Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 Next
Comments 44301 to 44350:
-
dana1981 at 13:40 PM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
Yeah, it sounds like CAS is super ticked off by Heartland's misrepresentation of their positions on global warming. Whoops! There's probably some Heartland folks in China right now - I would not want to be in their shoes.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:21 PM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
It's great that the CAS is taking this so seriously. In fact, it sounds like they're taking it very seriously, with legal threats attached (i.e., "consequences and liabilities").
-
wbkjf620522 at 12:48 PM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”
2013-06-14
The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.
The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:
(1) The translation and publication of the Chinese version of the NIPCC report, and the related workshop, are purely non-official academic activities the group of translators. They do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes. They translated the report and organized the workshop just for the purpose of academic discussion of different views.
(2) The above fact was made very clear in the Translators’ Note in the book, and was known to the NIPCC report authors and the Heartland Institute before the translation started. The false claim by the Heartland Institute was made public without any knowledge of the translator group.
(3) Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.
(4) If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.
Information Center for Global Change Studies,
Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
June 14, 2013.http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html
http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 15 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
To add to what Tom said, the flip side of the absurdity put forth by that WUWT post is that is fails to acknowledget that atmospheric CO2 in very high concentrations is clearly responsible getting the earth out of past deep glaciation events. That well documented relationship could never occur if the CO2 effect was fully saturated at lower concentrations.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:54 AM on 15 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Stealth... If you genuinely want to take a "skeptical" approach to the issue of climate change, WUWT is clearly not the place to go. If you want to confirm your predetermined position that nearly all the published research and nearly all the actively publishing climate scientists are wrong... then WUWT is your one stop shop.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:25 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
It really is fascinating how poorly crafted that sentence is ("...enormous heft behind the questionable notion..."). You could read tons into such a glaring grammatical error. Perhaps it's an indication of stresses within their inner sactum. Or maybe just a late work night.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:07 AM on 15 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
It has occurred to me that the most neutral definition of the AMO would be the unforced variation in North Atlantic SST. Given that forcing from aerosols is regionally confined, the forcing in the North Atlantic can be expected to differ substantially from global forcing, given that aerosol emissions from North America and Europe have varied substantially with changes in dominant fuel use, wars and emissions controls. Therefore, the least question beging approach to identifying the AMO in the twentieth century would be to determine the effect of NA forcing on NA SST by regression, then remove that influence mathematically. As water from the South Atlantic is fed into the Gulf Stream and hence influences NA SST, it may also be desirable to eliminate that influence by the same means. Having removed the influence of NA Forcings and SA SST from the NA SST, whatever remains would approximate to the unforced variation in SST. It may or may not contain a 70 year cycle of any significant magnitude.
I have two questions.
First, has anybody actually taken this approach and reported the results?
Second (specifically for KK Tung), if you identify the unforced SST variation in the NA by this means, and use that instead of your AMO in your multiple regression, what is the resulting anthropogenic trend?
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:48 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
"... puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."
I don't think he wrote what he thinks he wrote.
-
K.a.r.S.t.e.N at 09:35 AM on 15 June 2013Has the rate of surface warming changed? 16 years revisited
Apologies for the very late comment. I'd quickly like to add the results published in [Stenchikov et al. 2009] to the debate. In their [Fig.2], OHC and surface temperature changes from GFDL-CM2.1 are juxtaposed. I think it is fairly representative for other GCMs. Given that the temperature signal fades out quickly, I wouldn't be too concerned regarding the impact upon the FR11 methodology. It remains small at all time scales. What remains indeed unaccounted for is the volcanic OHC imprint (which seems responsible for the trend difference between GCMs and FR11 highlighted in [Troy Masters] analysis). However, the restoration of the volcanic OHC imbalance introduces a fairly constant (underlying) trend which is implicitly accounted for by the FR11 method.
