Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with most of this. That last paragraph: "I don't know ... increasing the warming" describes negative feedback (damping, the opposite of a runaway warming OR cooling effect).

That paragraph clearly describes positive feedback.

You seem to be confusing positive feedback with a system that diverges. In positive feedback the system responds to a change in a way that reinforces the initial change.
 
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
consistent with the view that natural CO2 variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.
It’s very difficult to even figure out what you are trying to say.

He fails to understand that "natural" C02 is a consequence of orbital warming, a feedback in other words.

He neglects to account for "unnatural" C02 aka fossil fuel derived.

He wants to deny the role of C02 currently but accept the role of C02 in glaciation end without admitting the role of CO2 as a driver when it's introduced :boggled:

Nice trick - wrong tho.
 
Your simple refutation is a bluff. No post deals with climate science. ... But your participation doesn't make what you say climate science either.
We discuss how to define physical terms and how material responds to solar radiation. Why isn't this (introductory) "climate science"? Note also that there's no ad hominem.
 
We discuss how to define physical terms and how material responds to solar radiation. Why isn't this (introductory) "climate science"? Note also that there's no ad hominem.

It is as *****introductory***** climate science as a math class about matrices or an English class discussing conditional sentences.

In fact you didn't even have or need a climate in what you were saying. You had the input of a black box and nothing else. That qualifies as "climate science" as much as telling that you're speaking of audio electronics because you describe the need to plug a boombox to 110V.

But think that you had the opportunity of linking a pair of your most stuffed with science posts and yet you decided to link those. Maybe you don't realize but that leaves the suspicion that your hundreds of posts on this matter were devoid of scientific content or exceedingly wanting in dealing with it. You may correct this perception by selecting other posts that really deal with climate science.
 
We discuss how to define physical terms and how material responds to solar radiation.
We do not need to discuss this, Malcolm Kirkpatrick.
Physical terms are defined in physics textbooks.
How materials respond to solar radiation are described in physics textbooks.
Introductions to climate science are readily available on the internet, if you bothered to look.
 
Two points:
1) You concede that there was no discussion of climate, but only of people.
2) Schmidt (and Connerley) are mathematicians (model builders). Dyson, Motl, and Giaever are physicists. How do Schmidt and Connerley qualify as "climate scientists (and therefore "appropriately informed") ...
By being appropriately informed. That's the direction it goes : from being appropriately informed to being regarded as a climate scientists.

... and physicists not?
Smme physicists are appropriately informed, but not the ones named. Dyson admits as much, but regards his own genius to more than make up for that.

Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO2, consistent with the view that natural CO2 variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.
Indeed it is. No supernatural variations are involved.

Industrialised societies burning tens of billions of tons of fossil fuel annually typically come before (and during) an increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, every time so far.
 
Back to climate: temperature warming typically comes before increases in atmospheric CO2, consistent with the view that natural CO2 variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause.
Actually back to a statement that has little to do with the current global warming.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

Historical temperature changes related to changes in atmospheric CO2 are evidence for climate sensitivity and so what happens when we increase the atmospheric CO2.
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
 
Yeah ironic that the feedback that actually powers the planet out of ice ages is denied by the ill-informed fossil fuel apologists.

Even more ironic, the fossil fuel companies have given up denying the obvious and now claiming it's a engineering problem ( which it is to a point ) to be solved.

But there are always a few flat earthers.

That narrowed sensitivity range tho is a concern. 3-5C is pretty dire.
Part one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

Part two
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/

Both a comprehensive read from leading climate scientists.
 
Small world shrinks further....

North and Tropical Atlantic Ocean Bringing Climate Change to Antarctica

Jan. 22, 2014 — The gradual warming of the North and Tropical Atlantic Ocean is contributing to climate change in Antarctica, a team of New York University scientists has concluded. The findings, which rely on more than three decades of atmospheric data and appear in the journal Nature, show new ways in which distant regional conditions are contributing to Antarctic climate change.

"Our findings reveal a previously unknown -- and surprising -- force behind climate change that is occurring deep in our southern hemisphere: the Atlantic Ocean," says Xichen Li, a doctoral student in NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and the study's lead author. "Moreover, the study offers further confirmation that warming in one region can have far-reaching effects in another."
Over the past few decades, Antarctica has experienced dramatic climate change, with its peninsula exhibiting the strongest warming of any region on the planet. During its summer, Antarctic changes have been attributed to greenhouse gas increase and stratospheric ozone loss. However, less clear are the forces behind climate changes that occur during its winter. In addition, the effects of these changes during the cold season are complex, further stifling efforts to find the atmospheric culprit.

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140122133417.htm

an excellent example of the interplay between observations and modelling..
 
Last edited:
I insist: NSIDC website sucks!

Not only the error-plenty page that I've ask the posters in this thread to detect and report more than a year ago and is still there, but I've just found in one of their pages an image often used to mislead common people and that I've also discussed extensively here time ago.

The page is here. Some denialists working there and trying to undermine their work? Hackers? Well, my friend Occam says plain stupidity.
 
