Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 Next
Comments 44751 to 44800:
-
barry1487 at 12:57 PM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
This paleo abstract (1992), assigning no value to anthro greenhouse warming, or even mentioning anthropogenic influence, was rated 3.
No mention of anthro influence or value in the body of the paper either, but at one point it is remarked that the effect of enhanced greenhouse gases in the Early Eocene may have been 'minor'. No idea how a self-rating Author would rate this one.
This 1993 abstract assigns no value to CO2 warming, saying only that post-industrial increases in CO2, CH4 and N2O "may well have contributed to the observed global warming." Marked as 3 (no full version).
.....
I've been skimming titles in paleoclimate, ignoring ones that do not immediately present themselves as pertaining to the modern period. But I've noted that Cook et al have rated at level 3 any paper which suggests enhanced CO2 levels should cause global warming. Most times, the abstracts I've looked at make no mention of antrho influence or the modern period, and give no quantification on CO2 contribution to warming.
Contrary to my thesis upthread, it appears that Cook et al may have rated at the lower bar (any amount of warming from enhanced CO2). If so, this would make the comparative results Cook13/self-rating Authors less problematic.
Tom, it appears you may have overestimated the ratings stringency of Cook et al. Scroll through the paleoclimate category and I believe you will concur.
-
Climate_Science_Research at 12:40 PM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
(-snippedy-snip-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] More Doug Cotton sock puppetry. Privileges revoked, again.
-
barry1487 at 11:56 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I wonder, Tom, what you make of Dana Nuticelli's comment;
"Note that if a paper said humans are causing less than 50% of global warming, or that another factor was causing more than 50% (or ‘most’, or some similar language), we put it in our rejections/minimization of the human influence category. Our basis was the IPCC statement that humans have caused most global warming since the mid-20th century. But if a paper simply said ‘human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming’, that went into the endorsement category as well. After all, there’s no reason for most climate research to say ‘humans are causing >50% of global warming’ (except attribution research), especially in the abstract."
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/consensus-behind-the-numbers/#comment-18747
That looks to me like a qualitative statement rated as a qunatitative one.
-
barry1487 at 11:53 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Tom,
your points are well-taken. For your point 3), however, I believe they ran simulations to test for CO2-specific warming, and the feedbacks were not pre-imposed. Read the bottom of page 557, 1st column ("Table 3...", where they go on to state that feedbacks to CO2 forcing are the primary cause of warmth.
In the conclusions, they mention that their results have implications for "future" warming.
-
barry1487 at 11:28 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Dikran,
For me, the abstract "minimises" the role of CO2. I do not know how it can be read any other way, unless one were to completely ignore the first sentence. In fact, the first sentence strongly suggests a 7 rating might be appropriate. (Leaving aside, for the moment, that the period of interest falls outside the ratings - but then, why is paleoclimate a category at all, if not because lessons from the geological past have implications for today?)
nealjking,
In fact, if I had to guess at the author's opinion, I would point out that he seems to use the global climate models (GCMs) with great confidence. So, I would guess that he would be likely to be confident about applying GCMs to the present-day climate as well:
I think most climate scientists would agree that anthro CO2 has caused a significant amount/most of the global warming for the last 50 - 100 years. But are they rating their papers or giving a vote according to their general opinion? This paper did not assess the validity of GCMs for current conditions.
Any case, Cook et al gave it a 3 based on the abstract, which I don't think is supportable when you consider options 5 and 6. How could the abstract not be seen as minimising the role of CO2, considered in the geological period they investigate? Alternatively, how could it not be marked a 4 if the time period is inapplicable?
-
John Hartz at 10:40 AM on 31 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
William Haas: Your most recent comment was a moderation complaint and was therefore deleted. Please loose the sarcastic tone as well. You should be able to answer the questions posed by Dikran Marsupial without repeating yourself.
-
LarryM at 10:12 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
noelfuller and Composer99: There is also an updated heat content graph. You might also like the Global Warming Components infographic.
For readers who haven't visited the SkS Climate Graphics page in awhile, they have been updated by adding informative captions, and links to SkS material that references each graphic. So, browsing the Climate Graphics page provides an informative inroad into the wealth of SkS material.
