Recent Comments

Prev  967  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  Next

Comments 48701 to 48750:

48701. shoyemore at 04:42 AM on 12 February 2013
       Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence
       

       Steve Mosher recently defined "Lukewarmer" on WUWT as (reformatted for clarity)

       ... back in 2007 or 2008 we did a poll on Climate audit asking the question
       How much of the warming we see today is due to GHG?
       There was a distinct group of us that said ‘some, but not all ” heck even Willis said 30%

       We called ourselves Lukewarmers.

       Over the years a few of us have worked to define what we mean by Lukewarmer and what defines the position.

       1. Acceptance of radiative physics.
       2. Acceptance of a lower bound to sensitivity. basically the no feedback estimate is 1.2C per doubling. We think that the true sensitivity will be above 1.
       3. over/under line. The over under line is 3C. That is, if offered a bet that the climate sensitivity is either ‘between 1 and 3 or over 3, we take the under bet.

       ballpark:
       less than 1.     2 5%
           1.2 to 3.     50%
           3 to 4.5      45%
            4.5+          5%

       So if you believe that GHG can warm the planet and not cool it, and you think that the mean estimate of the IPCC of 3.2 is more likely high than low, then you are a lukewarmer. But you have to drop the crazy refusals over radiative physics.

       Note:

       • Lukewarmers dont have to attack the surface record, its probably correct to within .2C
       • We also dont have to slam models, or invent kook theories about the sun.
       • Everything we believe is well within the consensus and we think that you can change the consensus from inside the tent rather than attacking everything and everyone.
       • Focus on sensitivity, work to refine that. You see there is a debate in climate science, its a debate about sensitivity.
       • When folks start putting their effort into that ( instead of frittering away time on tangents then you will see changes.

       I find most ofthat innocuous, which suggest that "Lukewarmerism" is more of an emotional position with regard to scientific consensus than a fundamental scientific difference. Ridley and Michaels are definitely not "Lukewarmers" like Mosher.

48702. Composer99 at 01:39 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       The algorithm was put in to pick up disparaties, not a change in when temp was measured. So this argument does not apply.

       Really? I'd say there'd be a disparity, almost by definition, between temperature readings a weather station makes at one time of day and those it makes at another.

       With regards to the remainder of your comment #266, the bottom line is that you have articulated suspicions (yours and others') that something is wrong with GISTemp following adjustments made in 2008.

       However, and this is the critical part, you have not provided, either directly in the comments or by link to another site, any actual criticism of the adjustments. What you have instead provided is an extended argument from personal incredulity and allegations of bias.

       If you can furnish any sort of methodological critique of GISTemp's processes, I am sure that the knowledgeable commenters here would be quite happy to discuss them. Until then, however, it seems to me that you are wasting your time - I rather doubt you will convince those skeptical of your claims as long as you limit your arguments to the above.

48703. Dikran Marsupial at 01:13 AM on 12 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Jeff313 wrote "I would add to this argument that even NASA has estimated that some of the warming over the last century is due to increased solar activity."

       You do know that the IPCC AR4 WG1 scientific basis report explicitly states the much the same thing?  However, that is for the warming of the first half of the 20th century, thus it doesn't support your hypothesis as since then humidity has been rising, whilst solar forcing has been steady or declining slightly.
       

48704. Kevin8233 at 00:35 AM on 12 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I think the expectation that adjustments should be even is also misplaced. If you want to compare temperature measurements mad today with measurement taken in the morning, against same station but temperature done in afternoon, then you have to move past temperature down. Its a change of practise

       The algorithm was put in to pick up disparaties, not a change in when temp was measured.  So this argument does not apply.

        

       In fact, if you look at the SkS trend Calculator you will see that the trend for Gistemp is 0.064 C per decade +/- 0.007 C per decade (11%).  So his point is that the temperture record is not as accurate as advertized because a change smaller than the advertized accuracy has been made

       That is not what I was saying.  For the century, there was a 10% increase in the rate of temp increase, solely due to these adjustments.

        

       Tom Curtis,

       I didn't state that all the temp adjustments were positive, I stated that all of them made the temp increase rate change in a positive fashion.  Lower the early temps, increase the latter temps.  When you look at the chart I gave, that is exactly what happened.

