Recent Comments

Prev  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  Next

Comments 41001 to 41050:

41001. Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       Don9000 @1, temperatures rise faster as you approach the poles; but interannual variation in temperature also rises faster as you approach the poles.  The result is that if you estimate the impacts of global warming in terms standard deviations of interannual temperature variation, impacts rise faster at the equator than at the poles.  By estimating the time at which the projected mean climate exceeds the current maximum temperature (ie, the projection as stated in the abstract of the paper), the study is reporting a measure much closer to an estimation of impacts based on standard deviations of natural variation. Because maximum temperature records in the Arctic are much higher above the mean temperature, a much greater increase in absolute temperature is required in the Arctic to reach that level.

       It is not immediately obvious that estimating impacts on a scale correlating with change in absolute temperature you have made a mistake; but conversely, it is not clear that estimating impacts based on a scale correlating with standard deviations of normal temperature variation is a mistake either.  Organisms adapt not just to absolute temperatures, but to the range of temperatures normally experienced.  So there is good reason to take the later approach, but for some factors (freezing point of water; limits of heat disposal due to high temperatures and humidity) it is absolute temperature that matters.

       So, the article referred to above does not show the whole picture, but does complement studies that report on expected trends in absolute temperature at different latitudes.

41002. Elephant In The Room at 09:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       Ok - this is what is happening. There are 2 sides to this debate. Those that support the view that man made climate change is occurring and those that either question or do not believe that man made climate change is occurring. When the IPCC was set up, their aim was, and I quote "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."The IPCC were not set up to challenge whether or not man made climate change existed, but to assess the risk, possible impacts and how to reduce them. At no point were they asked to consider whether or not man made climate change was even a threat at all.Every site that supports man-made climate change has the IPCC at its disposal. To ask someone to offer scientific evidence that man made climate change is not occurring given the initial remit of the IPCC and the wealth of information that followed is quite frankly impossible. There are sites that support man-made climate change and there are sites that do not. This site heavily supports the view that man made climate change is occurring. So do you really wish to ask the so named contrarians to offer evidence that refutes the argument. It really is a rather pointless exercise and I find the offer to provide evidence disingenuous at the very least.What I do find speaks volumes is how sites on both sides of the discussion can never find any common ground with each other. This results in the same group of people flapping their wings on the same few websites, but never agreeing or accepting alternative opinion. I blame Skeptical Science and WUWT equally for that, or any other site for that matter that shares different views on this. What I will say however in defense of Anthony Watts is that he challenges the science. Anyone can quote peer reviewed papers and the work of a body set up to determine the effect of something. It takes a different kind of person to challenge that.Not so long ago, people that believe climate change is occurring were scratching their heads because there hasn't been a warming for a few years - putting forward suggestions that it could be due to north atlantic oscillation. yet, when the skeptics simply say there hasn't been a warming, the alarmists say we need to look at bigger time scales. It's funny how the same suggestion by 2 different groups produces 2 totally different answers by the group that is trying to prove climate change. And here lies the problem for me.On a final note and given that in the last 15 years or so there has been no warming, what has made the IPPC now 95 percent sure that man made climate is occurring over and above the previous 90 percent. have I missed something?
41003. Don9000 at 08:47 AM on 25 October 2013
       The Coming Plague
       

       I'm a bit confused by the way the author contrasts Jamaica, a tiny speck of a country located in the Caribbean Sea, with Canada, a large country that reaches from the temperate region well into the Arctic circle, resting against three different oceans. He writes that "In less than 10 years, a country like Jamaica will look much like it always has but it will not be the same country," and then claims that "Canada’s climate won’t shift until 2050 under the business as usual emissions scenario the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls RCP8.5." He makes me even more confused when he adds that "The further a region is from the equator, the later the shift occurs."

       
       The 2050 date seems strangely precise, but that is a minor concern compared to the other problem I have. Previously, I've seen repeated studies and reports on those studies on Skeptical Science that document the rise in temperatures is happening faster closer to the poles, and yet this author seems to be saying the exact opposite is true. I don't get it. How can the climate in parts of Canada not already have changed, given the much higher average temperatures experienced by the part of that nation above the Arctic Circle?

       
       Some clarification is needed.

41004. vrooomie at 07:17 AM on 25 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       CBDunkerson, *this* is a keeper!

       "From the ~30% of Fox news viewers who accept AGW to the ~50% of the general population to the ~75% of all scientists to the ~90% of earth scientists and finally ~97% of scientists publishing on the subject it is clear that the better informed someone is on the subject the more likely that the facts will overcome cultural biases from the misinformation campaign."

        

       Truly a gem!

41005. DSL at 01:13 AM on 25 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       So we think of AGW in different ways, Tom, and I happen to agree with both definitions. More useful to me is using the reconciliation of the two as a method of engagement with members of the general (non-invested) doubting public.  I can say, "For me AGW is simply such and such, but for others it is also such and such.  So when you say AGW is falsified because of X, I feel I have to clarify."  That allows me to lay out the full spread of major components to the broad theory (GHE, anthro source, GMST, OHC, modeling) and allow the interlocuter to choose the one s/he finds most worthy of doubt.  The balance for me is finding a way to empower the other, not get too detailed too soon, keep the conversation going, and sort of surreptitiously work in ways of discovering if actual learning is taking place. You'll probably find it appalling that I sometimes exhibit laziness in my definitions of certain elements in order to be corrected by the person I'm talking with . . . err with whom I am talking.  

