100,000 years in the future is inconceivable. Ergo, we can pretty much ignore the idea of 'the next ice age' (i.e. glaciation). If it ever happens it will be in a world so different from our own that we would have no basis on which to plan contingencies.

31768. dr2chase at 23:45 PM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       Two remarks --

       Regarding "removal of all sea ice" (38/jja), isn't that unlikely (for a while) in the Southern Hemisphere because of the supply of more easily frozen fresh water from the Antarctic glaciers?  The ice itself could be a factor as glaciers thin and slide into the ocean.

       And as far as the 1 part in 1000, "that's not much, is it?", if the average depth of the oceans were increased by .1%, sea levels would be 12 feet higher.

31769. Tom Curtis at 23:31 PM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MEJ, a new resource on the Paraguay data is now available. It really makes Booker (who it directly addresses), and by extension Homewood, look like fools.  The video is by SkS's Kevin Cowtan (another expert on global tempertues, but one I rarely disagree with in other areas).  

       (H/t to Victor Venema)

31770. MA Rodger at 21:32 PM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       One Planet Only Forever @39,

       Most of that is fine; perhaps the description is a little awkward in places. The CO2 emissions from land use (mainly chopping down and burning trees) was the largest source of CO2 emissions until after 1900 and wasn't until the 1970s that fossil fuel emissions can begin to be described as "dominant."

       The long term proportion of our emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere will drop to about 20% (or more if we emit way past 1,000GtC) as the oceans will continue to absorb with deep water cycling to the surface and that 20%+ level is reached in about 1000 years. Archer et al (2009)  (PDF here) is the standard reference.

       While the sun does emit infra-red, there is almost no overlap between the incoming & outgoing radiation spectra. So it would be confusing mentioning the solar infra-red which may infer there is an overlap. Insolation is higher frequency that out going which is all low-frequency infra-red.

       And the resulting ΔOHC from a warmed climate won't see deep temperatures rising the same amount as surface temperatures. You have to ask yourself why the oceans are so cold. The surface is warm (on average) and the rocks below are molten if you go deep enough. So why are the oceans so cold? The answer is the cold salty waters from the poles is the densest water on the planet and that sinks into the ocean depths where it is well insulated from the surface and the Earth's core. Until the poles are free from ice, the very deep ocean will remain roughly at the temperature of freezing salt water.

       The actual path of global temperature when CO2 emissions stop will depend on how quickly the emissions are ended. And remember there are other GHGs being emitted.
        The IPCC RPC2.6 shows one such pathway with climatic forcing peaking by 2040. Models show the resulting temperatures remain flat to 2100 although there is a drop in succeeding centuries as this graphic from Meehl et al (2012) shows.

       

31771. MEJ at 15:17 PM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Thanks 'RH' I will shorten the links next time (A noob mistake)

       Thanks so much scaddenp, Rob and Tom. Tonnes of info there for me to study up on. You have me going in the right direction now. Like most folk I don't have the depth of knowledge many of you people do so it is pretty easy for a seasoned campainer like Homeswood to 'punk' me.

       So glad I have SkS as backup.

31772. Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MEJ @332, in addition to my prior comment, ATTP shows the BEST unadjusted record for Puerto Casado, with dubious data noted, and break points shown:

       

       You will note that the break points coincide with known station moves.  As they are known station moves, Homewood is arguing without evidence that those station moves had no effect on the temperature, whereas comparing the station temperature record with the regional average clearly shows that there were effects (as we would expect).

       We can also see the break point adjusted data:

       

       Steve Mosher, one of the BEST team comments:

       "The first step we take is to find all those stations that are duplicates. And the duplicate test involves fuzzy logic. So you look at the locations and see how close they are, you look at the name and see how close they are.. and then we look at the first differences in data to see. how close they are.

       There is second pass that looks for data similarily first, cause sometimes you get stations that have exactly the same data, but due to metadata issue the metadata is way wrong. These are really rare. I can’t recall one off the top of my head.

       This particular record has multiple sources and multiple locations that differ very slightly.  When the location differs we ‘slice’ the record. In other words the record is NOT adjusted for a station move, rather its computed as three different stations.

       Slicing has ZERO effect if there was in fact
       A) no real station move
       B) a station move that doesnt result in a change in temp

       That is something most people dont get. That is, if you “over slice” or split a record that should not be split the effect is zero. In this case we have three difference locations given for a station with the same name. So we treat it (mathematically) as if it is three different stations. If there was a move and the move had an effect on temperature, then splitting the record will allow us to fit the final surface treating those segments as independent. Again, if the metadata was wrong and there was no move or a move that didnt effect things, then there is no adjustment to make."

