Page 23 of 161 FirstFirst ... 131920212223242526273373123 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 4001
  1. #551
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I haven't read the paper in question yet but the idea that clouds cause the ENSO is not supported in the least. Dr. Dessler puts it really polietly in this post but thats the kind of thinking behind of those who don't acknowledge AGW.

    I have a paper in this week’s issue of Science on the cloud feedback that may be of interest to realclimate readers. As you may know, clouds are important regulators of the amount of energy in and out of the climate system. Clouds both reflect sunlight back to space and a trap infrared radiation and keep it from escaping the space. Changes in clouds can therefore have profound impacts on our climate.

    A positive cloud feedback loop posits a scenario whereby an initial warming of the planet, caused, for example, by increases in greenhouse gases, causes clouds to trap more energy and lead to further warming. Such a process amplifies the direct heating by greenhouse gases. Models have been long predicted this, but testing the models has proved difficult.

    Making the issue even more contentious, some of the more credible skeptics out there (e.g., Lindzen, Spencer) have been arguing that clouds behave quite differently from that predicted by models. In fact, they argue, clouds will stabilize the climate and prevent climate change from occurring (i.e., clouds will provide a negative feedback).

    In my new paper, I calculate the energy trapped by clouds and observe how it varies as the climate warms and cools during El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles. I find that, as the climate warms, clouds trap an additional 0.54±0.74W/m2 for every degree of warming. Thus, the cloud feedback is likely positive, but I cannot rule out a slight negative feedback.

    It is important to note that while a slight negative feedback cannot be ruled out, the data do not support a negative feedback large enough to substantially cancel the well-established positive feedbacks, such as water vapor, as Lindzen and Spencer would argue.

    I have also compared the results to climate models. Taken as a group, the models substantially reproduce the observations. This increases my confidence that the models are accurately simulating the variations of clouds with climate change.

    Obviously, climate skeptics are quite upset with my results. Dr. Roy Spencer, for example, has been criticizing my paper on his blog. Dr. Spencer’s argument is, as he wrote in an e-mail to Dr. Richard Kerr of Science:

    Andy’s study assumes that all co-variations between clouds and temperature are due to feedback, when in fact they are a mixture of feedback and “internal forcing” (natural cloud fluctuation causing temperature changes).
    Now, Andy DOES at least raise this as a possibility, referencing our (Spencer & Braswell) 2010 JGR paper on the subject (his ref. #26). But he then claims that since (1) ENSO is the main source of climate variability during 2000-2010, and since (2) no one has demonstrated that ENSO is in any way caused by cloud changes, that our cause-versus-effect claim does not apply to the 2000-2010 time period.
    His second claim is incorrect.
    As Fig. 4a in our paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...l-JGR-2010.pdf ) shows, the major 2007-08 La Nina event shows the characteristic looping pattern in temperature-versus-radiative flux data that results from clouds causing temperature changes

    In other words, Dr. Spencer is arguing that clouds are causing ENSO cycles, so the direction of causality in my analysis is incorrect and my conclusions are in error.

    After reading this, I initiated a cordial and useful exchange of e-mails with Dr. Spencer (you can read the full e-mail exchange here). We ultimately agreed that the fundamental disagreement between us is over what causes ENSO. Short paraphrase:

    Spencer: ENSO is caused by clouds. You cannot infer the response of clouds to surface temperature in such a situation.

    Dessler: ENSO is not caused by clouds, but is driven by internal dynamics of the ocean-atmosphere system. Clouds may amplify the warming, and that’s the cloud feedback I’m trying to measure.

    My position is the mainstream one, backed up by decades of research. This mainstream theory is quite successful at simulating almost all of the aspects of ENSO.

    Dr. Spencer, on the other hand, is as far out of the mainstream when it comes to ENSO as he is when it comes to climate change. He is advancing here a completely new and untested theory of ENSO — based on just one figure in one of his papers (and, as I told him in one of our e-mails, there are other interpretations of those data that do not agree with his interpretation).
    Thus, the burden of proof is Dr. Spencer to show that his theory of causality during ENSO is correct. He is, at present, far from meeting that burden. And until Dr. Spencer satisfies this burden, I don’t think anyone can take his criticisms seriously.
    It’s also worth noting that the picture I’m painting of our disagreement (and backed up by the e-mail exchange linked above) is quite different from the picture provided by Dr. Spencer on his blog. His blog is full of conspiracies and purposeful suppression of the truth. In particular, he accuses me of ignoring his work. But as you can see, I have not ignored it — I have dismissed it because I think it has no merit. That’s quite different.