        

        

48705. Philippe Chantreau at 00:11 AM on 12 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       The debate? What debate? Your post is full of confusion and it is hard to figure exactly what you're trying to say. Solar activity is monitored by satellites. CO2 release does not increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere, increased temperature does that, regardless of the forcing. Temperatures have continued to increase as solar activity has decreased.

       Another fact: scentists do their work and normally do not pay attention to the noise coming from contrarians who have clearly no clue. Unfortunately, in some case, that noise becomes such a distraction that they do have to spend time addressing nonsense.

48706. Jeff313 at 23:15 PM on 11 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Tom curtis

       My concept that "+CO2 - H2O equals no change in greenhouse gases" is a general concept.  The quantities is the debate.  It is in now way bad algebra   If CO2 reduces the amount of another green house gas, the effects are minimized.  This is the same equation (with a negative value) that would be used to say that warming is amplified by increased H2O.  No one would argue that the algebra is bad in that case just because someone did not give the exact quanities of the H20 increase.  My only point was to make clear the importance of a full understaning to the processes in play.

       I would add to this argument that even NASA has estimated that some of the warming over the last century is due to increased solar activity.  I my option, direct warmth added to the sun would of course create an increase in humidity.  So it is no suprise or proof (in and of itself) that increased humidity prove theories that CO2 released into the atmosphere increases H2O.  I only question this because in Chemistry 101 in phase diagrams there are 2 factors that would effect the evaporation of water, heat and pressure.  I have only heard the heat being considered in this process.  Increased pressure would decrease the phase shift.  Quantities are again the debate.

48707. Jeff313 at 22:48 PM on 11 February 2013
       Humidity is falling
       

       Doesn't changing algorithms that give you what you want to see raise a red flag for anyone? Perhaps they are better algorithms, but the number of times "

       (-intimations of fraud, impropriety and malfeasance snipped-)".

       I understand the reasons for you assuming that fraud is primary thing implied when I mentioned a "red flag", as it is often brought up in this argument.  However, making clear I am now not talking about anything that could be considered a personal attack, we can not burry our heads in the sand as to human nature and human frailities that is true to all (including myself).  What I am now talking about is mistakes based on a biases that might spring from anything, even frustration arguing points with "contarians" such as myself.  As such I would think that scientists would have to keep a earnest watch for such things.  And when there is a pattern that changes to algorithms seems to always help your points, it should raise a red flag.  Again, not to accuse anyone of anything that I would not be given to myself and it is only made to help other understand secpticism and perhaps a need to double check and, yes question, the accuracy of some work.

       I hope this general topic is not off limits for this board, but to be safe, even though I think it is a valid point that both sides should admit to for honest conversation, I will not mention this topic again.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Quite frankly, lacking specific examples in your concerns about "red flags", any discussion by you of uncertainties in your understandings clearly highlights that very point: you lack command and comprehension of what you are trying to discuss.

       Given that, the appropriate next step would be to isolate those areas where you lack understanding and first study more, and to then ask questions when you get stuck. Starting with the assumption, as you do, that since you do not understand something that therefore a likely possibility is that mistakes were made upon the part of the scientists and researchers in this area. This is a fallacy known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect and may also reflect cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias on your part.

48708. Tristan at 21:56 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I did the skeptic blogs for about a year. It's rough on the spirit. I imagine it'd be much worse if climate science was your vocation, not merely an interest, as it is in my case.

48709. bill4344 at 20:58 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Shiny, and very handy for laypeople (like myself) but may need a bit more filling-in to be a truly comprehensive guide for the uninitiated -

       'MBH98' was not found in the dictionary of terms(!)

48710. Kevin C at 20:31 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I enjoyed the bathysphere comment!

       (Spending too much time on the front lines of this debate is hard on the nerves and the sense of humour. I can't handle it at all, which is why I try to do research to fill the gaps. Tom's an ace, but I'm guessing he missed your earlier comments and so didn't have the context I did.)

48711. chriskoz at 20:05 PM on 11 February 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #6
       

       AU env minister Tony Burke approves huge gas and coal plans news just came out. "This is a black day for the environment in NSW", a statement I tend to agree with. Apparently, those projects will increase AU CO2 footprint by 8% which will no doubt push AU back to the first place in per capita emissions. Note that Tony Burke represents the federal Labor govs, so those who introduced CTax a year ago and who are supposed to care. Apparently, still, they cannot resist the presure of coal/fracking industry...

48712. ChrisJJ at 20:04 PM on 11 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       This is a great article. It has been criticised by some commenters for not being scientific enough. Well, OK, but it does highlight some of the reasons why it's difficult to explain scientific concepts to ordinary, everyday people.

       There is a general malaise in society today, and this article points very clearly to the reason for it.

       I think I might summarise these ideas on my own blog and link to this article. More people need to read it and give it serious thought.

       Thanks for publishing it here.

48713. Tristan at 19:52 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

       
       

       I thought the bathysphere comment would be enough, but apparently not.

        

48714. chriskoz at 19:23 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Term lookup dropdown does not seem to be very useful. What is is supposed to be? An autocomplete? If so, it misses some terms. E.g. a dictionary term "AR4" is missing. Even if I type it and invoke it with "Define" button, and then try to look for it again in the list (in case the list is supposed to be updated with my browser chache) it's still not there. Also the list is not scrollable. My browser: FF 18.0.2

       
       Don't get me wrong: awesome work guys. Just this little semi-baked list list bugs me, as
       I don't understand its purpose and how it works.

48715. Tom Curtis at 19:05 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Tristan @15, it is difficult to imagine how you could think that a ship, entering new water at 4 knots or higher could warm that water significantly before it was measured after being collected from in a bucket thrown from the bow.  Regardless, buckets show a cool bias, particularly canvass buckets, with evaporation cooling the water in the bucket prior to measurement.  It is true that direct instrumental measurements in engine intakes show a warm bias of about 0.1 C, but great effort has gone into measuring that (and bucket) bias, and correcting for it.

       That, apparently means noting for you.  In fact, your comment looks like nothing more, to me, than a mere assertion that you don't like the facts, with a tissue of excuse as to why you choose to ignore them.

48716. Dikran Marsupial at 19:01 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Habilus you do know, don't you, that "no statistically significant warming for 16 years" does not mean that there has been no warming for 16 years?

       It just means (loosely speaking) that we can't rule out the possibility that it hasn't warmed during the last 16 years.  If you read the BBC interview, you will find that Prof. Jones clearly understands this, and is perfectly happy to say that the (cherry picked) trend wasn't significant, because he understands why that isn't actually all that surprising (the time span is short, so the power of the test is fairly low).

48717. Tom Curtis at 18:57 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I have been trying to follow up on Habilus' (@8) claim that the Met Office asserted that the globe had coolled by 0.5 C degrees between 1940 and 1970.  I have been unable to track down any such claim.  What I have found is the global land temperature record, as determined Mitchell, 1961:

       

       (Source)

       That shows just less than a 0.3 C degree fall between the 1940s and the 1960s; but is a land only record and so covers only 30 percent of the globe.

       The earliest attempt at a true global, land-ocean temperature record I can find is Farmer 1989, which shows a decline of just over 0.1 C:

       

       Indeed, the only early record showing a 0.5 C decline over that interval is from figure  7.6 (a) of the IPCC FAR, WG1, Chapter 7 (1990).  That, however, shows only Northern Hemisphere, land only temperatures.

       Giving the Habilus the benefit of the doubt, and assume his distant memories, unbacked by physical evidence, are correct; and that for a brief period the met office showed a greater decline in temperature from 1940 to 1970 than the scientific evidence supported before, or after.  But even with this improbable assumption, Habilus can give us no reason why this brief revision showed the naked truth, which later revisions have corrupted.

48718. Kevin C at 17:46 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I have one focussed interest in the sociology of science denial (DK alert - no formal sociology education), which is whether it is possible to identify scientific skepticism from science denial by the form of the arguments alone without even examining the content. I think it often is. In ortherwords, is there a 'fingerprint' we can use to identify science denial? Habilus' comment is a good case study.

       First, we have to understand the difference between scientific skepticism and science denial:

       • Scientific skepticism is knowledge seeking - it raises arguments with the aim of testing and/or correcting hypotheses in order to improve their correspondence to reality.
       • Science denial is knowledge avoiding - it seeks to reassure the speaker and convince hearers that a hypothesis may be rejected in order to defend the speaker's worldview from inconvenient evidence.

       Now, the point of the video is that 'warming' and the 'human contribution to warming' are two different things, and that a change in one is not necessarily evidence for a change in the other.

       Habilus' response is to reassert a change in the rate of warming, which the video doesn't dispute. (S/he also relies on appeals to authority rather than data, thus showing a predisposition to social rather than evidence based reasoning, and falls for the null hypothesis fallacy). I think this demonstrates my point.

       This raises an interesting possibility: Whenever someone makes an argument which has the fingerprints of science denial, don't engage with the argument - by doing so you are validating their position. Point out the structure of their argument.

48719. jyyh at 15:51 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       SSW (Sudden Stratospheric Warming) seems to even have a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming 

       then there are other interactions (Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchanges aka) STE (an early summary article on the subject: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m465/strattropdynholton.pdf)

48720. Lanfear at 15:25 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       I would suggest putting the 'close all' at the top of the list. As it is now (FF18.0.1 Win7), if I have more than a screenful (my resolution is 1920x1200) of those definitions open, then I'm forced to close them individually until the 'close all' becomes visible again.

       I also concur with llewelly that there should be a brief delay before popping the definition up.

48721. jyyh at 14:32 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       SSW (Sudden Stratospheric Warming) but as this is also south of southwest it might pose difficulties. ONI (forgot this was Oceanic Nino Index, but there are more Indexes describing aspcets of ENSO, such as MEI, SOI, so I'd leave it to readers to do the 10 second googling ( ONI + climate ) to find some of the acronyms out.

48722. jyyh at 14:26 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Great feature, I might add. :-).  AABW, ONI, IOD, SSW. (testing)

48723. jyyh at 14:20 PM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Just learned that PIOMAS = Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System, i.e. the model that assimilates the sparse ice thickness data from north of the 45°N latitude (to fully include Hudson Bay, and northern parts of the Black Sea that may also freeze, I guess) and creates a physically consistent (not necessarily fully accurate) dataset of artcic sea ice thickness data. partially gridded dataset available f.e. here. http://dosbat.blogspot.fi/2013/02/piomas-volume-thickness-breakdowns.html , there is also a fully gridded set of data somewhere.

       As this is a hot topic at Neven's I suggest including the Acronym.

48724. Rob Honeycutt at 13:13 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       You know, I just remembered something another climate change denier pointed out a few months ago.  I don't think I could find it again, but it was a newspaper story from the 1970's that showed "Met Office data" from mid-century.  The diagram, indeed showed a ~0.5C drop in temps during that time period.  But the graph was obviously not directly plotted from Met data but was a graphical representation done by someone at the newspaper (as far as I could tell).  

       What I believe was going on with that graph was, the artist misinterpreted -0.05C (which is what the data now shows) for -0.5C.

48725. Tristan at 13:04 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       The bucket data shows a spurious warming trend due to the ships heating the water arund them. The only data I accept is from bathyspheres.

48726. JasonB at 12:55 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Even ignoring the basic confusion and accidental mixing of fake skeptic memes, there's something even more fundamentally wrong with Habilus' comment.

       Apparently science is not allowed to progress.

       Even if, for the sake of argument, he was actually correct about what the Met office was saying back in the 70s, what he's basically objecting to is the Met office doing additional work that allows a more accurate figure to be determined.

       Let's just take one issue, for example — the sea surface temperature measurements. After WWII, there was a sudden increase in the number of temperature measurements being recorded by British ships, using buckets dropped over the sides of ships, which leads to a cooler temperature reading than what would be measured by engine intakes, the dominant method before then. This leads to a sudden and artificial drop in SSTs, causing a pronounced dip in global temperature reconstructions of that period.

       HadCRUT4 now tries to correct for that effect, and the result is that the dip is a lot less pronounced than it was before.

       According to Habilus, advancing the science to make the historical temperatures more accurate is simply to "conveniently" iron out a dip that for unnamed reasons was "inconvenient" in the first place. Apparently.

