Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 Next
Comments 63401 to 63450:
-
scaddenp at 10:56 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
And with reference to last decade - La Nino's have dominated since 2005. Now what climate science expects is that when natural factors go positive then global temperatures will steadily rise again. If they dont, then climate science needs fixing. On the other hand, if they do will that be enough to change your mind? -
funglestrumpet at 10:51 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
We must make sure that all of Monckton’s misrepresentations are properly documented in the event that the authorities decide to prosecute him for deliberately trying to thwart attempts to combat climate change. He can have no defence regarding the potential dangers seeing as he is not a scientist and his views are in direct conflict with those of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, as this post clearly gives some evidence of. When the public eventually catches up with the risks that Monckton is exposing their children and grand-children too, I imagine he might be glad to be safely locked away. Can there be any doubt regarding the need to ditch the idea of hereditary peerages? It is a mystery to me that someone can be ennobled just because some dim, distant ancestor pissed up the same tree as the king. Even offering to hold it for him hardly qualifies. -
Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
neil - To repeat a post from another thread (as it's even more appropriate here): That is not the case. As long as there is an energy imbalance at the TOA, as long as the oceans in particular are in thermal disequilibrium, there is "warming in the pipeline", or as I prefer to term it, unrealized warming. This is only made worse by the increasing greenhouse gas forcings we are putting out. To quote Galileo, ""Eppur si muove. When the energy content of the climate stops moving, attains long term averaged equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere, then we can state that there is no longer "warming in the pipeline". Not before. If we were to stop emissions tomorrow, there will still be decades of warming before the TOA imbalance is addressed - simply due to thermal inertia. -
skywatcher at 10:37 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn, as stated by many before, with copious references, you can't have it both ways. Climate responds to forcings. A strong MWP either requires a large forcing comparable to today (not apparent from the Sun in the Steinhilber et al 2009 graph that Svalgaard uses, or in Delaygue et al 2010) or it needs high climate sensitivity to a period where solar activity was respectable for an extended period of time and volcanic activity was relatively low. If you don't see this extremely simple physical logic, there's little reason in discussing it with you. Do you have a hitherto unseen large forcing? If you want low climate sensitivity you need one, or you need to forget the MWP being a large global event. Add to that all the other geological and historical evidence for climate sensitivity somewhere around 3C per doubling (Hegerl et al 2006; Knutti and Hegerl 2008), and the argument becomes ridiculous. It is indeed, as muoncounter eloquently puts it, "the pseudoskeptic's dilemma" -
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
"So ENSO is not the explanation for the last decade stasis in surface temperatures" Foster and Rahmsdorff however show quantitatively that combination of ENSO, Solar and aerosol are sufficient to explain the observations. You dont like the method but so far I dont see are sensible critique of thus other than you dont like their results. -
skywatcher at 10:14 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
#65 paulhtremblay - perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections. The variations of the past millennium do provide us with some indications of climate sensitivity, but they still rule out very low values, and don't rule out values high enough to be really scared of (Hegerl's 5-95% is 1.5-6.2C per doubling). A more bent hockey stick will probably increase Hegerl's 5% boundary. Though the MWP and LIA were dominantly regional events, they were strong enough and widespread to have some effect on global temperature, even if it was only 0.3C here and there. BTW, is Adam actually Monckton in disguise? He's Gish Galloping with the best of them! -
Tristan at 10:12 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
The deletion of all poptech's posts was unintentional. He had been allowed 250+ posts till that point and given a lot of opportunity to make a coherent argument. When an attempt to delete one post deleted all of them he probably should have been notified of the mistake. That said, all they showed was that after a pointless exercise in rhetoric he admitted that his definition of peer-reviewed meant 'something that someone could review'. -
