|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 14:04:00 GMT 1
Why they were reluctant to share their data at the time is something worthy of investigation but really, it's all rather academic as the data is now available for any Tom, Dick or Harry to analyse and many have done it and it's caused notable blogs such as WUWT to change tack. Come on RSmith, give us some facts! But they haven't fully explained their methodology. Their exposure as charlatans has reduced the CAGW hysteria to a whimper - and only among those emotionally attached to it. Move on - it's not healthy to be so obsessive. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 14:06:28 GMT 1
If you are refrring to the whole PCA thing, that has been gone over in the academic lietrature, and it's not the 'they were all wrong' scenario that you seem to think. If you are going to mention one criticism, you should also mention the answers to that criticism, that is the way science works. As others have said, much of the data now out there, other people are checking data analysis, and so far, seem to agree with previous results. Perhaps this openess isn't going to be the bombshell the sceptics thought it would be........................... But the bomb has been dropped, the damage done. The clear up is well under way. I won't even mention the corruption of the data itself. |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 24, 2010 14:11:23 GMT 1
But they haven't fully explained their methodology. Yes they have. Your ignorance of this is just another indication that you make no attempt to find out any actual facts. Their exposure as charlatans has reduced the CAGW hysteria to a whimper - and only among those emotionally attached to it. They have been exonorated of any fraudulent behaviour by six different investigations. Once again your ignorance of this is just another indication that you make no attempt to find out any actual facts. Move on - it's not healthy to be so obsessive. I believe your belief that those of us who acknowledge the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere must be 'reds' is a clear indication of your own obsession. Try reading the science |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 14:16:24 GMT 1
Do you know of co2's logarithmic effect on temperature enquirer?
The fact that doubling it's concentration will result in less than 1C in increased temperature.
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 24, 2010 14:27:31 GMT 1
The fact that doubling it's concentration will result in less than 1C in increased temperature. Not true Read the science rsmith7 try www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm" Climate sensitivityAs the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality: dT = ë*dF Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'ë' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing. So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above: ë = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2) Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug ë into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv. dT = ë*dF = ë * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * ë Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'." "We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above, dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C. Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature." |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 15:08:47 GMT 1
Eh, your post confirms my statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 24, 2010 15:10:19 GMT 1
You just confirmed your ignorance
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 15:13:56 GMT 1
"the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature." A rise from 260ppm in 1850 to 380ppm today has, by your figures, resulted in a rise of 0.4C The higher the concentration the lesser the effect. So, a rise from 380 to 760ppm will result in a temp rise of less than 1C Thanks for the confirmation  A rise of 1C will be very beneficial. Especially when compared to a drop in temp of 1C |
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 15:40:31 GMT 1
Could you show your calculations please RSmith?
Going back to original post. The amateur scientist was a much vaunted calling many years ago. Think of the hundreds of vicars of Victorian times. Little to do after Sunday as their well patronised parish provided income they took to science. We were given some genius methods of statistical analysis from the reverend Thomas Bayes to some completely cock eyed suggestions such as the reverend Merryweathers Storm prognosticator. I'm not here to call their contributions to science but I'm here to ask: Who tests the amateur scientist's blogs?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 15:43:26 GMT 1
Could you show your calculations please RSmith? Going back to original post. The amateur scientist was a much vaunted calling many years ago. Think of the hundreds of vicars of Victorian times. Little to do after Sunday as their well patronised parish provided income they took to science. We were given some genius methods of statistical analysis from the reverend Thomas Bayes to some completely cock eyed suggestions such as the reverend Merryweathers Storm prognosticator. I'm not here to call their contributions to science but I'm here to ask: Who tests the amateur scientist's blogs? How do I post a fag packet? |
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 15:45:02 GMT 1
Well that says it all really doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 24, 2010 15:48:34 GMT 1
Not really when the variables and uncertainties are unknown let alone quantifiable on a planetary scale.
A fag packet calculation gives just as valid a result as your pal's modelling efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 24, 2010 17:03:55 GMT 1
I'll spell it out for you smith, the post says that, if it is assumed that doubling the concentration of CO2 only leads to a 1C rise in temperature, (and this is then plugged into the equation) only just over half of the warming seen over the past 150 years can be accounted for (0.5C rather than 0.8C). Therefore, the claim that climate sensitivity 1C increase for double CO2 cannot be right.
Here it is again
"Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,
dT = 1.8 * ë = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.
Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature."
I didn't think this was that difficult but perhaps you are hard of learning?
|
|
|
|
Post by helen on Nov 24, 2010 17:15:56 GMT 1
Sorry enquirer, I wanted RSmith to do that!
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 24, 2010 17:16:43 GMT 1
Sorry enquirer, I wanted RSmith to do that! I don't think he has the capacity |
|
