Recent Comments

Prev  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  Next

Comments 51551 to 51600:

51551. Pete Dunkelberg at 06:16 AM on 25 November 2012
       President Obama's Statement on Climate Change
       

       ...and then working through an education process that I think is necessary....

       Yes, starting at the Whitehouse!

       ...a discussion, a conversation across the country about what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations...

       Discussion good, thinking this is just a potential problem for future generations bad, very bad. Has no one yet told you that drought and crop failure will be very hurtful in the world your own children will live in?

       I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point,....

       Not much if you just talk to electeds in congress. A lot, I think, if you go over their heads and talk seriously to the people as a leader. (First you need that education. Pa'lante!)

       ...the American people right now have been so focused, ... on our economy....

       Hello? Who was it that didn't even mention climate during the election campaign?

       This one is hard....

       It is probably impossible unless you figure out that we must "solve" climate and jobs together, and you must show some leadership, and spend to create jobs.
51552. Robertgj at 05:40 AM on 25 November 2012
       We're heading into an ice age
       Daniel, all facts are not relevant, but this fact is: lower temperatures did not trigger the last ice age, 120,000 years ago. The severe climate with its winter sea ice vanished in northern Baffin Bay in a warming implied by unusual willow pollen and the more negative oxygen isotope ratios at the bedrock base of the Devon ice core (Koerner et al, 1988). East of southern Baffin Island at the site of sediment core HU75-58, 60% of the foraminifera were warm water species, now absent in today’s cold seas (Fillon, 1985). The warmer waters west of Greenland imply a cyclonic circulation and cloudy weather with heavy snowfall over Baffin Island, Quebec and Labrador. The heavy precipitation increased erosion that is confirmed by the large abrupt ~500 year pulse of hematite-containing sediment in a deep-sea record (Adkins et al., 1997). During that 500-year interval glacioeustatic sea level fell about 2.5 m, as measured on presently uplifted Barbados (Johnson, 2001) at the Cane Vale B site. Ice-free seas west of Greenland may again trigger an ice age. Ice-free seas can be established only if there is no sea-surface stratification there, and that only if the less dense polar water inflow through the Nares Strait ceases, and that only if the perennial sea ice on the polar ocean goes away, consequently enabling a warmer polar atmosphere in winter and a lower atmospheric pressure that reduces or eliminates polar water inflow through the Nares Strait. Indeed, the increasing atmospheric CO2 may eventually terminate our next ice age hundreds of years later, but during the first century after year 2020 when the perennial polar sea ice is gone, it is very likely that Canada will see widespread thickening snow fields on now bare summer tundra, and temperate climate trees in northern Europe will vanish, like their pollen vanished from the record 120,000 years ago (Field et al., 1994). You only need to wait another ten years to see if this triggering prediction is right or wrong.
51553. Philippe Chantreau at 03:31 AM on 25 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       I don't know what kind of a vision of a conversation you can possibly have SB. I know that SkS is about the scientific litterature found in peer-reviewed publications. They are usually called articles or papers, not books. As a whole, they constitute the weight of the evidence. Your last posts are so confused as to be virtually impossible to sort out. English is not my first language either, I make efforts in order to establish effective communication. If you can't be bothered making that kind of effort, then indeed you are wasting your time here. If you are not willing to consider the weight of the evidence or to examine scientific references provided, you are also wasting your time. Perhaps you should have looked closer at the comment policy and the various statements that explain what is done here before piping up. There are more scientific references on SkS than any other web-site on the subject of climate change. If that's not where your interest is, there are many other sites with different outlooks. What you do next is up to you, but SkS will remain anchored in the published science litterature and the comment policy will remain the same, as will the English language.
51554. Kayell at 03:26 AM on 25 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       PART 2 We continue to explore the satellite-based SST data from Reynolds OI.v2 (Nov'81-Oct'12) and see what patterns it might reveal. This graph, global SSTA: is the area weighted sum of the two following subsets: (left: The World Ocean Outside the East Pacific - 90N-90S, 80W-180E; 2/3rds of the global ocean right: The East Pacific Ocean - 90N-90S, 180-80W; 1/3rd of the global ocean) It was when looking at these two SSTA graphs, together producing the global graph above, that Tisdale had his eureka moment. If we superimpose the two global subset graphs above on each other, we see quite clearly specifically where the discrepancy between the East Pacific and the global SSTA curve (recalling Part 1) primarily arises: The NINO3.4 region is located in the East Pacific Ocean. Its signal totally dominates the SSTA evolution of that basin. According to the graph above, there is no upward trend in SSTA in the East Pacific Ocean since at least 1981. That's 1/3rd of the global ocean. Look at this map (from GISTEMP): It shows the global distribution of temperature change between 1982 and 2011. Please disregard the continental parts at this point. The oceanic change (its size and distribution) is calculated using Reynolds OI.v2. I've defined the East Pacific Ocean (65N-60S, 180-80W) and the NINO3.4 region (5N-5S, 170-120W), the latter making up ~5,7% (!) of the former. There's a distinct pattern manifesting itself here. Peculiarly, the West Pacific is one of two sectors of the world ocean (the other being the North Atlantic) displaying a particularly large positive change over the period in question. It has experienced a pronounced warming. And this even while sitting just next to (and being intimately oceanically linked to) the one major region of the world ocean that hasn't warmed at all. In fact, barring those two sub- to extratropical warm tongues coming in from the West Pacific, the East Pacific Ocean (and specifically the equatorial NINO3.4 region) has actually cooled since 1982. This striking contrast between two neighboring, tightly interconnected sectors of the same ocean basin alone should tell us something. What is going on? Let's get back to the SSTA graph for the world ocean outside the East Pacific: A staircase if ever there was one. This is how the change in SSTs outside the East Pacific in the GISTEMP map above actually progressed through time. If we were to draw a straight trendline from 1981/82 to 2011/12, we would only see the total upward change. We would miss (obscure) all that which happened in between, what led to that total, how (and specifically at what times) the change in temperature took place. Blessed with a natural scientific curiosity, we're of course interested in the how and when. We want to investigate the total change a bit closer. There are two definite upward shifts to be found along the curve above - one in 1987-88 and one in 1998-99. Do these years sound familiar in any way? In addition, there's one, albeit much smaller, in 2010. Outside of these two (three) pretty eye-catching sudden