neil at 10:00 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Rob: I think you should be more clear about what you mean about "warming in the pipeline". If you are talking about surface warming, there is a serious problem in the central argument presented here. I think you are confused by the difference between a "constant composition" atmosphere (which has warming in the pipeline), and the case of warming based on past emissions (for which there is no warming in the pipeline). This is common mistaken even among climate scientists. We are NOT committed to any surface warming from past emissions. As a thought (or climate modelling) experiment, imagine emissions went to zero tomorrow - would the world keep on warming? The answer is no. The ocean would absorb CO2 out the atmosphere, drawing down the radiative forcing over time. The heat from the radiative forcing of the 'excess' CO2 still in the atmosphere is also almost completely absorbed by the ocean. Thus no further surface warming occurs. Of course the (deep) ocean does warm and expand. But don't believe me, look at the Damon and Weaver paper clarifying this misconception: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo813.html -
paulhtremblay at 09:51 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam:"But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low." That is incorrect. First, the MWP was not global, so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity. If you believe otherwise, can you please be specific? -
Ken Lambert at 09:38 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
DM & CBD DM "There is no need to invoke some unknown ocean circulation as ENSO already does a good job" According to Fig 3 there have been 6 La Ninas and many 'other' ENSO cycles since 1975. The effect is supposed to be neutral on the overall warming imbalance. So ENSO is not the explanation for the last decade stasis in surface temperatures. CBD "The answer to your original question thus continues to be that these aerosol effects are not "taken out" because they cannot be quantified precisely enough to do so." It seems that when a tough question is posed - the resort is to "we can't accurately measure this". If that is the case then confident predictions of the magnitude of the warming imbalance can't be made either. -
Dean at 09:32 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Loeb et al's paper is quite new so we'll see how it holds up. I think one should note that the error bars given applies only to this work. If you do a meta-analysis of more papers on the subject, you get different combined error bars. Interestingly, Trenberth has given some critical comments of the paper as referred by science journalist David Appell. -
scaddenp at 09:28 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I believe poptart's posts were deleted by mistake actually. A shame because they were very revealing - including the admission that no conceivable data could convince him that climate science was right. However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. However, the challenge is the same as for CO2"science" - find something that you find convincing - any paper on that list - and then discuss it on the appropriate thread -
paulhtremblay at 09:15 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
>>Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles. Good grief! None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. Look at the actual thread presented here at SS. Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech, which does nothing to address the outright fabrication of poptech's claims. Adam, you are continually engaging in a moving target argument. You were asked to bring up one paper from CO2 science to bolster your claim that the MWP was global. You have not done so. Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way. Stop dodging and filling up these boards with BS.Moderator Response: [JH] Please use "SkS' when referring to Skeptical Science. -
A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
dhogaza - You are correct, Monckton has on occasion made truthful statements. I will therefore qualify my comment to: Monckton has yet to make a single supportable statement on contradiction to established climate science. Adam - It's quite clear that Huang's data and conclusions do not support Monckton's statements. I am glad to see that you understand that; he should not have claimed that Huang supported his presentation. Again, Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect) - hence he has the burden of proof. Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable? In the meantime, folks, DNFTT. -
dhogaza at 09:00 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: "If you believe that I was wrong on the subject of the ice sheets, please provide me one peer reviewed paper providing credible evidence that the the Greenland ice sheet will completely disappear within the next 100 years. I have seen zero evidence for the idea that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in the near future. Therefore I stand by my statement that the science is clear on it. Once again, if you think I am wrong please provide a peer reviewed study supporting the claims that were made in AIT about sea level rise due to the collapse of the ice sheets." Once again, Adam makes a strawman claim that was not made by AIT ("next 100 years" "near future"). How often does he get to repeat this falsehood? -