    I would also like to respond to his accusation that the timing of the paper is somehow connected to the IPCC’s meeting in Cancun. I can assure everyone that no one pressured me in any aspect of the publication of this paper. As Dr. Spencer knows well, authors have no control over when a paper ultimately gets published.

    And as far as my interest in influencing the policy debate goes, I’ll just say that I’m in College Station this week, while Dr. Spencer is in Cancun. In fact, Dr. Spencer had a press conference in Cancun — about my paper. I didn’t have a press conference about my paper. Draw your own conclusion.

    I hope that this post has explained my work and cleared up exactly what my disagreement with Dr. Spencer is. If interested readers do some basic research on the causes of ENSO, I’m confident they will agree with me that my interpretation of the data is sound.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ack/#more-5676
    MannyIsGod is offline

  2. #552
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,714
    I walked the earth in the 1960s and now and it has gotten warmer here in the northeast. Less major snowstorms and warmer winters. No denying that it is not happening but how much influence man has on it is another argument. Natural events Solar activity, natural warming trend since the ice age- temps swing back and forth through the eras) are more powerful than man but man has some influence.

    There is too much evidence to support that global warming is happening. Warmer recorded temps worldwide and melting of icecaps. I don't know why people still want to deny that it is happening.
    rascal is online now

  3. #553
    The Show Must Go On TE's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    14,689
    Climate change is just a part of the earth's cycle. It has been shown, through research, that the Earth once went through climate change. Surely, if it is a cycle, it will occur again. Which points to what is occurring right now.
    TE is offline

  4. #554
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Now you are taking the typical liberal view. The claimed victim cannot be talked about.

    I'm not blaming the victim. I am stating facts. the area between two distinct climates will have dramatic changes. There is no normal. It isn't called "sahel" for no reason.

    wiki: Sahel

    Dramatic changes are normal.
    Fair enough.

    I will have to admit my thoughts on the article were not too far from yours. It seemed a bit of a stretch, but I thought it would be interesting to tweak your sensibilities a bit by playing devil's advocate.

    People shouldn't try to farm in marginal areas, unless they are really desperate, and the five year variation talked about in the article is really not a very large data set to draw any meaningful conclusions about climate change for any given area.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #555
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Climate change is just a part of the earth's cycle. It has been shown, through research, that the Earth once went through climate change. Surely, if it is a cycle, it will occur again. Which points to what is occurring right now.
    Indeed. The question we need to get a grip on is how much humans are affecting that natural change.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #556
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I haven't read the paper in question yet but the idea that clouds cause the ENSO is not supported in the least. Dr. Dessler puts it really polietly in this post but thats the kind of thinking behind of those who don't acknowledge AGW.



    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ack/#more-5676
    Interesting, and illustrative.

    It also supports the position I took in the OP. Many deniers are great at picking apart the minutae of things they disagree with, but, like many conspiracy theorists, when you ask them to support their own assertions, they deflect.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #557
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I walked the earth in the 1960s and now and it has gotten warmer here in the northeast. Less major snowstorms and warmer winters. No denying that it is not happening but how much influence man has on it is another argument. Natural events Solar activity, natural warming trend since the ice age- temps swing back and forth through the eras) are more powerful than man but man has some influence.

    There is too much evidence to support that global warming is happening. Warmer recorded temps worldwide and melting of icecaps. I don't know why people still want to deny that it is happening.

    No one denies that global warming and global cooling happen, i.e. climate changes, it's just that one group seems to think that the climate change of the past century is somehow unprecedented. To me, that group denies that "climate change" is the norm. They are the climate change "deniers".
    DarrinS is offline

  8. #558
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Interesting, and illustrative.

    It also supports the position I took in the OP. Many deniers are great at picking apart the minutae of things they disagree with, but, like many conspiracy theorists, when you ask them to support their own assertions, they deflect.

    Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

    In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see".
    DarrinS is offline

  9. #559
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

    In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see".
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #560
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


    DarrinS is offline

  11. #561
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #562
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    I think the real question here is:

    RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?
    johnsmith is offline

  13. #563
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I think the real question here is:

    RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?


    Because rationalwiki said so.
    DarrinS is offline

  14. #564
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

    In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see".
    Childish smiley snit-fits aside, it seems like a case of differing opinions.

    If some genuine climate scientists want to weigh in for non-doomsday scenarios, that is fine with me. I have no ideological iron in the fire, or any axe to grind. I would breath a huge sigh of relief were the people to study it come to think the worst is really improbable, and that we aren't having much effect.

    The point that Mr. Dessler made about him not grandstanding and Mr. Spencer doing precisely that still stands, whatever you think of their respective positions.

    (shrugs)

    Even if we come to the conclusion that massive CO2 emissions are not going to harm us, we still face the certain depletion scenarios for coal/gas/oil, and the price rises that will accompany that.

    Investing today in energy sources that don't depend on these forms of energy is still a no-brainer, simply because it will make us far more compe ive down the road, and energy is still relatively cheap, compared to what it will be in the future.

    The sooner we start down the road to adapting to that, the better.


    (edit)
    To be clear:
    I was calling my own responses to Darrin's posts childish. Simply dismissing something someone posts with nothing more than a cliche'd smiley is exactly that.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-10-2010 at 09:08 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #565
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I think the real question here is:

    RandmGuy, why do you think climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience?
    Because many of the people who hold very firm beliefs concerning greenhouse gases and man's effect on our climate do so out of political motivations, i.e. knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

    Sewn into the fabric of this belief are conspiracy theories that posit that the entire community of climate scientists who hold the opinion that man is affecting the climate with our activities are only doing so out of self-interest or naked grabs for power.

    I think that because I have looked into a lot of source links provided by Wild Cobra over the years of arguing about this, and found that much of what gets put forth as "evidence" is either wrong, illogical, and sometimes outright deceitful.

    I have listed some of this earlier in the thread.

    Darrin's assertion aside, I came to this realization long before reading rationalwiki. That others have reached similar conclusions concerning what I call the "denier" movement was used by me as support for my own position.

    Darrin's particular scorecard in this thread reinforces the premise of the OP, and is why I have been studiously keeping track.
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #566
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


    An excellent example of cherry-picking data, a mildly dishonest way of making a point. Exactly the kind of thing that people who believe in pseudo-science do all the time.

    You selected the narrow range of data that supports your position, while ignoring the more relevant larger data set that doesn't.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #567
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Because rationalwiki said so.
    By the way, this chalks up your tenth logical fallacy, a strawman logical fallacy, in which you distort what I think to make your point.
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #568
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Those conspiracy theorists, Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. Conspiracy theorist, John Christy, was a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report (which you seem to love using as the utmost authority on the subject). He is very critical of scientists who makes doomsday predictions about climate change.

    In and interview, Christy said: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see".
    I'm well aware of John Spencer's work which proves the earth is warming. You know, the same work that you ignore even though you're trying to bring it up now?

    I will say this about Christy. He's right to question doomsday scenarios. This isn't a bad movie and its not going to play out that way. You should also know that he says it is impossible that humanity has not affected the climate which is a position you dismiss daily.

    You pick and choose what you want from these men, Darrin.

    Its his cloud ideas that have little to no merit. I would love to see the proof that ENSO is a result of clouds. If nothing else it would be an interesting read for me. The fact that so many of his beliefs regarding global warming are based upon this type of unproven ideas is not good for legitimacy of his positions.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  19. #569
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.


    Thats funny because I explained it to you in this very thread. I agree you don't hear it though. You ignore what you want to ignore. Its an incredibly clear pattern.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #570
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I'm well aware of John Spencer's work which proves the earth is warming. You know, the same work that you ignore even though you're trying to bring it up now?
    No one denies it has warmed in the past 100 years. I even posted the number, roughly 0.6 deg C. Is that historically unprecedented warming in that span of time?


    I will say this about Christy. He's right to question doomsday scenarios. This isn't a bad movie and its not going to play out that way. You should also know that he says it is impossible that humanity has not affected the climate which is a position you dismiss daily.
    I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.