thrusts, there is no traceable upward trend in the dataset. If anything, there's a hint of the opposite. The entire rise in SST for this vast region from 1981/82 to 2011/12 is to be found in these two (three) particular instances of abrupt elevation of the mean level of anomalies. Without these instances, no general warming. Note how the specific shift events (particularly the first two) put all other up and down fluctuations along the curve to shame. They shoot up like towering pinnacles at the front of each new step. I've adapted the graph to visualize the steps: The red squares down by the x axis denote the great El Niños that directly preceded the shifts: The double Niño of 1986/87/88, the Super-El Niño of 1997/98 and the globally influential Niño 2009/10 (I have also included the giant El Niño of 1982/83, almost as powerful as the 1997/98 event, but noticeably suppressed globally by the El Chichón eruption). Ok. We've now looked at how the SSTA evolved in the world ocean outside the East Pacific through time. It basically all happened in two (three) sudden upward shifts, one in 1987-88 and one through 1998 (+ the minor (and still unresolved) one in 2010). Now let's look at how it evolved spatially. We split the world ocean into 7 sectors: (Sector 1: East Pacific Ocean (65N-60S, 180-80W); Sector 2: West Pacific/East Indian Ocean (65N-60S, 80-180E); Sector 3: North Atlantic Ocean (65N-0, 80W-20E); Sector 4: West Indian Ocean (65N-60S, 20-80E); Sector 5: South Atlantic Ocean (0-60S, 80W-20E); Sector 6: Arctic Ocean (90-65N); Sector 7: Southern Ocean (60-90S). The black rectangle in Sector 1 is the NINO3.4 region. The two black ellipses in Sector 2 mark different definitions of the West Pacific Warm Pool (WPWP). Nevermind those for now.) If we area weight the SSTA data for each of these sectors against each other, we come out with something like this: This shows the absolute influence each separate sector has on the final global SSTA graph shown at the top of this post. It is quite revealing. The Pacific reigns supreme. Not really big news. But still. There is something in particular one should note about these graphs. The (NINO) amplitudes of the East Pacific completely overwhelms the amplitudes of all other sectors of the world ocean. No wonder the global graph looks so similar to the East Pacific one, the main difference being the trend. The East Pacific (Sector 1) temperature swings also dwarf those of the West Pacific/East Indian Ocean (Sector 2). Only at two points along the Sector 2 curve above there's a rise that is (nearly) comparable to the amplitudes of Sector 1. These two instances occur in 1987-88 and in 1998-99. Those dates are getting familiar. But why is the SSTA evolution of the East Pacific (Sector 1) and the West Pacific/East Indian (Sector 2) so different from one another? To understand this, one has to understand how the ENSO process works. More on that in Part 3. But first (and rounding off Part 2) let me show you something. What happens if we add the area weighted SSTA data from the other basins outside the East Pacific to the SSTA curve of the West Pacific/East Indian? That is, Sector 2 +3+4+5+6 and 7. This is what happens: (The lower graph, the blue one, is Sector 2 (West Pacific/East Indian Ocean). The middle graph, the orange one, is Sector 2+3 (The North Atlantic). The upper graph, the pale blue one, is the world ocean outside the East Pacific (65N-60S).) Watch how the upward shifts and the steps are simply consolidated going from Sector 2 (West Pacific/East Indian) to global outside Sector 1 (East Pacific).
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] If you walk away when a flaw is identified in your analysis then you shouldn't be surprised if others find your argument unconvincing. As you are challenging the mainstream scientific position, the onus is on you to show that your argument is solid. That is the way science works.

