Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

sunny starry skies

Members
  • Content Count

    405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8

Profile Information

  • Location
    Edinburgh
  1. I'd guess it might be pretty dangerous - getting people to agree on the level of dimming would be an awful challenge in itself. Add to that the problem that the energy imbalance caused by increased GHGs is not the same as the energy imbalance caused by a brighter Sun, namely that opposite effects occur for day versus nighttime temperature, winter versus summer, stratospheric temperature, and high latitude temperature, so your treatment is not most effective where the impacts of AGW are most dramatic. To me it wouold be an exercise in treating the symptoms, not the causes, and surely only a l
  2. I agree wholly with most of what you say there VP. I stated that it is an hypothesis that heat being released from exposed Arctic water in the autumn is affecting our weather patterns - it is not elevated to theory or any higher degree of scientific acceptance than 'hypothesis'. It is some way from that hypothesis being verified by the evidence, though as most of these papers were written before the last two winters, the evidence is growing. Still it is far too short a time for significance, while the alternative hypothesis I mentioned, that low solar activity leads to cooler winters at lea
  3. Recent winter weather patterns make fascinating viewing, especially as one who loves a snowy and cold winter! There will likely be a grerat many people who will be desperate to equate a snowy winter on these shores to global cooling of some form, but the below papers are well worth bearing in mind: Petoukhov and Semenov (2010): A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents. JGR: http://www.agu.org/p...9JD013568.shtml ScienceDaily version here: http://www.scienceda...01117114028.htm Note the date - it was published before this year's recent cold
  4. Looks like a coincidence. They seem to suggest a significant reason being that in some areas evapotranspiration slows down because there is no more water to evaporate once everything's dried out. Also, specific humidity continues to rise in neat agreement with temperature rise, which has of course continued through the past decade despite the 1998 anomalous year. Se the below post from Tamino at Open Mind, with data from the State of the Climate 2009 report: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/
  5. Two excellent points. If we can actually have some corroborated evidence of cloud cover changes driving temperature, then there would be something interesting to talk about. It is interesting how some people repeat falsehoods about Mann and Hansen and others despite exonerations (I think, by now, their methods are the most public of all!). Spencer hasn't had any enquiries go after him because to date his cloud results haven't been that important, or very good. Jethro, you're right about clouds being highlighted by the IPCC - they are of course crucial, and your excerpt shows this is not
  6. So Spencer still believes that scientists are naughty and he's repeating debunked rubbish in suggesting there was any substance to the climategate allegations. Of course all the subsequent exonerations by multiple independent panels mean nothing... Other cloud research has not shown the same links Spencer claims, so it seems he's the one out on a limb, and with a track record of producing ropey results. I'd still be intersted to know how, if clouds are such a powerful negative feedback, we get large palaeoclimatic shifts from small initial orbital forcings. CO2 explains that well, quite
  7. Hope it's better than Spencer and Braswell's last effort.... http://www.realclima...e-easy-lessons/ The section on Spencer's rather bizarre "internal radiative forcing" [weather] is worth a re-read as that concept rears it's head again in Spencer's new paper. I'll await the professional responses to this paper, but I wonder if Spencer has the wrong end of the stick (yet) again? Also worth noting is that the feedbacks are a product of the physics in the models, not specifically coded in - from the above RealClimate post: "the concept of feedbacks is just something used to try to make sense of
  8. Hi Jethro, I agree with you - this study is indeed good news, if verified. I'd certainly be happier in a world where the ice caps were shrinking at a slower rate. I think such a revision would still have us at the high end of current IPCC sea level projections (given that they have been seen as too low by most recent studies), and is not an excuse for us to delay action, but it might give us more time to avoid the worst effects of warming.
  9. Not really, as you then have to show what natural cycle(s) drove such a past change. There is no evidence for natural cycles that can force present climate and past climate in the observed pattern... unless you are arguing that somehow the natural cycles operated in a different way in the past?? [or suggest that half a dozen different proxy types are all wrong in the same direction of wrongness]. You cannot base any hypothesis, or course of action, on an unknown that might be imaginarily the case - you have to show why it is the case. And present a compelling suite of evidence that not only
  10. I'll call such reconstructions 'Swiss Horns' from now on, shall I?
  11. Jethro, those are exactly the two points I've been making all along. Thankyou. I'm happy not to discuss with YS anymore, as the concept of a rational discussion seems to disappear when the words 'hockey stick' appear in relation to research. It's not even that important in connecting humans to climate change - other lines of evidence are far more important (radiation measurements, changing patterns of temperature etc).
  12. Funny how you keep saying the hockey stick is dead, yet it appears in numerous different proxies and numerous different reconstructions. Far from being dead, it's actually one of the most validated graphs in science. It does not just refer to tree rings (as you seem so obsessed by), but to a multitude of other proxies from flowering dates to borehole temperatures, via glaciers on the way. Quite what is 'cherry picking' about finding mutually consistent evidence from a great diversity of sources, while there is no scientifically valid evidence to suggest otherwise? http://www.skepticalscienc
  13. I linked to discussions with plenty of very serious criticisms of the M&W paper. Y.S., instead of insulting me for my views, why don't you head over to Deep Climate and see if you can come up with reasons why those criticisms are invalid, ditto for the criticisms at RealClimate. There's no point in having a debate with you here as all you do is throw insults when anybody suggests that MacIntyre might be wrong, Wegman might be a politicised and plagiarised report, or that the latest paper purporting to raise doubts about anthropogenic global warming turns out to have a number of critical
  14. I agree completely with that last post VP! The hard part is that it's very difficult to convince people that they are able to do something when they have convinced themselves they can't... It's a pity that the M&W paper fails so badly. It would have seemed to me an opportunity for statisticians to collaborate with relevant climate scientists and do the best possible job. Unless of course McShane and Wyner didn't want to come to the same conclusions as the climatologists... I find it amusing, in a way, that they can do such a poor job of reviewing the literature or understanding the me
  15. The paper is certainly not a vindication of Wegman's plagiarised political rubbish, nor does it appear to be a successful vindication of McKitrcik or MacIntyre's so far failed attempts to discredit one of the many 'hockey sticks' in existence. The NAS (infinitely superior to the Wegman garbage) critcised Mann's statistics but vindicated his results. Others subsequently reproduced his results several times over with different methodologies, and Mann addressed the NAS criticisms in the 2008 paper. Those who think that McShane and Wyner have demonstrated anything more than the fact that statis
×
×
  • Create New...