       I suppose disco was the pinnacle of music as well.

48727. llewelly at 12:20 PM on 11 February 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly Digest #6
       

       Please require the cursor to hover over the term for a longer period of time before popping up the definition.
       
       As it is, when I scroll through a comment section looking for a comment, every time a term passes under my cursor, a definition pops up, however fast I am scrolling. This results in a lot of pop ups, which obscure what I'm trying to read. (It's a great idea, but I am already quite familiar with most of the definitions.)
       
       (I see this behavior with FF 18.02 on debian gnu/linux 6.0.6 and OS X 10.7.5)

48728. Bob Loblaw at 12:01 PM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       What was Phil Jones up to "back in the seventies"? Not sure. The first major paper of his looking at the temperature record that I'm aware is the 1982 paper that looked at northern hemisphere record:

       Variations in Surface Air Temperatures: Part 1. Northern Hemisphere, 1881–1980

       I've linked the abstract, and the pdf link for the full paper on that page is not paywalled.

       Note that to maximize the "drop" in that record, you have to pick 1940 as the start year, just as fake skeptics keep picking 1998 these days. Spikes in the record - the gift that keeps on giving...

       Methinks that Habilus is mixing up a whole bunch of fake skeptic memes:

       - They predicted an ice age in the 1970s

       - Hansen was wrong

       - Jones said no warming

       - UK Met Office is bad (aka Climategate and the CRU hack)

       Just what were you paying attention to in the '70s, Habilus?

        

48729. Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       ... but presto magico, he still gets to have an opinion - and to think it is worth something.

48730. Rob Honeycutt at 11:14 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Habilus...  Please note that James Hansen works for NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) not the Met Office.

       It seems you're confused on quite a number of points.

48731. Rob Honeycutt at 11:11 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Habilus...   You're going to have to provide a reference to the statement that Met office claimed -0.5C from 1940-1970, otherwise your statement has no credibility.

       And it was not Hansen that made the statement about statistically significant warming, it was Phil Jones of the CRU.  And he stated that there was warming of 0.12C/decade but the time frame that was in question fell just short of statistically significant.  The transcript from the interview can be viewed here.

48732. Habilus at 10:55 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       My apologies, Dr. Hansen claimed no warming for 10 years, not 16.

48733. Habilus at 10:45 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       For those of us who were alive and paying attention back in the seventies, the Met office claimed a -0.5C drop in temperatures from ~1940 to 1970. I see they've conviently ironed that out.

       Besides, it was the progenitor of this very data, James Hansen, who claimed "no statistically signifigant warming" for the last 16 years. But presto magico, now we have warming again.

48734. MattJ at 10:38 AM on 11 February 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
       

       Is there a mistake in the wording of the headline/article? I cannot for the life of me understand how cutting allowed carbon emissions even more is supposed to encourage electric utilities to comply. If anything, it would give them incentives to defeat all legal proposals to make them pay for the externalities of their industry -- something they have already shown themselves very good at doing.

48735. SoundOff at 08:32 AM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Great feature.  If you could spellcheck and proofread the glossary definitions they’d be even greater.

       The glossary says under AR4: “Th 2nd report - Second Assessement Report (or SAR) released in 1966.”

       Moderator Response: [Sph] Fixed.Thanks.
48736. Alexandre at 06:34 AM on 11 February 2013
       Announcing the Skeptical Science Glossary
       

       Congratulations, guys! SkS became the ultimate tool for the layman to understand climate change science. Only those determined NOT to understand it will remain in ignorance now.

48737. william5331 at 05:14 AM on 11 February 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
       

       The Arctic Hurricane of Aug6 (right on the border between a Cat2 and Cat3) may be absolved as the cause of the incredible ice melt but such storms do not only "churn up" the arctic water.  A counter clockwise rotating air system induces similar counter clockwise currents in surface water.  Coriolis shunts moving water to the right; that is to say, away from the centre of the storm.  The only source of water I can see to replace this outflowing water is from the deeper, warmer, saltier water which lies under the surface water.  In addition, the larger the surface waves induced, the larger the internal waves between water layers of different densities.  These waves, presumably break when they reach shallow water, just as surface waves do,  Except instead of mixing air and water (surface waves) they mix the layers of different densities.  I think it might be a little early to absolve hurricanes of causing accelerated melting.

48738. Tristan at 01:35 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks for the enlightenment! Much appreciated :) Looking forward to your future posts.

48739. Kevin C at 01:32 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Tristan: On the satellite record, I'm afraid that's beyond my expertise. Glenn and Rob have done articles here and here which you may already have seen.

       On coverage, GISS is close enough to global (>98%). The recent BEST memo from Robert Rhode suggests their informal method of extrapolation gives results which are pretty close to optimal. Look for my JMA post later in the week which adds a couple more details, and hopefully a fuller treatment later in the year.

48740. Tristan at 01:19 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Two questions for Kevin

       1) What do you make of the disparities between the RSS, UAH and STAR interpretations of the satellite records? Is some sort of reconciliation in the future or will this be an issue for the foreseeable future?

       2) Do you think we will get satisfactory 100% coverage from GISS any time soon, via more data or better algorithms?

48741. Tristan at 00:35 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I'm lookin forward to Kevin's followup video in 2029 refuting the 'no warming since 2014' claim.

48742. Kevin C at 00:28 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks for the comments!

       John: Real Climate have an update to the F&R results here. By chance I did the same calculation using Foster's released code a couple of weeks back, with the same results.

       HR: I'm slowly working towards producing what I hope to be the best possible estimate of short term trends and their attibution - what you've seen here is just a part of that work. As the uncertainties are narrowed down the underlying trend will probably become more significant, but at the same time any genuine change in trend (which is scientifically interesting) will also become more significant.

       The uncertainty in the volcanic+solar lag term is currently the biggest issue, which is why the 35 year calc is unsatisfactorary. I think I am addressing a real issue with the F&R calc, but I am pretty sure my solution is suboptimal. I can't currently claim with any certainty that my results are closer than theirs.

       However the 2-box model is also unsatisfactorary, because the uncertain human forcings have a far bigger role in determining the response function than the volcanic term. The fact that it gives similar conclusions is reassuring, but inconclusive.

       That's why I think a hybrid method is needed, rather than the 2-box model in it's current form. I'd be very happy if someone else was inspired to look at this.

       In the mean time, I posted 2-box model graphs with just enso subtracted, and with enso+volcano+solar subtracted here which give you some idea of what the plots would look like.

48743. John Brookes at 18:00 PM on 10 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks!  A very nice explanation.  Its easy to see that multivariate linear regression is very much susceptible to abuse, and so the number of variables must be limited to those most likely to effect the result.

       I'm looking forward to the extension of the Foster Ramsdorf graph as the future unfolds.

48744. rockytom at 15:22 PM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       DB, the URL for Dr. Weart's timeline is as follows: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

       Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! Updated link.
48745. mbryson at 13:15 PM on 10 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       I think the problem with XL is the implicit commitment it represents, that we will indeed burn whatever we can extract.  The tar sands are an expensive, dirty source of oil, and even burning all the conventional oil we can extract has devastating implications for our climate and oceans.  Since XL's construction will support continued expansion (and increased profitiability) for the tar sands, it's a step down the wrong path.  Even if all it does is replace other sources of oil in the short run, in the long run it implies burning more fossil fuels rather than beginning the transition to much greater efficiency and a low-carbon energy economy.  

48746. Spencer Weart at 12:36 PM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       Thanks for the reference to my timeline ...It's just been updated to 2012, with links to the full historical discussions.

       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
48747. PhilipR at 10:14 AM on 10 February 2013
       For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
       

       This is truly a wonderful article and a hugely enjoyable set of responses in the comments section. It's refreshing when you live as a foreigner in the United States to see that critical thinking is alive and well elsewhere in the world.

       Which brings me to the bigger problem that I think is the root of the issue both with science in general and climate science in particular. That is the assault upon the impartiality and the credibility of science as a methodology and tool for problem solving. For me the origins of this issue go back to the tobacco 'debate' but I'm sure it's roots go much further. What was done in the name of free speech and the freedom to pursue corporate interests was that the tobacco industry was allowed to call into question the findings of the medical establishment vis a vis lung cancer, stroke, emphysema etc. By commissioning bogus or bad science for the express purpose of contradicting or casting doubt upon legitimate science and redirecting public policy in a direction that was more favorable to the industry. 