       Therefore, you shouldn't ignore the moderator's advice here: "I would recommend that you do not proceed onto part 2 until we have had a chance to digest part 1 and for relevant questions to be answered".

51555. wili at 03:22 AM on 25 November 2012
       Newsflash: A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - World Bank
       Here's another shorter video that covers some of the same ground--well worth a listen/watch: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/11/david-roberts-remix-climate-change-is.html
51556. DSL at 02:51 AM on 25 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       setit-bagain, you said "Hey read this book! O, yes I will, but you read this book!" What book are you talking about? I don't think anyone has linked to a book. They've linked to the published science. Read it. It might be important. You also say that the temperature was in the Harris & Mann chart. Not so. That was a hand-drawn sketch of Holocene temp. Here's something better.
51557. setit-bagain at 02:27 AM on 25 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Tom Curtis Neat but incorrect. And it is incorrect because of the lack of sufficient quantity of evidences about oceans. The oldest probes of ocean bottom are younger than 250 millions of years. It is virtually impossible to get a picture about oceans beyond this time border. Our only reliable source is investigation of continental plates. To make a picture different from this on a continent is more likely a fantasy than something serious. To adapt this fantasy according some expectations based on present theories do not makes these claims trustworthy even with convinient tools as acidification as patch against the uncomfortable truth. (-snip-).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic soliloquy snipped.
51558. setit-bagain at 02:13 AM on 25 November 2012
       Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
       Composer99 and company (-snip-)? For instance I posted a diagram about temperature in near history but it was decorated with meaningless history names and volcanic activity. All the same the temperature was there… And many (-snip-) grabbed names and not temperature component. My mistake. (-snip-). I am deeply sorry, but that fashion is not included in my vision about a conversation.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone and terminology snipped.
51559. skywatcher at 01:36 AM on 25 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Not to Distract too much from Tom Curtis' points above, but I would be interested if Bob Tisdale could answer KR's three underlined points in post #29 on this thread. Frankly, I feel that until he works out and demonstrates to the world: 1: why ENSO should suddenly be involved with warming the world despite a long-term (multicentury) neutral average) 2: why the demonstrated TOA spectral changes in IR emission/absorption that have CO2's fingerprints all over it are unimportant. 3: (perhaps most importantly) what is the energy source that allows the oceans to drive atmospheric temperature changes while themselves warming on a global scale? Where is the energy coming from, Bob? Until then, selective examination of partial regions of ocean basin data are, to me, the oceanographic equivalent of suggesting that a cold winter's day in Reykjavik disproves global warming. Just a more fancy cherry-pick, but a cherry-pick, nonetheless.
51560. Dikran Marsupial at 23:09 PM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       While anthropogenic emissions are responsible for 100% of the post-industrial rise in atmospheric CO2, only about 3-4% IIRC of atmospheric CO2 is of directly anthropogenic origin. Thus Jone's statement is technically correct, but deeply misleading. The reason for this is that the vast natural exchange fluxes continually swap atmospheric CO2 (some of which is of directly anthropogenic origin) with CO2 from the oceanic and terrestrial reservoirs. These exchange fluxes have no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, but they do mean that relatively little CO2 in the air is of directly anthropogenic origin as it only takes on average 4-5 years for each molecule of CO2 to be exchanged with "natural" CO2. The thing that matters though is not whether the CO2 in the atmosphere is of directly anthropogenic origin, but what is causing total emissions (natural+anthropogenic) to be greater than total uptake, as that is what is causing atmospheric CO2 to rise, and the answer to that is "anthropogenic emissions".
51561. Tom Curtis at 22:16 PM on 24 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Thankyou. I notice that the strongest correlation between Nino 3.4 and global SST is when global SST lag Nino 3.4 by nine weeks. In your comparison, you say you used a 6 month (equivalent to a 26 week) lag. Why did you use a lag 17 weeks longer than that indicated by the data?
51562. Bob Tisdale at 21:19 PM on 24 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Tom Curtis asked, "To what date do you refer when you mention 'the start of the satellite-based' dataset?" Since we're discussing the monthly Reynolds OI.v2 data, the first month is November 1981.
51563. chriskoz at 19:04 PM on 24 November 2012
       Sheffield vs. Dai on Drought Changes
       Just thet simple amount of precipitation is not the indicative how well the soil has been saturated with moisture. The form/duration is equally important. A sudden heavy and quick storm over bone dry land does not impregnate it at all just wash the surface and may even be detrimental by eroding it. A steady drizzle over few days may saturate deep soil even if its total amount is smaller than the storm would bring. A consistent record of drought changes would be done better with a standardised measure of soil moisture. Anyone has been doing it on a large scale consitently enought for the last 60y? I doubt it. I guess chenges in river flows can be used as proxies. Again, you need a long, detailed record. There will be increased floods and bigger droughts in between, depending on ENSO. Naysayers will always argue that "on average, nothing has changed".
51564. Tom Curtis at 16:23 PM on 24 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       Bob Tisdale, you wrote, "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". The Reynolds OI.v2 data set is normalized to the period 1971-2000. The NOAA website you link to above plots data from Nov 1, 1982. To what date do you refer when you mention "the start of the satellite-based" dataset?
51565. Bob Tisdale at 15:25 PM on 24 November 2012
       It's El Niño
       

       IanC: Excuse the delay. 

       You replied, “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.”

       I assume this is a discussion of the East Pacific data. The appearances are not in question. The trends are.

       You replied, “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.”

       Not me. I’m done with my analysis. It is the responsibility of the party wishing to dispute my results to show the effects of the point that party wants to introduce to the discussion. With that in mind, the models do such a poor job of simulating ENSO you’d be better off trying to remove the effects of ENSO from the East Pacific sea surface temperature data. Then you won’t have to analyze each of the dozens and dozens of model runs. If you don’t want to do that, that’s okay, because the “Rest of the World” data still needs to be explored.

       You replied, “To answer your question, a far more plausible explanation is internal variability (e.g. PDO).”

       Unfortunately, that explanation doesn’t work for a number of reasons. (a) The PDO represents the standardized leading Principal Component of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N after the global temperatures have been removed, not the sea surface temperature anomalies. (b) The standardization of the PDO exaggerates its actual variability by a factor of about 5.6, if memory serves. In other words, the standardization exaggerates the importance of the PDO. (c) The PDO is actually inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of that portion of the North Pacific on decadal timescales. (d) The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO and the sea level pressure of the North Pacific. The sea level pressure of the North Pacific causes the difference between the PDO and ENSO. (e) The dominant component of the PDO is the sea surface temperature of the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension, in the western North Pacific, not the East Pacific.

       You asked, “What scaling and time shifting have you applied to the NINO3.4 data?”

       The scaling factor is 0.12 and there’s a 6-month lag.

       You asked, “Can you provide references?”

       Yup. Every study that attempts to remove the effects of ENSO from the surface temperature record by scaling an ENSO index and by subtracting the scaled and lagged ENSO index from surface temperatures assumes surface temperatures respond proportionally to El Niño and La Niña events. Examples in alphabetical order:

       Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) “Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010”

       And:

       Lean and Rind (2009) How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?

       And:

       Lean and Rind (2008) How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006

       And:

       Santer et al (2001), Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends

       And:

       Thompson et al (2008), Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights

       And:

       Trenberth et al (2002) Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures (See note 1)

       And:

       Wigley, T. M. L. (2000), ENSO, volcanoes, and record-breaking temperatures

       Note 1: Trenberth et al (2002) included the following caveat (my boldface):

       “The main tool used in this study is correlation and regression analysis that, through least squares fitting, tends to emphasize the larger events. This seems appropriate as it is in those events that the signal is clearly larger than the noise. Moreover, the method properly weights each event (unlike many composite analyses). Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual.”

       The divergences shown in brown are those ENSO residuals.

       Moderator DB asked, “Do you have a link to the specific dataset(s)?”

       The Reynolds OI.v2 data is available on a gridded basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

       http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

       And through the NOAA NOMADS website:

       http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&lite=&ptype=ts&dir=

       The coordinates of the NINO3.4 region are 5S-5N, 170W-120W. The coordinates for the East Pacific is 90S-90N, 180-80W. And the coordinates for the Rest of the World are 90S-90N, 80W-180. I provided a brief introduction to the KNMI Climate Explorer here:

       http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/very-basic-introduction-to-the-knmi-climate-explorer/

       And DB asked, “Is the NINO3.4 data processed in anyway? and if so, how?”

       The NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies were scaled by a factor is 0.12, lagged 6 months, and both datasets in the graph of the detrended Rest of the World data were smoothed with 13-month running-mean filters.

       Regards

51566. Doug Hutcheson at 13:35 PM on 24 November 2012
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       Tom Curtis @ 236, if I expressed what I really think of Alan Jones and his veracity, the comment would be moderated faster than a speeding bullsh*t bullet.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Likely, yes.
51567. 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?
51568. 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.
51569. 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.
51570. 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.
51571. 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.
51572. 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.
51573. 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.
51574. 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"
51575. 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.
51576. 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.)
51577. 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.
51578. 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.
51579. 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.
51580. 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.
51581. 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.
51582. 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.
51583. 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.
51584. Alexandre at 22:45 PM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       News release link still broken.
51585. 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.
51586. 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.
51587. 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.
51588. 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.
51589. 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 . . .
51590. 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.
51591. 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?
51592. 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!
51593. 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.
51594. 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.
51595. 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.
51596. YubeDude at 09:50 AM on 23 November 2012
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Reach New Record
       news release link???
51597. 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.
51598. 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.
51599. 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.
51600. 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.

Prev  1024  1025  1026  1027  1028  1029  1030  1031  1032  1033  1034  1035  1036  1037  1038  1039  Next