Recent Comments

Prev  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  Next

Comments 51401 to 51450:

51401. Doug Hutcheson at 13:31 PM on 24 November 2012
       Sheffield vs. Dai on Drought Changes
       Perhaps there have been differences in how drought is defined? What is the current definition of drought? Is it x time without y precipitation, over z area?
51402. Doug Hutcheson at 13:24 PM on 24 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       40% increase in forcing due to GHGs, largely of anthropogenic origin, is just a trifle more worrying than the situation being portrayed by those who try to reassure us with the comfortable statement that humans are only responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions. Three percent, less half being absorbed by natural sinks, compounding year on year for a couple of centuries, gives us the current concentrations. Oh, but don't worry: it is only a trace gas and cannot harm us /sarc.
51403. Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       Doug H @235, your faith in Alan Jones is touching.
51404. Doug Hutcheson at 13:03 PM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       jondoig @ 234 that Alan Jones statement would be hilarious, if it wasn't so serious. It is difficult to accept that people actually believe such untrue statements when they utter them, yet there it is in black and white. I do not imagine for a minute Jones would say this, if he was not confident it was true. It is a sad commentary on our education system that such gross misunderstandings can persist, but that is the rod we make for our backs when we believe in (relative) freedom of speech.
51405. Tom Curtis at 12:50 PM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Continuing from my 126, I must first note that the second graph in that post is modified from Royer, 2006, not 2004 as I incorrectly had it. That graph is particularly interesting when compared to a graph of phanerozoic glaciations (from Royer 2004): The comparison shows that glaciations of any sort do not occur unless combined solar/CO2 forcings are equivalent to modern values, and glaciations that extend beyond the Arctic or Antarctic circle do not occur unless they are at, or lower than, preindustrial values. There are some apparent exceptions, but Royer 2006 shows of almost all of those apparent exceptions that the glaciations occur during intervals of low CO2 concentration which do no show up at the resolution of the graphs shown here. Since then, work linked to by DSL has shown that even the end Ordovician glaciation occurred during a period of low CO2 concentration that had not been discovered before. The many apparent falsifications of the connection between CO2 and temperature from the paleo record have now all fallen away! They are shown to be successful predictions of the theory when data of sufficient resolution to truly test the periods in question becomes available. Setit Bagain can only pretend otherwise by using obsolete data with known biases and sticking rigorously to data with insufficient resolution to test the theory.
51406. Lanfear at 11:14 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain: "Because nothing else depends on human activity." DSL: I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I believe S-B tries to imply that the conclusion to CO2 being the culprit for the current warming is a result of looking for any human-related cause, ie. a conspiracy. Probably because he/she assumes that the scientists function in a similar fashion as the denialists ('it has to be anything but human'), just on the opposite side. This type of 'argument' is not uncommon among the denialists of lesser skills. And yes, I use the d-word based on the official denialist definition.
51407. jondoig at 11:13 AM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       The statement that "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions" is arguably true but certainly misleading because as this article states, it ignores the fact that though much larger, natural CO2 emissions are balanced by natural CO2 absorption, while human emissions accumulate. However this statement is commonly misconstrued as "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air" (Alan Jones 19 Oct 2012). That statement is not just misleading, it is false, because it concerns atmospheric CO2 levels, not emissions. Humans have increased "the carbon dioxide in the air" from 285 ppmv to 390 ppmv since 1850. That means human beings produced 27% per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not 3%. Note that I use the past tense produced while Jones used the present tense produce. Taken literally his statement is meaningless. However his intended meaning is clear: he is falsely claiming that CO2 from human sources is insignificant.
51408. jondoig at 10:37 AM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       "Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era" This is wrong. "Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere" has increased by orders of magnitude since the pre-industrial era. What you mean is "Man-made CO2 has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by [more than] a third since the pre-industrial era"
51409. Philippe Chantreau at 07:06 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       SB displays a staggering ignorance of the subject he is trying to argue about. If anyone is reading through this and wondering about these other influences on climate that he attempted to describe, there are multiple relevant SkS posts On the Sun and cosmic rays: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html Talking about rays of fun, the cosmic ray influence hypothesis has not been pumped up much by fake skeptics lately. I guess they were too busy trying to make the US summer heat go away (lost their 1934 argument with that one, but it had a good run), then make Arctic sea ice look bigger and then hurricane Sandy hit. Tough year. On Milankovitch cycles (which should have us in a cooling trend right now if not for other factors), this one is pretty good and not all so boring. I guess SB places entertainment value high on the list, which of course puts SkS at a disadvantage. Every post listed above contains references to science papers, which themselves will reference more scientific publications, plenty to explore for the truly curious. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html Then there is that most peculiar of arguments: "At least half of data about the climate is coming from the cities and it is well known that in cities temperature is higher than countryside". SB there indicates that he might have got his info from cereal box tops sold by Anthony Watts. The Urban Heat Island effect has been the subject of intense scrutiny for the very purpose of improving the accuracy of temperature records. Watts himself was the last one to publish on the subject that was the very premise of his blog's existence and his results confirmed what had been done before by others, including the very early amateur work by John V. (veterans of this will remember) which has been reaffirmed over and over by increasingly refined means. http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm There is a rather confused reference to water, which I am assuming to be about the greenhouse effect from water vapor. The distinction between forcing and feedback is most likely beyond what SB has bothered with but for other readers who actually want to know, that question has been explored too: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm Once again the truly curious readers are encouraged to use the search function. Each post points to a wealth of scientific papers. Apologies for not embedding the links, didn't have the time.
51410. Tom Curtis at 07:03 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Setit-Bargain @115: 1) Your temperature chart is derived from a reconstruction by Jan Viezer which is known to not account for the effects of ocean acidification on its temperature proxy. This introduces a cool bias to the temperatures during periods of high CO2, a known cause of ocean acidification. Once corrected, the temperature record looks like this: It should be noted that in response to the paper which pointed out this correction, Nir Shaviv and Jan Viezer acknowledged the correction to be accurate. (They unconvincingly argue that, despite the accuracy of the correction, in determining CO2/temperature correlations, you should use the uncorrected temperature record, which has a cooling bias based on the level of CO2 concentration.) 2) Although you make much of the existence of other forcings in addition to that from CO2, you neglect the largest known forcings over the period since the first evolution of arthropods and vertebrates (ie, the Phanerozoic). Of these, by far the largest is the gradual warming of the sun by 4.1%, which has resulted in a forcing of 9.75 Watts per square meter over the period from 500 million years ago to today. That would require a forcing from increasing CO2 to is the equivalent of 1750 ppmv just to maintain a constant forcing, relative to preindustrial levels. Once both changes in the solar constant and in CO2 levels are taken into account, the forcing history of the phanerozoic is as follows: (As modified from Royer et al, 2004 by Tony Noerpel. The red line represents current CO2 forcing relative to preindustrial levels of 1.8 W/m^2.) Comparing known solar plus CO2 forcing shows that the two combined are responsible for the broad pattern of temperature change over the phanerozoic. You also neglect the crucial impact of continental positions. Throughout the phanerozoic, glaciations have occurred only when there have been large continental masses at, or very near the poles. Importantly, neither of these two other major factors can have any impact over the next half million years or so because of the very slow rate of change of the solar constant, and of continental drift. In other words, while you have neglected the two other most important factors over the phanerozoic; you paradoxically insist that effects of similar magnitude must exist (without evidence) to counter CO2 when the two other major factors are known to not be in play. (More later.)
51411. DSL at 06:44 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain, you don't get to just make stuff up. Cite your sources, please. "The main body of alarmists claims that CO2 is the key of present climate. That if we will decrease level it will become cooler, and if we increase that, it will become warmer. And it is why?" Unlike H2O, CO2 is a non-condensing, well-mixed greenhouse gas with a residence time of decades to centuries. See Lacis et al. 2010 "Because nothing else depends on human activity." I'm not even sure what you mean by that. "For instance the water has more dreadful greenhouse effect, but how can be proclaimed the water as a threat on a planet with surface literally dipped in water." See link above. "Not to speak about solar activity, topography, cosmic particles, position in the galaxy, the orbit of our planet and its angle, etc." All of this is taken into account in climatology. See this. "Again alarmists proclaimed that nothing else of known factors is increasing temperature at this moment." To a large extent, you are correct. See attribution studies such as Huber & Knutti (2011), Lean & Rind (2008), Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), and Gillett (2012), among others. "Global warming by CO2? Because the forming processes are in neutral position according to the greenhouse theory. Really?" Evidence? "Are you claiming that you know, or someone else on this planet knows all impact-factors of the climate? Please, claim it! It will be a ray of fun in this sad, boring internet place." Are you saying you know there are other significant factors? "Global warming caused by the terrible greenhouse effect will boil us up." Strawman. No one has ever said that. "Ok, let’s see. The temperature record of the world is ninety twenties, temperature record of USA is gathering dust…almost a century. In Europe is worse, their temperature record is born in 19-th century… and Europe is a mother of the industrial revolution. Even by pure chance these records could have been beaten. Not to speak in the background of global warming. Instead of absolute records every five years or maybe at least decade we have... Almost all of their witnesses are died by old age." Hypocrite. You claim you know about CO2 in the Triassic, Jurassic, etc., but you then ignore temperature proxies that extend the temp record far into the past. "There is no need to be climatologist to start asking questions and then to see the existence of upper limit of the temperature today. Maybe the average temperatures under this limit are increasing or decreasing but the limit is there and I doubt that someone knows the real mechanism of forming of this ceiling." You certainly do not. "What that means? The equation about climate has too many missing parts to be claimed by someone as absolute predictable. The efforts must be directed exactly for searching and investigation of all missing parts and not to rise up alarm on base of half equation." Show them! What is the basis of these claims? Evidence! setit-bagain, I am going to strongly suggest to the moderators that your posts be deleted until you address the questions you've been asked. This is not a "hit-and-run" forum. It is a dialogue-based forum, and you're expected to do your part--and point to your sources.
51412. Composer99 at 06:33 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       

       Various influences on climate doesn't mean all of them

       Name them & provide references to support.

       Even the simple ones as measure control temperatures. At least half of data about the climate is coming from the cities and it is well known that in cities temperature is higher than countryside.

       This claim of yours is unequivocally false.
51413. setit-bagain at 05:56 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Composer99 O, yes, expected ray of fun! Composer99, Various influences on climate doesn't mean all of them. Even the simple ones as measure control temperatures. At least half of data about the climate is coming from the cities and it is well known that in cities temperature is higher than countryside. With the same success we can speak about global warming with thermometers in ovens.
51414. Composer99 at 05:40 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain: You do not appear to be reading any of the posts addressed towards you or following links provided for your reference. You have now been advised on multiple occasions that mainstream science is well aware of the various influences on climate, and you have been sent links discussing both this general point and specific elements of paleoclimate, all of which clearly show that your claim to the contrary is unequivocally false. And yet you persist in claiming:

       Not to speak about solar activity, topography, cosmic particles, position in the galaxy, the orbit of our planet and its angle, etc. Again alarmists proclaimed that nothing else of known factors is increasing temperature at this moment. Only CO2, especially CO2 produced by humans. By this way alarmists are blowing up the bridge between greenhouse theory and the others of components forming our climate

       IMO if you are unable or unwilling to give up your obvious misrepresentation of the state of the science - or defend it with reference to some sort of evidence beyond your say-so, you are wasting your time & ours here.
51415. setit-bagain at 05:20 AM on 24 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       DSL and company, again. The main body of a (-snip-)s claims that CO2 is the key of present climate. That if we will decrease level it will become cooler, and if we increase that, it will become warmer. And it is why? Because nothing else depends on human activity. For instance the water has more dreadful greenhouse effect, but how can be proclaimed the water as a threat on a planet with surface literally dipped in water. Not to speak about solar activity, topography, cosmic particles, position in the galaxy, the orbit of our planet and its angle, etc. Again (-snip-) proclaimed that nothing else of known factors is increasing temperature at this moment. Only CO2, especially CO2 produced by humans. By this way (-snip-) are blowing up the bridge between greenhouse theory and the others of components forming our climate. And of course, I am forced to take a peep at this narrow vision of theirs. Global warming by CO2? Because the forming processes are in neutral position according to the greenhouse theory. Really? Are you claiming that you know, or someone else on this planet knows all impact-factors of the climate? Please, claim it! It will be a ray of fun in this sad, boring internet place. Global warming caused by the terrible greenhouse effect will boil us up. Ok, let’s see. The temperature record of the world is ninety twenties, temperature record of USA is gathering dust…almost a century. In Europe is worse, their temperature record is born in 19-th century… and Europe is a mother of the industrial revolution. Even by pure chance these records could have been beaten. Not to speak in the background of global warming. Instead of absolute records every five years or maybe at least decade we have... Almost all of their witnesses are died by old age. There is no need to be climatologist to start asking questions and then to see the existence of upper limit of the temperature today. Maybe the average temperatures under this limit are increasing or decreasing but the limit is there and I doubt that someone knows the real mechanism of forming of this ceiling. What that means? The equation about climate has too many missing parts to be claimed by someone as absolute predictable. The efforts must be directed exactly for searching and investigation of all missing parts and not to rise up alarm on base of half equation.
       Moderator Response: [DB] You would do well to cease arguing from personal ignorance and undertake a more thorough study of the science. Scientists have studied these things in vastly greater detail than your extremely limited understanding allows. Inflammatory snipped.
51416. Composer99 at 23:45 PM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       Further to YubeDude & Alexandre's comment, what I'm seeing in the hyperlink text to the news release is: "http://www.skepticalscience.com//%22http:/www.skepticalscience.com///"
       Moderator Response: [JH]Link fixed.
51417. Composer99 at 23:44 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain: Actual climate scientists, atmospheric physicists, and the like already know quite well what the most important forcings are that drive Earth climate, and they already know quite well that CO₂ is not the sole forcing agent (even if it is, as per Richard Alley and others, the most important). Your claims on this thread appear to rest on the plainly false misrepresentation that they don't already know these things. I have previously referred you to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 and will now do so again.
51418. Alexandre at 22:45 PM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       News release link still broken.
51419. Wadard at 22:03 PM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       Very sobering. Any new CO2e being taken in by the atmosphere just acts as a force multiplier. And, that's what we need to stop.
51420. Kevin C at 21:31 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain: Let's take the two graphs you posted. Now, if climate science claimed that CO2 was correlated with temperature, you would have an interesting piece of evidence there. However it doesn't. If you look at the last 10 million years you see a strong correlation, which tells us something, but this is a special case. To understand what your graphs tell us we first need to understand some climate science. Climate is not controlled by CO2, but rather to the top of atmosphere energy balance. The greenhouse effect is only one contributor to that (and the relationship is nonlinear). The others are solar irradiance and albedo. You have to take all of them into account to test for a correlation. So the comparison is based on a straw man argument. Peter Hadfield has a video about it here. How would yo do the comparison properly? First, you need to take log(CO2), not CO2. Secondly, you need to take into account solar irradiance, which has increased significantly over the Phanerazoic. Thirdly, the ice albedo feedback means that the climate has two stable states - a warm one and a snowball state - both of which are consistent with a given level of greenhouse effect. See figure 9 of this article. Hadfield also covers this.
51421. Doug Hutcheson at 17:22 PM on 23 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       ... belay that last message. The lecture linked to by jimb @ 1 is available on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U.
51422. Doug Hutcheson at 17:08 PM on 23 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       The talk linked to by jimb@1 is coming up "This video is private - sorry" for me today, but I have found a different (and shorter, at 23 minutes) video by Prof. Anderson at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KumLH9kOpOI. Well worth watching, IMHO.
51423. DSL at 15:18 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       I see, and so you would explain, say, Puckrin et al. (2004) by claiming . . . ? It just couldn't be CO2, could it? Just couldn't, because there's something we're missing, because it just couldn't be Co2, because . . .
51424. setit-bagain at 14:45 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       DSL again. Greenhouse gas theory is nothing more than laboratory component. The real world is much more complicated than absorb/emit. It is obvious that planets have compensating tools of which we are not aware. At least for now.
51425. DSL at 14:24 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain, again: context is everything. What else was going on during the Ordovician? And the Silurian, et al? Surely you've read this and this. Yes? And you realize that the same scientists who give you information about these periods in the past are also telling you the AGW and the enhanced GHE are quite real. What papers have you read recently on the GHE and the periods you list? Here's a selection. Again, do you accept the greenhouse gas theory? Does CO2 absorb/emit at pressure broadened bands in the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed Earth emits?
51426. setit-bagain at 13:55 PM on 23 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Cheers and... In the big picture, there is really no apparent correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. What's more, there have been ice ages when CO2 has been as much as 10 to 15 times higher than modern levels (for example the end-Ordovician Ice Age). There have also been times when temperature was increasing but CO2 was decreasing and times when CO2 was increasing but temperatures decreasing (during the Silurian and Devonian and during the Triassic and Jurassic, respectively). Cheers!
51427. YubeDude at 11:13 AM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       The WMO news release link at top of page = file not found... that is what I am referring to.
       Moderator Response: [JH] The link has been fixed. Thanks for bring this glitch to our attention.
51428. chriskoz at 11:03 AM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       YubeDude, Look for "Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" news in Previous article.
51429. Riduna at 10:22 AM on 23 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       I think the World Bank President doth protest too much in his repeated assurances that the World Bank is doing its part in working to curb the likelihood of 2100 temperature exceeding 2°C above those of 1850. The Bank is certainly not doing enough nor does it have appropriate policies. The latter should include the proviso that financial assistance will only be provided to countries which implement verifiable measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Such a policy would presumably obviate the present Bank practice of funding production and use of fossil fuels to produce energy. The findings of the report tell us little we did not know before and in the case of predicted rise in average global sea level rise (SLR of 0.5 – 1.0m by 2100) are a major, dangerous underestimation, likely to engender complacency, lack of planning and inertia rather than timely action. Given that rising sea level is primarily caused by the magnitude of mass loss of land based ice and thermal expansion of seawater, it must be assumed the authors are either unaware of present accelerating ice loss, or assume that it is magically going to slow for the rest of this century.
51430. YubeDude at 09:50 AM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       news release link???
51431. John Russell at 07:49 AM on 23 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       The World Bank? Don't trust 'em; they're a bunch of warmist watermelons.
51432. Leland Palmer at 07:22 AM on 23 November 2012
       Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
       Hi Chris- It's a very illuminating post, but a very simplified model compared to the earth. Methane has chemical reducing effects as well as greenhouse effects. According to Isaksen, these chemical effects (which can be very strongly non-linear) can lead to very strong positive feedback, from the production of ozone, secondary CO2, stratospheric water vapor, and increased atmospheric lifetime of methane due to exhaustion of the hydroxyl radical oxidation mechanism. It would be interesting (and probably necessary) to apply your modeling to Isaksen's atmospheric chemistry change results, to come to any conclusions about true runaway greenhouse effects, I think. I think Isaksen and his team have uncovered the explanation for the severity of some past mass extinction events - the atmospheric chemistry effects of methane. These chemical effects change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, in the direction of a primordial reducing atmosphere, with a stronger greenhouse effect. One such probable severe near runaway greenhouse event, a mere 250 million years ago (only a few percent of the age of the earth), the End Permian, killed on the order of 90% of species then existing. And the sun, according to the standard model of stellar evolution, is a couple of percent hotter now. Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions

       The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

       Hansen's runaway greenhouse still seems plausible to me. If there had not been past mass extinctions apparently due to massive releases of methane from the hydrates, a true runaway greenhouse would look unlikely. As it is, with methane release from the hydrates (and probable atmospheric chemistry effects) looking like a plausible explanation for several past mass extinction events, a true runaway greenhouse still looks quite possible to me. The sun is hotter, now. Let your modelling approach the complexity of the major feedbacks present in the actual atmosphere of the earth, and I'll admit that you are entitled to make conclusions based on your modelling. At a minimum, you need curves for ozone and nitrous oxide, I think. Keep in mind that the reducing effects of methane on the oceans could plausibly produce large amounts of nitrous oxide. As it is, you've left out the atmospheric (and oceanic) chemistry effects of methane. The atmospheric chemistry effects of methane are very likely important, and its oceanic chemistry effects may be important. You could do us all a service by using Isaksen's paper as a guide, and including his stuff in your modelling.
51433. shoyemore at 21:40 PM on 22 November 2012
       2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #3
       There is something surreal about this weeks news. Every story concerns a real climate impact being felt by ordinary folk. The second story from the top talks about the reasons - CO2 concentrations. Only the top story, about delegates meeting at an ultra modern resort in the Middle East, in a bubble of comfort, seems divorced from the real world.
51434. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:52 PM on 22 November 2012
       Wigley and Santer Find the IPCC is too Conservative on AGW
       Snorbett General comment, based on my limited understanding of climate modelling. Basically you are trying to package up the known physics into rules, then let the rulesplay out. If in the playing out, it ain't quite right, you know some part of what you have put into the package doesn't match reality. If you have nothing better, you parametrerize. But it is always better to plug in more physics if you can. So this statement is probably not quite right: 'I understand, in general terms, how the models work; qualitatively they work the same way that the parameterized models commonly used in calculation of flow in pipes work. That is construct a model that contains the appropriate factors, then conduct measurements to define values for the various parameters included with the term for each important factor.' Climate models aren't quite like flow in pipes models - they operate in 4 dimensions for a start - 3 of space plus time. They model a mix of broad physics and some parametrised aspects. Then let the consequences of these interconnections play out. So although the model contains 'factors' - based on physics - for small scale interconnections in the system, importantly, if you have captured the basic physics correctly, this constrains how much the 'factors' can influence things. Your 'factors' have to produce results that obey the Laws of Thermodynamics for example at each scale. 'My question is how did the modelers find values for the concentrations and particle size distributions of the particles in the air between 1945 and 1975? These parameters, among others, are critical as Composer99 noted, if one is to calculate the albedo change attributable to particle concentrations.' One can make reasonable estimates of what the types of sources were for particles based on existing technologies - lots of coal fires for example. Also, the extra knowledge we might seek to add from the past isn't confined tojust drivers like aerosols. It can also include things like any issues with the temperature record we are comparing the models against. Both can (and certainly do) have errors. So researchers need to be looking for errors/inaccuracies in both the model conclusions, and the historical evidence. For example, the recent update to the HadSST sea surface temperature record include corrections for an observed bias in the data, strongest during WWII, as a result of the mix of nations that were involved in measuring sea surface temperatures changing significantly during that period. Different nations used different sampling methods on their ships, each with it's own bias. If the proprtion of nations involved in SST sampling didn't change, no problemo. But during WWII, there was a huge change - problemo.They have ven been able to date the major shift reversing the change to the nearest month - Aug 1945. Similarly the record of land temperatures strongly shows that the warming in the 30's particularly wasn't a GLOBAL warming. It was focussed very much in the high northern hemisphere. Possibly primarily in the atlantic sector of the Arctic. And including the possibility that some of it may have been an atrefact of the growth of the number of meteorological stations in the Arctic from virtually none, to a moderate number by the 1950's. Its possible that someof the warming was an artefact of the station coverage during that period. So when we look at how well models capture the warming back then and into the 50's-70's, we have to include the possibility that the 'cooling' in the 50's to 70's wasn't as pronounced because the warming in the 30's/40's may not have been as great.
51435. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:27 PM on 22 November 2012
       Wigley and Santer Find the IPCC is too Conservative on AGW
       Perseus "Let's hope the IPCC accept this evidence to upgrade their level of confidence. " Lets also hope they accept the evidence since the last report to upgrade their use of language to forestall the deliberate obfuscators. How does anyone write something that is responsible & accurate while at the same time trying to prevent the obfuscators from cherry-picking it to say that black is white?
51436. IanC at 15:26 PM on 22 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Bob, 1) Regarding your first point: The sea surface temperature is of course strongly influenced by ENSO and interdecadal variability. Now when you are taking the ensemble mean of CMIP3/5 models, you are effectively averaging out all the internal variability, so the ensemble mean is just the expected response due to external forcing (e.g. solar, GHG, aerosol etc). You are comparing data with a particular realization of internal variability to data with internal variability filtered out. You are effectively comparing apples to oranges, so of course they look different. To actually make a sensible analysis, you will at the very least have to look into internal variability of each model run, which entail comparing a large number individual model runs. To answer your question, a far more plausible explanation is internal variability (e.g. PDO). 2) Regarding your second point, (i) What scaling and time shifting have you applied to the NINO3.4 data? (ii) You said " According to numerous peer-reviewed papers, surface temperatures respond proportionally to El Niño and La Niña events, but it’s obvious they do not." Can you provide references?
51437. DSL at 15:16 PM on 22 November 2012
       There is no consensus
       SB, context is everything. How are current conditions similar to Cambrian conditions in terms of major forcings/feedbacks (solar output, Milankovitch cycling, continental position, general circulation, biosphere, carbon cycle, etc.)? C99 - either shenanigans or simply unfamiliar with the history and literature of the theory. Looks like a job for Richard Alley.
51438. setit-bagain at 15:09 PM on 22 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       (-snip-).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy; additionally, please read the Big Picture post.

       Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you. There are quite literally thousands of threads here at SkS; if you do not engage with the intent to enter into a dialogue to discuss the OPs of the threads on which you place comments, you invite moderation of your comments.

       Off-topic snipped.

51439. Composer99 at 14:33 PM on 22 November 2012
       There is no consensus
       Well, I'm calling shenanigans.
51440. setit-bagain at 14:18 PM on 22 November 2012
       There is no consensus
       97 is one good number but not so absolute as 100 of the theologians. They are 100 percent sure of god. And they are scientists too. All the same, their over confidence will not bring such a creature to real existence. (-snip-). According the data one real scientist only can decide that the information about climate is still scarce and there are many unknown components. (-snip-).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy; additionally, please read the Big Picture post.

       Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you. There are quite literally thousands of threads here at SkS; if you do not engage with the intent to enter into a dialogue to discuss the OPs of the threads on which you place comments, you invite moderation of your comments.

       Off-topic and ideology snipped.

51441. DSL at 13:38 PM on 22 November 2012
       It's not bad
       setit-bagain doesn't appear to be down with that whole "read the body of literature" thing. My life would be much happier if I never had to see that goofy Harris & Mann chart-picture-thing again.
51442. Composer99 at 13:37 PM on 22 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       From setit-bagain's comment:

       Before 10 000 years the ice is at least 3000 kilometers south than today. That means average retreating of ice with 300 meters per year. We can speak about accelerated global warming only if the ice retreating is faster than 300 meters per year

       ... wait, what? Care to provide some sources for this? In addition I note two rather glaring errors in the Harris & Mann drawing: - "Nomanic Time"? - "Grecian Empire"? Are there any sources justifying this terminology? In addition, the Harris & Mann drawing lists its sources as: Global temperature chart was complied by Climatologist Cliff Harris that combined the following resources: "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing. "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. [Bold & italics original.] Those don't look like credible sources from the expert literature to me. I fear, setit-bagain, that you have been badly misled.
51443. scaddenp at 13:32 PM on 22 November 2012
       It's not bad
       And a further addition in addition to falseness - during HCO global temperatures were quite possibly warmer than today and definitely warmer in parts of the globe. However the transition to warm and cold was very slow compared to today's rate of change. Rate of change is what matter, not the absolute temperature.
51444. DSL at 13:28 PM on 22 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain, do you accept the greenhouse gas theory?
51445. Composer99 at 13:24 PM on 22 November 2012
       It's not bad
       setit-bagain: Assuming your comment survives moderation (it may not as it appears to be little more than baseless sloganeering) the simple fact is that your claim is unequivocally false. See here, or of course the IPCC AR4 (Working Group 1, §6.6) for summaries of the evidence. In addition, please substantiate your claims, with reference to the peer-reviewed literature that (a) there is a predicted apocalypse widely accepted among climate scientists, and (b) that even if this prediction is accepted, that it is false. Finally, your claim is, in and of itself, quite vague, so for a productive discussion please come up with a list of specific "fundamental errors" you feel exist, with substantiation in the literature to support your claims, and bring them up on the pertinent threads.
51446. scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 22 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain, you are sadly falling victim of "misinformation" (to call it politely). To check out the truth of greenland, see Greenland used to be green. Your 3000 year "reconstruction" has problems compared to any published science (eg see here but for all detail see Ch6 of IPCC Ar4 report. For starters, LIA was not that cold, and MWP was cooler than today. The provenance of the drawing (it couldnt be called a graph) appears to be "climatologist" Cliff Harris. His background is insurance law and has no science publications. Get the correct data before jumping to conclusions. If it doesnt come from peer-reviewed science, then chances are someone is trying to mislead you - usually because proposed action is incompatible with political beliefs.
51447. setit-bagain at 13:09 PM on 22 November 2012
       It's not bad
       A thousand years ago climate is warmer than today. But we can not see in that period any traces of the predicted apocalypse connected to warming. It means that in calculations and models of climatologists is lurking fundamental err.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy; additionally, please read the Big Picture post.

       Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you. There are quite literally thousands of threads here at SkS; if you do not engage with the intent to enter into a dialogue to discuss the OPs of the threads on which you place comments, you invite moderation of your comments.

       Note that your first statement is an unsupported assertion. When making assertions counter to that which is the understood state of the science, it is customary here to then also furnish a link to a reputable source which supports your assertion.

51448. setit-bagain at 12:37 PM on 22 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Also the coin has another side. According historical point of view your scheme is about this morning toward noon but not about yesterday or the day before. A thousand years ago Greenland is really green. There are farms and orchards. Today we can find there only polar grass. And according only by this fact all turmoil about accelerated global warming is meaningless. About average the problem is almost the same. Before 10 000 years the ice is at least 3000 kilometers south than today. That means average retreating of ice with 300 meters per year. We can speak about accelerated global warming only if the ice retreating is faster than 300 meters per year. Cheers.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy; additionally, please read the Big Picture post.

       Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you. There are quite literally thousands of threads here at SkS; if you do not engage with the intent to enter into a dialogue to discuss the OPs of the threads on which you place comments, you invite moderation of your comments.

       Off-topic stricken out.

51449. Bob Tisdale at 09:05 AM on 22 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       KR, Philippe Chantreau, Rob Painting, Sphaerica, et al.: The basis of this discussion appears to have been this video that appeared on the WUWT-TV webcast. Since some of you have not watched the video, you would have missed the bases for it. Therefore, let’s start with satellite-era sea surface temperature data and let me then ask you to explain the following:

       The East Pacific Ocean (90S-90N, 180-80W) has not warmed since the start of the satellite-based Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature dataset, yet the multi-model mean of the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) simulations of sea surface temperatures say, if they were warmed by anthropogenic forcings, they should have warmed approximately 0.42 to 0.44 deg C. Why hasn’t the East Pacific warmed?

       The detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World (90S-90N, 80W-180) diverge significantly from scaled NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies in 4 places. Other than those four-multiyear periods, the detrended sea surface temperature anomalies for the Rest of the World mimic the scaled ENSO index. The first and third divergences are caused by the eruptions or El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo. Why does the detrended data diverge from the ENSO index during the 1988/89 and 1998/99/00/01 La Niñas? According to numerous peer-reviewed papers, surface temperatures respond proportionally to El Niño and La Niña events, but it’s obvious they do not.

       I’ve answered those two questions in the video. Can you answer those questions? The data is available in an easy to use form through the KNMI Climate Explorer. Feel free to confirm my results in the above graphs.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] To reiterate Ian's questions, so the dialogue can proceed:

       1) Do you have a link to the specific dataset(s)?

       2) Is the NINO3.4 data processed in anyway? and if so, how?

51450. villabolo at 09:03 AM on 22 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       It's like hitting the emergency brake without letting go off the gas pedal. We have to prepare as individuals and heads of families for a future that will include partial or full social collapse.

Prev  1021  1022  1023  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  Next