dhogaza at 08:57 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: "Might I remind you that I gave a list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting the arguments made by skeptics." It's obvious you've not taken a look, because the list includes many things that aren't peer reviewed papers in any scholarly sense (poptech has his own definition). But I see I've fallen prey to Adam's attempt to hijack the thread rather than deal with the original post ... So I shall shut up now :) -
Tony O at 08:57 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Even if a great die off is inevitable, I would rather put it off as long as possible. Perhaps it is not yet certain, but as a society we seem to want to ensure our doom. One in six just not good enough odds, we are filling up chamber after chamber before we play. Is that Darwin award really so important. -
saltspringson at 08:54 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
From the abstract: "We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50 +/- 0.43 Wm-2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean." The following is a commentary from William M. Briggs at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5105 - "Most curiously, the authors choose the “90% confidence interval” instead of the usual 95%. Why? Skip the discussion of the meaninglessness of confidence intervals and interpret this interval in its Bayesian sense. Then this means that the coefficient of the regression associated with time is estimated at 0.5 W-2 with a 90% chance of being anywhere in the interval 0.07 to 0.93 Wm-2. This is an unobservable coefficient in a model, mind. It is not an amount of “energy.” To get to the actual energy, we’d have to integrate out the uncertainty we have in the coefficients." -
dhogaza at 08:53 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: "Not only that, but as Andrew (Poptech) has pointed out, every single comment he has ever written on skeptical science has been deleted. Care to explain that away?" He was allowed to post here for quite a long time. He would attempt to hijack every thread with his personal agenda. I'm not a moderator and do not know exactly what happened, but the moderators here are quite clear that refusal to follow the posting guidelines clearly stated here will lead to one's being kicked out. He refused to follow posting guidelines. What's to explain away? You visit John Cook's house, you follow John Cook's house rules. If he asks you to quit traipsing about the carpets with your muddy boots and you refuse, he's perfectly justified in showing you the door. -
dhogaza at 08:49 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
KR: "Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water? " I can think of one, i.e. his argument that mocking his appearance because he has Graves' disease is unkind and insensitive. Though in making that argument he is guilting of throwing stones from a very glassy house, given his track record. Still, the bug-eyed fella's right, it is unkind and insensitive :) -
muoncounter at 08:46 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
What about Door#3, as shown in the Intermediate version of this rebuttal? Perhaps the MWP wasn't really a global warm period after all. That solves the problem of a less-than-stunning TSI increase (from your Svalgaard slides), without upsetting the cherished 'climate sensitivity is low' meme. All you need to do is accept that what some call a global 'MWP' should really be a very local 'MCA.' But that would mean 'it's not about the hockey stick.' Maybe this is why many pseudo-skeptics don't like it when their arguments are held to the standard of logical consistency. -
Adam at 08:37 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Chris, 29 I've had a look at Huang's 2008 paper, and I agree with you that their 1997 paper was not the best choice of study to include as evidence of a MWP. Although I do not believe that there was anything nefarious about Monckton including it in his talk. It was probably just an honest mistake. And might I once again point out that it is only one paper. Monckton showed graphs from eight other studies showing MWP temps were the same/higher than today. You can't just pick out one single study from his talk, and then just act like everything he said was wrong. And might I also point out in their 2008 paper, they clearly state Holocene temps were warmer than today (which Abraham left out of his presentation) Also, in Hunag's 2008 paper, they are vague about what data they are using for 20th century temps. It's likely surface data was spliced onto the graph, although I don't know for sure. But nowhere in their paper do they mention satellite data over the past three decades,, which show less warming than the other datasets. They state that “the maximum of the MWP is at or slightly below the reference level”. However, their conclusion might have changed if they had chosen to use satellite temps in their study. Tom Curtis, 42 “Because an adequate rebuttal already existed in the form of his pre-existing presentation (duh). “ Might I once again ask if you have actually read Monckton's reply to Abraham? Chris, 43 “he asserted (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists supported the interpretation that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures. “ He was referring to the Co2science MWP project. “The pictures he showed to accompany this assertion turn out not to support it at all. In fact in the case of Huang's borehole data that include much of the 20th century, the latter indicate that that current temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.” Read my paragraph above. Jmurphy, 44 “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality. You have shown your true colours and I'm sure Monckton would be proud of your dissembling. “ Jmurphy have you read Monckton's reply? He gives numerous examples of Abraham misrepresenting his arguments, when contacting the scientists. Read questions 66 -77 (page 12) Abraham makes out Monckton had misrepresented the work of a paper showing 4 polar bears died in a storm. Yet Monckton clearly stated what that paper said accurately and, didn't even mention any possible predictions regarding polar bears. “77: Though you say, “Chris Monckton doesn’t agree with that author, even though he used the citation in his presentation” (15), is it not in fact correct that I correctly reported what the authors said about the cause of death of the four polar bears, and that I did not even mention, still less attempt in any way to challenge, the prediction by them that you say I disagree with? Again, are you bearing in mind the difference between the evidence that I relied upon in Dr. Monnett’s paper and the predictions that he made. It is on the evidence that I spoke, not on the predictions. Would you not agree with me that there are too many predictions in climate science today, and not enough in the way of evidence to give those predictions some real-world credibility.” On Pages 13 – 15 Abraham claims that Monckton misrepresented the work of Barber et al, 2009. Yet, as Monckton pointed out in his reply (Q.84), he didn't even mention Barbers paper in his talk. On page 15 Abraham claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Norris and Rosenstrato. Even though as Monckton pointed out, their graph did indeed show polar bear populations increasing He claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Dr Keigwin. He provides no evidence for this. In Abraham's email he didn't even mention the MWP. He claims Monckton misrepresented Caillon 2002. Yet as Monckton pointed out he didn't even mention that paper. There are numerous examples of Abraham misleading authors throughout the whole rebuttal. (And might I once again point out Abraham has not responded to the letter) So your claim that “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality.” is false. And you would know this if you had actually read Monckton's reply. Dhogaza, 45 “Oh, we know all about poptech, alright: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=poptech&x=0&y=0”Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles. Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science Not only that, but as Andrew (Poptech) has pointed out, every single comment he has ever written on skeptical science has been deleted. Care to explain that away?“Right, he didn't give a timeframe, therefore Monckton's lying when he suggest he did.” Did Al Gore state that the ice sheets weren't going to disappear for a millenia? Like I said before, the fact that he showed those images clearly implied that the 6 metre sea level rise was going to be happening in the near future. “A strong Medieval Warm Period = HIGH climate sensitivity. “ Please provide one peer reviewed paper supporting that assertion? But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low. Chriskoz, 49 “You are clearly dilluting any depth of arguments here and running into Monckton gish-gallop, as emphasized text indicates.” Read the numerous examples I gave above of Abraham's misleading claims. Owl905, 51 “Adam droned at 40: "Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future." You still get the target wrong; and you try the same Monctonite spin where a nearby revision is true (even when untrue)... so the original wrong is right. It's a pathetic attempt to defend your original error. AR4 gave no timeframe and no forecast of complete meltdown. Your claim of clear science is false, and your vague context is useless.” If you believe that I was wrong on the subject of the ice sheets, please provide me one peer reviewed paper providing credible evidence that the the Greenland ice sheet will completely disappear within the next 100 years. I have seen zero evidence for the idea that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in the near future. Therefore I stand by my statement that the science is clear on it. Once again, if you think I am wrong please provide a peer reviewed study supporting the claims that were made in AIT about sea level rise due to the collapse of the ice sheets. Phillipe Chantreau, 53 “That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. “ KR, 55 “The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable. “ Might I remind you that I gave a list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting the arguments made by skeptics.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The next time one of your posts contains a complaint regarding moderation, the whole post will be delete, rather than edited as I have just done. This is your final warning on this subject. -
