R. Gates, I don’t dispute anything, I’m just skeptical. For example:
During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining trend in ocean temperatures.[10] In February 2007, the author of the paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data used for the analysis.[11] After eliminating incorrect data, the trend to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical significance.[3].
Hmm…
Even the rainbow was once nothing more than a natural reminder of what has come to pass…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Herbicides
WHO knew.
[…] Dr. Judith Curry comments on this paper: […]
Yes moving energy around can change the operating parameters of the climate system. For instance moving more energy into the Arctic will reduce ice extent. Sea ice is an insulator effectively preventing radiative and evaporative cooling of the water leaving only very inefficient conduction to move heat from the warmer water off the planet. So in this case the energy redistribution actually effects the speed at which the planet can dump heat to space. This is handily illustrated by the fact that as Arctic sea extent has shrunk in the past 15 years the rate of global warming reduced to essentially zero. Melting sea ice is a negative feedback. It’s not rocket science.
More climate alarmism:
“The canyon has never been seen by humans, who didn’t exist four million years ago. If the Greenland ice sheet melts completely it will raise global sea level by 7 metres and swamp many major cities, so hopefully this is one great geographical feature that won’t become a tourist destination. ”
That breed must have been extraordinarily good company in the snow. I’m afraid our kelpies wouldn’t fare very well at all in the cold. Horses (dogs) for courses. Love most dogs, except for the lapdogs and some terriers, which have been overbred IMO, to the extent that they can’t function properly. Some German Shepherd breeds have poor backs and don’t last very long before they become crippled.
@David Springer
Willard’s language skills are so poor he’s seldom able understand what you’ve written so his responses are seldom topical.
I don’t believe that. Like others here, on both sides, he deliberately misunderstands/misinterprets what people say for the sake of turning their arguments into straw men.
I’m familiar enough with rhetoric to see it happening, even when I pretend not to see it for purposes of argument.
You are no doubt right about the biospheric influence, AK. (I’m certain you are right.) And land use changes have been fingered before. I’m not sure clearing land will lead to a catastrophe – and you didn’t say that it would. It is a fascinating system, the climate. I just wish climate scientists would try to identify the major parts and figure out how they work instead of telling everyone we are going to fry and burning energy trying to convince people they are right. The truth is that they don’t know. The model that used tropical SST as an input looks like a good start to me. I’m sure there are more good attempts out there, it would be nice to see them highlighted on CE.
Yes, it certainly would make a good post. But it is incomplete. The distinction between exogenous and external is fairly subtle, with exogenous indicating that the behavior originated from outside but now is part of the system. A GHG such as man-introduced CO2 is an exogenous factor. It was previously completely externalized, having been buried for eons underground as hydrocarbons, not having an effect on the climate. Once extracted, the hydrocarbons are combusted, which then turn into the exogenous CO2 and which in turn has significant impacts on the earth’s climate.
Just as critical is the idea of a compliant interface. That is an interface to an external entity whose characteristics change with contact. This is best illustrated by considering a vehicle in contact with a surface. A non-compliant interface would be if the vehicle interfaces with concrete. The concrete may budge slightly but can be considered static. A compliant interface would be a vehicle interacting with sand or mud or water. The model of the compliant surface becomes much more difficult to characterize simply.
In terms of modeling temperature, a hot or cold body is automatically compliant with an external thermal reservoir. On contact, two bodies at different temperatures will redistribute the heat according to laws of entropy. This is a very compliant interface that can be simplified only if the thermal heat capacity of the external object is large. This is significant in terms of OHC modeling, but simplifications are indeed possible since the ocean has an enormous heat capacity.
I have a more complete analysis under the Stochastic Analysis tab here http://contextearth.com/, and other documents as well.
This particular site is devoted to context modeling. A context model is a recently coined term to describe models of external interfaces that can be used to design systems that are used in a specific context — for example, an environmental context model of water is used to design a sea-worthy boat. It is a pedantic definition, but pedantic is good in this case as anything to enable separation of concerns is good. Separating the design & component models from context models fosters reuse.
“This puts lots of responsibilities on those implied by the “you”.” Willard, that’s true. What I meant to say is: If there is a contest taking place for the Hearts and Minds of the skeptical public, one of the main battlegrounds must be the skeptical blogs. Speaking as a denizen of climateaudit, judithcurry, Lucia’s blog, I’m trying to explain how my impression is formed, and how someone might be able to alter it, and what won’t work. If a believer in AGW wants to really make an impact, refuting Steve McIntyre _on his blog_ is the way to do it, a million times better than preaching to the choir at realclimate.
Again, what doesn’t work: my general impression is that McIntyre tends to make mincemeat of distant challenges, with his infinite documentation of all the details.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/10/evasions-and-fantasy-at-real-climate/
One example like that, with following the links and seeing who is reporting accurately, was enough for me to conclude that realclimate isn’t reliable – and it happens repeatedly. Of course, most commenters at those other blogs never read his counter-refutation, and one will continue to see links on how McIntyre is “refuted over and over”. None of it does anything to improve my impression of who are the real scientists.
