Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 Next
Comments 59451 to 59500:
-
zinfan94 at 01:12 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
One thing that makes me a little uncomfortable with this analysis, is that most ENSO monitoring organizations consider the NH winter of 2006/2007 and the NH winter of 2009/2010 as El Nino events. Neither El Nino event shows in either analysis above, because the El Nino event impacts were partitioned into the calendar years, thus downgrading each event into the Neutral category. I wonder if annual cycles using July to June would give stronger and more accurate correlations to ENSO events? Or even more accurately, use monthly anomalies, and annualize the trends for each ENSO period (El Nino, La Nina, and ENSO Neutral)... I know this complicates the analysis, but the current analysis is open to criticism for ignoring the two most recent El Nino events. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:58 AM on 1 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
"That you need a citation for Phil Jones most influential work is unexpected, but here you go." Phil Jones has many influential works; you made a vague and subjective referent more laden with snark than fact. Indeed, your "citation" lacks substance as well. Here is a proper citation: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years Jones et al 1999 REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, PP. 173-199, 1999 doi:10.1029/1999RG900002 http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/JonesEtal99-SAT150.pdf Note, for convenience, I included a link to an openly-available copy. "So Daniel still has not answered the question of why the stratosphere's temperature cycle is de-coupled from the troposphere on the seasonal scale which is the point that I have been making the entire time." Your "point" is specious (a straw-man argument) and off-topic. Please constrain your comments to the topic of the OP or I'm sure the moderators will constrain them for you. It is noted that you meticulously avoid answering the questions most inconvenient to your cause.Moderator Response: TC: Point well taken. This discussion is of topic, and should be taken to a more suitable thread. -
hutch44uk at 00:50 AM on 1 May 2012Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dr Knorr from the University of Bristol (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml) showed that the rise in airborne CO2 since 1850 is statistically negligible, and hence that the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than previously thought. The article here states "While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2." - well apparently it can, and this is what negative feedback means, when the level of CO2 rises, the 'system' reacts to counteract it. "ad hominem comments will be deleted.", unless they are directed against 'skeptics' it seems. -
Bernard J. at 00:48 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Moving back more toward the original post, another sewer analogy that is relevant here is that of distributed networking. In population-dense areas it makes sense to connect household waste disposal into a single system. In a more rural region it is far better (that is, both cheaper and more productive) to process human waste with what is really quite basic technology. I've seen more than one sparsely populated local council jurisdiction try to 'modernise', at great expense to everyone and with no practical benefit. Similarly, distributed energy generation has many advantages, especially away from heavily populated areas. Fortunately, this notion is much more widely accepted - and I can't help but wonder how much the modern Western "yuck" response to poo is behind the difference... -
Bernard J. at 00:35 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Chriskoz. I'm not quite sure what your point is, and I don't have Hadyn's and John's book, so I'd be interested to see you rephrase your posting. However, if your point is that we can keep 7 or 8 billion people on the planet indefinitely, just by promoting behaviours such as separating the recycling and installing low-wattage fluorescents, then sorry, but no hope. The only way that upwards of 7 billion people could live sustainably on Earth (that is, for centuries or longer) would be if the very great majority lived at a subsistence level about that of, say, agricultural "peasants"*. Many workers have demonstrated as much, and it's quite likely that even at this level of resource use we'd need to actually depopulate a little over time, as 20th century fossil carbon use has caused us to overshoot the pre-Industrial Revolution global population four or five times, or so. The "current level of comfort", if you are referring to Western comfort, is not sustainable, even for just the privileged Western population, and even if we somehow had all of our energy requirements replaced with renewables overnight. Of course, you needn't take my word for it. Hang around for thirty or fourty years and see for yourself. [*The disparagement with which "subsistence" agriculture is regarded by the West is a cringeing cultural affectation that will rapidly evaporate in the near future. If there were an index of Western disregard for "peasantry", that index would likely mirror the drop in the future rate of fossil fuel use.] -