41006. CBDunkerson at 21:34 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Cook et al analyzed papers on the subject of climate change. It seems obvious that the ratio of climate scientists amongst that sample is going to be significantly greater than the ratio of climate scientists amongst all scientists. Ergo, Cook et al does not provide a foundation for claiming that 97% of all scientists concur with AGW. Further, as Tom Curtis noted, other studies have found 97% agreement amongst climate scientists, but lower levels amongst scientists in other disciplines.

       That said, Terranova's argument that lower levels of agreement amongst people who know less about the subject indicates that the conclusions of the experts are in doubt seems illogical on its face. Rather, it clearly illustrates the existence of a non-scientific basis for these 'doubts'. From the ~30% of Fox news viewers who accept AGW to the ~50% of the general population to the ~75% of all scientists to the ~90% of earth scientists and finally ~97% of scientists publishing on the subject it is clear that the better informed someone is on the subject the more likely that the facts will overcome cultural biases from the misinformation campaign. Each step up the ladder of familiarity with the subject results in greater acceptance of AGW... and leaves the shrinking group of 'doubters' increasingly delusional. There is a reason the only climate scientists who dispute AGW science are people like Roy ('AGW is not real because God promised not to send another great flood') Spencer and Judith ('Since AGW is not 100% certain we should treat skeptical claims as equally valid') Curry. At lower levels of knowledge most 'skeptics' are just ignorant of the facts, but as you get to higher levels of understanding the only people denying the obvious are those with impenetrable blinders.

41007. chriskoz at 19:47 PM on 24 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43A
       

       An excellent comment on the latest statement by australian env minister worth sharing here:

       greg hunt terrible at his job

       Greg Hunt (env minister in new AUS gov) like the PM Tony Abbott, is a "lukewarmer" not denying radiative forcing of CO2 but he certainly denies the extent of AGW problem, including the economics of mitigation of that problem (CTax  or ETS). Probably he would deny the AGW altogether (like Abbott used to do couple years ago) if resonated well in his electorate.

       Now he's shown us where and how he sources his scientific knowledge: poorly read and misunderstood wikipedia! Greg's gaffe is perhaps not as big as some of american REPs (e.g. sen. Inhofe) who openly live in a "flat earth society", but it's nevertheless the first step in that direction. I had a good lough, it'd be really funny if we did not have this man manage the env of our country. I expect more errors like that to follow until the end of this government.

41008. bouke at 18:39 PM on 24 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43A
       

       The link to "We need to talk about bushfires and climate change" is messed up.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention. 

41009. grindupBaker at 17:30 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       Prof. Inez Fung says in 2011-2-08 lecture on video there are ==>6,500,000 grid cells which are <1 degree apart with 50 air layers (max height 10-15km), 30 ocean layers (max depth not mentioned), 10 soil layers. I compute an 80km grid for 6,500,000 cells from these but 1 degree = 111km so it looks like they are using 90-100km grid. They are working (2011) on a finer 25km grid so perhaps that's in use now. Prof. Fung says it's a 15-minute time slice.

41010. Tom Curtis at 15:24 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       grindupBaker @101, with respect to an oceanic equivalent to the half life, use google scholar and search for "ocean" "thermal relaxation time".  The earliest hits on the first page are in 1969, and there is an interesting early paper by Hansen in 1984.  These early mentions should give the lie to claims that a focus on OHC is just an ad hoc response to the "hiatus" in GMST.

       The problem with your picture is that, absent an ocean, the final temperature response to an increase in CO2 would be the same as with one (if we ignore details about humidity).  Thus, the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and AGW is fundamentally about what happens on the surface, ie, the increase in GMST.  Further, the impacts are primarilly the effects of increased surface temperature.  Admitedly that includes the ocean surface temperature, but that does not alter the central point.

       The picture is very incomplete without the ocean.  The ocean acts as a flywheel to the surface temperature engine when it comes to responses to radiative forcing.  It slows the response by absorbing (or giving up) heat far more slowly than the surface would alone, but does not change the final response in terms of GMST.  (The ocean is also a significant player in the redistribution of heat.)  But if you had to leave one feature out of your account, OHC or GMST, it is OHC that is less essential to the theory.

       Of course, I strongly advise that you don't leave either out.

       As an indication of the relative importance of OHC and temperature to the theory, you might what to compare the early climate models such as Hansen 1988, which had a swamp ocean (and hence no OHC) with current generation models which treat the movement of heat into and around the ocean in great detail.

       Finally, in response to denier talking points about the "hiatus", I can refute them without discussion OHC just be showing the effects of ENSO on GMST.  Doing that alone would be myopic, IMO.  Far better to give a better understanding of the theory by including discussion of OHC.  But that should be as an addition to discussion of ENSO effects, and short term changes in forcings, not as a substitute for it.