       Richard Betts also comments:

       "Actually one of the largest adjustments is the ‘bucket correction’, which aims to remove a systematic cold bias earlier in the SST record which arose from sea temperatures being measured in buckets hauled up to the deck, rather than at engine intakes as more recent measurements are. The bucket correction reduces the apparent warming over the 20th Century – it’s very well-known, but Mr Booker seems to have either not heard of it, or somehow forgot to mention it….!"

       (As fair notice, I disagree with Betts and Mosher on a number of topics.  On the area of temperature records, however, they are undoubted experts and I would not disagree with them on that record unless I was aware of other similar experts with whom I not only agreed, but agreed for the same reasons those experts give for their views.  Recognition of their expertise does not, however, mean I agree that they are right, or even sensible in some cases, in other topics outside of that expertise.)

31773. Tom Curtis at 12:14 PM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MEJ @332:

       1)  You cannot have been shown to be a total fraud unless it has been shown that you have knowingly used false information yourself.  It may (though very doubtfully) have been shown that you also are decieved, which is an entirely different matter.  

       2)   Paul Homewood is definitely pulling a swifty when he compares with NCDC data.  The reason is that the NCDC uses a 5^ox5^o grid, equivalent to 555 x 555 km at the equator.  That is a much lower resolution than NASA GISS's 250 x 250 km grid shown at the same location as the normal 1200 km radius he shows above.

       Here is the NASA 250 km grid equivalent to the graph he shows:

       

       And here is the GISS map and NCDC map side by side, for northern South America:

       

       Note that for the GISS 250 km grid, every gridpoint over land has at least one temperature station in its bounds.  Yet clearly the GISS 250 km grid covers much more of northern South America than does the equivalent lower resolution, NCDC map.  It follows that GISS uses more temperature stations in South America than does the NCDC, and that using the NCDC map entirely misrepresents the basis of the GISS data.

       This may be partially just ignorance from Homewood.  It is well known that NCDC uses only the GHCN for land only data, while GISS also uses the GHCN.  GISS, however, uses additional stations to those found in the GHCN (something not commonly known, but which should be known by anybody commenting on global temperatures).  However, given the existence of the GISS 250 km product, it should have been used regardless, if only so that readers knew that this was information GISS presented publicly, on a website, as easily accessible as the 1200 km version.  Homewood creates an impression that this is something GISS does not want us to know, whereas it is something they actively publish.

       2)  The use of the 1200 km version is based on known properties of temperature anomaly change over distance.  This information was published in peer reviewed papers, as was the method whereby GISS uses it in constructing their temperature data.  If Homewood wanted to make an honest critique, he would have cited those papers and stated his objections to the reasoning therein.  That he does not leaves the impression he has not even thought about the topic, let alone considered the relevant empirical data.  Indeed, as a mater of scientific reasoning, as he does not discuss, that must be our presumption.  So, we have from GISS cogent, evidence based reasons for their methods - and from Homewood, an argument from personal incredulity, and nothing else.

       3)  The reasons for, and method of adjustment of temperatures are also heavilly discusses in the scientific literature, and based on detailed examination of evidence, including direct comparison between temperature readings for different thermometer types, thermometers at different altitudes etc.  Again, in response to that literature, Homewood argues by, first, ignoring it so that he readers do not know that there is an objective basis for the adjustments; and second presenting an argument from personal incredulity and nothing else.

       As it happens, I have seen similar arguments presented regarding data from New Zealand and Australian stations.  These arguments have been much better presented, actually relying on more than personal incredulity.  On examination, however, in every case that I have examined, they have been wrong.  In most cases it has been trivial to show that they are wrong.

       I do not have the ready access to the relevant data in South America that I have in Australia and New Zealand, so I will not repeat the excercise.  I know from that prior experience, however, that Homewood's argument from personal incredulity is almost certainly wrong.  I will go one step further than that.  The Berkeley Earth project (BEST) uses an even larger data base than GISS, an entirely different method and does not adjust the raw data.  Rather, where there is a clear break in the temperature record for a particular station, they treat it as a separate station and let things fall were they will.  That method is well justified in that "stations" are often composites of records from differnt instruments, locations and site conditions which vary over time.  In one case from NZ, the site moved to several different places in the city, from buildings to garden settings, with changes in altitude in 10s (and in one case I remember which may not be the same city, 100s of meters), and in one mover from an east facing coast (with typically warm offshore waters) to a west facing coast (with typically cool offshore waters).  Every such move would have changed the temperatures read, and treating it all as just one continuous record without adjustment would be a farce.

       In any event, here is BEST's temperature record for Paraguay:

       

        

       So, overall Homewood makes his case, for the most part, by simply not addressing the relevant evidence.  Indeed, some of the crucial evidence he keeps carefully out of sight.  As is standard for "skeptics", he is very careful to make his arguments to the uninformed who will not be able to pick up the flaws in the argument, rather than submitting it to peer review by experts who will be able to pick out those flaws.  I think, in so doing, he fairly judges the quality of his argument.