-
William Haas at 08:21 AM on 31 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
Tom Dayton #19
The article says that the last IPCC assessment on climate change was made back in 2007. That was more than 5 years ago. The authors apparently feel that there are inadequacies in the old models so they are offering their new simplified models. The article says, "we wanted to calibrate the key climate and carbon cycle parameters in a simple climate model using historical data ..." They talked about 50 years. I am saying that their simulation would be a lot more credible if they calibrated it over a 150 year period.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have articulated your position more than once now. Plese note that excessive repitition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:47 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
tcflood @16, details on the operaton of Argo floats can be found here. As you will note, the Argo floats measure temperature from 0-2000 meters in depth. Other systems are used for temperature (and hence OHC) measurements below that depth. Some continue to be used above 2000 m, but they are nowhere near as numerous as the Argo floats.
For actual OHC data, the NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) is the best first stop.
-
tcflood at 07:36 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Let me mention that I have also read Balmesda, Trenberth, and Kallen in their accepted for publication article "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content." They make a point of comparing the OHC record with and without Argo data, and they get slightly less warming without Argo. I can't tell if the Argo data are synonymus with "data below 700m". Please help.
Moderator Response:[DB] See here for a discussion of BTK13.
-
tcflood at 07:20 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I just read John Cook's update of "It's Cooling" and most of the associated discussion over 2009-2011. I was struck in that discussion by the unsettled business of how OHC below 700m was measured. I was particularly confused by the discussion around how good the Argo data are and the different ways the data is massaged. Is there a good place I can do to get the latest on how the deep sea heat content science is going?
-
KR at 07:15 AM on 31 May 2013It's CFCs
Ah, yes, the International Journal of Modern Physics B, the journal that is supposedly focused on condensed matter, statistical, and applied physics, the journal that published the amazingly wrong Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper.
A new paper in which the author claims that CO2 forcing is saturated, that the log relationship between concentration and forcing for CO2 no longer holds. Oh my...
I would suggest taking climate papers from IJMPB with a large grain (perhaps a block?) of salt.
-
EOttawa at 06:55 AM on 31 May 2013It's CFCs
And another paper by the same authour, just published in International Journal of Modern Physics B
Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732
and
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says
-
dana1981 at 06:35 AM on 31 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Note - I'll withdraw my complaints about the quoting of our private discussions if Brandon and Watts and co. send me all of their email correspondences over the past year and a half.
-
dana1981 at 06:33 AM on 31 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
The utter lack of ethics shown by Brandon and Watts and co. in reading and publically quoting material stolen from our private discussion forum really irritates me. Brandon is trying to dispute my assertions with stolen private comments I made what, a year and a half ago, before the ratings process began? Give me a break. It just shows they're not acting in good faith (shocking, I know).
-
Tom Curtis at 06:03 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry @237, the issue in rating abstracts or papers are the implications regarding the warming from 1900 to 2012, and in particular the implications for the period from 1950-2012 where that can be distinguished seperately. In this case the implications are that rising CO2 causes warming.
The implication about changed ocean circulation are not relevant because the cause of that change is so distinct from anything hapening in the 20th century that it has no direct implications for the 20th century. This is particularly the case as the changed heat transfer due to ocean circulation is merely assumed in the paper as, "... effective full ocean models are not yet available, and the static mixed layer models used in some GCM experiments generate high SSTs that are inconsistent with temperature estimates made using the the geological record." (p 545)
The potential effects of "ground hydrological schemes" are also irrelevant as they are a feedback, not a forcing.
Consequently, of the trio of potential factors that could improve the modelling (according to the abstract), only one is directly relevant to 20th century temperatures; and hence only one can impact on the rating. That one is the influence of CO2. You are then left with the fact that the abstract and paper both indicate that CO2 influence temperature, but do not provide sufficient information to estimate whether that influence is likely to represent at least 50% of warming over the period 1900-2012 or 1950-2012. Hence a (4) IMO.