As to changes in forcing: We all agree that they won't be detected with the FR11 method (as pointed out in the paper). If one were to assume that non-volcanic OHC anomalies approximately correlate with ENSO (as the results of Balmaseda et al. seem to confirm), one is left with changes in external forcing which the FR11 method would certainly miss, namely anthropogenic aerosols and recent changes in volcanic aerosols. While I agree that the assumption of a constant anthropogenic aerosol forcing over the last 30-40 years is questionable, at least the forcing at the beginning (end of the 1970s) and the end (today) of the analysis is fairly similar to the best of my knowledge. While major volcanic eruptions are accounted for, the more recent smaller eruptions are omitted. I adopted Fig.5 in [Vernier et al. 2011] in order to update the FR11 method until Dec 2012 for GISS temperatures. As a result, the [previous] trend estimate increases [slightly] and the tail end goes up a bit. Apart from 2012, nothing to worry so far. Having seen several unusual cold spells in 2012, the dip is explicable with natural variability. I would be surprised to see another such unexpected dip in 2013.
Bottomline: Currently, I don't see strong evidence for undetected changes in forcing which isn't considered with FR11 (after having accounted for recent volcanic eruptions). The video (which I liked a lot) seems to be as valid as before.
-
Don9000 at 09:25 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
DSL--
I'd say you were on to something, save that the author of the article is Heartland's "Director of Communications," which indicates he's drawing a salary and is not merely being paid piecemeal. Of course, his brief biography at the bottom of the article shows he's also a former Washington Times reporter, and the rest of it suggests he's part of the conservative go-to group on such issues, so the error he's made is not really excusable for the reasons you suggest.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:43 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
Danieltreed @5, I have examined that claim by Tol. To begin with, it is irrelevant that the search terms used in Cook et al return a smaller sample unless that sample is also skewed. Tol does indeed also claim that it is skewed, but it is possible to use the data he provides to determine the potential effect of that skew. As it turns out, because of the near identity of the number of papers in disciplines which are under represented, and those which are over represented, that potential effect is very small. In fact, as a percentage of endorsements and rejections, the maximum range in the result possible if the skew was corrected is between 97.4 and 98.6%, compared to the 98.04% from the abstract survey. I discuss this issue in more detail here (see the third example of "Tol's consistent bias").
I am not sure what you mean by saying "the endorsement graph is refuse". Indeed, such vague negative criticisms indicate only that you reject the study because it is ideologically inconvenient. People with genuine criticisms are able to state them coherently, and in such a way that people can examine them for flaws.
My best guess as to what you mean is that you are referring to Tol's claim that the pattern of increasing endorsements is purely a result of change of composition over time. If so, you should recognize that Tol's analysis fails because the trend towards increased endorsement is strongest in the period 1991-2000, during which time there is no trend in composition. In constrast, from 2001-2011 the trend in composition is strongest, while the trend in endorsement is much weaker. This pattern is part of the reason for the very low correlation between composition and endorsements (r2=0.065). Tol's claim that the trend in endorsements is based on a trend in composition, then, is based on a simple eyeball assessment of a graph and fails the simplest statistical test. I explain this in more detail here.
As it happens, what is actually happening is a trend towards increased endorsement with no change in compostion in the first period, while the trend in endorsement in the second period is largely explained by the trend in composition. This pattern fits the hypothesis that "...the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics." In particular, it fits the idea of increasing confirmation of AGW up to the IPCC TAR after which scientists increasingly accepted AGW as a working hypothesis except for a few hold outs who found that ideologically unacceptable.
Finally, no knowledgable person argues that AGW is true because a consensus of scientists accepts it. Nevertheless, scientists - especially climate scientists- are the experts in this field. "An expert is somebody who knows all the basic mistakes in a field, and how to avoid them." Therefore if you think those climate scientists have missed something basic, ie, something that can be identified in a blog without any background knowledge in climate science, you are almost certainly a crank on a par with people who claim to have invented perpetual motion, or proved that the world is flat. The climate scientists may be missing something which makes them wrong about AGW, but it will be something very subtle, or something very complex. And it won't turn up on WUWT.
-
Andy Skuce at 07:33 AM on 15 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
Sudden_Disillusion @15 : I did read about the Savory talk in several places, but I also heard it harshly criticized. For example: James McWilliams in Slate and Chis Clarke at KCET.
I haven't looked at this issue in any detail myself, but a quick glance at those critiques leaves me skeptical of Savory's claims.
Unusually, Savory's talk was commented on favorably both at Climate Denial Crock of the Week and at Watt's Up With That. At WUWT, contrarian Tim Ball wrote a rebuttal.
My co-author, rustneversleeps, made a comment at Planet3.0 on the carbon sequestration potential of Savory's methods.
-
Alexandre at 07:13 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
danieltreed at 06:36 AM on 15 June, 2013
I suggest Dr. Richard Tol (or yourself) make a similar survey using your sampling method and category criteria and see how (or if) the results differ. Then you can even come back to discuss the ups and downs of each approach. I suspect after doing real research you would be less prone to dismissing others.
Nobody said consensus = science. This survey just shows that the 'skeptic' argument that "there is no consensus" is bogus. Of course, once you show that, goalposts move.
-
funglestrumpet at 07:10 AM on 15 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
ClimateChangeExtremist @ 2
In addition to the benefits you list, LFTRs cannot be used to make bombs without killing the bomb makers and without screaming "Here I am!" once made. Furthermore, they lend themselves to small modular construction, ie. they could be made in factories and transported to their desired location via road transport. They do not need copius amouns of water, so can be put almost anywhere (NIMBYs permitting) and seeing as they run very hot, can be far more efficient. On top of all that they can be made to burn the existing nuclear waste that so excites the Greens. When running soley on thorium they burn nearly 100% of the fuel, not the 1 or 2% that uranium fueled reactors do.
With world oil supply being what it is, the 'danger' we face is that there is a breakthrough in the electrification of transport and coal is chosen to meet the rising need for electricity, with all that would mean for climate change.
I would far rather leave my family with some radioactive waste to contend with - they might use it to heat their houses - than I would leave them to starve because we just did not plan our energy production intelligently.
Anyone who thinks that climate science suffers at the hands of the fossil fuel industry has seen nothing like what they do to the nuclear industry.
-
danieltreed at 06:36 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
The sampling used for that 97% consensus number is based on a ludicrous sampling technique.
They used the terms "global climate change" and "global warming"... anyone involved in SEO or PPC will tell you that is way too restrictive, and Dr. Richard Tol investigated the data, and found that the number of papers cited would have QUADRUPLED had the search terms included simply "climate change."
Tol lists other details about the flaw in the sampling. The "Endorsement" graph is statistical refuse. I find the entire argument that consensus=science to be absurd, but that for another day I suppose. -
scaddenp at 06:33 AM on 15 June 2013Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Well it would have to be published somewhere where reviewers would be unaware of the rebuttal to Humlum and where they were not aware of other methods of determining the contribution (eg d13 isotope balance, Henry's law etc). Good luck on that but then I'm amazed Humlum could find reviewers clueless enough to let his past.
-
DSL at 05:22 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
Don, the writers at Heartland would probably defend themselves by claiming that they are simply selling their labor to the highest bidder, in the classic capitalist formulation. There is no ethical connection between them as ethical agents and the way that their labor is used by those who have bought that labor. If their funders want to shape public opinion in such and such a way, who are they to interject their own ethical concerns into the production process? If there were an ethical connection, they would be forced to admit that workers everywhere have a right to control the means of production, and do so in a way that is ethically suitable. That would be antithetical to their convictions about capitalism (which they developed independently, of course, of course).
No, no . . . they are just providing for their families, just doing their 9-5 . . . go on up the chain of command if you want to find a villain (and then back down to the shareholders and the great conundrum of democracy: how do you split responsibility 500 ways? Find absolution by firing the CEO.).
-
Don9000 at 03:24 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
That the Heartland Institute seems endlessly capable of emitting this kind of effluvia is one of the more strange aberations of the age. Is it not a form of collective insanity?
There is evidence that the delusion is wearing thin. Oddly enough, the first part of the quote from the Heartland article, authored by Jim Lakely, contains what strikes me as an egregious Freudian slip. I was so struck by it that I went to the original article to see if it might be a mistake in dana's post. It is not. Here once again is the quote from Lakely's article:
"The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."
Breaking this sentence down, I'd paraphrase the guts of it like this:
The CAS event will give enormous scientific credit to the idea that humans are causing global warming.