31774. Rob Honeycutt at 11:48 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Oh! I see. He's also comparing a GISS image to a NOAA image.

       Talk about apples and oranges all around.

31775. Rob Honeycutt at 11:47 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MEJ...  I can already pick out a big mistake that Homewood makes in his first two figures. Top figure is relative to 1951-1980. Second one (of his creation through the GISS site) is relative to 1981-2010.

       Why would he use different base periods? We have two choices. 1) Stupidity, and 2) Deceipt.

       I decided to try to check which.

       When you go to the data page at the GISS website where you generate these maps you get a lot of clues. First, the default base period presented in 1951-1980. You have to change it to get a different base period.

       When you switch it back to the 1951-1980 base period you get this:

       

       But even when we select his exact parameters, we still don't get the same image he presents. So, I don't know where he's getting that figure.

       

31776. MEJ at 11:37 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Thanks 'Rob P' I have poured over these graphs to see where he has manipulated the data but with my limited understanding I just need a Scientific person to go through it for me and explain it. A couple of things make me suspicious No link on the NOAA/NCDC Global Map showing 'no data' areas and his raw data graph has a diferent ID code 30886086000(4) and he is showing graphed Temperature rather than Anomaly and comparing the two?

31777. MEJ at 11:24 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Hi scaddenp Booker in The Telegraph is simply quoting Homewood's article on his 'notallpeopleknowthat' website as are all the usual suspects. Skeptics don't see it as junk at all. To them Homewood is the actual truth and his graphs demonstrate to them how all the Science is just fabricated rubbish. You can sit back and laugh but the Scientific community will lose the debate. Thanks for that link I just couldn't find ANY redress on the issue. If you Google to try and get a Scientific view the denialists have that absolutely locked up page after page. Science simply doesn't get a look in.

31778. scaddenp at 11:15 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MEJ - see the post about this at ATTP and note also the comments there by Victor Venema. This is just echoing junk from Booker in the Telegraph. In short, laughable nonsense from the usual sources. And just as an aside, suppose temperature record really was junk - what then the explanation for the change in the long term integrators of climate change - sealevel and glacial mass?

31779. MEJ at 10:58 AM on 26 January 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Paul Homewood from 'notallpeopleknowthat' successfully? undermines the reliability of Temperature records.

       "Massive Tampering with Temperature Records in South America"

       LINK

       He starts off with GISS Global Temperature Anomaly:

       

        

       LINK

       Then proceeds to show where gaps (grey areas) in the data are totally missing using NOAA /NCDC Map:

       

       (Strangely he doesn't provide a Link to this Map)

       So he has shown that the GISS Global Temperature Map is derived from data that simply does not exist.

       He then goes on to hammer home his point of temperature data being falsified by highlighting three NOAA weather stations in Paraguay. I will just do the one at Puerto Casado.

       Here is GISS graph for Temperatures taken from Puerto Casado:

       

       data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14

       All good temperatures seem to be rising as expected in Global warming Earth.

       THEN he states he takes the Raw Data and without ANY manipulation of the data produces a graph from that data:

       

       data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1

       There you go, without 'adjusting' the data it actually shows COOLING not warming.

       He then goes on to present NOAA/NCDC GHCNM modelling for Peurto Casado weather station where the Quality Controlled Unadjusted Data shows COOLING and the Quality Controlled Adjusted Data shows warming.

       

       ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30886086000.gif

       He does the same for two other Paraguayan weather stations, Mariscal and San Juan.

       So it is easy for Homewood to make the statement "Scientists just adjust the Temperatures to match their Global Warming agenda" Once again it is all just Scientific rubbish when you look at the 'real' data it clearly shows cooling not warming. Why do they 'adjust' the data? To ensure all the Modelling shows Global Warming not as it really is Global Cooling. For most of their so called 'modelling' they don't even have data!!!! It is just a 'best guess' scenario.

       This has gone absolutely 'viral' with all Climate Denialist websites, bloggs and Newspapers quoting Paul Homewoods 'authoritative' study.

       Responce from the Scientific community. So far none that I can find.

       As a supporter of Global Warming / Climate Change I am hammered mercilessly and shown to be a total fraud.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] - Yes, just the latest example of cherry picking and conspiracy ideation from climate science contrarians. SkS will have a response soon enough.

       [RH] Shortened links.

31780. Tom Curtis at 09:37 AM on 26 January 2015
       Models are unreliable
       

       Tom Dayton @788 correctly notes that "temperture" is a theoretical construct - one that has proved invaluable in uniting a whole host of observations.  I will merely note that given that our sense are sound, visions, smell, taste and touch, even such objects as the sun, or even other people (given our lack of ESP) are theoretical constructs for us.  We just do not notice because they are so good at uniting disparate phenomenon, and we are so used to them in practise, that unless we are of a philosophical bent, we don't think about it.  

31781. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 26 January 2015
       Models are unreliable
       

       Adding to Tom Dayton's excellent post @788, I want to note that a theory is of no practical use in science if it does not lead to mathematical predictions.  Absent such mathematical predictions, comparison to observations can only be vague at best.  And the way that theories lead to mathematical predictions is by being couched in mathematical models.  Consequently, absent mathematical models, a theory can only give vague, qualitative predictions that constitute hand waving more than science.  It is one of the outstanding features of climate science that they have taken such extensive efforts to couch their theories in mathematical models, and to check those models against observations across a wide range of observations (not just Global Mean Surface Temperature).  Given the difficulties in so doing, both due to the complexity and chaotic nature of climate - it is a stirling effort.

       Climate scientists are often criticized for making model based predictions.  As the model is just the theory couched in the most mathematically precise way we are capable of at the moment (due to budgetary constraints and limitations of computer power), what else can you base your predictions on?  By definition of "prediction", you cannot base it on observations because the observations go outside the current observations.

       In fact, those who say we should not base predictions on models typically resort to predictions made on crude models that lack physics, and are constrained to just one or two climate variables.  In effect, they want climate science to remain at the hand waving stage found around 11 pm in any bar room across the world.

       This is not to say that models are perfect.  They are not, and some of their imperfections may be due to flaws in the theory they embody.  (Others are related to innacccurate initial or boundary conditions, and/or limitations of computational power.)  But you can only find the flaws in the theory by putting them in mathematical form and comparing them to observations (ie, by using models), so that is no reason for not using models.  And it is reasonable to make our predictions based on the currently best available theory.  The complete lack of climate models developed by "skeptics" means by default that must be the conventional theory accepted by the IPCC.

31782. Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Tom Dayton, I want to aplaud your excelent series of responses to Deon.  In particular I liked your response regarding the theory/observation split in science (which many people do not understand).  Deon, read carefully and learn.

31783. Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 26 January 2015
       It's not us
       

       dvaytw @89, first Phil's response is correct, and needs no further addition unless you want to get into the minutia of insolation at particular latitudes at particular times of day.

       Second, Bob Loblaw's resonse is also correct, but may confuse at first blush given that insolation is normally calculated at given points using the zenith angle and latitude, such that at noon on the equator on the equinox (and thus ignoring seasons), the angle used is 0 degrees, and consequently the cosine rather than the sine is used:

       

       The formula for declination, to partly take seasons into account is:

       δ =23.45*cos(2*π*(JD-172)/365)

       To fully take seasons into account, you also need to take into accoun the variations in the Sun/Earth distance.  A partial formula for that, plus additional details can be found here.

       In the end, daily insolation at the top of the atmosphere, ploted for latitude and time of year looks like this:

       

       The very high summer insolation at the poles surprises most people at first glance, but is due to having 24 hours rather than a mere 12 hours insolation.

       Needless to say, this is too much information for most uses, and we can resort back to the annual average figure as calculated by Phil.  Needless to say, however, climate models integrate everything based on their smallest time step (typically one to three hours, I believe).  I mention that because I have seen a number of "skeptical" arguments based on assuming that climate models use the same simplifying assumptions used in simplified explanation (as if they use no physics more complex than taught in grade six).

31784. Tom Dayton at 08:34 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon wrote:

       4) I have a number of questions regarding climate modeling:
       a. How is “human activity” operationalized? In research, concepts have to be measurable. Data has to be obtained. That data must be accurate, valid, and reliable. It would appear that in Climate Science that this concept is largely imputed.

       Deon, the "human activity" that is the most important cause of anthropogenic global warming and the attendant other climate changes is increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and to a lesser degree reduction of natural greenhouse gas removal from the atmosphere.  I am flabbergasted that you lack such fundamental knowledge yet are strident in your criticisms of the science, and implicitly, the scientists.  You really need to stop criticizing until you've learned the basics.  Start here at Skeptical Science with The Big Picture.  Then to learn how that knowledge was built, read The History of Climate Science.  Because you seem untrusting, you should then follow up by reading more details of the history in Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.  After all that, if you have some specific questions please post them here on Skeptical Science but on the appropriate thread.

       Deon wrote:

       b. What dataset used in Climate Science dates back more than 100 years (do recall the long term cycle of 100,000 years) and:
       i. Is continuous,
       ii. Measured consistently (across the globe, using the same methodology), and
       iii. Applied without extrapolation.