The only way you could rate the paper or abstract as rejecting the consensus is if you:
1) Forget that it deals with Jurassic continental distributions and hence has no implications for heat transport in the twentieth century;
2) For the paper, forget that the SST changes are imposed rather than modelled (note that this is not mentioned in the abstract, and nor is the generation of the model which cannot be derived from the year which is strictly not available for abstract ratings); and
3) For the paper, forget that the effects of doubling CO2 shown are for a state in which the majority of the feedbacks of the doublings have already been imposed in the initial state,ie, that the additional warming is for direct radiative heating only where some of the direct radiative heating overlaps with that from the pre-existing increased water vapour content in the atmosphere.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:02 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
FWIW, the abstract of the Chandler paper clearly implies that CO2 should be expected to cause warming. A corollary of this implication is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions sould be expected to cause warming. Suggesting that ocean heat transport can explain the relatively warm Jurassic without CO2 does not logically contradict that. Rating the paper as a three sounds reasonable to me, although the implication is not as direct as in some abstracts.
-
william5331 at 05:32 AM on 31 May 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Perhaps we should try to emphasize the other effects of burning fossil fuel other than climate change.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
It's really a no brainer.
-
Don9000 at 05:30 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I think one very interesting point Dr. Trenberth makes is that scientists are documenting new developments in the Pacific, which are connected to the El Nino/La Nina/ENSO cycle. My sense is that the extra energy makes models of cyclical events like the ENSO cycle, which are developed based on data gathered at earlier, lower-energy times, at least potentially suspect. It may be that we are headed for a significant old-fashioned El Nino event in the near future, but on the other hand it may be that the increase in heat content will result in a change to the way the ocean gives up its extra heat that might not fit the way we have come to define the El Nino phase of ENSO.
If the wind patterns have changed and have pushed energy into deeper waters, it seems completely plausible to me that the location/duration/intensity of any future warm water upwelling might also change, which would in turn make further significant changes in the climate likely.
-
nealjking at 04:48 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry,
I would give the paper a 3: It doesn't really say ANYTHING about current climate trends, it seems to be restricted to the era 180 million years ago. That he concludes that CO2 may not have played much of a role in the particular warming then actually says nothing about what he would say about the warming now.
In fact, if I had to guess at the author's opinion, I would point out that he seems to use the global climate models (GCMs) with great confidence. So, I would guess that he would be likely to be confident about applying GCMs to the present-day climate as well: and since today's application of GCMs lends credence to the importance of CO2 (today), I would speculate that the author actually would likely support the consensus opinion, which is strongly supported by the GCMs.But this is going beyond what is directly available in the paper. I would give it a 3, definitely not a 4 or a 2.
-
MMM at 04:38 AM on 31 May 2013What causes Arctic amplification?
Another very recent paper:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/submitted.screen.arctic_forcing.mar12.pdf
This is perhaps closer to the original post - it finds that half of the Arctic surface warming is due to sea ice/sea temperature changes, with a sixth coming from remote transport due to sea surface temperature changes elsewhere... and it isn't clear where the remaining third comes from. The paper claims that changes in direct radiative forcing mainly matter for summer tropospheric changes.
-
MMM at 04:10 AM on 31 May 2013What causes Arctic amplification?
Sigh. I'm trying to find a good explanation for NON-albedo driven Arctic amplification, but this post isn't it. In fact, I feel like this post summarily dismisses these other mechanisms based on a single paper, which is not appropriate: certainly, both the IPCC AR4 report or the draft AR5 report indicate that these other mechanisms may be responsible for as much as or more than half of the amplification. Work that might be relevant includes:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/amy.solomon/pubs/Solomon_GRL_2006.pdf : Showing a link between basically thunderstorms and polar amplification
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/pdf : surface albedo contributes but does not dominate amplification
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/LangenAlexeev2007.pdf : Arctic amplification is observed in an idealized aquaplanet GCM
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00382-009-0535-6.pdf : Perhaps the clearest explanation, using a locked-albedo model to explore how water vapor and cloud feedbacks as well as changes in heat transport and vertical stratification enhance Arctic warming.
-MMM
-
Composer99 at 02:25 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I believe Skeptical Science has produced one or two versions of just such a graph over the years.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:12 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I think the next few years are likely to be pivotal with regards to the whole climate issue. My takeaway from this article from Dr Trenberth suggests that we're likely at the end of a 15 year hiatus, and should anticipate another rapid rise in global surface temps.
-
michael sweet at 02:01 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Wallenburg,
Look at the lines on the graph. The flat areas you question run to the start of 1986 and from the end of 1987. The temperature rose rapidly during the start of 1987. You look like you are just arguing to argue when you question Dr. Trenberth in this way, expecially since the graph clearly shows the hiatus periods that he is referring to.
Dr. Trenberth: thank you for your contribution. It helps us to keep our discussions on track when scientists tell us what they think. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:00 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Wallenburg... You can clearly see the three 10 year hiatus periods identified in the graph.
-
Wallenburg1930 at 01:25 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Dr. Trenberth writes: There are three ten-year periods with a hiatus warming: 1977 to 1986; 1987 to 1996; 2001 to 2012. Remarkably, because there is not a year between 1986 and 1987. Was there a warming hiatus between 1977 and 1996?
No, in fact (looking at the graph) there was a strong rise in temperature in that period. Dr Trenberth is apparently wrong.
-
MA Rodger at 00:42 AM on 31 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I think it should be mentioned that of the three 'hiatus' decades mentioned in the post, only the present one doesn't include a large cooling volcanic eruption (El Chi'chon 1983, Pinatuba 1991).
But do we need a volcano for a 'hiatus' decade? My back-of-fag-packet calculations of what has been happening within the last decade puts the drop in solar energy at about equal to the rise in GHG forcing over the period, and the increase in ice melt from ice caps and sea ice also about equal energy-wise to the absent surface warming.
-
barry1487 at 00:29 AM on 31 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
nealjking,
The meaning of the chart relating CO2 increase to temperature change would have to be further examined in the text to derive a clear implication. You can figure out an implied value for the climate sensitivity, but for what time period is it? What's their point?
The full paper is linked in my post. Here again below.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1992/1992_Chandler_etal.pdf
Tom,
the highest rating one could have given that paper is a 4, because, as you point out, human influence doesn't factor. The key point in the abstract is that ocean circulation changes "may have been the primary force generating warmer climates of the past 180 m.y.". Nowhere in the abstract is it suggested that CO2 was a primary driver. In the full paper, CO2 is clearly 'minimised' (much less than 50% influence).
Your call for large sample size is well-taken. I wish I had more time to look at other papers. I do not understand how it could be hoped that I could validate my point, the self-ratings beng confidential. I can only explain how discrepancies in ratings may occur. I'm not sure how to proceed on this, and reiterate that it might be well for Cook et al to contact the Authors and get clarification on how they rated.
It seems you have a higher bar for rating than Cook et al. My concern, untestable, is that (some/many?) self-rating authors had a lower bar than Cook et al, making the close comparison less so.
I have no doubt that there is a consensus among self-rating Authors believe more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming (confirmation of AGW to some degree). I question whether the comparative results are as robust as Cook et al maintain, if Cook et al rated more stringently. The one example I have checked demonstrates the opposite, but does not increase my confidence in the results. I'll look further when there is time.
-
owenamoe at 23:20 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Actually, "atmospheric temperature" is preferable to surface temperature. The latter term is used to differentiate from tropospheric temperature. Atmospheric temperature is less ambiguous. So: "global mean atmospheric temperature"
-
Tom Dayton at 23:03 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Thank you for the article, Dr. Trenberth. I would like to use it to help me counter the deniers' hyperfocus on surface atmospheric temperatures. But frustratingly, the article undermines its own point by having the diagram labeled "Global Mean Temperature" instead of "Global Surface Atmospheric Temperature." Likewise, the paragraph after the diagram does not specify "surface atmospheric." Will you change those, please?
-
noelfuller at 22:53 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
I and others have been inserting the word "surface" to identify the 2-3% of heating that goes into the global surface atmospheric temperature record which allows us to reserve global warming, or heating for the whole 100% of energy trapped by the global energy imbalance. The continued use of "Global mean temperature" and the like without explicit reference to surface temperature leaves the onlooker free to misunderstand the situation, and denialists with an avenue for misrepresentation as we all witness.