Camburn at 08:05 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
scaddenp@7: "The theory is worthy of Doug Cotton." Are you sure? There may be something to the gravity dino theory...........maybe..... It prob has more credence than Mr. Cotton's theory, however......ok....a toss up? -
scaddenp at 07:56 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
I'm with JP40 - this is the silliest idea I have heard for a while. It demonstrates why you have to do the math instead of just hand-waving. The theory is worthy of Doug Cotton. -
owl905 at 07:39 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
The Gravity Theory does not, nor did it intend to, explain all extinctions - it would clearly fail on most of them including the present extinction. It's focused on the KTX boundary with a possible extension to the PTX. There's two Razors against the idea. First, the continental arrangement was already dispersing - in the context of the theory, Earth's 'balance' was increasing. Second, a bollide the mass of Mt. Everest hit a shallow sea&swamp full of calcium carbonate at exactly the same time as the biosphere effectively disappears. On the lengths of a globe that rotates: 233K pdf of Earth's Rotation Evolution -
Camburn at 07:34 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
So as shown in my post 92 it is very obvious that TSI was not a factor of the temps of the MWP. Hence, I have no clue what the sensativity is/was as I have not seen a good demonstration of either high nor low. So, there is no condrum as far as being skeptical concerning the MWP. I would however, really like to understand why it was warm during that time verses the years prior and after. -
Camburn at 07:14 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Look at slide 7 of Dr. Svalgaards presentation. It shows TSI variability verses temperature reconstructions of the period includeing the MWP. Note that the correlation between TSI reconstruction and temperature in the proxy data is very very poor. Slide 7 on TSI verses temperature in proxy data -
JP40 at 06:59 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Whoever came up with that theory must not know much about basic physics and geology. The idea that the extra gravity of the continents coming together would make it impossible for large animals to survive is frankly ridiculous. Since, compared to the rest of the earth, the mass of the continental plates is very small. The other half of the theory suggests that less gravity on the ocean would create less water pressure on the frozen methane on the ocean floor. In principle, this is slightly less silly because it is talking about a particular compound, methane-hydrate, breaking down, instead of animals, which would easily adapt to such a small change. However, it seems that the grouping of the continents on the opposite side of the world would increase the gravity, but again, an insignificant amount. -
Riccardo at 06:54 AM on 20 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
Chuck Kutscher I think you can safely ignore this Pierre Gosselin, there's really nothing worth our time in his "rebuttal". The wording of the title (armageddonist, alarmism) already shows the ascientific nature of his rambling and the propaganda-based style. Let's ignore him. -
les at 06:50 AM on 20 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
Frankly, I'd like to see that presentation - inverted. Rather than showing the distortion then the facts, show the facts then the dustortions. The community spends far to much time explaining the errors in what TVMOB, Watt$, McIntyre and the other stooges say - and to little time exposing their corruption. -
dorlomin at 06:33 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Is that just spam for a book? -
muoncounter at 06:26 AM on 20 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
ChuckK: Not to worry. Gosselin's very first point is already false: “Well-heeled misinformation campaign.” That’s bogus. Most of the doubt arises from privately run blogs with little or no money (Climate Audit, WUWT, etc.) Apparently Mr. Gosselin cannot spell H-e-a-r-t-l-a-n-d. After that oops, why bother reading any further? -
muoncounter at 06:16 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn#88: "it adds the measaured at the end of the graph" That adds nothing to the 'uncertainty of the graph,' whatever that means. Have a look at it - the instrumental follows the proxy reconstruction exceedingly well. #89: Your cited TSI reconstruction (data file) appears to be Delaygue et al 2010. The values given are for top of atmosphere, showing on the order of 1365 W/m^2. Score: MWP 1365.24, most recent value (1982) 1365.13; that's a tie within the expected uncertainty. Thus it remains: if you want the MWP to be warmer than today, you must have high climate sensitivity. If you want low climate sensitivity, you must accept a cooler-than-current MWP. This could become known as 'the pseudo-skeptic's dilemma'. -
scaddenp at 06:12 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
And it has to be recognised that uncertainty could be either way. The fact remains that the actual evidence to date from multiple source supports current climate theory. -