       Deon, there is a huge amount of data from a huge number of sources collected by a huge number of people over a huge number of years.  Your criteria that you are presenting as absolute of course have not been met, but they are not met in any scientific field--not any.  Period.  Obviously you are not a working scientist in any field, because your misunderstanding of science is profound.

       Deon wrote:

       5) As a suggestion this question may be relevant: if there is a natural long term trend, what impact does human behavior have on raising global temperature above the natural trend? Please explain to me how you will answer this question. Even propose an alternative to it if you must.

       Deon, the natural forcings have been teased out from the human forcings.  One place to see a summary of that evidence is the Advanced tabbed pane in the post "It's Not Us."  Just one example of detail is that the Sun's input to Earth has been stable (or even decreasing slightly) since at least 1960.

       Please do ask questions here at Skeptical Science.  But do so on the appropriate threads.  If you're unable to find an appropriate thread despite making a sincere attempt to use the list of Arguments and the Search field (which is at the top left of every page), then comment on the most recent Weekly News Roundup.

31785. Bob Loblaw at 07:45 AM on 26 January 2015
       It's not us
       

       dvaytv:

       To completely muddle Phil's explanation, you need to keep in mind that the sun's rays (at the mean earth-sun distance) are measured at a right angle to the parallel beams. When those rays fall on a surface that is not at a right angle, the intensity is reduced. The mathematics of this is straightforward - the intensity is reduced by sin(angle) [when an angle of 90 is used for the case where the sun's rays are at a right angle to the surface, and 0 for the surface being parallel to the sun's rays].

       To get a 24-hr total for the entire earth, you could then calculate the intensity for each point on the surface (including the dark side) for every time of day - accounting for the sun angle and its effect in intensity-  and then integrate (sum) over the entire globe and day.

       And then, after doing all that, you'd realize that the ratio is 4, and it would dawn on you that the size of the shadow cast by the earth is pi*r^2 and it doesn't matter whether the earth is a disk, or a sphere, or a cone, or any other shape. The size of the shadow tells you how much sunlight it intercepted. For emissions, the shape of the earth does matter, and a sphere is a close approximation.

       It's sort of like the joke about the mathematician, who was asked to solve the following:

       Two trains are 120km apart, travelling towards each other at 60km an hour. A really fast bird travelling at 120 km/hr takes off from one and flies to the other, then instantaneously turns around and flies back, repeating until the two trains meet. When the trains meet, how far has the bird travelled?

       The mathematician quickly says "120 km". The fellow posing the questions says"

       "That's right. You know, a lot of mathematicians try to answer that by solving for each successive the time and place that the bird reaches a train and turns around, and then integrating the infinite series over time to get the total. I see you took the fast solution."

       The mathematician says:

       "There is a faster way?"

       [The trains travel for one hour until they meet. The bird travels 120 km in one hour.]

31786. HK at 06:59 AM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       jja #38:
       Good point!
       If the warming of SH oceans between 1970 and 2004 (pre Argo) has been underestimated, it would surely produce a too low estimate of the energy imbalance for that period. On the other hand, if the warming – and therefore energy imbalance – was faster before 2004 (as Durack et al 2014 implies), the energy imbalance cannot have grown that much in recent years unless the warming in the Argo era (2005 -->) has also been underestimated.
       That doesn’t mean that future energy imbalance will not increase above the current level. Accelerated CO₂ emissions, mitigation of Asian sulphates and positive feedbacks from albedo changes and the carbon cycle may well speed up the warming of both the surface and the oceans.

       It’s worth noting that the energy imbalance doesn’t depend on the net forcing itself, but how fast that forcing has changed recently. If the net forcing stabilized at the present level tomorrow (unfortunately not very likely!), the energy imbalance would decrease over time and approach zero as the warming Earth emitted more IR to space and closed the gap between incoming and outgoing energy, and the temperature would stabilize at a higher level.

31787. Chris G at 06:52 AM on 26 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       OK, now I'm scared again.

       Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability

31788. ubrew12 at 05:46 AM on 26 January 2015
       The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
       

       'Concerned' is justified, 'terrified' is not.  These ice shelves should give us plenty of time to move out of the house before it is inundated.  The terror comes later when you realize your neighbors have a limited capacity for compassion.

31789. One Planet Only Forever at 05:25 AM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       MA Rodger@20 and Tom Curtis@21,

       Thank you for the explanations. They help clarify things for me. I have only fully read the IPCC summary for policy makers and parts of the more recent report regarding the impacts. I have tried to understand the more detailed supporting parts of the IPCC reports but do not find them to be easy to turn into a basic understanding of what is going on. I find the people on this site, and those presenting information on sites pointed to from this one, help me get a clearer basic understanding of what is going on (though I admit that much of what is presented here can still be tough for me to follow or grasp the basics of).