41011. Tom Curtis at 15:05 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       KR @100, I agree with everything you say.  I just think that when discussion of increased warming was easy (as it was till 2007), in an attempt to keep it simple we (meaning the defenders of climate science in general, not any particular person, nor SkS specifically) have helped establish the strawman the deniers are now arguing.  Shame on them, as you say, for they should know better.  But we (see above) have helped prepare the fertile ground for their lies.

41012. Tom Curtis at 15:01 PM on 24 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       DSL @97, by AGW I mean the theory that:

       1)  Human's have caused a rapid increase in well mixed greenhouse gases over the last 150 odd years;

       2)  That this increase has lead to a rapid rise in GMST, and more specifically, is responsible for at least half of the rise in GMST since 1950; and

       3)  That unrestrained, a continuation of the rapid increase in well mixed greenhouse gases will lead to net effects which are bad, and possibly disasterous for humans and ecosystems.

       I think clause (1) is so well established as to be unassailable under and plausible analysis of the data.  It is technically up for grabs in the face of recalcitrant data, but only in the trivial and uninteresting way that the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth is also up for grabs.

       I think that (2) would be falsified for all practical purposes should we have a rapid decline in temperature in the next five years despite strong El Ninos and no volcanism.  Such a circumstance would only be compatible with the theory with a most unusual concurrence of other data - so unusual as to not be worth considering in hypotheticals.  It would demonstrate both that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases was very low (< 1 C per doubling of CO2) and that there was a strong and large internal mode of variation in surface heat content that explained most of the increase in temperature over the twentieth century.  It would also demonstrate that climate sensitivity with respect to internal modes of variation was very different from that due to external forcings, which would be odd to say the least.  Needless to say, I consider such a prospect very unlikely under current evidence.

       This definition of AGW, which I believe to be close to that which is generally assumed, may explain one difference between me and doug-bostrom.  He may include the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect in the theory of AGW itself, whereas I do not.  It contributes to our understanding of AGW, but is a separate theory just as the theory of black body radiation is a seperate theory, and the ideal gas laws are a separate theory, and the theory of universal gravitation is a separate theory (all of which are distinct from, but contribute to the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect).  Thus, a five year rapid decine in temperatures as specified above would not call into question the theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is sufficiently well established as to be practically unassailable.  It would call into question the nature and sign of the feedback response to warming by the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is a different matter.

       I find your background on this issue from discussions with the general public interesting.  It certainly helps understand the tack you take.  Never-the-less I believe it is always better to ensure your presentation is accurate and balanced with respect to the theory rather than with respect to what your interlocuter needs to learn.  That requires some skill in discussion, but the alternative is that you replace one strawman view with the theory with another strawman view of the theory.  

       A part of the attraction of climate change denial is (IMO) simply the fact that the greenhouse effect is most often explained in terms of the unphysical grey slab model.  Bright people apply themselves to the physics of that model and realize it is unphysical, and reject the greenhouse effect as a result.  They do not pause to remember (if they were ever told) that that model was just a teaching tool, not the theory itself.

       In a similar manner, public and media focus on rising temperatures have set us up for the rhetoric of the "pause".  The theory of AGW was explained and justified in too simplistic a manner.  Our own educators have established the strawman which the deniers now argue.  I would hate for our response to that predicament to establish yet another strawman view of AGW.

41013. dana1981 at 14:44 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova - the Cook et al. (2013) study included papers researching the impacts of climate change.  When I say "climate scientists", I'm referring to anyone actively researching some aspect of the climate, including impacts.  Hence I have to disagree with you.

41014. Doug Bostrom at 14:34 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Sorry folks but I'm stuck at Terranova's "The 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only."

       A cursory glance at abstracts tested in the paper shows that there are a plethora of researchers authoring tested papers who cannot by the farthest stretch of imagination be characterized as "climate scientists."  I didn't bother to check but I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that it's possible most of the authors surveyed in the work are not climate scientists. 

       That is, unless by "climate scientist" we're rebadging forestry agronomists, botanists specializing in gymnosperms and a host of other people working in numerous disciplines that happen to be touched by climate change as "climate scientists." These are all included in results leading to the 97% figure, are not included in the "not climate related" categorization. 

       So whatever other quibbles we may have with Terranova or Dana, Terranova's characterization of the paper is incorrect. 

41015. Tom Curtis at 13:57 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova @8, again would you clarrify, by AGW do you mean the theory that states (among other things) that anthropogenic factors caused most (>50%) of the increase in GMST since 1950?  Or are you using "AGW" incorrectly to refer to the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

41016. Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova @4, could you state clearly for the record whether or not you agree that the expected climate response to a doubling of CO2 is approximately 3 degrees C?  I just wish to confirm that your disagreement is with Dana really is "...in the overall effects of the temperature increase."  More specifically, I wish to confirm that you are not actually diverging with unrealistically low estimates of climate sensitivity as well.

41017. Tom Curtis at 13:47 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       doug bostrom @7, the concensus paper does not test the level of concensus among non-climate scientists.  Rather, it tests the level of concensus among non-climate scientists who write papers on the impacts or methods of mitigation of climate science, ie, a biases sub-sample of non climate scientists.   Based on Doran 2009, only around 76% of non-climate scientists not actively publishing on climate science accept the consensus, possibly a little less as Doran's question 2 is weaker than the position tested in the concensus paper.