Has anyone actually genearted a graph of global heat content? Admittedly the instrumental record is a lot shorter than the atmospheric surface temperature record but there must still be a useful amount of data to infer it. I expect the curve will be fairly smooth and will match the smoothed keeling curve.
-
dkaroly at 22:51 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
William #12, #18, I am working on getting the figure showing the comparison of the model-simulated temperatures compared to the observations inserted so that you can see it.
A comparison of the recent change in rates of warming from the model and observations:
Model:
1980 - 1999 0.15 C/decade
2000 - 2019 0.06 C/decadeObs:
1980 - 1999 0.16 C/decade
2000 - 2012 0.04 C/decade -
dkaroly at 22:44 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
Estiban #25, You are correct, I made a mistake in my earlier response. There is a about a 1 in 40 chance of global mean temperatures remaining below 2.3C above pre-industrial in 2100, and a 1 in 40 chance of global warming exceeding 9C.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:42 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry @234, my own ratings and reasons are, in the order you present them (my rating first, then paper, then Cook et al rating followed by reason for my rating):
- 3 Meunier (2007) (4): States categorically that global warming is a result of the GHE, and by implication by human emissions. Rather not accept this endorsement as the abstract suggests the author is a crackpot, but implicit endorsement all the same.
- 4 Wirl (2004) (2): Indicates ongoing warming due to "emissions", but does not indicate scale of warming (reducing a 3 to a 4 rating).
- 4 Howarth (2001) (4): Indicates ongoing warming due to GHG, but does not indicate the scale of the warming (reducing a 3 to a 4 rating).
- 4 Huelber et al (2006) (4): Mentions predicted temperature increase but does not endorse the prediction (hypothetical mode). Does not indicate cause of warming.
- 4 Chandler et a (1992) (3): While high CO2 is mentioned as a causal factor for high temperatures, the level and temperature impact are not mentioned reducing a potential 3 to a 4.
Note that the discussion of ocean circulation is not relevant to the rating as the changes are due to very large scale changes in continental arrangement which cannot be a factor for recent warming. I also note, with regard to the paper, that the model used specified SST, thereby eliminating the main feedbacks modellable in 1992 (water vapour concentration, sea ice extent) "... thus limiting the CO2 effect to direct radiative heating" (pp 546-7). Thus the additional factors in the full paper do not change the rating of the paper IMO.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:13 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Icaraus @1,3, there are satellite observations of both the Outgong Longwave Radiation (OLR) from Earth and the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun. These are very accurate for changes in magnitude of the radiation, but their accuracy for the absolute level of radiation is substantially less. Consequently calculating the energy balance from the satellite data leaves an error margin several times larger than the observed effect.
SFAIK, that does leave changes in surface heat content (including oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere, soil heat contents) along with minor effects such as change wind and wave energy, change in stored chemical energy in the biosphere as the alternative direct measure of the top of atmosphere energy imbalance. These are not completely measured, but using a scaled 0-2000 m OHC will result in relatively small error bars.
As an aside, I suspect that the well measured changes in OHC from Argos could be used to calibrate the satellite data and gain accurate measurements of the energy imbalance over the satellite period.
-
Icarus at 21:45 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Thanks CB. I understand that the change in spectrum of OLR has been observed and that it validates the modelled changes in the greenhouse effect, but I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as directly measuring the energy imbalance.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:07 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Icarus, no that hasn't been true for many years now. I think Harries 2001 was one of the first studies using direct measurements to show the imbalance.
-
Icarus at 20:41 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Is it still the case that we can't really measure the Earth's energy imbalance directly, but have to infer it from the rate of heat accumulation in the oceans?
Cheers...
-
nealjking at 17:04 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry (234):
Based on what you've shown, I would also rate that as a 3 rather than a 4: although the authors are talking about non-CO2-related mechanisms for temperature change, they're concerned with the past - specifically 180 million years ago.
The meaning of the chart relating CO2 increase to temperature change would have to be further examined in the text to derive a clear implication. You can figure out an implied value for the climate sensitivity, but for what time period is it? What's their point?
-
barry1487 at 16:06 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
my own rating for numbers 1, 2, 3 and the abstract from the previous post (4), were
1) -- 3
2) -- 3
3) -- 4
4) -- 4
Because if the original Authors rated under the lower bar (any anthro influence) for 2 and 3, then the comparative results are not as robust as indicated.
That's a big "if", and one for which you are yet to provide any evidence whatsoever.
That is made difficult by my sudden loss of ESP at a New Year's Eve party. Cook et al are bound to keep ratings of the scientists confidential, unfortunately.
First paper I could access in full under the category paleoclimate is "Pangaean climate during the Early Jurassic; GCM simulations and the sedimentary record of paleoclimate".
For the period modeled they discovered,
"Significantly, and somewhat suprisingly, the natural climate feedbacks in the system (discussed below) balanced the negative net radiation caused by the warm SSTs. This implies that no additional CO2 was needed to maintain the Early Jurassic global warmth...
... if these results are valid... then many of the warm climates of the past can be explained solely by changes in ocean circulation."
[italics are from the paper, page 548 - there is also a chart showing 2 X CO2 leading to a global temp increase of 0.3C; 4 X CO2 = 0.5C, and 6 X CO2 shows 0.7C rise]
The paper could be marked as 4 or possibly 7, under the rubric of >50% human influence, or 5 and 6 supposing 'minimising' the human influence is a purely qualitative rating. A rater may make choices under certain assumed knowledge or not (eg, do you extemporise from what you know of modern CO2 rise, or do you strictly focus on what the abstract/paper actually says, and don't incorporate your own knowledge?).
The abstract was rated 3 by Cook et al. The first sentence reads:
"Results from the Early Jurassic show that increased ocean heat transport may have been the primary force generating warmer climates of the past 180 m.y."
I don't have much free time, unfortunately. I'll try to come back to this later.
-
Estiben at 15:25 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
dkaroly #22, In your answer to wild monkeys, if I understand confidence intervals correctly, at 95% confidence it would be a 2.5% chance of rising more than 9 degrees, and an equal chance of less than 2.3 degrees. That's 1 in 40 at either end. It would be 1 in 20 of rising more than 7.8 degrees, and 1 in 6 of more than 6.2 degrees. That's still pretty damn scary. Of course, we could luck out and get "only" 2 or 3 degrees of rise. I'm not investing in Great Plains cropland.
-
tcflood at 15:16 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
Dkaroly #22,
Thanks for responding. I'll check out the references.
-
DSL at 13:46 PM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Petere, it sounds like you're defining "skeptics" as "people like me." Troll around a bit on WUWT and you'll discover that people who call themselves "skeptic" fit a variety of definitions. By the way, working scientists are, by definition, skeptics.
-
KR at 12:30 PM on 30 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Dr. Tung - Indeed, Anderson et al 2012 used atmospheric only models - examining integrated TOA deltas into the atmosphere against exchanges with the ocean surface and to some extent land surface and cryosphere (Anderson et al 2012 pg. 7166). They estimated OHC changes from those deltas, "...recognizing that the observed value may underestimate the total earth energy storage by 5%–15% (Levitus et al. 2005; Hansen et al. 2005; Church et al. 2011)." While an argument from input/output of the atmospheric climate layer has its limitations, it also has its strengths in that both TOA imbalance via spectroscopic evidence and SST values are quite well known.
They then evaluate estimated OCH changes against TOA inputs, concluding that <10% of global temperature change can be attributed to internal variations - as a boundary condition evaluation. I would also note that Andersons conclusions regarding "unknown forcings" such as aerosols limit their influence to no more than 25% of recent global temperature change - not the 40% you assert.
Your arguments against that paper (and by extension against Isaac Held and Huber and Knutti 2012) seem to me to require that either (a) climate sensitivity is badly estimated, in contradiction to the paleo evidence, or that (b) radiative forcings from basic spectroscopy are incorrect - as otherwise Andersons results hold.
If you wish (as stated above) to claim that "...the known change in total radiative forcing over the last half of the twentieth century … is systematically overestimated by the models", that would be (IMO) an entirely different paper, one with a considerable focus on spectroscopy and evidence regarding forcings (black carbon, atmospheric constitution, aerosol evidence, cloud trends). That is not the paper under discussion - and I (personal opinion, again) do not feel the current work holds up without such support.
And as I have stated (repeatedly, with what I consider insufficient objections) in this thread, the linear AMO detrending you use is (as Dikran has pointed out) critical to your conclusions - and that linear detrending is strongly contraindicated by recent literature, including some you have quoted in your support. That is entirely separate from the thermodynamics; two significant issues that argue against your conclusions.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 12:20 PM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
(-moderation complaints snipped-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Your previous comment was deleted for moderation complaints. By me. You have a long, protracted history of treating the Comments Policy of this site as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participation fairly observed without any incident by the vast majority of all participants in this venue.
From the preamble to the Comments Policy:
The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors. To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering.
Normally the moderation staff is loath to intervene and usually gives participants a wide latitude in composing their comments to adhere to the Comments Policy. When situations occur where certain participants are deemed to be repeat, repetitive violators of the Comments Policy, a tighter level of enforcement of the Comments Policy ensues. At the discretion of the moderation staff, a wide variety of interventions are possible, covering the entire spectrum of intervention modalities ranging from snipping and excising offending texts to comment deletions to Warnings to outright banishment (a revocation of posting privileges).
Based on previous behaviors and on your behavior thus far in this thread, you are now issued a Final Warning:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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, as no further warnings shall be given.
Edit: Let the record show that with his very next comment, Brandon chose to continue his pattern of moderation complaints and comment policy violations. Please return this thread to the topics discussed in the OP.
-
KR at 10:56 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon - You have repeatedly claimed that the rater classifications were wrong, that they erroneously classified categories #2 and #3, endorsement of the AGW consensus (which is, to put it bluntly, that anthropogenic causes are the dominant factor in current climate change) instead of the no-position #4 or even rejection #5, 6. See for example your On the consensus and Why symmetry is bad posts.
I find it stunning that you would deny it, since you've spent multiple posts expounding on just those points - with statements such as "The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans", which is not what either explicit or implicit endorsement of the AGW consensus means.
From IPCC AR4 WG1 Executive Summary:
Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. [...] It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.
Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years...
[ Note that IPCC likelyhood terminology has defined values - "very likely" indicates >90% probability. Those are anything but vague statements. ]
Your definition is not the criteria used by the IPCC, raters, nor by the authors. Your claims regarding erroneous classification are are therefore absurd.
---
Enough - you have been trolling this topic for more than long enough. The AGW consensus is clearly defined and understood (barring uninformed or deliberate misinterpretations), the raters and authors used their best judgement when classifying abstracts and papers, and therefore the Cook et al statistics hold.
Your entire approach is in essence an extended (and verbose) strawman fallacy - "...when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.", then arguing against that false position instead. Invalid and (IMO) trolling.
Moderator Response:[DB] "you have been trolling this topic for more than long enough"
Agreed. The time has come to return this thread to more original dialogue.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
It may help readers to understand Brandon Shollenberger's point if you read his statement of it at Lucia's Blackboard. He is restricted from stating the point clearly here because he has made his point by quoting from hacked forum contents which the moderators do not typically allow to be reposted on this site. Essentially he quotes John Cook as saying that neither of two possible precise criteria of the AGW are satisfactory, but that the raters will be able to rate based on informed judgement. He further partially quotes Dana on the purported assymettry of the classifications.
I will not quote from the hacked forum material without specific permission from the moderators. Those who want to read Shollenberger's quotes from the hacked discussions can follow the link above. I will merely note that Shollenberger ignores relevant context from other forum threads which significantly weaken his point.
Having said that, the more important point is that both John Cook and Dana were wrong in the quoted comments. Specifically, the paper does contain an implicit definition of what is meant by "endorses AGW" and "rejects AGW". This follows directly from the fact that different occurences of the phrases should be given the same meaning if that can consistently be done. Failing to give them consistent meaning results in constructing a straw man to critique. It means that the criticism is based on the inconsistency of the phrases, when a consistent interpretation is possible which may well avoid the criticism.
From this it follows that in the phrases "(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification", "(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification" and "(3) Implicit endorsement", the term "endorsement" (meaning endorsement of AGW) has the same meaning. However, "endorsement" is defined in (1) as "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming".
Further, also on the grounds of consistency, the terms must be interpreted so that "endorsement" and "rejection" are mutually exclusive" and "(7) Explicit rejection with quantification" is qualified as "Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming". If being the primary cause of recent warming is possible if, for example, anthropogenic factors cause 40% of the warming, while all other factors individually cause 10% or less, then the interpretation of "primary cause" allows a paper to both explicitly endorse and explicitly reject AGW with quantification. For consistency, therefore, endorsing AGW in (1) must mean endorsing AGW as equal to or greater than 50% of the cause of recent warming. It follows, on the grounds of consistency that that is the meaning of "endorses AGW" whereever it occurs in the paper.
Ergo though John Cook may have lacked an explicit definition of endorsement, he and the raters had an implicit definition which is in the paper. What is more, that implicit definition is, or is very close to the tacit definition actually used by raters in rating abstracts.
Stating this recognizes a flaw in the implimentation of the paper. Because the definition was implicit, it is not certain that all raters used it or a close approximation of it. I am in fact (slowly) testing that hypothesis in the only reasonable way. I am in fact rating papers chosen at random using the consensus project rating mechanism. If I am correct about the tacit definition adopted by the raters, my ratings will closely coincide with the Cook et al ratings. To date I have 100% agreement in the check (though not from cherry picked examples that have been posted on various blogs), although my sample size is still to small to be significant.
Anybody else who wants to check can do as I am. Not doing something equivalent, or simply relying on cherry picked examples, however, it no way to check if there has actually been a flow in the implimentation of the paper. Showing that a flaw might exist is not the same as showing that it does exist, and certainly not the same as showing that it impacts the results. Despite that, Shollenberger Lucia and the like are very big on trying to show the former, but then simply seem to assume that the mere possibility of a flaw means the paper has been demolished. Even if they have to cherry pick or quote out of context to "show" that possibility.
-
SeaHuck5891 at 10:30 AM on 30 May 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Not sure where else to post this. My Representative in the US House sent this out with his most recent newsletter. There are some pretty familiar "skeptic" names on the list.
A Panel Discussion Looking at: The Origins and Response to Climate Change
Hosted by:
Congressman David B. McKinley, P.E. (WV-01) And The West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation
Location: 5000 NASA Boulevard, 5th Floor Conference Room, Fairmont, WV 26554
Date: May 30, 2013
Time: 09:30 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Format: Opening Statements (3-minutes from each panelist), Roundtable Discussion and Question and Answer with the audience/media
Topics for Discussion:1. What Factors Are Causing Climate Change?
2. Science Behind Climate Change
3. How Do We Balance Economic Growth With Climate Change?
4. Developed and Developing Countries: Who Has The Responsibility?
5. What Are Appropriate Policy Responses?
Panelists:
• Rep. David B. Mckinley, P.E. – Congressman and host, First Congressional District of West Virginia
• Dr. John Christy- Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Dr. Joe Casola- Staff Scientist and Program Director for Science and Impacts, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
• Dr. Jim Hurrell- Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research Earth System Laboratory
• Dr. A. Scott Denning- Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• Dr. Thomas Sheahen, physicist and author
• Dr. Richard Thomas, professor and Chair of the Biology Department, West Virginia University
• Ms. Annie Petsonk, International Council and Environmental Defense Fund
• Mr. Marc Morano, Executive Director and Chief Correspondent, Climate Depot
• Mr. Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Mr. Dennis Avery, Director of Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute
-
Bert from Eltham at 10:30 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon Shollenberger maybe you could analyse the motives of the tiny remnant that is the 3% and see what irreconcilable differences they have. You will find that that they are all just like you! Bert
Prev 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 Next