There is simply no rational way read Lakely's original sentence and come to the opposite conclusion. Lakely and his colleagues at Heartland may view our role in global warming as a "questionable notion," but that doesn't change the actual sense of what Lakely has written. One could, I suppose, somewhat inaccurately paraphrase the sentence this way:
The presentation of these two books at the CAS event will give enormous scientific credit to the idea that humans are causing global warming.
But that reading is even more embarrassing for the folks at Heartland.
-
Don9000 at 02:54 AM on 15 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
William,
I think your estimate of a mid-22nd century appointment with 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 is a bit off. The atmosphere gained approximately 3 ppm CO2 in this past year and the average increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 2 ppm as seen in the graph found here:
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
If even the 2 ppm per year rate is used, if this rate of increase were to continue for the rest of the century, by 2100 the atmosphere will have gained approximately 174 ppm. That would bump the total up to 574 ppm. If the rate of increase is closer to 3 ppm, we could conceivably blow past 650 ppm by 2100.
This apparently inexorable upward trend is one reason I worry about the seemingly good news regarding the 3.8% decrease in carbon emissions that has just been seen in the US, even as globally emissions went up by 1.4% according to the IEA:That is to say, it seems to me that there is a good chance that scientifically challenged politicans and skeptics here in the US will, as they do whenever there is an unseasonable snowstorm or cold snap, seize on such news and think 'we've done our part' or conclude that the problem has gone away when the reality is that vastly greater reductions are required.
-
barry1487 at 02:19 AM on 15 June 2013Antarctica is gaining ice
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but 2012 study points to changing wind patterns responsible for increasing sea ice in the Antarctic:The ultimate cause of the wind and ice changes lies in the large-scale climate variability of the Southern Hemisphere. Antarctic sea ice can contain 35-year cyclic anomalies that might be partly aliased into our calculations, but our trends cover several such cycles and are consistent with longer-term studies. Aspects of the wind trends (and therefore ice-motion trends) can be attributed to large-scale modes such as the Southern Annular Mode and El Nino/Southern Oscillation. Modern trends in these modes could arise through natural variability, but some evidence suggests that they are forced by the Southern Hemisphere ozone hole and increased greenhouse gases. Our conclusions that ice-motion trends are dominated by winds, and that winds contribute significantly to ice concentration trends through both dynamic and thermodynamic effects, reinforce the need for a better understanding of both the wind changes and the anthropogenic forcing of relevant climate modes.http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/1671623978/name/Antarctic+sea+ice.pdf -
KR at 01:52 AM on 15 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
ClimateChangeExtremist - And if thorium fission were actually proven economic and deployable. Despite small test efforts, those have yet to be shown to date; the technology is (at present) immature.
-
miffedmax at 01:51 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
I've worked in advertising and marketing my whole professional career, and I've NEVER flatout lied and misrepresented information the way the Heartland Institute and their ilk does. I guess that's why I work at an "agency" and not a "think tank."
-
PhilBMorris at 01:27 AM on 15 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
Re the film on Nuclear, it would be much easier to suport nuclear power as the solution to climate change if only it was thorium based. Walk away failsafe; cannot produce weapons grade material; far more efficient that uranium based power plants; far less waste of much shorter half life; thorium based nuclear power is such an obvious answer to our need for energy with buring fossil fuels. Pity common sense doesn't rule in place of vested interests.
-
Alexandre at 00:43 AM on 15 June 2013Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy
I'll assume the Chinese Academy meant it in a good way, but actually what they ended up doing was feeding the trolls.
-
DSL at 00:22 AM on 15 June 2013Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Btw, the Salby paper appears to be in purgatory. Everyone's been waiting now for about two years. Nothing yet.
-
DSL at 00:10 AM on 15 June 2013Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Any claim is easily said. Providing evidence to support the claim is more difficult. Civil engineer, how about exercising some civility and engineering a discussion around where the SkS links failed? That way you can provide a valuable service to the entire community and become believable.
-
DSL at 00:03 AM on 15 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
Daniel, the direction of research can be an indication of the paper's understanding of mainstream climate science. A team of herpetologists decides to study the long-term migration of a frog species. The team finds that the frog species is moving northward by about three kilometers per decade. The team writes the migration up and, in the discussion section, speculates about the future of the movement. The team assumes current mainstream estimates of future warming for the region, noting that the species may end up being caught between a rock and a hard place, since there is a natural barrier a few km to the north. That speculation is represented in the abstract. This paper explicitly endorses the mainstream theory (AGW), since the mainstream theory is the only one taken into account. The mainstream theory (is this what you refer to as a "myth"?) is anthropogenic global warming, and implicit in that theory is the continuation of warming as long as the greenhouse effect continues to be enhahnced.
True, it would be very difficult for such a paper to go against the mainstream view. After all, to do so would be to explicitly reject the mainstream theory of climate, and a reason would need to be provided. As science naturally becomes more interdisciplinary, trust is a major issue. The herpetologists must trust climate modeling to give them a realistic basis for useful speculation. In that way, the use of the mainstream view is a vote of confidence for the mainstream view. It's not simply "well, we were forced to use it." The herpetologists didn't have to use it. They could have simply relied on an extrapolation of their own data. Such an act would be less useful, even if it were tied to a physical mechanism (e.g. according to local data, it's getting warmer in this region).The herpetologists would be especially driven toward speculation if they had long-term data, and the recent data suggested highly unusual activity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with such speculation. It reflects the concern the scientists have for their research areas. I can't count the number of times people have essentially tried to argue (toward me) that nature is conservative and any unusual behavior or "wild" speculation must be the result of scientists trying to make an extra buck or keep their jobs. No. If the basic inputs change (e.g. rising system energy storage), every element of the system changes.
By the way, what were you referring to as a myth?
-
Sudden_Disillusion at 21:27 PM on 14 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
All geoengineering solutions that I know of are inherently unsustainable. Except this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI (inspiring TED talk by Allan Savory)
If this works it not only reverses desertification, provides stable food supplies for local people, and enhances biodiversity, but also addresses global warming by greatly increasing the worlds biomass ergo capturing and storing CO2.
I do not understand why this is nowhere to be found in the media. Here comes your daily conspiracy theory ;-)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:58 PM on 14 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
Daniel, I suggest you read the paper, the criterion for determining whether a paper supports AGW are stated as clearly as one could reasonably expect. A paper on statistical downscaling (an area of climatology in which I have worked) is not a paper that seeks to determine whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, but it would not be unusual for such a paper to motivate the need for the study by mentioning in the abstract that the majority of climate change has ocurred due to fossil fuel use. In your view, would such a paper endorse AGW, and at what level according to the stated criterion for the TCP?
-
Daniel8959 at 20:43 PM on 14 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
Dikran,
You seem to be echoing my concern in your last sentence. If a paper mentions climate change, but makes no mention of the cause, how can it be considered to support AGW? Even if the myth were true, many of the papers would still not likely take a stance, as most of these papers were not written by climatologists. The term "climate change" was not the issue in my post, but its selection as criteria for the paper.
-
bouke at 20:39 PM on 14 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
Conservative Think Tanks and Climate Change Denial Books needs a link to http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/06/manufacturing-uncertainty-conservative-think-tanks-and-climate-change-denial-books/
Moderator Response:[JH] Link inserted. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
-
scaddenp at 15:13 PM on 14 June 2013New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
I have responded here.
-
scaddenp at 15:11 PM on 14 June 2013Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Responding to civil engineer from here.
"I don't find the sks links that convincing" is not a useful comment. If you dont explain the problems you percieve with responses to Salby, then how are we to distinquish this from "I prefer a reassuring lie to an inconvenient truth"?.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:12 AM on 14 June 2013A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
Daniel @3, two points:
1) The NH seasonal CO2 flux is dominated by the growth and fall of leaves on deciduos trees. This is shown in measurements of CO2 concentration from Barrow (Alaska):
Looking closely, you can see that January corresponds to the nearly flat plateau at the peak of CO2 conenctration, and hence with a flux minimum. That is unsurprising in that the leaves have fallen, but are to cold to decompose. In contrast, July corresponds to the steep downward slope in CO2 concentration. Again this is unsurprising in that summer is a period of maximum plant growth.
The net effect of this, and of providing data for just two months is that the Jaxa data gives a very poor indication of annual CO2 flux from northern dedediduous forests, or indeed, northern tundra where similar considerations arise. It represents a snap shot of one month of maximum flux and one month of near zero flux in a cycle that is close to carbon neutral.