DSL at 00:25 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Jeff T, read this post and post any further questions in the comment stream that follows the post. Note that there is also an intermediate article in addition to the basic article. Short answer: evaporation > thermal expansion in the short run. -
Paul Butler at 00:19 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Jeff T Sea level tends to fall during La Nina. I think this is related to precipitation moving water from the oceans to the land (note, for example the big floods in Australia). -
Bernard J. at 00:14 AM on 1 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Muoncounter. I absolutely concur that time is of the essence in restructuring the energy/resource use of Western society. And it frustrates me that we're still at the stage of 'debating' the future inevitable trajectories of energy/resource use, as much as denialists have already successfully wrought delay by fomenting a faux debate about the facts of climate physics. There is nothing to say though that we should take our eye off the ball at the other end of the field, whilst we dodge and weave around obstacles in order to reach it. Yes, move to renewables as quickly and as widely as possible. Yes, use nuclear where necessary (but don't imagine that it's a panacæ, any more than renewables are). And at the same time acknowledge that we have to do business differently tomorrow than how we do it today, or we won't be doing much business at all the day after, even though a lot of us might have shiny new PVs on our roofs... Put simply, the 'where' of tomorrow's energy is not mutually exclusive of the 'how much'. What I'm trying to point out is that the problem is greater than just from where we're sourcing our energy. I'm against the use of cherry picking and magical thinking in the denial of 'greenhouse' gas warming. As scientists we have an understanding of the import of climate physics, so we know what looms if the problem is not addressed. And even though trophic cascades - and biosystems dynamics in general - are that much more complex, that same scepticism with which we analyse climatological matters should be applied to the subject of planetary energy use: of ecological thermodynamics as it were. Concentrating only on shifting to renewables, without simultaneously balancing the global energy budget, will simply be akin to building just one bypass on a coast-to-coast highway - the traffic congestion will simply be moved to the next town, and in the case of energy and resource use, that next town is just over the hill. Not accounting for it now is skirting toward the same magical thinking and cherry-picking that we despise in warming deniers, and it won't be many more years into the future before our children, with the benefit of 20/290 hindsight, compare such optimistic sidelining of overall energy use with the current business/government optimism about 'clean coal' - a strategy that allows us too easily to take our eyes away from that ball... -
Jeff T at 00:03 AM on 1 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
If a La Nina is distributing heat into the ocean instead of the atmosphere, then sea level should rise more rapidly during a La Nina than during an El Nino. That is, fluctuations of sea level and surface temperature from their long-term trends ought to be anticorrelated; but they don't seem to be. Can someone explain this?Moderator Response: (Rob P) See explanation here:Why did sea level fall in 2010? -
Michael Whittemore at 23:40 PM on 30 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Regarding thread bombing, it might just be a judgement call moderators make, that could be done privately with the poster concerned. I tend to comment a lot in some circumstances but would definitely prefer a private message from the moderators, then a public hanging. -
Michael Whittemore at 23:31 PM on 30 April 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
When the temperature record is shown like this, you can really see the warming is continuous and that it is inline with CO2. Lets hope the media outlets start becoming more truthful about it. All we want is a couple of green power stations. -
Riccardo at 23:30 PM on 30 April 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
hutch44uk given that such a short trend does not give as an answer, try to ask yourself the question the other way around, do we have reason to belive that the trend has stopped or even slowed down? The answer is no, both statistically and climatologically. -
anthony at 23:29 PM on 30 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
I have replied to Tom's comment at Niche Modelling. -
muoncounter at 23:25 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
TIS#19: "still has not answered the question..." Nor have you answered the questions regarding your assertion and use of unsuitable data in #10. Add to that the questions raised subsequently: What does annual 'phasing' of stratospheric temperature have to do with the subject at hand? What does the regular change in the earth-sun distance have to do with the subject at hand? -
Delmar at 22:30 PM on 30 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
#45 Yes stopping coal exports would do it, instead the government that claims to be for climate change action, increased the capacity of the coal export wharves at the request of China. But if you stopped coal exports, there would be no need to give rebates to developing nations to encourage a move away from coal, as there would be no coal available. -
hutch44uk at 22:02 PM on 30 April 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Not that a sign of increasing temperature proves that humans are causing it, but just dealing with the argument.. The article starts with a straw man logical fallacy "No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998." implying that was Carter's position. No warming doesn't imply cooling. According to the latest HadCRUT4 data, there is no statistically significant increase in temperature (0.083C/dec +/-0.172C/dec). It is also stressed in the HadCRUT4 report that it cannot be said yet whether 2005 or 2010 are the hottest on record. -
hutch44uk at 21:53 PM on 30 April 2012There is no consensus
Not that having a consensus is necessary to validate a theory, but just dealing with this argument, the first sentence of the article "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.", would say there isn't a consensus since scientists are clearly still arguing! -
Riccardo at 20:49 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Arrhenius was right (and lucky) because the emission layer is inside the troposphere. In fact, Arrhenius' results have been confirmed by Hulburt some decades later by taking into account the temperature structure of the troposphere-stratosphere and the effect of water vapour, CO2 and Ozone. On passing, even a cursory analysis of the temperature structure should tell why the stratospheric temperature follows the insolation annual cycle. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:39 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Daniel, That you need a citation for Phil Jones most influential work is unexpected, but here you go. SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE AND ITS CHANGES OVER THE PAST 150 YEARS P. D. Jones, M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 20:22 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Thank you Ari. Seasons are not caused by GHG's. So Daniel still has not answered the question of why the stratosphere's temperature cycle is de-coupled from the troposphere on the seasonal scale which is the point that I have been making the entire time. -
Ari Jokimäki at 18:51 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
I would like to point out that it is not expected that GHG warming, which works in decadal timescales, should be clearly evident in seasonal cycle of stratospheric temperature. Everybody knows that Earth's seasons are due to Earth's orbital parameter changes, but it has nothing to do with GHG warming. -
DouglasM at 18:03 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Well, Holgate is not a Climate Scientist. He is, however, an expert (with relevant Doctorate) in Oceanographic Mean Sea Level research, is fully peer reviewed and, as far as I know, his published work has not been challenged. Sounds pretty authoritative to me! I certainly would not want to fly in a plane that had been built using incomplete & proxy data. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:27 PM on 30 April 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Thank you - this is a good way to demonstrate the trend - particularly as so many people who are still (genuinely) sceptical seem to be unable to read graphs. (In my experience if someone says a chart shows a downtrend some people believe them, even when the trend is clearly upwards). FYI, the latest (24 April 12) ENSO wrap up from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology states:"Some, but not all, climate models note an increased risk of El Niño conditions evolving during winter or spring. Historically, about 70% of two-year La Niña events are followed by neutral or El Niño phases."
If so, maybe next year will set another global surface temperature record. -
Realist at 17:26 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Chriskoz, So believing we have too many people for a healthy earth means that person is a climate change denier? As you state sustainability is possible with the current population. However that is not a meaningful assessment because population is growing at a greater rate than ever with 14 plus billion to be added in the next hundred years. So either the solutions need to consider 21 to 30 billion with a higher average standard of living than today as the energy requirement to be achieved, or controls on the population level to keep it to current levels, or reduce it from here. -
skywatcher at 15:54 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
DouglasM - Indeed, the burden of proof lies with the authors of an hypothesis. In this case, the burden would lie with the author of a paper, or those who interpret it as such, whose conclusions lie contrary to those of the wider science community. Unfortunately for you, the evidence of just nine stations is pretty weak versus hundreds plus a satellite record. Even Holgate says there's no statistical significance in the difference between SLR rates in the early and later part of the century from their data. A CERN thought - why would a CERN talk be authoritative on sea level or climate science? Sure CERN's probably a great place to hear about particle physics. But would my local zoology department be the place to hear authoritative talks on particle physics? What makes you think a speaker at CERN is authoritative on climate science? They could be, but that probably does not depend upon their presence at CERN. We're still left with why you consider this single paper "most authoritative"? Don't trust models? Ever got in a car, bus or plane? -
DouglasM at 15:18 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Hmm, that's Hermie talk. Just for some light relief, read Clive James from a few years back: http://www.clivejames.com/point-of-view/series6/hermie The burden of proof in science is always with the authors' of a hypothesis, not those who question it! -
scaddenp at 15:04 PM on 30 April 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Truckmonkey, your comments about sea being "warmed by the atmosphere" seemed to imply you were thinking of conductive or convective heating, not radiative heating. If this is not so, then no issue. Also, the issue of skin layer The cool skin was raised in the last of the series. -
trunkmonkey at 14:37 PM on 30 April 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Scaddenp-OK I read it, including the comments. Don't see any basic misunderstandings. What I do see is that something so apparently simple as heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere pushes us beyond our understanding of the physics. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:03 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
TIS, the topic of this thread is Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930. Thus, your objections are not on-topic on this thread. If it is your intent to contest Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming, then take it there. Or is it perhaps more straightforward, like contesting the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then take it there. For the lay reader, a good overview of the whole thang can be found on the How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic thread. Again, all fundamental stuff. Not contested or in "debate". Your Phil Jones reference lacks a citation...and an explanation as to why it should be considered to be anything other than an off-topic, inconvenient diversion. -
chriskoz at 14:02 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist and others who discuss population factors, Washington/Cook "Climate change denial" book on the right margin actually discusses the overpopulation problem as one of the topic of the denial. Reread the appropriate chapter and the references therein. Essentially, the sustainability experts quoted state, that with current population of 6-7bilion can sustain current level of comfort with some behavioural adjustment, with all natural sources 100% renewable. The mandatory condition is population stabilisation at current levels. Denial of that condition is, according to authors, equal the denial of AGW reality: stabilisation of climate in particular and sustainability in general is impossible without population stabilisation. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 13:43 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
You are correct that I mis-typed that the Sun (meant Earth) receives the least energy in July. Thanks for noticing that. Jumping to the point then. If it isn't the solar energy that is causing the phasing of the stratospheric temperatures, then what is? I welcome an explanation of how GHG's manage to cool the stratosphere while the Earth is warmest and vice versa. Unless of course you are discounting all the work of Phil Jones that shows the Earth's maximum temperature is ~16C in July while it is ~12C in January. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:32 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
"As usual the readers on this site focus only on anomaly which is why they consistently miss the point." The readers of this forum focus on the peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals. They also focus on debunking the memes promulgated by fake-skeptics... "The stratospheric temperature that I show is the average daily temperature for the past 9 years." And thus utterly lacking in any significance, statistically. "The stratospheric temperature is directly dependent on the amount of energy the Earth is getting from the Sun." You conveniently omit it is also directly dependent upon the amount of GHG's present in the atmosphere. And upon the levels of CO2...directly. "The means in January the Earth gets the most energy and in July the Sun gets the least energy. " You may want to revisit this assumption. Unless you are implying the Sun receives back radiation from the Earth... "This would indicate that the amount of CO2 can have no impact on the upper atmosphere." Utter Horse-hockey. That the stratosphere's temperatures can be affected by levels of CO2 is foundational to GHG functionality. Another point utterly without debate by those who understand the science. "Ignoring the facts in this case is pointless because there isn't a debate on this. " Correct. That you are wrong is a fact, without debate. And that the facts are inconvenient to the agenda you consistently prosecute is also not contested. As usual. -
chriskoz at 13:30 PM on 30 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
The slightly OT news: Dr Michael Mann just received the coveted Oeschger medal award as reported in realclimate. Most of SkS "long-timers" probably visit realclimate, however newbies might not so I stuck this news here rather than in somewhat more relevant thread about Mike's book. If you think you can contribute to the well deserved congrat thread you are encouraged to do so. As the scientist who withstood the worst personal intimidation in recent history, Mike deserves every bit of recognition for his work and his stance. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 13:20 PM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
As usual the readers on this site focus only on anomaly which is why they consistently miss the point. The stratospheric temperature that I show is the average daily temperature for the past 9 years. Temperature (not anomaly) changes over the course of the year. What causes the actual temperature to change is what I am discussing. The stratospheric temperature is directly dependent on the amount of energy the Earth is getting from the Sun. Over the course of the year the Earth's distance from the Sun changes. That is the dominant factor in determining the amount of energy the Earth is getting. The Earth is farthest from the Sun in July and closest in January. The means in January the Earth gets the most energy and in July the Sun gets the least energy. The stratospheric temperature reflects that same behavior while the Earth's surface does not. Arrhenius stated that in the upper atmosphere (i.e. above the level where water vapor exists) that an increase in CO2 would not be impacted by that water vapor. I am simply pointing out that the stratosphere shows no dependence on the Earth's surface. This would indicate that the amount of CO2 can have no impact on the upper atmosphere. Ignoring the facts in this case is pointless because there isn't a debate on this. I am simply pointing out that the article states the response to Arrhenius, but fails to mention that the temperature of the stratosphere is independent of the surface and the troposphere. Of course Arrhenius didn't know that when he said it, but the author should have known that. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:07 PM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
42, scaddenp, Funny you should say that. Just the other day I was thinking that denial science is the science of hope. So far, denial scientists have been unable to prove anything more than that they hope that climate sensitivity is low. Spencer, Lindzen and others keep looking for ways to prove it, but failing. They also continue to ignore the preponderance of evidence that says otherwise. In the end, they can't prove that climate sensitivity is low, so they hope that it is low, and hope some day to be able to prove it. The same goes for deniers who cry "fraud" or distrust (a) climate scientists (b) models (c) the surface temperature record (d) tree rings and proxy studies or (e) anything else that is inconvenient. They can't actually prove anything. All they can do is to claim that "method x" is untrustworthy, and so it doesn't prove anything, either. And, in the end, they are left with the nothing but the hope that they are right. -
muoncounter at 12:43 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist#14: "more humans equals more human caused global warming..." On the surface, that statement seems to make sense. However, it is rooted in correlation-implies-causation. Blaming it on people is a dead end - and off-topic for this thread. An industrial society that grew up enjoying profligate fossil fuel use without regard for its waste products is a more sensible cause for warming. It is the fear of a threat to this lifestyle - and fear is exactly what the deniers exploit - that results in the 'we can't afford' anything different response. Bernard J#16: "It's what we do with all of our energy usage that is more to the point" Consider this: we don't have lots of time to debate the changeover from fossils to renewables before the wheels start to come off. I live in a state where summers bring rolling brownouts when generator operators find that their cooling water ponds are too hot - and the same plants are shut down in winter when their water intake pipes freeze. If we continue to do nothing while we debate the end game, these problems will only grow more severe and more frequent. This makes shifting the discussion to a reorganization of energy consumption by society at large seem like a luxury. -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dave123 - I would be curious about your source for: "The waste heat contained in the slag from steel production is on the order of 2 Terawatts. The largest single windturbine made by one supplier I paid a call on is 6 Megawatts. The heat contained in the slag does not count the heat contained in the steel...another matter." "contained" is perhaps not the best choice of words. Nor is a Terawatt a measure of energy. MECS data for energy use in steel production (cost of mining and transporting materials; energy conversion in raw product; and energy for processing) looks good to me and 2003 figures would work out at around 13GJ/tonne. A 1.5MW turbine might weigh 60 tonne. It should generate the energy cost of create it in 145 hours of generation. -
Bernard J. at 11:26 AM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Muoncounter. When I said "How will it all fit on the planet?" I was speaking in terms covering more than just the business of renewable energy production. It's what we do with all of our energy usage that is more to the point - energising those post-energy production processes is just a part of the problem. Dave123. You've listed several large numbers, but that doesn't mean that they would mesh to give a product that would sustain a continuance of current Western society, especially if it were to be extended in the future to the 'Other 80%'. Here's an exercise for you. 1) For each country of the world list the amount of energy used per capita for (a)transport; for (b) heating/lighting/other household power; and (c) for food, for other consumables, and for infrastructure manufacturing* and maintenance/replacement. 2) For each of these countries, calculate how much can be supplied by renewables within their own borders, in a fashion that does not threaten the ecological intregrity of the respective nations. In conducting this calculation, partition the renewable energy into the three broad fields listed in the previous point, and include all of the process losses in converting renewable energy into a form that is employable for each of those broad fields. 3) Where renewable energy cannot be supplied within a nation's own borders, or where the resources for converting raw garnered energy into a storable and usable form are not available within a nation's own borders, determine how and where the shortfall will be addressed. 4) Once you are satisfied that you can fuel current Western enterprise indefinitely into the future (I would love to see such numbers...), turn you gaze to the downstream consequences of current energy supply. At current (and extrapolated, based on further industrialisation) trajectories of global resource use, how will water resources respond to humans persisting with our current energy use? Topsoil? Fisheries? Forestry? And what about that more abstract notion - biodiversity? How will biosphere feedings-back affect our global extraction of natural resources? As an example there's a disturbing indication that oceanic plankton stocks are decreasing in response to human chemical and thermal impact on the marine environment. Do you understand how, in this example alone, the trophic cascades will operate? Do you understand how the numbers above will be affected by such ecosystem changes? I've collated a lot of the numbers for all of the above myself, but I think that this is an exercise best left to the individual, at least in the context of this discussion, so that those who are not familiar with the system-level significance might actually learn to comprehend the issue. Down the track I hope to summarise some of the figures as quantities in tables and graphs - if I don't first come across others' work showing the same sort of things. Please, and I am earnest in this, take the time to actually learn about and compare the numbers yourself. Don't just look at a list of big numbers, because they are static and disconnected values that do nothing to inform about the overall situation. Remember, this is about thermodynamics, and the 'dynamic' part of the equation seems to be too often swept over in the discussion, to the detriment of the overall conclusion derived from such cursory considerations. [*Note: in this category I include mineral extraction. As humans exhaust the most easily sources for each and every mineral that we use, more energy will be expended to extract material from ever-decreasing quality of substitute sources. Your calculations for (c) should account for the future increasing energetic cost of mining ever-poorer sources of minerals, and for process replacement where it simply becomes impossible to sustain a particuar mining enterprise under the cost of ever-diminishing returns).] -
Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
The Inconvenient Skeptic - "The problem with Arrhenius's upper atmospheric response is that stratospheric temperatures are..." Are you aware that Arrhenius published "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" in 1895, while the stratosphere itself was not discovered until five years later? With detailed knowledge of stratospheric structure and response coming after that? Arrhenius can hardly be blamed for not detailing changes (such as stratospheric cooling with increased GHG concentration) before anyone knew about the stratosphere. Add to that what muoncounter pointed out - that your objection regarding insolation and stratospheric temperatures has no basis in fact - and your post objecting to Arrhenius is quite, um, curious... -
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 30 April 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
truckmonkey - it looks to me like some basic misunderstandings here. Have a look at Does back-radiation heat the ocean series at SoD. -
scaddenp at 10:14 AM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
"Don't trust models I'm afraid." What do you trust as a way to estimate what happen in the future? Extrapolation? Hope? -
scaddenp at 10:12 AM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
"at least triple"?? UN estimate is 10.1 billion by 2100. Where does your estimate come from? But, yes, I do agree with IPAT formula (Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology). -
Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
DouglasM @35, Holgate's 9 station reconstruction understates the figures for his 177 station series for the last decade of the twentieth century, but overstates them for the first decade of overlap:
Holgate's 9 station reconstruction also disagrees markedly with both Jevrejeva 2008 and Church 2006 over the period from 1900 to 1920. Holgate shows sea levels rising at near 4 mm per year over most of that period, before dropping to 0 mm per year in 1920. Both Jevrejeva and Church show the sea level rising from 0 mm per year in 1900 to just below 2 mm per year before falling back to below 0 mm per year in 1920.