       Fast forward to the new millennium and the same successful tactic is rampant across the board for all areas of public policy and science, with the most critical being environmental protection, energy policy and obviously climate science. The honestly dishonest skeptics may be a thorn in your side but the mischief makers: those who are not skeptical at all merely hell bent on destroying the credibility of scientists and arguments that contravene a pre-existing agenda, are the greater issue.

       Conspiracy ideation in relation to lung cancer was created and actively fostered by an industry intent on avoiding regulation. Similar skuldugerry is now so widespread that the term 'astro turf' which is in common parlance describes a fake grass roots movement created solely to oppose genuine social unrest. It's great to be able to find a tool to rebuff the hysterical as well as the commentators, bloggers and climate deniers but these are simply zombies created to cast doubt where no doubt exists, to tie up resources and time in rebuffing what is nonsense and to sap the credibility of those rasing the alarm.

       It's one of the sadder aspects of the present climate debate that those on the side of science and truth hold themselves aloof to conspiracy regarding the other side as simply ignorant and misguided. Whilst they themselves remain hopelessly naive and blind to the real agenda of people who are anything but. 

48748. Jose_X at 09:35 AM on 10 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Dana, thanks for this article. I don't know what are the total long term carbon and environmental costs to starting new infrastructure that Andy Skuce (#16) spoke about for the case of tar sand, but generally your data shows that XL will have a very small negative carbon impact since what counts otherwise are marginal costs (1/700 of total consumption based on your observation).
       
       It seems that whether XL gets added or not is not that important from the global warming perspective. More important is what jyushchyshyn (#1) mentioned about consumers changing habits, but this is only realistic I think if government takes steps like raising taxes, eg, like MartinG (#2) mentioned, in order to cover total costs to society from fuel processing.
       
       See, just like Shell drilling up north, if you give a limited trial offer to industry, give them a bone and an opportunity to prove themselves, and then require that externalities be covered in the costs/tax (and threaten legal action if they screw up), then you can keep that new exploration limited and force safety and efficiency innovation on the part of industry. If industry sees a chance, they have incentive to try and innovate or abandon the effort if it proves too costly. And if pipelines are the most efficient transports, forcing other ways may create more harm than good.
       
       A real victory might be to accept XL conditionally on taxes being raised to help fight global warming costs and other environmental costs. This can be asked of Congress. A precedent can be established to make it easier to later address real costs to all the areas mentioned by Andy Skuce. Allow the pipeline if its full costs are included today -- a future generation carbon defrayal tax -- think of the (great great grand) children!. With higher costs, consumers are more likely to change habits.
       
       We have to keep perspective on XL or we lose people in the middle who can rationalize. XL doesn't seem to add that much harm from a global warming perspective. It can serve as an opportunity to add taxes or gain something else that can have a real positive impact that far exceeds the tiny marginal impact of XL.
       
       And if the XL costs are high in other environmental areas (something being addressed), then that should be the argument.

48749. HumanityRules at 07:22 AM on 10 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks. Sorry I know people always want more. Since the Ramsdorf method was publshed I've been curious what the longer term data looked like. Fig 4 is interesting but is there any chance you can show the breakdown of the different forcings that go into making that, similar to Fig2 for the shorter time period. I'm curious what the long run of La Nina in the mid-20th century are doing and what the anthro contribution over the whole century looks like.

       Cheers

48750. Bob Loblaw at 01:58 AM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       Shoyemore:

       Slightly before Manabe and Wetherald (1967) came Manabe and Strickler (1964). The '64 model assumed constant absolute humidity for its scenarios, whereas the '67 paper used relative humidity.

       What I think is a free version of the '67 paper is here.

       Ditto for the '64 paper here (abstract at the journal, but there is a link to the PDF that doesn't seem to be paywalled).

       Moderator Response: [DB] Updated the link to the 1967 paper to an openly-available copy.

Prev  967  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  Next