Similar considerations apply to the tropical forest, but are nowhere near as strong in that the difference between summer and winter growth are much smaller in the tropics.
2) Much of the original extent of the northern deciduous forest was deforested in the early twentieth century, or before. Since then, many areas previously denuded of trees have been allowed to regrow forest, and some forests still used for lumber are more heavilly managed allowing a greater retention of carbon. In contrast, large scale deforestation in the tropics has been a novel feature of the last few decades. Further, it is very poorly managed, with extensive logging in areas supposedly set aside as nature reserves. Consequently part of the difference between NH deciduous forest and tropical forest fluxes is simply a result of changes in land use rather than natural fluxes.
Given these two factors, the Gosat data is almost useless in isolation for determining the net natural flux for tropical forest and northern deciduous forest. It may well be useful when coupled with additional detailed knowledge, but I am not an expert and cannot comment on that.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:56 AM on 14 June 2013New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
civil engineer, I did not say that Salby's error was "ridiculous", so it is a fairly poor riposte to the observation of your hubris. If I am appealing to authority in citing the IPCC report and top carbon cycle experts, then you are undoubtedly doing the same by citing Salby's publications list (how many of his existing papers are on the carbon cycle?). If Prof. Salby does publish this research, then it is likely that I will, rather reluctantly write a comment paper.
The fact that you have responded with rhetoric, but no attempt whatsoever to refute the argument presented in my blog article is a good indication that you are not interested in rational scientific debate and are just trolling, so I shall not bother responding to you further. I suggest others do likewise and DNFTT.
The fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is known beyond reasonable doubt, and as Fred Singer says, clinging to such obviously incorrect arguments gives skeptics a bad name - but it is your choice.
-
civil egineer at 06:46 AM on 14 June 2013New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
DM,
I don't find the sks links that convincing and they "suggest hubris". You appeal to authority with your first reply, "top carbon cycle experts, as well as the IPCC report".
I find that Dr Salby has over 75 publications with nearly 3200 citations. I understand he now has 3 upcomming papers Re Carbon cycle so perhaps you can comment on those as well.
Moderator Response:[DB] Any participants wishing to engage civil egineer on Salby should proceed to do so on one of the threads indicated by Dikran.
This applies to you as well, civil egineer.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:51 AM on 14 June 2013New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
civil engineer, just to clarify, my name is Gavin Cawley (I post pseudonymously, but not anonymously), Prof. Essenhigh wrote the original paper on which mine was a comment. Mea culpa, the link in the earlier post was to Prof. Essenhigh's original paper, rather than my comment paper, which you can find here.
Sadly Prof. Salby's argument is also incorrect (I would be genuinely pleased if it were correct) and I and others have written blog posts on his presentations (my article is the first of those listed, and would be a good place to discuss this further):
Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle
Humlum et al. make basically the same mistake and another SkS author has published a peer-reviewed comment paper on that one as well, see:
New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
Roy Spencer also made a similar error (happily only on his blog and didn't actually publish it), which I discuss here:
Scientists make mistakes frequently, you are not at the cutting edge of your field if all of your ideas are right, and some errors happen more than once. Sadly climatology gets a fair amount of media interest, so instead of these errors being quietly forgotten, they end up being discussed in public view.
Prof. Salby's new talk seems to have some additional material on ice core CO2 proxy data, but the central argument is still that addressed in my earlier SkS post.
-
civil egineer at 05:36 AM on 14 June 2013New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made
(-snip-) Dikran Marsupial,
I'm curious to know your thoughts on Dr Salby's recent persentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded
Moderator Response:[DB] It is considered poor form to attempt to call people operating under a pseudonym by what you think that their real name is. Future iterations of this behavior will be moderated out.
Unless you wish to go by yours...?
-
william5331 at 05:11 AM on 14 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
If I understand the implications from El'gygytgyn, the message is that At 300ppm, the world is a different place, at 400ppm a very different place. The only reason we don't yet experience this difference is the inertia of the climate system. We will clearly have an ice free Arctic ocean for a day in September in a few years and following that for longer and longer periods. The Arctic clathrates will be released and so forth. Guy McPherson lists some 10 tipping points we have set in motion. At best, if we revived all the carbon sinks we have damaged (Alan Savory for instance) and stopped putting new carbon into the atmosphere we might achieve a decrease of 2ppm per year. We aren't going to do either of these things and 500ppm which at this rate, we will achieve in the middle of the next century is beyond our imaginations. I know every generation likes to think it is special and special means for the nut cases, the generation that sees Armagedon. It is just possible that we have succeeded in bringing it on.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:33 AM on 14 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
Daniel, it is the standard term for the area of research (e.g. International Panel on Climate Change). The fact that most papers don't take an explicit stance on AGW is itself a useful finding (at least in terms of informing the public debate on climate change). For a start it refutes the myth that climatologists are promoting AGW in order to secure greater research funding for themselves. If that were true, all papers would take a stance on AGW somehow. However scientists are not actually like that, they follow where the science leads, sure they have particular interests, but if reality doesn't fit their current understanding of the physics, they are sensible enough to know that it would be a career limiting move to reject reality. It also highlights the fact that most climatologists are not actually working directly on attributing warming to AGW, neither of the two climate change related projects I have been involved with were directly concerned with determining the causes of climate change.
-
John Russell at 04:27 AM on 14 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
I think we're crediting Paterson with more understanding than he actually has. When he referred to the 'Holocene', I think he actually meant to say 'Eocene' (because that's what his GWPF mate Lawson has referred to in the past). As I wrote in a comment here...
He's quite right of course that the Arctic was ice free in the Eocene—as was the Antarctic—but to show how irrelevant this meme is he should also have mentioned that our primate ancestors, and all other mammals, were then no bigger than small dogs. Note the line in the link below, "the hot Eocene temperatures favoured smaller animals that were better able to manage the heat": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene (scroll down to 'Fauna').
-
Daniel8959 at 04:26 AM on 14 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
As a volunteer reviewer, I found very few papers taking a strong position either way. Most that I reviewed, referred to climate change, without taking a stance as to its cause. I wonder if choosing the words "climate change" in an abstract is the best metric for this work.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:59 AM on 14 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
I would like to point out that Prof. Tung has yet again failed to answer a direct question. It is unsurprising that I had to keep updating my example in order to address Prof. Tungs' repeated misunderstandings, that is the way scientific discussions normally proceed. Had Prof. Tung answered the questions I posed to him, we may actually have reached understanding at some point. However if we have reached the point where it cannot even be freely acknowledged that a value lies outside a confidence interval, I don't see that there is any likelihood of productive discussion.
-
MA Rodger at 03:49 AM on 14 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Tung&Zhou 2013 concludes its abstract as follows -"The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variabil ity, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend." (My emphasis)
I pointed out @148 above both that half the HadCRUT4 signal remained even after the MLR had been performed and that the "recent slowing of the warming rates" were unchanged when the anthropogenic warming was represented by the QCO2(t) function as presented in Figure 3 of the first part of this post. I was wrong in this last part of my statement. Closer analysis of Figure 2b in the first post (Figure 5b of T&Zh13) shows the temperature record when Sloar, ENSO, Volcanic & AMO signals are accounted for and this clearly demonstrates that the "recent slowing of the warming rates" have indeed changed. The recent slowing has been slowed even more by the performance of the MLR. Also the HadCRUT signal remains essentually unaltered.