Staten-John at 06:05 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
A new theory is able to explain the underlying cause for almost all mass extinctions. To view a summary of this theory go to www.dinoextinct.com and click on 'The Gravity Theory Of Mass Extinction.' -
garethman at 06:01 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
KR, to be honest I’m not aware of anything Monckton has said which holds water, however, I’m sure he must get something right sometime, even if it’s just his name , if not his title. To be honest I am also influenced by his hard right wing politics which seem to undermine much of his philosophy, a stance I find distasteful. It’s a bit like believing all snowflakes are different, I believe it, but to be honest I have never checked. -
skept.fr at 05:44 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
#17 Sphaerica : "Once again, we are simply dealing with too short a time frame to view an accurate trend" That's unclear. Taking account of (nearly) all the heat content in the climate system is supposed to avoid the bias of short term surface temperatures. The question precisely adressed here is the current energy imbalance in the system, not what it will be in the future nor what it was in the past. If Loeb et al central estimate was correct, then Giss Model central estimate would be uncorrect, but for different possible reasons (for example, underestimation of aerosols, overestimation of fast / transitory feedbacks, etc.). But IMO this kind of work is still too imprecise to draw conclusion, the 95-99% confidence interval for Loeb et al would be even more large. So we're still in the "travesty" denounced by Trenberth, we know exactly what we would like to quantify very precisely, but we've not the instruments enough precise for this task. -
Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
KBow - Two major issues with hydrogen: - It takes a lot of energy to produce it. - It's horrible to store; very low density, requires either cryogenics ($$$, short term), high pressure tanks ($$, material embrittlement, still low density), or chemical binding (another energy cost/loss). Your 'gas' tank in the car would be absolutely huge. Much more effective to produce something that is a liquid at room temperatures, reasonably energy dense (within an order of magnitude of gasoline, for example), and storable. Something like an organic alcohol... -
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken Lambert - "There is no 'warming in the pipeline' in energy terms." That is not the case. As long as there is an energy imbalance at the TOA, as long as the oceans in particular are in thermal disequilibrium, there is "warming in the pipeline", or as I prefer to term it, unrealized warming. This is only made worse by the increasing greenhouse gas forcings we are putting out. To quote Galileo, Eppur si muove. When the energy content of the climate stops moving, attains long term averaged equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere, then we can state that there is no longer "warming in the pipeline". Not before. -
ChuckK at 05:22 AM on 20 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
I found that a blogger by the name of Pierre Gosselin posted rebuttals to my presentation. See Blogger Rebuttal He indicates that he is an American with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, works in Germany and has an interest in meteorology. I honestly did not find his rebuttals helpful in improving my presentation. For example, there were the typical attack on Mann's work and a reference to urban heat island effects. Both have been thoroughly addressed in the peer-reviewed literature and yet continue to crop up on skeptic sites. Similarly, the fact that the sun is not the culprit has been proven in many peer-reviewed journal articles. There were also the personal attacks and name-calling: questioning how I ever got my Ph.D. (for the record, a portion of my dissertation work was published in the respected, peer-reviewed ASME Journal of Heat Transfer) and calling me an "armageddonist." I guess that's stronger than "alarmist." (He also called me "slippery." ) I will continue to point out to people that if you call attention to something that is genuinely alarming, then you're not an "alarmist." Further, my research work and most of my presentations focus on solutions, so while "doom and gloom" makes for a nice label, it's not representative of my position. I believe that a combination of renewable energy, nuclear power, and land use changes can help us avoid the worst effects of global warming, and I was a co-author of a peer-reviewed journal article (in Environmental Science and Technology) along with Jim Hansen and two others describing the various solutions. I only put together the rebuttal to skeptic arguments in response to a special request by our local state legislature representative. Mr. Gosselin also refers to my presentation as "populist." I think that's fair. I was presenting to a general audience, and I believe it's important that we present the science in a way that is both accurate and understandable. I welcome any suggestions on how to better and more accurately present my points from unbiased viewers who understand climate science. I continue to find John's Skeptical Science web site extremely valuable in that regard. Regards, Chuck Kutscher -
Bob Lacatena at 05:06 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Actually, on second thought, I may have that backwards. A preponderance of La Niña events should result in a greater imbalance (less OLR)... unless the cumulative, global, radiative effects of ENSO events are counter-intuitive (i.e. colder surface/atmosphere does not mean less radiated energy). -
A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
garethman - That was an interesting post on your part. Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water? The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable. -
PhilMorris at 05:05 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Sphaerica@17 Corrected link for 'glance at the MEI shows this' glance at the MEI shows this -
Camburn at 05:02 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
muoncounter: Steinhilber et al 2009 does not agree with this reconstruction. TSI done in 2010 verses Steinhilber et al 2009. It has to be recognized that the uncertainties of Be10 based reconstructions are quite large, 10%, as written in the 2010 reconstruction.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Fixed link -
Camburn at 04:43 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Muoncounter: The uncertainty of the Mann etal graph being it adds the measaured at the end of the graph requires one to understand that the graph really doesn't prove anything one way or the other. As far as sensativity, I will check the credibility of Steinhilber et al 2009, as there have been several reconstructions of TSI published after 2009. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:25 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
18, Camburn,I am not convinced that ENSO is not a climate driver.
Please provide any reference whatsoever to any even remotely viable mechanism whereby ENSO can be a "climate driver." -
owl905 at 04:22 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
The continental context is sketched here: Late Permian Worldmap The research highlights the Great Extinction Puzzle - a jigsaw of repeated extinction waves - local, regional, and global, over a very long geological period. About a decade ago, research in the Roo, South Africa, identified three great extinctions over a period of a million years. New species webs established themselves after each of the first two waves. Another note from the research is the sponge die-off 100ky earlier - side-by-side with the end of the trilobites. The 10million-year interval to the Triassic - The Gap - featured lots of fungi, produced almost no coal beds from plant life, and the land fossil-record is littered with a single pig-like creature - Lystrosaurus. The event should called The Great Warning. -
muoncounter at 04:08 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn#86: "If you think that the MWP proves a high climate sensativty, that is fine. I have not read proof of that... " The contention, so popular among the so-called skeptics, that the 'MWP' was warmer than today requires high sensitivity. But so-called skeptics insist on low sensitivity; they simply want to have it both ways. To understand the high sensitivity requirement, first note that this post demonstrates that forcing for medieval warming was dominantly solar. Steinhilber et al 2009 reconstruct that forcing (data here). Their max for ~1000 years BP is a short-lived differential of 0.39 W/m^2. On the graph shown here, the 'MWP' represents global warming of ~0.3C. It would take at least another 0.3C to inflate the MWP peak above today's warming. That's more than 0.6C from solar forcing alone, suggesting a sensitivity on the order of 1.5 degree/Wm^2. Looking here, sensitivity is calculated from glacial/interglacial stages as 0.7 degree/Wm^2. You can't have it both ways. A warmer-than-present MWP means higher sensitivity - and that is bad news, both for pseudo-skeptic arguments and for the rest of us. -
garethman at 03:44 AM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
While I recognise that a doom scenario over hundreds of thousands of years is ultimately as bad as one that happens in a hundred years, does not the vast time space of hundreds of thousands of years give us more chance to do something constructive? After all we as widespread species have not been around for that length of time. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:22 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
see belowModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest that we ignore Adam until he has given an adequate response to the Huang issue? Adam asked for specific examples where Abraham was right and Monckton wrong in his reply; this was only one of them, but it is clear and unambiguous and there are references that allow the truth to be determined. If Adam is a genuine skeptic he will investigate the issue and report back, if not, then it is an indication that the science is not the issue, in which case we should not allow the discussion to be hijacked.
Prev 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 Next