       I have been thinking more about this ocean heat content (energy content), and realize that for the basics related to it to make sense to me I need to think about what happens in a balanced energy case before human forced changes of CO2 in the atmosphere, then consider what happens when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increased by human activity leading to the transition to a new balanced energy state.

       I would like to know if the following is reasonably correct:

       My basic understanding of the balanced energy case for our planet, no human impacts affecting CO2 in the atmosphere.

       • Many randomly occurring or cyclical things would make the total heat content of the oceans vary but the averages of long periods of data, like 30 year averages, would be fairly constant. There would be no long term trend up or down.
       • A temporary condition like El Nino would cause heat content to leave the oceans because the warm surface emits more infra-red up through the atmosphere and also warms surface air by contact with the warm water surface. This would temporarily result in a higher global average surface temperature and more energy leaving the planet's system than is coming in.
       • A temporary condition like La Nina would cause heat content to be added the oceans because the cooler surface emits less infra-red up through the atmosphere and also takes in heat from the surface air that comes in contact with the cooler water surface. This would temporarily result in a lower global average surface temperature and less energy leaving the planet's system than is coming in.

       The result of human activity that produces excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

       • Burning buried hydrocarbons produces extra CO2 in the atmosphere which is a change from a balanced state . Other human activity that affects the atmospheric CO2 concentration includes reducing the amount of organic growth occurring on the planet or changing the type of organic growth. But the burning of fossil fuels is by far the dominant human impact.
       • In the short term the approximate response of the global carbon cycle would be to have 45% of the extra CO2 remain in the atmosphere, 30% of the extra CO2 would be taken in by the oceans, and 25% would be absorbed into added growth of existing organics. (Question here: Is the 30% taken into the oceans including CO2 captured in fertilization of ocean based organic matter?)
       • In the long term more atmospheric CO2 would go into the oceans. But the long term balanced case would still be a new higher CO2 atmospheric concentration than before the human impact.

       The way the changes resulting from human impact affect ocean energy content.

       • Increased CO2 in the atmosphere means that less incoming solar energy will leave the planet. The result is more energy being kept in the planet's environment in a new balanced energy case.
       • The new balanced case will have a higher average surface temperature, because the higher surface temperature is the result of it being more difficult for energy to be emitted through the increased amount of atmospheric CO2 (CO2 absorbs infra-red. Very little incoming radiation is infra-red, a large amount of surface emitted radiation is infra-red).
       • The requirement to have a higher surface temperature for the new energy balance case also means that the ocean energy content will increase since the surface will be warmer. The new balanced condition of ocean energy content with the warmer surface means that during the transition to the new balanced case all ocean surface conditions from La Nina through to El Nino will on average be gathering more energy into the oceans, with the rate of energy gain by the oceans being highest when the initial extra CO2 atmospheric concentration occurs, and reducing as the ocean becomes warmer.

       I am still curious about the long term balanced case for ocean total energy as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. Is it correct to say that ultimately the oceans would be expected to warm through their entire depth by an amount similar to the expected increase of surface temperature (maintaining the relative temperatures with depth - not warming to one uniform temperature), or would the warming only need to be to a condition that has the near surface waters warmer by the same amount that the global average surface temperature is to rise by?

       I understand that in the long term, after human activity stops producing excess CO2, some of the 45% of produced excess CO2 that stays in the atmosphere in the short term will be absorbed into the oceans. So there would be parallel changes happening. In the long term, the oceans would be accumulating more energy while at the same time the atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be reducing. Is it expected that after human impacts increasing CO2 are stopped the rates of ocean warming and reduction of CO2 concentrations would result in the oceans just eventually warming to be balanced with the lower long term new balanced CO2 atmospheric concentration? Or will the oceans warm a little above that level before CO2 concentrations have fully declined to the long term balanced case? This has little to do with the need to rapidly reduce the human CO2 impacts. It is more a matter of curiosity.

31790. jja at 03:57 AM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       HK @37
       
       Do you realize that Hansen and Sato relied on southern hemisphere OHC values that were underestimated by up to 50% as shown by Durack et. al. (2014) (so was Nuccitelli et. al (2012).
       
       Yes, I recognize that there is the possiblity of severe increases in asian sulfate emissions or another stratospheric volcanic eruption (the ones that produced your dips in the Hansen graphic). 
       
       Those events do not matter.  Also, there is the distinct possibility that we will engage in statospheric geoengineering sometime in the next 10 years, that will also severely affect TOA.
       
       However, the trend that I shared is consistent with the TOA values over a 35 year trend.  With future albedo changes in the arctic and tropical forests, as well as the potential for reductions in Chinese sulfate emissions, the TOA trend is a severe underestimation of future anthropogenic forcing (with feedbacks)  As we will very soon discover.
       
       FYI Caldeira & Cvijanovic (2014) showed that the removal of all sea ice produced a global forcing factor of 3 watts per meter squared.  If we attain an ice free condition by June 1st we will experience a significant portion of this forcing.  I expect this to occur sometime in the next 25 years (absent of geoengineering).

31791. Tom Dayton at 02:37 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon wrote:

       CO2 and temperature trend not directionally consistent: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

       See "CO2 Lags Temperature--What Does It Mean?"  Put comments on that topic on that thread, not this one.  Off-topic comments on this thread will be deleted.

       Deon wrote:

       Shorter cycles have an impact: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279?pg=13

       See "It's a 1,500 Year Cycle."  Put comments on that topic on that thread, not this one.

       Deon wrote:

       3) The dominant opinion in Climate Science appears to ignore the above, or to acknowledge this with qualification. The most worrying element in this is the propaganda: human activities are causing climate change. Causality. If, at this moment you are not slightly uncomfortable, you might be practicing in the wrong field. [At the same time the statement can be so ambiguous as to allow the bigot to claim correlation.]

       See "It's Not Us."  And comment there, not here.

       I don't have time to answer Deon's #4 and #5 right now.  If nobody else has done so after a few hours, I will.

        

31792. Tom Dayton at 02:26 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon wrote:

       2) Geology as an empirical Science has demonstrated a long term trend in global climate. On average, every 100,000 years temperature peaks accompanied with a high in CO2 levels. Yet, the relationship is not consistent, nor does it explain the effect of shorter cycles - more precisly our current placement within all the cycles: long, medium, and short.

       Milankovitch in brief: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

       Deon, climatologists are well aware of Milankovitch cycles.  Indeed, there is an excellent post here on Skeptical Science about them.  For more details including math, see Tamino's "Wobbles, Part 1," then "Wobbles, Part 2."  Then Tamino's "Milankovitch Cycles" that mentions that currently and for the past really long time Milankovitch Cycles have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.  For that last point, details are in the Hansen and Sato paper "Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change." If you want to discuss orbital cycles more, do so on the Skeptical Science post "Milankovitch Cycles," not on this thread.  Off-topic comments on this thread will be deleted.

31793. Tom Dayton at 02:05 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon, I have responded to your assertion #1 on the post that is the counterargument to the myth "Models are Unreliable."  If you want to comment further on that topic, do so on that thread, not this one.  That topic is off-topic for this thread you are reading now.

31794. Tom Dayton at 02:00 AM on 26 January 2015
       Models are unreliable
       

       Deon van Zyl commented on another thread:

       Climate modeling is a political issue. No, it is not a Scientific issue, because it is not Scientific. Science relies upon direct observation – not extrapolation. Empiricism underpins Science. Modeling is an aid to Science. Theory is not Science. At best a theory is a guess at the consistency of Reality. Climate modeling is an exercise in Mathematics. Models are based on assumptions. Assumptions prove nothing.

       Deon, in fact science is just as much extrapolation via theory into models, as it is observation.  In fact, "direct observation" is only the first step.  For example, you probably think that looking at a mercury column thermometer and noting the number that the column reaches is "direct observation" of temperature.  But it's not.  Instead your temperature observation relies on your model of the relationship of the mercury's height to the temperature.  The very notion of temperature is theoretical.  When an apple comes loose from a tree and you predict that it will fall to the ground, you are using a model.  All those models are based on observations.  All theory is generalized observation.  Models are instantiations of theories.

       Perhaps you think climate models are poor models because you think they are merely statistical models that assume the future will be the same as the past.  But that is incorrect.  Climate models are models of physical processes, whose elements are constructed to match empirical observations of fundamental physical phenomena such as how much water vapor air can hold at a given temperature.  The models are then run so that all those individual elements interact, yielding the climate projections.

       To learn about how climate models are built and run, click the links in the "Further Reading" green box below the original post on this page (right before the comments section).

31795. Tom Dayton at 01:44 AM on 26 January 2015
       It's the sun
       

       HK also commented on energy imbalance, with material that might be used in the new section I requested be added to "It's the Sun."

31796. HK at 00:28 AM on 26 January 2015
       The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
       

       jja #32:
       The graph in your link gives the impression that the top of atmosphere energy imbalance has risen and will continue to rise more or less linearly, but that is not the case.
       This graph from James Hansen’s Earth’s energy imbalance and implications shows several estimates of how the energy imbalance changed from 1980 to 2007.

       

       As you see, there have been large ups and downs, but the overall trend seems to be positive. Interestingly, the energy balance was negative after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and possibly also after El Chichón in 1982.

       If I should try to estimate the energy imbalance for the last 5 years (2009-2014), it would be something like this:
       Change in OHC upper 2000 meters: +6.68 x 10²² J (Source)

       Assuming non-ocean components make up 5% of the total and ignoring OHC deeper than 2000 meters, which is very uncertain, gives this change of global heat content:
       6.68 x 10²² J / 0.95 = 7.03 x 10²² J
       Dividing this by the number of seconds in 5 years and square meters of the Earth’s surface gives an average energy imbalance of +0.87 W/m².
       So the rate of warming seems to have increased since Hansen’s estimate of +0.58 W/m² between 2005 and 2010, however I admit that the numbers in my calculation are far from certain.

31797. PhilippeChantreau at 00:26 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon you make broad statements that indicate only your lack of true familiarity with the body of knowledge you pretend to criticize. There is plenty of information available here and links to NASA, NOAA and yoher sites, where an abundance of data is available. Assessment reports of the IPCC are also recommended reading.

31798. DSL at 00:12 AM on 26 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       Deon, I hope you'll continue to engage, but on the appropriate threads.  The answers you seek are on this site, all linked to the published science.  Use the search feature.  I could make a series of links to the appropriate threads, but you've galloped so wide and far that I'd basically have to link the entire site.

31799. Deon van Zyl at 22:17 PM on 25 January 2015
       Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
       

       I have read the comments posted here and have a few of my own to make.

       
       1) There is a great desire to discredit Spencer as a junk scientist. Allow me to advance the following argument. Even though the elitism of Science and its direct disconnect from the majority of the people on this planet has resulted in a large number of geniuses playing with mathematical models largely irrelevant to daily existence, the impact of guesswork is not minute. The entire exercise witnessed here strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. Climate modeling is a political issue. No, it is not a Scientific issue, because it is not Scientific. Science relies upon direct observation – not extrapolation. Empiricism underpins Science. Modeling is an aid to Science. Theory is not Science. At best a theory is a guess at the consistency of Reality. Climate modeling is an exercise in Mathematics. Models are based on assumptions. Assumptions prove nothing.

       
       2) Geology as an empirical Science has demonstrated a long term trend in global climate. On average, every 100,000 years temperature peaks accompanied with a high in CO2 levels. Yet, the relationship is not consistent, nor does it explain the effect of shorter cycles - more precisly our current placement within all the cycles: long, medium, and short.

       Milankovitch in brief: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

       CO2 and temperature trend not directionally consistent: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

       Shorter cycles have an impact: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279?pg=13

       
       3) The dominant opinion in Climate Science appears to ignore the above, or to acknowledge this with qualification. The most worrying element in this is the propaganda: human activities are causing climate change. Causality. If, at this moment you are not slightly uncomfortable, you might be practicing in the wrong field. [At the same time the statement can be so ambiguous as to allow the bigot to claim correlation.]

       
       4) I have a number of questions regarding climate modeling:
       a. How is “human activity” operationalized? In research, concepts have to be measurable. Data has to be obtained. That data must be accurate, valid, and reliable. It would appear that in Climate Science that this concept is largely imputed.
       b. What dataset used in Climate Science dates back more than 100 years (do recall the long term cycle of 100,000 years) and:
       i. Is continuous,
       ii. Measured consistently (across the globe, using the same methodology), and
       iii. Applied without extrapolation.

       
       5) As a suggestion this question may be relevant: if there is a natural long term trend, what impact does human behavior have on raising global temperature above the natural trend? Please explain to me how you will answer this question. Even propose an alternative to it if you must.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] This post probably should be deleted for a multitude of reasons. But since several regular commenters seem eager to engage we'll let it stand as is. 

       Deon... Before continuing to post, you need to read the commenting policy document that is linked right above the text box. Please, try to stay on topic and keep your individual points limited to the appropriate threads. Discussing the science is a healthy thing. We just require that you follow certain rules in order to keep the discussions productive.

31800. Phil at 21:55 PM on 25 January 2015
       It's not us
       

       dvaytw @89

       Imagine the Earth as a dinner plate, which as it rotates around the Sun always presenting its "face" towards the Sun. The surface area that the Sun irradiates is pi * r**2 where r = radius of the "earth". The "back" side is never irradiated.

       Now imagine that the plate is replaced by a ball of the same radius; the surface area has consequently increased. If the ball is not rotating on its own axis, then the surface area that the Sun irradiates is 2 * pi * r ** 2 (the surface area of a hemisphere). If the ball does rotate then (over the period of rotation) then each hemisphere spends half the time irradiated and half the time is dark. So the total area irradiated = 4 * pi * r**2.

       So the factor by which the Suns irradiance is diluted by the fact that the Earth is a rotating sphere, rather than a static diskworld is

       4*pi*r**2/(pi*r**2) = 4

Prev  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  635  636  637  638  639  640  641  642  643  Next