This comparison, by the way, give the lie to your claim that Holgate is the "most comprehensive because the sampling covered the whole 20th century". Church and White 2006 sampled from Jan 1870 to Dec 2001. Jevrejeva et al, 2008 sampled from 1700 to 2002. Whether considering the number of stations, or the duration sampled, both studies are easily more comprehensive than Holgate 2007. But again, and this appears crucial in your assessment, it gives the result you want and therefore its significance must be overstated so that you can ignore the barrage of results you don't like from other sources.
Turning to your throw away comments. (1) Evidence that sea level rise correlates with increased temperatures (which is very strong) suggests that in the 21st century when global means temperatures are expected to rise from 2 to 5 degrees centigrade, sea levels will rise much faster than they have in the twentieth. Suggesting that mere correlation trumps physics (as your comment does) is simply asinine.
(2) That you first learnt of Holgate at a CERN lecture, unfortunately, does not these days mean you did not hear it from a denier source. And certainly the statement of an unnamed source at CERN does not make Holgate 2007 more comprehensive than other studies with far better sampling over far longer durations. Of course, as always, deniers are quick to appeal to argument by authority whenever the "authority" gives them conclusions that suite their politics.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:06 AM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
"Don't trust models I'm afraid." Barring absolute certainty, every decision one makes is based on a "model". You propagate a meme long since debunked on this site. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:56 AM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
"Apples to apples?" That would be an inconvenient comparison, as in it inconveniently lacks straw... -
Realist at 09:50 AM on 30 April 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
While it is easy to talk about m2 of solar panels per person, this becomes a frightening prospect with the worlds population set to at least triple in the next hundred years. At what point is the fact that more humans equals more human caused global warming going to be considered? From what i see all solutions tend to assume the current population level will remain, and do not incorporate population growth into the solutions. -
muoncounter at 09:45 AM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
TIS: That's an odd comparison, plotting stratospheric temperature against surface solar radiation (~340 W/m^2). Why not show the stratospheric temperatures against the TOA solar constant? Apples to apples?
-- source
Looks like more than 0.5 degree down over 25 years.
Looks like a very small net variation over the same time frame.
-
DouglasM at 08:44 AM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Scaddenp, don't think Dr Holgate would like to think he was being used by pseudo-sceptic blogs, he's certainly no sceptic. First saw the Holgate results (among others) in a CERN lecture, and it was considered the most comprehensive because the sampling covered the whole 20th century! Don't trust models I'm afraid. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 08:28 AM on 30 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
The problem with Arrhenius's upper atmospheric response is that stratospheric temperatures are primarily a direct response to the solar constant and it's variation over the course of the year.
The amount of energy that reaches the stratosphere from the troposphere is limited. This leaves the Earth's distance from the Sun as the primary driver of the stratospheric temperature variation.
The coldest stratospheric temperature also took place in mid-2008 when the Sun was unusually quiet and the Earth was the maximum distance from the Sun. Since the Sun has become more active, stratospheric temperatures have increased.
If the upper atmosphere's temperature isn't impacted by the CO2 absorption, it would appear as if Ångström was in fact correct, even if his measurement was not perfect by today's standards.
-
scaddenp at 08:09 AM on 30 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Douglas, I am not doubting the Holgate paper's analysis of 9 stations. I am questioning your assessment of it as "the most comprehensive" especially when it is not (as you have been shown). Does "generally recognised and often quoted" really mean "lionised on pseudo-skeptic blogs"? I was asking where you got that assessment of the paper from because your source is clearly wrong and you should know that before trusting that same source for other information. Also before deciding that data contradicts model for sealevel you should see what the science actually expects sealevel rise to be and rate of acceleration (eg Vermeer & Rahmsdorf. See also the discussion here and note the acceleration when you look at the longer century-level time line.
Prev 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 Next