-
KK Tung at 03:24 AM on 14 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Just a short reply to the last few posts: I am trying to move on to other threads, such as responding to Dumb Scientist's post and reviewing other publications on the so-called "thermodynamic argument", but I have been bogged down arguing with Dikran. I had hoped that it would have been done and then I could move on, but he kept changing his example, making mistakes/typos/inconsistent offsets along the way. I would write another longer post about my understanding of his thought experiment. Here I just want to say that he is comparing something, specifically his blue line, which was not part of what our papers were concerned about. In observation, the total heating over the past 100 years is about 0.7 C, which is the same as what our deduced anthopogenic trend of 0.07 C per decade would give you: 100 years times 0.07 C per 10 years=0.7 C. The observed total 150 year linear trend and our deduced anthropogenic trend fitted to a linear trend is also the same. There is no controversy about the 100 year or the 150 year linear trends. Note that the deduced anthropogenic response in our paper is the regressed trend (using whatever the placeholder is in the intermediate step, which could be linear or QCO2) plus the residual, the latter also has a trend. We called this the adjusted data, which is the original observation minus the influence of ENSO, solar, volcano and AMO. This adjusted data has a nonlinear trend. If you know what the true anthropogenic response is, it is this adjusted data (I think it is your greenline) that you should be comparing with the true data (I think it is your red line). In our paper, we have, to aid visualization, used 150-year, 100-year, 75-year, 50-year and 33-year linear trends to demonstrate that while in the total observed temperature there is an acceleration of trends depending on the interval taken to measure the linear trends, such acceleration has been much reduced for the past 100 years once the AMO and other natural influences have been removed. The statistical comparison between the true value and the adjusted data is what one should be focused on and I will do that in my rebuttal. I think by now I understand what Dikran's intent was.
-
miffedmax at 03:05 AM on 14 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
I've always believed that the most effective rebuttal to the whole Greenland thing is that the part of the world I lived (the U.S. Southwest) underwent a horrific drought at the same time. Now, given the relative populations and economic importance of Greenland (no offense to the inhabitants of Greenland), the effects of a similar level of drought in my part of the world would be devestating.
And yeah, I learned that on this site. -
Lindsay W at 02:59 AM on 14 June 2013A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
Daniel, I must say I'm not great expert on sinks. That said there have been some studies suggesting that in the boreal forests fungi is playing a major role in sequestration.
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fungi-responsible-carbon-sequestration-northern.html
-
citizenschallenge at 01:56 AM on 14 June 2013DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Thanks for posting this information and allowing us to share these articles.
Reposted at:
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/06/nipcc-who-are-they.html
cheers, Peter
-
Daniel8959 at 01:15 AM on 14 June 2013A short history of carbon emissions and sinks
Regardign carbon sinks, what can you say about the recent JAXA satellite data.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/20121205_ibuki_e.html
It appears that the Northern boreal forests are much greater sinks than the tropical rain forests.
-
KR at 00:51 AM on 14 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Dr. Tung - I believe that Dikran has shown the results of incorrect fixing/definition of a component in MLR. In the meantime, I would point out that all of this is based on a discussion of a central element in your paper:
- Given a signal comprised of multiple components, if you identify (fix) one of those components incorrectly, multiple linear regression against the signal using that fixed component will by definition give incorrect estimates of the other components.
- You have used a linear detrending (with support from wavelet analysis of CET for timing, albeit much weaker support for scale and with caveats due to a limited regional dataset) to estimate AMO. There are multiple arguments for other detrendings being more appropriate - such as quadratic, global SST's, or forcings, including papers you yourself have quoted in your support.
- Additional information constraining the AMO contribution is available via thermodynamics. While you have spoken to (not to my satisfaction, but I'll agree to disagree on that) Anderson et al 2012, you have not responded WRT Issac Held's or Knutti 2012's discussions on the subject, indicating an upper thermodynamic limit of 25% contribution for all forms of internal variability - higher contributions contradicted by ocean heat content measures.
Since your estimate of anthropogenic contributions is directly dependent on your estimate of the timing and scale of the AMO, a scale in conflict with other investigators, thermodynamics and PCA, I (and others commenting on this thread) cannot agree with your conclusions regarding the size of those anthropogenic contributions.
Arguing about the fine details of thought experiments, as above, does not change the fact that incorrect fixation of a signal component will lead to incorrect estimates of other components from that signal. And there is considerable evidence indicating just such an incorrect fixation of the AMO component in your work.
Prev 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 Next
![[Fig.2]](http://www.karstenhaustein.com/Dateien/Climatedata/Stenchikov_Volcanic-signal-in-oceans_2009_Fig2.png){kind=link}
![[previous]](http://www.karstenhaustein.com/Dateien/Climatedata/R/GISS_ALL_2012.png){kind=link}
![[slightly]](http://www.karstenhaustein.com/Dateien/Climatedata/R/GISS_ALL_V11_2012.png){kind=link}