There's a new paper out - Sherwood et al 2014 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html). Looked at 43 models and found those with low ECS didn't correctly simulate high altitude clouds correctly. Apparently more water rains out at lower altitudes and isn't available to form high altitude clouds. Tends to confirm the evidence that the ECS is in the 3 deg C / doubling ballpark.

thanks, sounds very interesting, sadly can't find a full version for free :)
 
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change (2nd edition)
By John H. Seinfeld, Spyros N. Pandis

For those looking for a good, clearly written text reference book, this one qualifies.
(currently, there is a considerable amount of it viewable on google books)
 
Here's a squirrel to look at.

Judge Says Websites Must Face Defamation Lawsuit For Calling Climate Scientist A ‘Fraud’
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/24/3205111/mann-defamation-lawsuit/
Judge Frederick H. Weisberg on Thursday ruled that while “opinions and rhetorical hyperbole” are protected speech under the First Amendment, accusing a climate scientist of lying about his seemingly factual data is serious enough to warrant defamation claims.
“The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff ‘molested and tortured data,’ not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky,” Judge Weisberg wrote.
Deniers must be wondering what they've wrought by over a decade of scurrilous attacks on Michael Mann. He must have seemed such an easy target when it started, a lab mouse amongst PR alley-cats, but it turns out they were wrong. I salute him.

For those who've missed the story, Mann is suing some folk over accusations of scientific fraud made with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the accusation. Said folk have tried, and failed repeatedly, to have the case dismissed but it grinds inexorably on. Folk like me are awaiting the disclosure process with great malice.

I've been looking at comments on this story at various places, and there's a rather forced bravado being displayed by deniers, claiming they relish their day in court and that Mann will suffer most from disclosure.

In 2009, however, a string of emails illegally obtained from University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom purported to show that Mann and the climate scientists he worked with had manipulated the data. Investigations were conducted by more than seven organizations, from the National Science Foundation to Penn State — all of which said the allegations were baseless. Still, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spent two years and $500,000 unsuccessfully suing to obtain more emails from the University of Virginia, where Mann had once worked. That investigation also came up empty.
That tactic hasn't worked out well so far, has it? But apparently this time the evidence will emerge, the evidence deniers know must exist because the hoax exists and nobody could possibly keep such an enormous conspiracy secret. And they do this without head-vices, it's quite remarkable.

Amongst the defendants is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which can't easily be thrown under a bus, and a shift in the wind won't make the case go away, so perhaps this story is more of a badger than a squirrel.
 
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change (2nd edition)
By John H. Seinfeld, Spyros N. Pandis

For those looking for a good, clearly written text reference book, this one qualifies.
(currently, there is a considerable amount of it viewable on google books)

Despite the morons like Anthony Watts having the most popular science blog awards, the standard text books all teach the same knowledge the IPCC is. It's standard university training around the globe.
 
I suspect that's pretty loaded bit of nonsense and I'd question it's a science blog. Pretty easy to manipulate page views and would not surprise me in the least given the fossil fuel funding.

The Guardian has a different view
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jun/03/wanted-best-science-blogs

In that spirit, the Guardian's science desk want to share with you some of our favourite science-related blogs. Regular readers will be familiar with most of these scientific stars of the web and you'll notice that the list isn't very long - we're more interested in hearing what you read than what we read.

People argue endlessly about whether or not blogs are journalism but, frankly, that question is not what we're interested in here. We just want to find the places that are doing interesting things on the web and are being rewarded with engaged audiences, big or small.

So here, in no particular order, is our list:

http://layscience.net

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

http://www.labspaces.net/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/

http://www.dcscience.net/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/

http://www.nhs.uk/news/Pages/NewsIndex.aspx

http://www.sciencepunk.com

http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday

http://www.mindhacks.com/

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/

http://lifeandphysics.wordpress.com/

http://lifeunbounded.blogspot.com/

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

If you know them already, tell us why you like them. If you've never seen them, we encourage you to check them out.

He doesn't make this list

article tab
Top 15 Most Popular Science Websites | January 2014
Here are the 15 Most Popular Science Sites as derived from our eBizMBA Rank which is a constantly updated average of each website's Alexa Global Traffic Rank, and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast."*#*" Denotes an estimate for sites with limited Compete or Quantcast data.

http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/science-websites

He does make this list with the caveat....

73. Watts up With That? : Technically not a life science blog, it is still worth a visit for unique looks at life, nature, weather, climate change, and more. Anthony is your host and a former television meteorologist with 25 years of experience.
damned with faint praise comes to mind...

http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.org/100-blogs-every-science-student-should-subscribe-to/

I suspect he won't make the other top lists from Nature, National Geo, SciAm etc.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that's pretty loaded bit of nonsense and I'd question it's a science blog. Pretty easy to manipulate page views and would not surprise me in the least given the fossil fuel funding.

The Guardian has a different view
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/jun/03/wanted-best-science-blogs



He doesn't make this list



http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/science-websites

He does make this list with the caveat....


damned with faint praise comes to mind...

http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.org/100-blogs-every-science-student-should-subscribe-to/

I suspect he won't make the other top lists from Nature, National Geo, SciAm etc.

I don't think a popular vote on the internet signifies much at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom