Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 Next
Comments 51851 to 51900:
-
markx at 02:34 AM on 6 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
doug_bostrom at 01:50 AM on 6 November, 2012 re: "errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." Hi Doug; I got that information from an article mentioned in a previous post. (-snip-). From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey) November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php“Our team has been involved for many years in constructing time series of net flux from satellite data, going back to the 1980s,” says Wong. The observations started with a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and today are being made with Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.... ....From 1993 to 2003, measurements of heat storage in the oceans agreed with satellite observations of net flux. After 2003, however, surface observations suggested that the ocean was losing heat, while satellite measurements of net flux showed the Earth was still slowly gaining energy. This mismatch was a hint that there might be a problem with one of the data sets.
Moderator Response:[DB] If you are indeed the same markx posting comments here as at Shaping Tomorrow's World (here, for example), please note that SkS has a Comments Policy forbidding sloganeering and accusations of deception. Moderation has already had to be enacted on your previous comments as a result (Note that similar to STW, all comments placed at SkS are audited for compliance).
Your referenced source is very shelf-dated. For OHC, Levitus et al 2012 is considered the more reliable source on OHC, as it contains actual data to December 2011, rather than on speculation.
Discussions of Earth's energy imbalance are more proper on a more appropriate thread (the Search function yields this as a suggestion). Off-topic comments will be removed. Thanks in advance for your compliance in this matter!
Sloganeering/intimations of impropriety snipped.
-
Composer99 at 02:12 AM on 6 November 2012New research from last week 44/2012
The citation information at the end of the abstract of the Brysse et al (2012) paper is for the subsequent Guangliang et al paper. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:50 AM on 6 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Here's what you said about Argo, Markx. This site doesn't rely on an oral tradition; there's a database so it's possible to have retrospective. Markx: "It was interesting to note that the errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data." But you were wrong. Were you simply asking a question? No, hardly. Quite the opposite; you were not just saying "I doubt it" but making up stories to justify that doubt. Silly. I suggest you use the search function and look up a fellow who used to appear here, one "Berenyi Peter." He'll show you the way to do a really baroque and quality "I doubt it." -
Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
markx, various... - One underlying theme that you appear to be overlooking (IMO) is that given multiple measurements (ocean heat content, tidal gauges, satellite TOA radiation and sea altimeter measures, etc.), the combination of multiple measures with their own constraints and overlapping observation times (as with CERES and XBT/ARGO transitions) allows us to refine the accuracy of all measurements. The more data you have, the more accurate and precise your measurements. That's basic math - the signal to noise (S/N) improves relative to the square root of the number of observations. Multiple overlapping instruments also permit calibration across instrument transitions. So yes, we can indeed determine temperatures with hundredths of a degree, even with 1/10 or single digit accuracy thermometers - because we have a lot of data, from many different instruments and modalities. -
markx at 01:11 AM on 6 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012 "... dredged google..." I confess that is the first place I go these days for information; however both the Loeb paper and the Levitus paper have been on my computer for quite some time. On Levitus the 0.09 degrees C change measured over a 55 year period caught my eye. I had earlier been interested in TOA radiation measurements (Loeb)as they in earlier times were put forward as the proof of role of the greenhouse gases, but unfortunately the degree of precision required is perhaps lacking at this stage. The NASA "correcting Ocean Cooling article I found a few days ago, and searches on TSLR sent me to: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf Showing the imprecision of current satellite data (Icesat, Grace, Jason..) ... (imprecision of 1+ mm/yr) ... hence the proposed GRASP mission to rectify those problems. All of these topics; Argo, Ceres, TSLR, Jason, Grace, and later GRASP, are interlinked. Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November, 2012Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations.
I have no problems with that theory. But I am interested in how precisely we are measuring all this. If all the basic data has some degree of imprecision, and it seems to, we still have a lot of data to collect. -
quokka at 01:09 AM on 6 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
@gws Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now. I presume "natural gas" means bio-gas. At least in Australia, it normally means fossil gas. Whatever the life cycle emissions are, this is a self limiting technology unless you wish to cover the planet in maize farms. Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate. You claim this, but it is not necessarily true. There is, for example, considerable resistance to on-shore wind in parts of the UK. It is hard to see this not increasing, simply because of the large land requirements of wind (and other renewables). But in the end, the bottom line is cost regardless of how many people are employed. As for build rates, France managed to displace fossil fuels in electricity generation far faster than any deployment of non-hydro renewables has in any nation. Of course it is very challenging, but that applies to all technologies. Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh There is about 60GWe of new nuclear capacity under construction world wide. There is, as I understand, about 70GWp of PV installed worldwide. Given their respective capacity factors, PV would have to grow by a factor of 5-6 just to generate as much electricity as that new nuclear capacity. Perhaps it will, but it needs to be reality not promises. Meanwhile, industry associations in the UK for nuclear, renewables and CCS have joined forces in a letter to the government calling for specific carbon targets supported by investment in nuclear, renewables and CCS Industry letter calls for decarbonisation target in energy bill Somewhat to my surprise, Greenpeace has supported the letter. (Maybe they didn't read it properly). A step in the right direction and an important development. It doesn't have to be renewables OR nuclear. It can be renewables AND nuclear and we get the job done sooner. And worldwide, that is by far the most likely outcome. -
markx at 00:31 AM on 6 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Looks like my post got lost (not too sure of my maths below, but it's be ballpark correct I think): doug_bostrom at 19:29 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..Markx's Argo error. ..." I didn't think I was in error there, I simply asked a question. The 0 to 700 meter level of the world's oceans have risen 0.18 degrees C in 55 years (early measurements were taken from ships decks using a reversing mercury thermometer calibrated in 10ths of degrees C, by a line ... thanks Rob) And the total 0 to 2000 metre range of the world's oceans has been measured to have risen 0.09 degrees C over 55 years... So therefore the 701 to 2000 meter ocean depth must have risen a measured 0.00415 degrees C in 55 years. Is my maths correct?Moderator Response: (Rob P) - No need to even bother checking your math. You are simply repeating a fallacy, and one that was corrected by SkS commenters previously -see comments 72 & 73. The precision of the measurements cannot not be determined by taking the warming of the whole 0-2000 meter layer and dividing that into the ocean volume (assuming that is what you've done). Following on from Doug Bostrom's comment, here's a simple analogy for readers benefit: A University experiment is carried out to determine whether staff/students are gaining or losing weight over time. Regular weighing is carried out and at the end of the experiment it is found that all involved have gained a total of x kilos. "Whoa! Wait a moment!" says Markx "How can we be sure? When I take x (the total weight gained) and divide it by the number of people weighed, the number is 0.000x. There is absolutely no way the scales have that sort of precision. How can we be sure that anyone gained any weight at all?" Thus the illogicality of your thinking is illustrated such that even the non-technically-minded can understand. Also please note that constantly repeating a myth/fallacy is deemed to be sloganeering. This therefore constitutes the first of 3 warnings. Please familiarize yourself with comments policy. -
gws at 22:03 PM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Oh the memes ... It is, unfortunately, not true that nuclear is a CO2 emissions free technology, aside from its other issues. Uranium mining, and building, maintaining and deconstructing nuclear power plants safely, has a significant CO2 footprint.
Source: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1157/2011-031-de.pdf
Based on life-cycle considerations, it is a low emission source, but still worse than small-scale combined heat&electricity plants burning natural gas ("Erdgas-Blockheizkraftwerk"), as promoted in Germany since about two decades now.
Currently, nuclear produces about 6% of global energy consumption, and only as electricity. You can check the source above or calculate on your own how many nuclear plants you have to build to make a serious dent in CO2 emissions, with or without electrifying transportation ... with current nuclear technology (PWRs) you quickly run into resource issues of
- building safely, high quality parts fast enough
- finding qualified personnel for construction and operation
- finding enough uranium
- storing waste
- preventing proliferation
- operating safely under competing water demands.
Does France consider this a serious option? I doubt it. They imported electricity from Germany last year when it got too hot in France and cooling demand exceeded availability (a problem all such plants face during heat waves).
So no nuclear? The industry's announcements have almost always topped reality. Once they actually achieve what they claim, e.g. build and successfully operate the new generation reactor that will use nuclear waste, we can talk again.
So I come back to my original comment:
Installing decentralized renewables with a large labor component is quicker and societally more accepted than large central power production that takes a long time to plan and build, and a smaller workforce to operate.
Reality says: Huge growth rate in renewables worldwide, near zero growth rate for nuclear. Hmmh.
-
Rob Painting at 20:57 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Uncertainty is a topic for legitimate discussion. We've seen little of that from you so far. You started with ropes and buckets, and appear to have dredged google in order to throw up research which, you believe, casts doubt on the very obvious warming of the planet. Uncertainty is discussed in the literature, and observationally-based studies do quantify this. It is no great secret. Now if you want to start quantifying this yourself, and/or actually engage in meaningful discussion, then do so. Needless repetition of memes or myths constitutes sloganeering, and may result in future comments being snipped accordingly. Do note, however, that Earth's observed energy imbalance is a logical consequence of the increased Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the rate of loss of heat to space, and the Earth must warm to eventually return to equilibrium. So there is a very obvious physics-based foundation which underpins the observations. -
markx at 20:25 PM on 5 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Full reference for above post: Nature 413, 508-512 (4 October 2001) | doi:10.1038/35097055; Received 20 February 2001; Accepted 21 August 2001 High frequency of 'super-cyclones' along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years. Jonathan Nott & Matthew Hayne http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.html -
markx at 20:24 PM on 5 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
doug_bostrom at 15:41 PM on 5 November, 2012 "..... ever in its region what's the diagnostic of the obedience, the fingerprint of "normal?" ..." Worth thinking about: Here is an Australian report showing we should expect a 'super-cyclone' every 200 to 300 years, not every 1000 as previously suspected. Now, Europeans have only been recording such things in Australia for 200 years or so... so we are not sure when the nest one is due. But when it comes along I am sure we will blame it on AGW. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413508a0.htmlHere we determine the intensity of prehistoric tropical cyclones over the past 5,000 years from ridges of detrital coral and shell deposited above highest tide and terraces that have been eroded into coarse-grained alluvial fan deposits. ...... We infer that the deposits were formed by storms with recurrence intervals of two to three centuries and we show that the cyclones responsible must have been of extreme intensity (central pressures less than 920 hPa). Our estimate of the frequency of such 'super-cyclones' is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated (which was once every several millennia..).
-
markx at 20:07 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
scaddenp at 19:49 PM on 5 November, 2012 "...So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements..." No, but all are interlinked. Each is used to justify the value obtained for the other. As is pointed out, that does not mean any of them are incorrect. And, on the other hand it does not mean that all, or any of them are entirely correct. We are really still in the very early stages of data collection here, with ocean temperature data being collected in detail and depth only since 2000, and satellite data for both TOA radiation flux and sea level rise needing better technology and better data. This is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion, and I am surprised you find it heretical; Topic: Just how precisely measured are all these parameters? -
scaddenp at 19:49 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
"But is there a really tight agreement between calculated and TSL, measured OHC and TOA? " So measurement of sea level is dependent on heat measurements?? Sea level has the interlinked tide gauge and satellite measurements. There are many problems in determining heat imbalance from satellite measurements. Argo is quite definitely the best instrument for that but it's short term data. On the other hand, the problems is closing the heat balance would point to MORE heat being stored in the ocean to close with the sea level curve not less. -
Rob Painting at 19:39 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Doug, there's an SkS post about Loeb (2012) here: Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline' The Levitus methodology, upon which Levitus (2012) & Nuccitelli (2012) are based, actually shows the smallest warming rate over 2004-2008, for the upper 700 metres of global ocean. This is largely down to differences in how to handle sparse sampling in the datasets. Contrary to Markx's insinuations, uncertainty is like a dagger - it cuts both ways. -
Doug Bostrom at 19:29 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Rereading Markx's last comment I'm moved to amend my last remark (retracting "nothing to do with" and "not the point" 8-P ). It's true that Loeb et al. were seeking to improve CERES results by systematically eliminating errors, using Hansen et al 2005 0.85W/m2 as a benchmark. I did take Markx's first remark on the matter to mean that CERES data is essentially a pure derivative of model output, which it is not. As many of us are probably painfully aware, Hansen's paper reports prediction and observation of the same imbalance. Readers might want to take a look at table 2 of Loeb and decide what the dominant source of error is going to be. Personally I'll put my money on OHC measurements being the least of the problems, way less than other issues w/CERES at this level of precision. I suppose I've already developed an observational bias based on Markx's Argo error. Too twitchy. :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 18:29 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
You apparently still have not read the paper, Markx, or you would not continue missing the entire point of the authors by saying such things as "Are you saying that knowledge of the TOA flux was innate, this was only about ironing out the kinks in the satellite measurements?" which clearly indicates you've got the entire concept of the paper neatly backward. The objective of the authors had nothing to do with improving CERES data. They necessarily explain the evolution of improvements in CERES data by the experiment operators but that's not the point of the paper. Looking beyond your problem with understanding the paper you brought up, what I find surprising is your metaphorical condemnation of calibration via your suspicions over the refinement of CERES data (and apparently any other data you find inconvenient). Apparently you're more comfortable with the idea that instrumentation should be manufactured and deployed in a state of nature, reading just as it did when first assembled regardless of whether the dial pointing to "accurate" was put on its axle pointing reciprocal to its proper direction. -
markx at 18:06 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
doug_bostrom at 17:25 PM on 5 November, 2012 ".... the objective of the paper is not to have CERES data chase model output...." Hi Doug. Forgive me if I misinterpret you here: Where did the knowledge of the TOA flux come from? Are you saying that knowledge of the TOA flux was innate, and this was only about ironing out the kinks in the satellite measurements? And now we have finally got the satellite measures of TOA spot on? They match "the actual"? Utilizing calculated net heat storage of the earth, and estimated or known (from where?) TOA fluxes, it seems we can adjust our satellite measurements. And using our (new-found?) knowledge of the TOA flux we can confirm that it (now) matches the OHC data. (Itself measured to a precision of 3 decimal places over 55 years). -
CBDunkerson at 17:29 PM on 5 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #2: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Michael Bloomberg endorsed Obama!?? Yeah, ok. I get it now. The businessweek cover, republicans believing in global warming, that thing on Google News about Disney owning Star Wars... this is all some kind of big, 'Let's freak out the people who have been living like cave men for the past week' gag. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:25 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Excellent sound bytes can be clipped from abstracts, Markx, but it helps to read the entire paper. When you do that you'll find there's a physical basis for adjustments. It's not just a matter of guessing. For example:Another positive bias is associated with how the global average solar irradiance is calculated. It is common practice to assume a spherical earth when averaging TOA insolation over the earth’s surface. This gives the well-known So/4 expression for mean solar irradiance, where So is the instantaneous solar irradiance at the TOA. When a more careful calculation is made by assuming the earth is an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere, and the annual cycle in the earth’s declination angle and the earth–sun distance are taken into account, the division factor becomes 4.0034 instead of 4. The spherical earth assumption causes a 1 0.29 W m 22 bias in net TOA flux. Similarly, assuming a spherical earth in determining the global average SW and LW TOA fluxes (by using a latitude weighting in geocentric instead of geodedic coordinates) results in 10.18 and 20.05 W m 22 biases, respectively.
And:After the release of SRBAVG-GEO edition 2D, an error was discovered in the computation of the declination angle and earth–sun distance factor. The angle and factor were computed at 0000 UTC instead of 1200 UTC, which is appropriate for computing the solar incoming in local time. This has no effect on the annual mean insolation but significantly affects the monthly zonal solar incoming fluxes near the poles. This error iscorrected in the final adjusted TOA fluxes and will also be rectified in the next SRBAVG version (edition 3). Adjustments to total solar irradiance associated with the spherical earth assumption are applied zonally to improve the accuracy of incoming solar radiation at each latitude. While these adjustments are applied at the zonal level, the globally averaged correction is the same as in Table 2. Similarly, adjustments in SW TOA fluxes due to near-terminator flux biases are also applied zonally without modifying the global mean. Separate adjustments are made for clear and all-sky TOA fluxes.
And no, the objective of the paper is not to have CERES data chase model output. Don't be insulting. -
CBDunkerson at 17:20 PM on 5 November 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #44
Wow, I hadn't seen that Bloomberg cover before now (just got electricity back). Powerful statement from one of the 'oracles' of the usual denier crowd. -
paulgrey at 17:14 PM on 5 November 20122012 SkS News Bulletin #2: Hurricane Sandy & Climate Change
Hurricane sandy is the worst hit hurricane so far. People have no electricity,gas and other needed things for their daily chores. Back me up -
markx at 16:53 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
doug_bostrom at 16:46 PM on 5 November, 2012 ".... CERES data is also adjusted, to match modeled TOA expectations....How about a reference? ..." Hi Doug, provided in #81, but here it is again (added detail): Loeb etal 2009 ‘Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget’ J. Climate, 22, 748–766This study provides a detailed error analysis of TOA fluxes based on the latest generation of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) gridded monthly mean data products [the monthly TOA/surface averages geostationary (SRBAVG-GEO)] and uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system.... ...The 5-yr global mean CERES net flux from the standard CERES product is 6.5 W m−2, much larger than the best estimate of 0.85 W m−2 based on observed ocean heat content data and model simulations. The major sources of uncertainty in the CERES estimate are from instrument calibration (4.2 W m−2) and the assumed value for total solar irradiance (1 W m−2).
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:48 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
That's stale, Markx. You need to stay up to speed lest you mislead people. -
markx at 16:47 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
doug_bostrom at 16:05 PM on 5 November, 2012 "...I'd be interested in seeing a reference for that. Pointer? .." Hi Doug; for the article mentioned in a previous post. From NASA – (Titled “Correcting Ocean Cooling”. by Rebecca Lindsey November 5, 2008 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php“Our team has been involved for many years in constructing time series of net flux from satellite data, going back to the 1980s,” says Wong. The observations started with a satellite mission called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment and today are being made with Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.... ....From 1993 to 2003, measurements of heat storage in the oceans agreed with satellite observations of net flux. After 2003, however, surface observations suggested that the ocean was losing heat, while satellite measurements of net flux showed the Earth was still slowly gaining energy. This mismatch was a hint that there might be a problem with one of the data sets.
I'm not on any mission at all. Just asking sensible questions. We have a very small temperature increment of great precision, all 'proven' or at least 'confirmed' by interdependent adjusted measurements. I have no doubt re the skill and integrity of the scientists involved, but have some doubts re the risks of using pyramided data adjustments and calibrations in proving a 'fact'. I trust you can assure me it is all as clear and precise as you report it to be. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:46 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Markx, as your other claim about Argo and CERES proved incorrect, what are we to make of your claim that ...Ceres data is also adjusted, to match modeled TOA expectations. Are you remembering that incorrectly, or is that a rumor you've heard? Or is it real? How about a reference? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:42 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
And here's the relevant passage, which does not reflect Markx's claim about Argo errors being detected by comparison with CERES data. Markx, did you remember reading such a thing yourself, or is it a rumor you've heard?To provide a more observation-based representation of changes in net TOA flux during the past decade, the CERES net TOA radiation record is anchored to an estimated Earth heat uptake for July2005June 2010 of 0:580:38 Wm2, by combining the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Joint In-stitute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (PMEL/JPL/JIMAR;ref. 14; see Methods) Argo-only estimate from 0 to 1,800 m with estimates of smaller heat uptake terms from warming of the deep ocean, land and atmosphere, as well as melting ice. Argo alone samples consistently, persistently, globally, and to a greater depth than previous upper-ocean measurement programs. A comparison of year-to-year changes in CERES net TOA flux during the past decade with the PMEL/JPL/JIMAR estimates of 0700 m and 01,800 m year-to-year ocean heating rates (Fig. 3a) reveals that although thesatellite and ocean in situ interannual variability agree to within observational uncertainty, the error bars and year-to-year variations for upper-ocean heating rates are large earlier in the decade, when much of the ocean in situ data were from XBT measurements,which have poorer sampling than Argo and require large uncertain bias corrections that Argo does not. Consistency between satellite net TOA flux and upper-ocean heating rate variability improves after 2004, when the Argo network provides near-global coverage. Importantly, the CERES net TOA flux observations do not show a sharp decline during the XBT to Argo transition around 20022005. For 20042010, the year-to-year changes in net TOA flux and the PMEL/JPL/JIMAR ocean heating rate track one another with a correlation coefficient of 0.46. During the same period, the correlation coefficients between CERES net TOA flux and 0700 m ocean heating rates from both National Oceanic Data Center (NODC) and Hadley is 0.05. Although we cannot confidently claim that one ocean heat content estimate is preferable to another, the better agreement between the CERES and PMEL/JPL/JIMAR year-to-year changes after 2004 is encouraging. Combining the stable, decadal-length record of changes in net radiation from CERES with the 01,800 m Argo OHCA record and other minor storage terms, we compute Earth's energy imbalance for the period from January 2001December 2010 to be 0:500:43 Wm2
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:30 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Whoops, belay that request. Here's what Markx is talking about:Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty -
markx at 16:28 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Current satellite data (Icesat, Grace, Jason..) would seem to suffer from some imprecision (1+ mm/yr), hence the proposed GRASP mission (it is marvelous to see the detail that goes into these projects) http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdfThus, we assess that current state of the art reference frame errors are at roughly the mm/yr level, making observation of global signals of this size very difficult to detect and interpret. This level of error contaminates climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions, and was appropriately recognized as a limiting error source by the NRC Decadal Report and by GGOS.
This is all heading in the right directions, but it seems to me at this stage it still leaves us with a cycle of interdependent adjusted data: OHC/TSL/TOA. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:07 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Markx, you seem to be going on an adjustment binge. Perhaps before questioning yet more adjustments you should describe in detail the basis of your doubts, keeping in mind that "I doubt it" is not an argument? -
Doug Bostrom at 16:05 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
...interesting to note that the errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data. I'd be interested in seeing a reference for that. Pointer? -
markx at 16:05 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 4 November, 2012 "...the claim passes the "sniff test" - the OHC increase is consistent with thermosteric sea level rise...." In addition to above posts, satellite TSL rise itself is not matching OHC as calculated from known measurements. But is there a really tight agreement between calculated and TSL, measured OHC and TOA? It seems to me all require adjustments, partially based on each-other. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L12602, 4 PP., 2005 doi:10.1029/2005GL023112 Thermosteric sea level rise, 1955–2003 Antonov Levitus BoyerFor the 1955–2003 period, the thermal expansion of the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean contributed approximately 0.33 mm/year to global sea level rise. About half of this thermosteric trend is due to warming of the Atlantic Ocean. Approximately one third of the total thermosteric rise is due to the warming of the Pacific Ocean. For the period of available TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimetry data (1993–2003), the linear trend of thermosteric sea level (0–700 m) is 1.23 mm/year, 60% of which is due to the trends in the Pacific Ocean. For the 0–3000 m layer of the entire World Ocean, the linear trend of thermosteric sea level is 0.40 mm/year for 1955–1959 through 1994–1998.
-
markx at 15:49 PM on 5 November 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Rob Painting at 05:53 AM on 4 November, 2012 "....Virtually all datasets require corrections. Until such time as humans invent a perfect measuring instrument, it's something we have to live with..." Agreed. It was interesting to note that the errors in the Argo data were detected due to mismatching with Ceres TOA data. Of course, Ceres data is also adjusted, to match modeled TOA expectations. I respect and admire the detail these scientists go to to monitor, analyze and correct such data. But I cannot help but wonder about corrections piled on adjustments, and I appreciate the chance to discuss this. Loeb etal 2009 ‘Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget’ J. Climate, 22, 748–766This study provides a detailed error analysis of TOA fluxes based on the latest generation of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) gridded monthly mean data products [the monthly TOA/surface averages geostationary (SRBAVG-GEO)] and uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system.
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:41 PM on 5 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Physics, yeah. The challenge of physics here is how to vanish astounding amounts of extra energy, even the little proportion that isn't being sponged up by the ocean. A thorny problem. Hurricanes are giant heat engines but the hypothesis is they'll be prevented from feeding on additional available heat to do more work. All hurricanes will obey the new paradigm? The hypothesized mechanism to stop hurricanes from exploiting a more energetic environment will always work? Color me "ignorant" but that doesn't sound very likely. Also, what does an obedient hurricane look like? If a hurricane has followed the plan and is shrugging off the opportunity to be more kinetic but is only coincidentally the largest ever in its region what's the diagnostic of the obedience, the fingerprint of "normal?" -
markx at 15:04 PM on 5 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Dikran Marsupial at 21:10 PM on 4 November, 2012 "..... Note that in this case the observations are not the only line of evidence, there is also physics (as Trenberth amongst others points out)...." Indeed in agreement with Trenberth: http://www.livescience.com/24377-weather-climate-hurricane-sandy.html :In general, we estimate it increases the risk that the intensity of hurricanes can be somewhat greater and particularly the rainfall from hurricanes is about 5 to 10 percent greater than it otherwise would be,” Trenberth said. In the case of 2005′s Hurricane Katrina, which dumped at least 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rain along its track on the Gulf Coast, that means about 1 inch was attributable to climate change, Trenberth said. Sandy could dump similar levels of moisture over the Northeast. Trenberth added that “there are signs” that storms of Category 3 and above are becoming more common, but warned that hurricanes show tremendous natural variability from year to year, driven largely by climate patterns set up by El Niño.
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:52 PM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Oops-- Guinea, not Ghana. Same insolation so no biggie. :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 14:28 PM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
The frequently touted reduction of electricity consumption via conservation and efficiency hardly matters if you have a low carbon electricity supply. Hmm. I don't mean to sound contrary but my nephew in-law is currently in Ghana w/the Peace Corps and has been existing w/a ~3W solar panel for about a year now. This provides light to read and cook by and keeps his phone charged but he does not leave the light on all night or his phone switched on. Efficiency absolutely matters, always. -
Uncle Pete at 13:36 PM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Well explained quokka. Yes we must of course work on decarbonizing transport. And again I draw the attention to France , where the Auto- Libe car share / hire scheme started operating last year. It is essential though that the car batteries are charged with zero emission electricity, which in France means nuclear. All I meant to say is that it is possible to make significant reductions in Co2 emissions, with proven and existing technology, without necessarily wrecking civilisation as we know it. -
quokka at 12:52 PM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
@doug_bostrum, Yes, it is in some ways depressing and indicative of the difficulties of getting to where we need to be. France's emissions in electricity generation are about 85g CO2/kWh. Going substantially lower than that without lots of hydro would be really difficult, and the only nations that do beat that are in fact those with lots of hydro. I would think that relative difference between France and Germany's emissions are representative of what can reasonably be expected by decarbonizing electricity supply in an industrialized western nation with some variation depending on national characteristics. As for decarbonizing other sectors such as transport, the outlook is bleak with little substantial action other than perhaps some improved fuel efficiency. The frequently touted reduction of electricity consumption via conservation and efficiency hardly matters if you have a low carbon electricity supply. Take the example of Sweden with lower emissions than France but huge electricity consumption. Nuclear+hydro is the key there. Ultimately a low carbon electricity supply at low cost is the key as the only reasonably plausible path to decarbonizing other sectors is maximum electrification. -
chriskoz at 12:17 PM on 5 November 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #8
Regarding "Crippled NY subways spark infrastructure, climate questions" article, with a quote about making NYC subways water-tight: "[it would be] engineering feat equal to the scale and creativity of the original construction" That's an interesting point, because it looks to me that crippled subways contributed very large (if not largest) chunk of Sandy's damage bill. And growing as the service restoration time is still unknown... But how about this news: Inflatable Plug Could Have Stopped NYC Subway Flooding It's important, because for me, it looks like subways are the weakest link of NYC infrastructure. Does anyone find this plausible/reasonable to implement? Or NYC subways will be eventually inundated forever, as we can expect Sandy-like storms every 2 years now? Unless they find something to hold water off, they won't be able to repair this sort of damage every two years and must eventually abandon the system... -
Doug Bostrom at 11:36 AM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Maybe "surprised" would be a better word than underwhelmed. Mystified also; given the mix of electrical generation capacity in France, what sector is propping up C02 emissions to that extent? I was expecting something more dramatic. It's actually a pretty depressing statistic considering France has effectively squeezed hydrocarbons (particularly coal) from their mix to the point HC combustion is only about 1/10th of French generation capacity. -
quokka at 10:42 AM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
That should be page 29. Also important in making comparisons is energy use per capita. Germany and France have almost identical Energy Use per Capita, though France's electricity consumption per capita is higher. -
quokka at 10:12 AM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
@doug_bostrom The latest figures I could locate are for 2011 are: Germany 9.9 tonne CO2 /person France 5.7 tonne CO2 /person Which by my calculation makes Germany's per capita emissions 73% higher than those of France. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions page 27. I would not call that underwhelming. -
scaddenp at 09:24 AM on 5 November 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Bill, can you clarify please? Paleocene is 55-65myr ago. No methane proxy. Can I assume you mean Pleistocene? Carbon isotope studies have looked at methane signature in ice bubble data. Indications to date are that methane source is not benthic hydrates nor boreal peatland(eg Petrenko et al. (Follow cites for other studies). Less consensus on what the methane sources actually are (swamp, burning, lakes etc). -
Doug Bostrom at 08:51 AM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
I think Uncle Pete's point is that per capita C02 emissions in France are lower than Germany's. That said, the difference seems underwhelming:
-
gws at 08:21 AM on 5 November 2012The View from Germany: Tackling the real questions
Pete @16: What is your case? -
citizenschallenge at 08:17 AM on 5 November 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
{Doug B @49 Thanks great list!} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My little "Curry's No Consensus On Consensus - Challenged" is still a work in progress, so when I can I reread and refine. I want to share today's rewrite of paragraph one's review. cheers citizenschallenge =============================================== Judith Curry writes: ¶1) The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC. ================================================= re: ¶1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JC: "manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science..." <<< That is an incredibly big and damaging charge. Where is Curry's evidence!? Specifically what topics have the IPCC distorted? Why no list? Where is Curry's examination comparing the scientific community's assessments with the IPCC's manufactured and published "consensus"? Where does Curry outline and review the many meetings and conferences and writings and back and forth communication that goes on during this IPCC manufacturing process? Why make the base assumption: 'IPCC's all sinister'? {Just because the news is bad for big business? I thought this was science we were discussing?} The IPCC is actually a small organization tasked with compiling the available legitimate science. Curry doesn't seriously examine who the IPCC are; what they have been legally tasked with doing; and how they have gone about their task. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JC: "... elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus..." <<< What is Curry talking about? What's it supposed to mean? What point is Curry trying to weave into her story here? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JC: "... and motivating actions by the consensus scientists..." <<< Scientists read and talk and meet on all sorts of different levels. There are seasons and politics just as in every other professional endeavor. But, it's still a serious organization with a planned process, openly established and openly conducted, and it's produces reports on the state of the science. Fair and square. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JC: "have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC." <<< You won't find anything here about Seitz and Singer and the tactics of manufacturing doubt? Why not examine the various dirty tricks and PR tactics that have targeted the IPCC and climatologists in general? Why not ask if there's evidence this "diminished pubic trust" was the product of a manufactured publicity campaign? ================================================= Here's some evidence: The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" [12/2007] [Science] [Show ID: 13459] Uploaded by UCtelevision on Dec 20, 2007 =============== A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway -
BillEverett at 04:13 AM on 5 November 2012James Hansen's Motivation
In his TED talk, Hansen showed graphs of temperature, carbon dioxide, and sea level during the Paleocene. He did not show the methane graph. He said (1) that carbon dioxide lags temperature by a couple thousand years; (2) that deniers use this fact to allege that warming increases carbon dioxide, not vice versa; (3) that, the climate change is in fact initiated by orbital changes [Milankovitch theory] and is accelerated by positive feedbacks, which include carbon dioxide released from the warming oceans as from a warming Coke. In contrast to carbon dioxide, methane leads temperature by about a thousand years in the Paleocene record. It would therefore seem that atmospheric methane was the initial accelerator of climate change and that the later increase of carbon dioxide included not only carbon dioxide coming out of solution in the oceans but also methane oxidized to carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels comparable to current levels are essentially nonexistent in the Paleocene record (industrial emissions of carbon dioxide did not exist then). We face a reasonable probability of major methane releases from thawing permafrost and from benthic methane hydrate desposits. For me, this adds to the urgency of Hansen's admonition. -
Bernard J. at 22:09 PM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Dhogaza at #76. I too appreciate your analogy. I hope you don't mind if I shamelessly plagiarise it in future posts! -
ajki at 21:50 PM on 4 November 2012Papers on Hurricanes and Global Warming
Probably relevant within context: Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts [abstract] Claudia Tebaldi et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014032 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032 Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States [abstract] Benjamin H Strauss et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014033 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014033 -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:10 PM on 4 November 2012Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Connection
Just to be clear, the lack of a statistically significant trend does not mean that no trend is detected, it means that the possibility of there being no trend cannot be ruled out with high certainty (loosely speaking). However the real reason that AndersMi's argument is silly is because it is a straw man. Nobody AFAICS is arguing that climate change is the cause of this storm, but that climate change influences the intensity of storms. Note that in this case the observations are not the only line of evidence, there is also physics (as Trenberth amongst others points out). This suggests that the lack of statistical significance may be due to the test having low power, rather than the null hypothesis actually being true (i.e. you would expect not to see a statistically significant trend even if the null hypothesis is false).
Prev 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 Next