@Steven Mosher…
you would do better to get me on the phone and try to convince me or to explain why you think he is correct.
That would be a foolish waste of time… mine and probably yours, although you might try to string me along.
Might was well call lackwit and try to convince him.
The problem is those most intrigued by a tale of suppression are least able to judge the work.
Maybe, but enough attention and perhaps somebody will try to address his real arguments someplace like RC. Then I’ll be able to judge whether they really have reasons his suggestions about the damped CO2 signal don’t make sense. If they go with the same sort of nonsense I’ve seen in this thread, that suggests even more strongly that he really has something. Presumably, if there were valid objections to his work, the folks at RC would make them, once there’s enough furor to motivate them.
Robert of Ottawa,
“This is BS. As an engineer, I understand positive feedback. The diagrams presented in this article do not represent positive feedback, they are carefully crafted visual lies. If there were positive feedback in the earth’s climate, then we would be either have frozen or fried several billion years ago.”
Right, the first is the IPCC carefully crafted lie and the second is the Sky Dragons carefully crafted lie, the truth is somewhere in the middle. What is it?
Kim’s scholarly works are written on post-it notes stuck to the fridge.
” This is handily illustrated by the fact that as Arctic sea extent has shrunk in the past 15 years the rate of global warming reduced to essentially zero. Melting sea ice is a negative feedback. It’s not rocket science.”
However, according to your same logic, the rate of thermal energy transfer did not reduce to zero. Melting is a latent heat transfer which only hides the temperature change but not the free energy change caused by GHGs.
I heard a nice turn of phrase last night where it was suggested that the goal is to illuminate not eliminate. In other words, it is always wise to tell the rest of the story.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 30, 2013 at 1:58 am |
“Are you that clueless Chief? This is excess heat caused by growing atmospheric GHG concentrations. The excess heat disperses wherever it can. Some stays in the atmosphere, where it will raise the temperature until the Planck response matches. Some of the heat radiates into the ocean surface layer where it can diffuse downward.”
Let’s look at how heat might diffuse from air to water. The air has to be warmer than the water otherwise any difficusion of heat goes from the water to the air not from air to water. The skin layer of the ocean is cooler than the water below it. In order for heat to diffuse from the air, which is warmer than the skin layer and thence from the skin layer to the ocean bulk below it the skin layer must be warmer than the ocean below it otherwise any heat diffusion goes from ocean bulk to skin layer.
Chief is right and you’re a moron, Pukite.
Now watch as the Chief makes up some convoluted contrarian explanation why that can’t happen, which is the expected response of a full-throttled denier.
Perhaps Douglas Walton can put things straight:
The subject of this paper is the ad hominem argument, which criticizes another argument by questioning the personal circumstances or the personal trustworthiness of the arguer who advanced it.
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00136781.pdf
Appealing to motive is a special case of a circumstantial argument, which is special type of ad hominem. AK’s only way out would be to claim that he’s not using his guesses as an argument. I hope he understands as much rhetoric as he claims to do to realize this line of defence would have little merit.
***
But to return to Murry, here’s Mash’s network analysis of the Salby blogstorm:
On July 9-12, Macquarie suffered this kind of attack (Wave 1). Ex-Professor Murry Salby made serious, but unsupported and sometimes contradictory, accusations against Macquarie, by the unusual route of email to bloggers. Joanne Nova (Australia), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That, USA), and Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill, UK) republished them.
After 4 days and 1,500+ comments at those blogs alone, SalbyStorm’s Wave 1 ended quickly when Salby’s checkered past was detailed at DeSmogBlog. Discussions stopped, although with little apology or introspection about gullibility at “skeptical” blogs. A very few people had wondered at oddities of Salby’s claims, searched for his past history, and independently started finding problems within a few hours. Salby supporters did not do that, preferring to specualte and comment.
Our emphasis.
Analyzing the content of these comments might deserve due diligence.
***
Yes, but alarmists, if not socialists.
” captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | August 30, 2013 at 7:45 am |
Webster, “Cappy is getting flustered ”
No, The impact of CO2, best estimate is 1C +/- all things remaining equal. Greater than that requires positive feedbacks to CO2. “
The current thinking is that 1.2C is due to CO2 alone, another 1C is due to compounding (positive feedback) water vapor rise, and about 0.8C is due to other GHGs such as methane, n20 and also due to fast albedo feedbacks. That gets the fast feedback sensitivity to 3C for man-made GHG’s.
Anything beyond this is due to slow positive feedbacks such as long-term albedo changes and biotic activity changes.
Hansen describes the slow feedbacks here
J. Hansen, M. Sato, G. Russell, and P. Kharecha, “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.4846, 2012.