41018. John Hartz at 13:28 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       @ Terranova #8:

       You state:

       I really don't know any sane academician with any sort of science background who disagrees with AGW. They do, however, disagree with the catastrophic predictions.

       Is this staatement based on your personal inteactions with "sane academicians"? 

41019. Rob Honeycutt at 12:06 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova... Here you are making a number of assumptions that I would suggest are erroneous.  

       One would be that Dana thinks that those who aren't climate scientists (per se) can't comment or have an opinion.  Voices are clearly not being silenced, but the research and the people who are actively doing research are probably the best informed regarding their areas of expertise.  Where people get in trouble is when someone without specific expertise is trying to claim the those who do have expertise are wrong.  And this happens quite a lot in climate science.

       Another would be that the 97% only counts climate scientists.  The 97% in Cook 2013 refers to research papers, not scientists.  Oreskes and Cook refer to papers on global warming.  Doran and Anderegg refer to climate scientists.

41020. barry1487 at 12:02 PM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova,

       "other science disciplines... have a say in the matter of the complicated geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, etc"

       The Consensus Project list of papers was compiled under the search terms "global warming" and "global climate change." No discipline that has published on the topic was filtered out.

41021. chriskoz at 11:54 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova@6,

       As doug_bostrom explained to you, what Dana meant with the "less than 3 percent of climate scientists" sentence you're nit-picking so persistently, is "less than 3 percent of scientists publishing in the peer reviewed climate journals". I agree, that your nit-pick makes sense (i.e. Dana should have been more careful in his wording) but, unlike yourself, I don't conclude unsupported & demostrably wrong claims out of it.

       Your nit-pick would make sense if it contributed to the improvement of the article or to our understanding of related scientific facts. But it does not: it is actually meant to confuse the facts, so I suggest you stop doing it.

41022. Terranova at 11:50 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Doug,

       I am directly referring to Dana's quote in the first paragraph of this post.  I am not referring to the paper he mentions later in the article which is separate.  I really don't know any sane academician with any sort of science background who disagrees with AGW.  They do, however, disagree with the catastrophic predictions.  And, that disagreement should not be referred to as denialism and contrarianism.  Just as I refrain from using words like alarmism.  

41023. Doug Bostrom at 11:29 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova, what you said was "the 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only."  You go on to say "That percentage moves downward as you move away from strictly climate scientists." 

       Tested against the fact of the paper, the reason we're speaking of "97%,"  those statements are plainly wrong. Thus you are mischaracterizing the paper Dana is talking about. 

       This is an extremely easy conversation to end. No loss of face is involved. You can easily search the abstracts used in the paper and demonstrate how your assumption was incorrect.

41024. Terranova at 11:20 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Doug,

       You are correct about the paper you referred to, but that is not what Dana referred to.  Reference Dana's second sentence in the first paragraph: "This is in large part a result of disproportionate representation of the less than 3 percent of climate scientists who are 'skeptical' of human-caused global warming,..." Emphasis mine. 

41025. Doug Bostrom at 11:15 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Terranova, if you look at the paper in question you'll see that the 97% figure does not pertain only to climate scientists. 

       Abstract:

       "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that  the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

       Notice that the papers selected were not filtered by author discipline, which means that your hypothesis "the 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only" is plainly incorrect.

       Here's the paper. 

41026. Terranova at 10:46 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Dana,

       You and I have a very similar background in risk management for large consulting firms.  I am older than you and have since moved on and entered the field of academia.  I hold a B.S. in Biology and an M.S in Fisheries and Wildlife.  I am working on an M.S. in Biological Sciences which I plan on following with a PhD.  I still consult with various companies pertaining to risk management, and EHS managment.  
       
       The 97% consensus you refer to is among climate scientists only.  That percentage moves downward as you move away from strictly climate scientists.  I would argue that there are a myriad of other science disciplines that have a say in the matter of the complicated geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, etc... that we live on and in.  As I am sure you know, all the spheres are interconnected and have reciprocal interactions.

       Let me clearly state that CO2 is a GHG, and anthropogenic releases of this GHG along with land use changes contribute to an increase in overall global temperature.  Where we diverge is in the overall effects of the temperature increase.
       
       Scientists are trained to be logical and to process data.  If only "climate scientists" are capable of intellectually commenting on global warming, then that silences a lot of voices.  Including mine and yours...

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Dana is on vacation and may not be able to respond to you for a couple of weeks.

41027. Jubble at 08:08 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Help needed.  I'm hoping this comment is relevant to the topic, as an example of denial in the media. I'm trying out the UK Press Complaints Commission process to see how it goes. I wrote a complaint about the following article (my complaint is at the bottom of this post):

       http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

       And got the following response from the Telegraph via the PCC:

       http://john-bell.com/?attachment_id=415

       I'm away next week so will need to respond to this on Friday - any thoughts on how I should respond very welcome.

       Complaint:
       The overall complaint is that the article misleads by highlighting any differences between climate forecasts and observations and claiming as a result that the forecasts have been “wrong”. Given these were forecasts decades in length, for the word “wrong” to be justified a large discrepancy between the forecast for a large part of the globe would need to be observed. In fact the differences have been relatively small and not widespread. The forecasts have in fact been very accurate.
       The title is misleading, stating that “global warming” forecasts were wrong. In the article, it admits that the forecasts were for 0.13 degrees Celsius warming per decade, where it has actually been 0.12 degrees Celsius. I understand that originally the article stated that the forecast was for 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but has since been corrected. The headline made more sense with the original figure but now misleads.
       The second sentence repeats the claim in more stark terms “world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report”. This is again misleading given the difference between forecasts and actual warming. The context of this line below the headline links the statement that forecasts were wrong with the rate of heating.

       The second paragraph states that the IPCC report “is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate”. The words “computer”, “prediction” and “predictions” do not appear in the report at all. There is no direct statement in the report to say that previous forecasts have been inaccurate.

41028. scaddenp at 08:08 AM on 24 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Can we recast these figures in watts?

       Talking about change since 1750...

       Waste heat would be 14E12 W (based on Flanner which does the full accounts)

       I can't see how lightning isnt accounted for TOA loss, but is 2E10 W (total rather than change)

       Since the top of atmosphere is cooling not heating due to increase in GHG, I cant see why losses from mass ejection would increase (OS thinks they would), but with an escape velocity of 10.8 km/s and about 3kg/s lost, total losses (not change since 1750) is of order E11 W

       Change in energy at surface however since 1750 dues to increase in GHG is

       1.4E15 W

       No way to avoid the conclusion that waste heat is insignificant by comparison.

41029. Doug Bostrom at 04:45 AM on 24 October 2013
       Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
       

       A distant followup to this post. Here's a fine article in the New York Times describing how the New York City subway system was largely preserved during Sandy's passage and discussing future scenarios.

       Could New York City Subways Survive Another Hurricane?

       If you're not a NYT subscriber you can still read a limited number of articles per month. This article is worth the expenditure of a token. 

41030. Doug Bostrom at 04:27 AM on 24 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Despite lightning's insignificance as an escape mechanism for energy, Tom's back of the envelope calculation for energy lost from Earth due to lightning is still fascinating.

       One of the few consolations for ceasely stirring the AGW pot is seeing such interesting appreciations for the flow of eye-popping amounts of energy hither and thither.  Yes, lightning isn't a big loss contributor but still the amount of power there is awesome.

       Thanks, Tom.

41031. Tom Curtis at 03:43 AM on 24 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Despite the (as John Hart notes) excessive repetition in Old Sage's post that resulted in its being deleted, he does raise the interesting question of how much energy escapes to space due to lighting.  I am unfamiliar with the literature on lightning, so the following estimate should be taken with a grain of salt.  Never-the-less, the frequency of lightning strikes has been well surveyed (Christian et al, (2003) "Global distribution and frequency of lightning as observed from space by the optical transient detector"), with an upper limit of 50 flashes per second.  That is significantly below traditional estimates if 100 flashes per second because (as it turns out) lightning is infrequent over oceans relative to its frequency over land, leading to ground based estimates being biased.  The average energy release per lightning strike is 4 x 10^8 Joules.  I believe much of that release is in terms of electrical transfer, and in the ionization of the air, rather than actual electromagnetic radiation.  Further, most of the electromagnetic radiation will be absorbed on the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere.  Never-the-less, I will use that value.

       With the two values combined, it is easy to determine that the total global energy release by lightning averages 2 x 10^10 Joules per second, or 3.9 x 10^-5 W/m^2 averaged over the entire global surface.  That represents just 0.14% of global waste heat from human use of energy, and hardly counts as a significant factor in the global energy balance.

       Briefly, Old Sage also referred to radiation at very low frequency and ultralow frequency wave lengths.  That radiation (except for that from lightning) is thermal radiation, and included in the energy calculations of the black body radiation of the Earth already.    

41032. Doug Bostrom at 02:52 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       I'd add another couple of characteristics to scientific denialism, if we consider Marlo Lewis as a phenotype of the denier in its natural environment:

       -- Fabrication. Dana Nuccitelli is quite obviously not a "government-appointed expert" but Lewis is nonetheless completely uninhibited from embroidering truth with fiction. 

       -- Inability to distinguish science from public policy. "I disagree with policy so the science informing the policy must be wrong."

       Regarding the latter, it's notionally a matter of personal choice whether to fasten one's safety belt, but the physics of plunging through a windshield remain a completely separate matter. Choice might be constrained by law which might be cause for resentment, but the physics of mass times velocity, conservation of energy, facial lacerations and skull fractures are still not public policy. This distinction seems entirely lost or absent in the minds of people such as Marlo Lewis.

41033. kanspaugh at 02:50 AM on 24 October 2013
       Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus
       

       Lewis probably used Deithelm and McKee's list of the five denialist characteristics in composing his opinion piece.  "Hey, that's good stuff!"  

41034. John Hartz at 02:36 AM on 24 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Old Sage: Your two most recent posts have been deleted for violating three prohibitions of the SkS Comment Policy, i.e., moderation complaint, sloganeering, and excessive repitition.

       If you continue to violate the SKS Comment Policy, you will forfeit your ability to post comments on SkS articles. 

41035. grindupBaker at 20:03 PM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       Tom #96: I disagree that "It will not with a dominant focus on OHC". I think any other way is a reverse description. I see it as: Radiative imbalance moves heat into oceans over long term. All the while it moves around the land & sea surface with complexity due to atmosphere and water in it. Land & sea surface must reach a higher temperature to balance and stop warming, it tries but the oceans keep stymying its efforts in rather jittery ways because ocean mixing isn't a smooth process. One day if the imbalance remains steady for long enough then the oceans will be ~85% sated and at ~85% and the surface temperature will finally rise to its new level (until the next big change in radiative balance).

       Land surface flora & fauna will be battered by the surface temperature rise that is trying to stop the warming, but that's irrelevant to the Group I climate science. ENSO is currently the big repetitous example of "oceans keep stymying its efforts in rather jittery ways".

       I contend that is the logical way to picture the physical processes. Incidental to it, I think the science is going to need the nuclear "half life" equivalent for ocean heat balance because I doubt the oceans have ever been 100% at balance with whatever is the surface temperature and never will be. I stand to be corrected but I see graphs depicting Greenland surface temperature shooting up & down during the glaciation. I've suggested above 85% of the balance point of the oceans with the surface temperature.

        

        

41036. KR at 13:27 PM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       When surface temperatures follow the forcing trend, they are in and of themselves a signicant part of the conversation, sufficient to carry the discussion. (Based, of course, on a reasonable view of the statistical uncertainty of short trends in the the presence of short term variations)

       The rest of the climate has, of course, also followed the forcings including anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and warmed as well over the last 50 years or so. Currently, however, given a (short term) variation in surface temperatures, as well as quite likely some variations in the forcings - those variations are being used as rhetorical ammo by 'skeptics' who are less concerned with facts than with winning debating points.

       And therefore those with a more global view are pointing out the rest of the climate, warming as it always has, to demonstrate that the short term variations in surface temperatures are indeed not evidence against the physics of the last 150 years. That doesn't mean the 'skeptic' tactic of cherry-picking short term variations makes sense. 

       If the 'skeptics' actually understood or valued measures of statistical certainty regarding air temperatures, it wouldn't be necessary to point to the rest of the climate. Meaning that their own lack of math is being used as another debating point. Shame on them. 

41037. One Planet Only Forever at 13:25 PM on 23 October 2013
       Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
       

       This is a nice capsule summary of modeling and why models are useful.

       An added reason for the development of models is short-term forecasting to help decision makers understand their likely conditions for near-term things like farming, shipping, off-shore operations, and weather related disaster relief planning.

       It is important to note that climate models cannot reliable forecast the significant but random or irregular impacts like major volcanic eruptions and the ENSO changes. The models can have these items as input from past history and reasonably produce the historic results, but the models cannot reasonably forecast these impacts. However, these impacts are not "drivers" of long term change. So the models can reliably forecast the "norm" into the future with the understanding that random factors like major volcanic eruptions and ENSO changes will create departures from the norm.

       The models are reliable even when they do not predict the long-term ENSO influence, because they are not able to predict the ENSO far into the future so they don't try to. However, as more is learned about the intricate behaviour of the ocean currents the models will be able to include reasonable long-term predictions of ENSO.

41038. Doug Bostrom at 09:44 AM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       I should add that if we really do think we're seeing a slowdown in warming that is not caused by ocean dynamics then we can all kick our heels for joy and stop discussing anthropogenic global warming right now.

       The alternative explanation to the ocean would seem to presuppose that radiative imbalances can come and go according to principles that entirely elude us. That doesn't seem likely, not at this juncture. 

41039. Doug Bostrom at 09:39 AM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       It doesn't count for much (anything, actually) in the grand scheme of things but some of us (me, for instance) have always been bothered about our myopic focus on surface warming. Well, I say "always" but by that I mean since the moment the massively-obvious-in-hindsight disparity between ocean thermal capacity and that of the air was pointed out to me. I became interested in the climate change topic somewhere around 2005 and it was shortly thereafter that it became apparent most of the action was going to be in the watery part of the Earth, indeed that most of the dynamics even in the air were going to involve water and phase transitions of various kinds. 

       The gaseous atmosphere is like a cartoon character grappling onto the wheel of a wagon, battered and pummeled by something much more energetic. The faster the wagon goes, the worse the beating, punctuated by coincidental moments of relative peace.  The wheel is the surface of the ocean and wagon it's attached to is the bulk of the water.

       Tom's right that a really extended period of not much happening in the wee gassy part of Earth would be a cause to reexamine assumptions. Though Tom is much more scrupulously connected to the details and thus better able to say, for my part I'm not sure even then we'd be looking at a fundamental collapse of the  concept of AGW. The system we're in is being shocked in a novel way; how the dynamics of this thing unfold is something we can roughly predict but it's clear that some biggish details elude us, as evidenced by the (sorry to mention it yet again) Arctic sea ice scenario. 

41040. DSL at 07:46 AM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       Tom, I see what you're saying.  I get it, and perhaps I'm pulling an "if by whiskey," but when I say "AGW," I mean the greenhouse effect enhanced by humans digging up carbon and burning it, and by humans directly altering the biosphere.  I don't mean "a positive trend in GMST."  I mean a trend above what we would expect from natural forcings.  If you had that 50 year plunge, how high on the list of things to check would the enhanced greenhouse effect be?

       When I discuss this issue with the general public, and especially with doubters, it's clear that in their minds, "global warming" means a positive trend in GMST, and that if there is no trend in GMST, climate scientists are 1) engaged in fraud and/or 2) don't know what they're talking about.  Of course, neither condition is true, even if GMST is flat over the short term.  In other words, I'm not working this over for the sake of being absolutely precise; I'm working it over in order to find the best way to start a productive engagement with members of the general public.  One of the ideas I want to de-bunk is the idea that GMST != "global warming."  Even if it's technically true, it's not a healthy place to work from.  Svante Arrhenius expected the enhanced greenhouse effect to play out in GMST, but he didn't use GMST as a starting point for the theory.

41041. vrooomie at 07:06 AM on 23 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #42
       

       Doug, I second John's suggestion...a spiffy blog post is in the making, with what you've posted, and your considerable gift of elucidation.

41042. Tom Curtis at 06:45 AM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       DSL @95, climate scientists have used rising GMST as evidence of global warming.  An example is Meehl's analysis of temperature record ratios, and multiple other examples could be found.  Further, if the temperatures were to plunge for long enough it would falsify AGW.  IF, for example, temperatures were to plunge (trend less than -0.1 C per decade) for the next five years despite a series of strong El Ninos, a lack of volcanoes, and strongly rising anthropogenic forcings, I think AGW would be falsified for practical purposes.  No theory is ever completely falsified, in that new data and new understandings of old data can rescue the most moribund theory in principle; but in the above scenario the likilihood of AGW being rescued would be small IMO.   

       Given the reliance of climate scientists onincreased global temperatures as evidence of AGW, there is some justice in claims that defenders of climate science have shifted the goal posts in response to the so-called "hiatus".  As a result, I do not like discussions of the "hiatus" that focus exclusively, or almost exclusively on OHC.  Of course, the shift of focus is not an ad hoc response to criticism.  It is justified by the theory, and partly driven by the availability of better OHC data.  Further, the climate scientists never relied solely, or even mostly, on rising GMST as evidence of AGW.  The so-called "hiatus" has forced climate scientists (and defenders of climate science) to provide a better, more nuanced account of AGW - or at least it should.  (It will not with a dominant focus on OHC.)  That is a good thing.  However, reasonable observers will note that the shift in focus merely results in defenders of climate science discussing in more detail features of the theory that have existed all along.

       I have some concerns about SkS coverage of the "hiatus" on the basis of an excessive focus on OHC, and an insufficient focus factors which would have caused a decrease in GMST absent AGW.  That is, I would like to see a little more focus on ENSO, and declines in forcings from other sources, and slightly less focus on OHC.  Such a shift would, IMO, give a more balanced opinion.  

       Your post @90, however, goes to far in leaving temperatures out of the equation.  I plunging global temperature for 50 years not falsifying AGW?  Really?  Not without the most extraordinary circumstances.  Given that a grand solar minimum equivalent to the Maunder Minimum would only cause an (from memory) 15 year hiatus in temperature increases, the extent of volcanism, asteroid impact, or decreased solar activity required for falling GMST for 50 years and AGW being true will constitute a catastrophist nightmare in its own right.  

41043. scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 23 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       I'll try and be more specific. If you take a textbook example and say ask how much will body increase in temperature if you add x extra joules to it, then looking at heat capacity is certainly the way to go. But that is not the relevant equation, because you are ignoring energy transfer out of the system. The text book is fine but you have to read all the chapters. You appear to have read the chapters on conductive heat transfer and missed the one on radiative transfer.

       Perhaps

       Principles of Heat Transfer, Kreith (1965) or

       Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Incropera and DeWitt (2007) for more modern.

       Or if you are more my age, then

       Heat and Mass Transfer, by Eckert and Drake (1959)

41044. Bob Lacatena at 01:49 AM on 23 October 2013
       Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means?
       

       Dean @16,

       But if the climate system even accumulated more heat during the "pause"... how can this be consistent with the IPCC assessment update, including a fair chance (17%) of sensitivity being even <1.5?

       The simple answer is that if the deep ocean is, in effect, able to act as a bottomless sink for at least some of the heat, then the system is able to absorb more energy with less change in atmospheric temperatures, thus effectively reducing climate sensitivity (same forcing, less actual temperature change).

       The more complex answer is that the basic, accepted equation for computing Effective Climate Sensitivity based on short term observations is:

       ECS = F2x•∆T / [ ∆F – ∆Q ]  :    Forster and Gregory, 2006

       where ECS is the Effective Climate Sensitivity, F2x is the forcing due to a doubling of CO2, ∆T is the observed change in temperature of the period, ∆F is the observed or estimated/computed change in forcing over the period, and ∆Q is the observed change in heat content of the entire system (atmosphere plus oceans plus land plus ice melt).

       When applying a reduced observed temperature of the past 30 years with a monotonic heat gain over the same time period, the net result is a lower sensitivity.

       Of course, all of this assumes that the short tail of the pause is significant, i.e. that it is reflective of the longer term trend, so that the 30 year period of observations is indicative of what is to come.

       Alternately, we might see a "rebound" effect from the deep ocean warming, much as we saw following the Pinatubo eruption, where temperatures climb dramatically.  We could also see a double-rebound effect if that is combined with a less-quiet sun, a reduction in dimming aerosols, and less preponderance of La Niña events.  In that event temperatures, and a newer, revised estimate of climate sensitivity, would sky rocket.

       But for now, when considered with the full body of evidence and the variety of methods of computing climate sensitivity, the observational method points to at least a lowering of the lower bound of the expected range of climate sensitivity.

41045. DSL at 01:08 AM on 23 October 2013
       Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation
       

       Tom, have "climate scientists used GMST as evidence of global warming"?  You're pointing out that surface temp is critical to understanding the results of the initial forcing, but an increase in GMST is not evidence for the existence of the initial forcing (the human-enhanced greenhouse effect).  Again, if surface temp were plunging, would it falsify AGW?  No.  But claiming that GMST is evidence of global warming allows a plunging surface temp to be read as a falsification of AGW.

       I could also point out that the increase in RF via enhanced GHE did not occur in a vacuum.  It developed dynamically with existing ocean energy conditions. Surface temp is also a function of OHC and ocean circulation, and vice versa.  

41046. Phil L at 00:44 AM on 23 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B
       

       Meanwhile more and more petroleum products are being shipped by rail.  Another derailment in Alberta is burning out of control.  Luckily this most recent derailment one wasn't in an urban area like the recent disastrous derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.  The energy spent railing against this pipeline would be better spent pushing for a fee and divadend on carbon.

        

41047. John Hartz at 00:38 AM on 23 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Old Sage:

       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.

41048. Dikran Marsupial at 00:19 AM on 23 October 2013
       It's waste heat
       

       Old Sage wrote "I am puzzled by the fact that I am not aware of anyone who says that 250ppm or 450 ppm of CO2 is the cause of warming has put it in the context of the concentration required to render the atmosphere totally opaque."

       AFAICS, you appear to be labouring over a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanism underpinning the enhanced greenhouse effect.  The absoption of IR emitted from the surface by CO2 is a red-herring; what matters is the temperature of the layer in the atmosphere from which IR can escape without being absorbed by the CO2.  See this RealClimate article by Spencer Weart and Raymond Pierrehumbert.

       "The only reason I can see for pinning warming on CO2 is that it is increasing and is a useful parameter for sticking in a model, well"

       Well perhaps you should read up on the basic mechanism of the EGHE before making pronouncements.  The basic mechansim was set out quite clearly by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s.  You are unlikely to convince anybody with your theories until you can show that you have at least read up on the basics of the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] I deleteed Old Sage's most recent post because it was sloganeering. I am letting this comment stand because it accurately quotes statements made by Old Sage in his post. Other repsonses to Old Sage's post will be deleted.

41049. John Hartz at 23:20 PM on 22 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #42
       

       Doug:

       Perhaps you could channel your musings into a blog post article. As fate would have it, Dana is on a two week vacation in Australia. We therefore need other authors to step up to the plate and knock it our of the park. (World Series time in the US.)

       I'm watching CNN. It just reported on the wildfires. Quoted an offical who said, "As bad as it gets!" 

41050. chriskoz at 17:15 PM on 22 October 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #42
       

       doug_bostrom,

       I chipin to your conversation.

       The factors that contribute bushfires in AU are not only the record high temperatures (as proven in your last post) but also:

       - large amout of burnable biomass in scherophyl forests

       - dry conditions

       - wind

       The last factor is unpredictable (weather) but the first two are changing with changing climate. In particular, recent studies concluded the intensification of LaNina/ElNino cycles on E coast; means more intense LaNina floods and drier/hotter ElNino. This is exactly what we've experienced in last few years: remember record floods of 2010-2011 which even contributed to the unusual sea level negative departure from the satellite treands by 7mm? I've been watching the rainfall data in the fire affected area (Blackheath NSW where I own the house which is now under threat to burn) during that time. The rainfall anomally was high (some twice as much fell) and summers mild, contributing to the high understory growth. Then came the record dry spring - the driest in my memory - only some 70mm fell in 3 and half mounts to date. Did ElNino return? To my feeling it did! But if the ENSO index is globally neutral yet, what would happen if the index becomes truly positive?

       I saw some comments "bushfires have always been part of AU life and cliame change has nothing to do with it" (ala "climate has always been changing" argument) but the silly commenters don't understand that ENSO fluctiations are driving the bushfire conditions and that said fluctuations are predicted to intensify. And what we're seing today is the result of such intensification. And remember, this is just the pre-season (the begin of official suthern summer is still 2 month away), it can only become worse next time, if such conditions align in the middle of summer...

Prev  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  820  821  822  823  824  825  826  827  828  Next