    You pick and choose what you want from these men, Darrin.

    Nope.
    DarrinS is offline

  21. #571
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    No one denies it has warmed in the past 100 years. I even posted the number, roughly 0.6 deg C. Is that historically unprecedented warming in that span of time?
    Its irrelevant whether or not warming like that has occurred before. Its not unprecedented to have that amount of warming in a 100 year span. Its also not very important whether or not it happened.

    What is really important is why did this warming occur and what will happen next. You of course want to focus on the irreverent. No one's surprised.

    I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.
    So do climate scientists. The problem is that the experts have come up with numbers you don't like. You and WC should publish a paper explaining to them why they're wrong.



    Nope.
    Yup.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #572
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Its irrelevant whether or not warming like that has occurred before. Its not unprecedented to have that amount of warming in a 100 year span. Its also not very important whether or not it happened.
    It's absolutely relevant. If it's not unprecedented warming, why is "climate change" an important issue?


    What is really important is why did this warming occur and what will happen next.
    How much of the 0.6 deg. increase is from CO2? I'd like a link if you have one.


    So do climate scientists. The problem is that the experts have come up with numbers you don't like.
    0.6 deg/century is not scary to me. I don't like that their computer models are failing to predict current temp. trends.
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #573
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I don't question that human CO2 emissions affect climate. I just question how much it affects climate compared to natural forcings.
    I wonder just how much we are affecting systems and processes that we know very little about.

    Positive and negative feedback loops are a reality of the universe and are found everywhere, both in human endeavors and in nature.

    Although you are loathe to admit it, we don't know if or where any of the tipping points are in that complex system.

    When press on a lightswitch with an increasing amount of force, at some point you WILL flip that switch.

    Neither you, nor any scientist you care to name knows where that point is for our climate.

    I would rather not press our luck, especially when solutions to limiting risk are both easy, and probably in our best interest anyways.
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #574
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    It's absolutely relevant. If it's not unprecedented warming, why is "climate change" an important issue?
    Because climate change can have serious world wide affects? This is such a stupid question it blows me my mind. I didn't realize something had to be unprecedented for it to be a problem. Good to know that problems are only such the first time they occur.

    How much of the 0.6 deg. increase is from CO2? I'd like a link if you have one.
    I've provided several links for exactly that and yet you still ask for more? Read the ing thread Darrin. Deny again that you don't ignore while showing your ignorance of data given to you in the very thread you're posting in.

    You're like a 2 year old standing over a spilled glass of milk saying "I didn't do it".

    0.6 deg/century is not scary to me. I don't like that their computer models are failing to predict current temp. trends.
    The computer models are not failing to predict temperature trends you're just piss poor at understanding how to use them. They're not going to give you a month by month, year by year or decade by decade breakdown of what exactly the temperate will do and you can't look at an individual model and try to use that to predict what the temperature will be at such and such point in time.

    While they are different, I'll compare climate models to weather models so you can get an understanding of how scientists use them. There are some weather models that are far better than others. There are some weather models that are good at one thing but terrible at many others. There are regional models, and there are global models. There are short term models and there are long term models.

    Almost no single model on its own will ever give you very accurate data outside a few of the big ones (but the big ones themselves aren't individual models but larger ensembles) such as the Euro and the GFS. What forecasters do, is look at a larger number of models and their output in order to get a better understanding of the whole picture and work from that. No one looks at a GFS plot 7 days out and expects it to be exactly as that plot reads. If you did that then your data would almost always be wrong.

    Individual models don't mean anything. The overall trend by hundreds of different computer simulations is what matters.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #575
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I wonder just how much we are affecting systems and processes that we know very little about.

    Positive and negative feedback loops are a reality of the universe and are found everywhere, both in human endeavors and in nature.

    Although you are loathe to admit it, we don't know if or where any of the tipping points are in that complex system.

    When press on a lightswitch with an increasing amount of force, at some point you WILL flip that switch.

    Neither you, nor any scientist you care to name knows where that point is for our climate.

    I would rather not press our luck, especially when solutions to limiting risk are both easy, and probably in our best interest anyways.



    I'm confused by your posts, whether you believe in doomsday scenarios or not. Evidently, you belive in these so-called "tipping points".
    DarrinS is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •