Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 Next
Comments 62701 to 62750:
-
Chris Colose at 05:08 AM on 29 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
It is always amazing to see how many radical paradigm shifts occur at WUWT and yet never get published, appear in any textbooks, or get discussed by the broader community. If WUWT were always right, essentially all sub-disciplines of climate, planetary science, astronomy, etc would need radical revision. Now since most have us have grown up to feel the need to glorify everyone's pet theory and opinions, and that many have a "Galileo" interpretation of how science generally advances, I suspect it won't be good enough to ask people to think about the above paragraph and have some self-skepticism. I also doubt it would be good enough to ask people who believe that sort of stuff to go buy a thermodynamics and radiation textbook, because I'm quite confident they have no interest. Of course, everyone at WUWT have bought into the argument as the deathbed of AGW, just like every other post they out up there, even if those other posts completely contradict that idea (such as Lindzen's post, which recognizes the existence of a greenhouse effect, but thinks sensitivity is very low). The only reasonable comments I've seen on that thread are from Joel Shore, who also co-authored the rebuttal (wuth me, and others) the Gerlich and Tscheuschner nonsense). I defer you to his points because I don't think it's worth discussing much. Needless to say, the article does not understand why convection occurs, or how to apply the laws of thermodynamics. It sort of gives the impression that none of this has been thought of before, yet it forms the foundation of basic atmospheric science and is taught in every undergrad atmospheric science department I know of. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - Visual assessment of that map will not be reliable. For that you need to actually run the numbers, not the eyecrometer. Lake impoundment, ground water impoundment, ongoing precipitation increasing the water mass despite increased drainage - none of these mass shifts are 'single events' which might then drain, they are part of a pattern of precipitation shifts due to the recent La Nina's. I would look for Willis to publish on the topic. In the meantime, I would take his opinion as to mass shifts to land, as supported by his data, to indicate a partial explanation for recent reductions in SLR. And until/unless you have contradictory global data, that's the best information we have. -
Tom Curtis at 04:35 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
I must congratulate Camburn on having so advanced an eyecrometer; and congratulate him still further for having the foresight of adding a widget that always allows him to see only what he wants to see. -
Camburn at 04:30 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
1. It is very obvious when looking at the map above that the excess/deficit water in North and South America basically cancel each other out. 2. Even tho the Northern Area of Greenland is accumulating water, Greenland as a whole is loosing mass. This loss of mass has not slowed down even tho it has snowed more on the northern area. The blue area of Greenland then becomes a net contributor to SLR, not a deficit. 3. According to Tom, Australia is a basin and has very slow run off. I will believe him without requesting documenation, as local knowledge and observations provide 1st hand evidence. 4. The drought areas of Asian and Africa bascially cancel each other out as they are very simliar in magnitude. One a deficit, one a surplus. The only exceptionally wet years appear to have affected Australia, but on a continental basis of other continents, the dry and wet areas appear to cancel each other out. -
Tom Curtis at 04:24 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Eric (skeptic) @84, some of the floods of 2010 will have drained very quickly. The Pakistani floods, for example. But except on the coastal fringe, the Australian floods do not. As I have noted elsewhere flood water in Queensland takes 9-10 months to reach Lake Eyre (for the more western waters, and a similar period to reach the mouth of the Murray (for the more Eastern waters). Even the Victorian floods took up to a month to drain away, and probably a couple of months to reach the mouth of the Murray. That is probably atypical, but as the example of the Nile shows, not exceptionally so. It is certainly far from atypical once you include the effect of frozen precipitation not thawing until summer (in some regions) or of dams and the filling of lakes, or in one instance the partial refilling of the Aral Sea. With regard to the overall balance, unfortunately I do not have figures. The graph shown above was prepared by Josh Willis of NASA, who indicated that it at least partially explained the drop in sea level. I assume, therefore, that he has done a balance which shows a net accumulation of surface water in 2010. I am not aware of its having been published. Finally, this will be my last post on surface waters effect on sea level on this thread, where it is significantly of topic. If you want to continue the conversation, may I suggest the thread of my first link. -
CBDunkerson at 04:18 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Eric wrote: "I am mostly looking at when the bulk of the water exits through the rivers." The bulk of it doesn't exit through the rivers. Average annual precipitation on land is about 26,000 mi^3 of water. Average annual evaporation from land is about 17,000 mi^3 of water. That leaves ~9,000 mi^3, a little over a third, to be lost through runoff into rivers and other means (e.g. subsurface flow). This assumes balanced flows, which is true for a long term average but not for individual years (such as the recent exceptionally wet years). Also: "There is no doubt, for example, that the bulk of the waters of record floods that you talk about drain very quickly." 'Very quickly' is a meaningless term without some sort of frame of reference. The few months it usually takes for half of the precipitation which falls on land to be removed is indeed 'very quick' on a geological time scale. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:52 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom, do the drier areas of earth offset the wetter ones like Australia? Is there anywhere I can get totals? Specific to your arguments above, I am mostly looking at when the bulk of the water exits through the rivers. There is an exponential decay and you and I have to identify which part of the curve we are talking about. The higher the starting point, the faster the decay. There is no doubt, for example, that the bulk of the waters of record floods that you talk about drain very quickly. OTOH, a look at the mighty Mississippi at St Louis shows a few years of higher flow at a time and I need to identify how much of that is a wet pattern and how much is the decay from previous wet periods. -
Tom Curtis at 03:38 AM on 29 February 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Steve Case @1, I am glad that you are part of that very large choir, and hope you make sure you sing your part when that theory is challenged, as if frequently is, at WUWT and other so called "skeptic" sites. My experience has been, however, that even these basics are challenged frequently and vehemently by many so-called "skeptics", while others who should know better stand idly by, or egg them on. -
Steve Case at 03:30 AM on 29 February 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
You are preaching to a very large choir. Very few people disagree that the green house effect operates and that doubling of CO2 ought to raise the temperature about 1.2°C. Here's what it says in Chapter 8 of the IPCC's AR4: 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?- In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
-
Robert Murphy at 03:22 AM on 29 February 2012New research from last week 5/2012
Concerning the Davies and Molloy paper; I'm having trouble seeing the data as indicating a negative cloud feedback to global temperature change. Wouldn't such a feedback mean that an increase in temperature would cause a decrease in cloud height, and vice versa? And wouldn't such a feedback be very quick with little lag? Looking at the cloud height graph over the ten year period used, sometimes temperature goes up and clouds go lower, and sometimes they go up and down in tandem. It's also a very short time frame.
Above is the graph from Davies and Molloy (top) showing cloud cover height anomaly from 2000-2010 and a WoodForTrees graph of UAH temperature anomalies (bottom) for the same period (I didn't perfectly line them up in Photoshop - the bottom graph is slightly offset to the right). Other data sets show similar ups and downs, especially for the second half of the graph.
During the first couple of years, temperature goes up and cloud height decreases. The 2004 dip in temperature doesn't seem to show up in cloud height. In the last few years, temperature and cloud height mostly go up and down together. Look at that big dip in cloud height centered around 2008. Notice that's right at the height of the La Nina, and also that it's the coldest time in the ten year period. How does that support a negative cloud feedback to rising temperatures? I freely admit I'm probably missing something and I realize how dangerous relying on the eye-crometer can be.
I'm also curious as to why 2010 and 2011 (or most of it) were not included. Does it take that long to tabulate the data? The paper was submitted 11/30/2011.
I'm wondering if they are just using the overall trend of decreasing cloud height and the increasing trend in temperature (for some data sets but not all for that time period) and seeing a correlation that doesn't have a causation. I know they do speak candidly of the need for another decade of data to see how cloud height reacts, so they are aware of the possible tenuousness of the link. I've already seen the "Study shows cloud feedback is large and negative" meme pop up on places like WUWT. I'd like to have something to say as a counter.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:59 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Eric (skeptic) @81, the amount of time from rainfall to run off to the sea depends critically on a number of facts of geography which are highly variable across different regions in the world. For example, rainfall in Ethiopia can take half a year to reach the sea even as direct run off due to the shere length of the Nile through which it flows. Rainfall from around Texas, Qld can take as much as a year to reach the mouth of the Murray. That excludes water that enters aquifers. Water entering surface aquifers in central Qld will never reach the sea by drainage. Therefore a simple assumption that rainfall will reach the sea in weeks or a few months at most (as made by Camburn) is completely unwarranted as a generalization. (I am not concentrating on QLD because it is typical, but only because it is familiar.) Furthermore, Camburn's argument that the rainfall would all reach the sea in short duration is premised on the absurd assumption that most of the rainfall occurred at the same time. Because floods are not typically coincident, major flooding in different regions at different times can result in increased global surface water for extended periods. This applies even to individual regions. Victoria experienced major flooding in 2010, record breaking flooding in early 2011, and is now threatened with new record breaking floods. I have elsewhere detailed Queensland's new record for flood effected area in March of 2010, which was smashed in Dec 2010/ Jan 2011 by almost a factor of three, and has been followed up by record breaking flood depths (not extent) in new floods in South West Qld in Feb of this year. My list is not exhaustive for these two states. In the face of records like that, Camburn's argument about runoff times, in addition to failing on its merits, is clearly seen for what it is - an evasion. Finally, all of this debate is beside the point. If you look at the GRACE image @65 above, you will see it is a years worth of data. That is, averaged over a year, Australia had the equivalent of a layer of water 3 to 5 cms across its entire surface. Of course, most of that water was in ground water, or fuller rivers and lakes, and of course in periods of intense flooding. But it is the effect over a year. In the face of that, arguing that water runs of in a week or so so it cannot have a year long effect on sea levels is obtuse, to say the least. -
dunc461 at 02:56 AM on 29 February 2012Climate change models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk
Even without the effects of climate change on food production it is going to be a serious problem. Apparently there are 3,411,327,592 acres of arable land and 12,067,879,561 acres of agricultural land which includes arable land, permanent crops and permanent pastures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land Per the Oak Ridge National Laboratory there are 3,657,159,639 acres of cultivated and permanent crop land leaving 8,410,719,923 acres of pasture. http://daac.ornl.gov/NPP/other_files/worldnpp1.txt At a world population of 7 billion that equates to 0.52 acres/person of crop land and 1.2 acres per person of pasture . But not all crop land is used to produce food. 388,888,889 acres are used to produce grain for beer. Table 8 below plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer http://cruisenews.net/brewing/ 85,992,673 acres of cotton http://unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/market.htm#prod and 47,196,385 acres of grapes for wine http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/WorldWineProductionbyCountry.pdf http://www.boutiquewineries.com.au/articles/HowManyGrapesinaBottleofWine.cfm Subtracting this acreage from the total crop land reduces the acres/person for crops to 0.45. The Median UN projection for 2050 is 9.2 billion reducing the numbers with no change in land use to 0.34 and 0.91 acres/person respectively. Based on data from Table 8 http://books.google.com/books?id=vHprLAOlOkYC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=what+crops+has+the+highest+caloric+yield&source=bl&ots=pv1C7ha9Kj&sig=UYSqCeS_PYvoWJX40Vthsl1siIM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dJAmT-f-Luna0QH3gfnbCA&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=what%20crops%20has%20the%20highest%20caloric%20yield&f=false It takes 0.45 acres of wheat to produce 2000 calories/day and 0.36 acres of rice, 0.26 acres for yams and sweet potatoes and 0.15 for Cassava. Clearly we can feed the projected world population in 2050 if we all become vegetarians or Ovo-lacto vegetarians. Based on a 2000 calorie/day diet, with 550 calories/day (`6 ounces) of protein from equal parts chicken, eggs, pork and beef I estimate the protein for one person would take 1.4 acres, with fruits, vegetables, grain, dairy and oil taking another 0.36 acres. Substituting soybeans for meat would drop the total to 0.39 acres /person. Elimination of dairy would reduce the total further to 0.17 acres /person. There were too many sources used to develop this information to site here. I think I have developed the concept far enough to indicate that there will be strong pressure in the future to convert more land to cropland for food production, with a possible significant increase in carbon emissions, especially if we start using crop land to produce bio-fuels or site solar cells. -
CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Eric wrote: "Surface water decays in days." Ummm... you've never seen a lake? Or snow? Technically if they ever 'decay' (by which I assume you mean the mass of water decreases) at all then whatever time frame that takes place in could be measured in "days"... but the '~11,680,000 days' the water of the Great Salt Lake has existed thus far would be a fairly ridiculous method of measurement. It is decaying, and presumably will eventually disappear entirely... but we are talking about alot of days. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:47 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
I think the link in post 53 should be: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=55&&a=509#75803Response:[DB] Fixed, thanks!
-
Eric (skeptic) at 02:23 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Thanks Tom. I read that absorptivity and emissivity were equal for an object in thermal equilibrium and figured that covered it. But the arguments I read (pages and pages) talk (vaguely) about physical processes at the surface of the object with individual photons rather than the net amounts of emissivity, absorptivity and energy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:18 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom, I am taking major rivers and looking at the exponential decay of their flow after rains and after wet periods. Surface water decays in days. Ground water takes weeks to several months, but no more than that. For example the Potomac a major river near me has a few month decay at most (log scale): http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?cb_00060=on&format=gif_default&begin_date=2010-02-27&end_date=2012-02-27&site_no=01646500&referred_module=sw -
Tom Curtis at 01:44 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Eric (skeptic) @51, if the emitting body does not absorb in the same wavelengths of light as well as it emits, then it is in violation of Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation. As Kirchoff's Law is a special case of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that would also mean it is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. There are some nuances here. If emissivity is greater than zero at a given wavelength (ie, the body radiates in that wavelength, then it must absorb some of the reflected radiation, but will not absorb all of it unless the emissivity and hence absorptivity is 1, ie, the body is "black" at that wavelength. Because some radiation is absorbed, the body will warm up if it is otherwise in thermal equilibrium. If the mirror is so arranged that all light emitted or reflected from a section of the body is reflected back to the same section of the body, then radiation intensity reflected from the mirror will quickly build up until radiation absorbed by the appropriate section of the body equals radiation emitted by that section. At that time, the intensity of radiation at that wavelength reflected from the mirror (and either emitted or reflected from the section of the body) would be the same as if the body had an emissivity of 1 at that wavelength. -
Ari Jokimäki at 01:36 AM on 29 February 2012New research from last week 8/2012
You can find some related papers to the boreal winter thing here. -
Tom Curtis at 01:24 AM on 29 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Eric (skeptic) @79, you surely are not taking data from one location on one small stream in a hilly (and hence well drained) area and extrapolating to globally averaged properties, are you? Because that would be cherry picking of exceptional proportions. -
YOGI at 01:23 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
(-Snip-)Response:[DB] Again, you chose to "hang your hat" on the Postma paper you linked to. You were then challenged to defend a particularly egregious distortion of physics Postma makes, here. You cannot through dereliction run away from your defense of this paper, as it is your chosen field of play.
A failure to follow through on your self-assumed duty will have consequences.
Off-topic snipped.
-
ShadedX at 01:22 AM on 29 February 2012It's the sun
Notice the somewhat recent topic on the rise of coronal mass ejections. Since the sun has loss heated mass, it has less to burn and therefore less heat -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:03 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Eric (skeptic) Radiative physics isn't really my area, but the definition of a blackbody is that it absorbs all radiation that falls on it, so if it rejects some particular frequency then by definition it isn't a blackbody. -
Composer99 at 00:33 AM on 29 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
IMO, elsa is simply incorrect to say that the addition of aerosol cooling "falsifies" the statement 'with rising CO2 the climate will warm'. In the historical period she notes, CO2 radiative forcing was still causing warming, even while solar and aerosol forcings were causing cooling. Even accepting elsa's simplification on its own terms for the sake of argument, I conclude it does not stand up to scrutiny. -
CBDunkerson at 00:31 AM on 29 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
YOGI writes: "...but observations indicate a negative feedback." Which, of course, is complete nonsense. The net of observed feedbacks on greenhouse warming is clearly positive. No, peer review does not guarantee that something is true... but decades of peer reviewed research consistently finding the same result serve as a slightly better indicator than 'some story I just made up on the spot'.Response:[DB] You are very correct, CBD. Please note that Yogi has been tasked to defend an assertion he made earlier, which he then chose "hang his hat on" (see the response to his comment above to which you refer).
Until he follows through on that he will not be allowed to divert any other threads.
-
JMurphy at 00:26 AM on 29 February 2012New research from last week 8/2012
CBDunkerson, the abstract for that paper is here, and a BBC report on it is here. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:08 AM on 29 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Dikran, I like your explanation in #50, and with your indulgence I would like to ask one "alternate physics" question. If the mirror sends the same frequencies of IR that the blackbody emits back to the blackbody, is there any physical mechanism by which the blackbody could "reject" those frequencies? -
YOGI at 00:03 AM on 29 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson (-Snip-)Response:[DB] You chose to "hang your hat" on the Postma paper you linked to. You were then challenged to defend a particularly egregious distortion of physics Postma makes, here. You cannot through dereliction run away from your defense of this paper, as it is your chosen field of play.
A failure to follow through on your self-assumed duty will have consequences.
Off-topic snipped.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:57 PM on 28 February 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Both would be equally convinced... but the competent would have the overwhelming weight of peer reviewed evidence on their side while the incompetent would cite inane drivel from blogs. -
chriskoz at 23:51 PM on 28 February 2012German translation of The Debunking Handbook
John, Is it the first Debunking Handbook translation? I haven't seen any translations on SkS so far, unless I missed them... Is it really true that "some mainstream press attention in Germany" triggered that translation? If so, irrellevant to the book itself, it would indicate the power of the press. Even an excellent, award winning website, hardly draws in anyone (relatively speaking) to its content. However, give some content a right bit of spin in tabloid press and readers & translations start multiplying. -
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 28 February 2012New research from last week 8/2012
The Cohen et al boreal Winter finding seems to dovetail with some things I was reading about another very recent study by Liu and Curry which suggests that the decline in Arctic sea ice is causing changes in atmospheric circulation which carried cold Arctic air further down from the pole... resulting in some colder Winters and more snow in northern North America, Europe, and Asia. While Judith Curry says alot of completely ridiculous things, (e.g. 'no warming since XYZ' immediately after her own BEST study proved otherwise, again) I haven't noticed it impacting her actual published research much. Though I don't know if that is due to sanity amongst her co-authors or her applying a greater degree of rigor. In any case, if the 'decreased rate of warming' is really due only to colder Winter temperatures in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, with the rest of the world continuing to warm at an accelerated rate, then this may just be an issue of cold Arctic air being more widely spread around... which would also contribute to the very high Arctic warming which has been observed. That would imply that the apparent change is effectively 'illusory'... like blowing cold air over a lit stove burner and thus getting a surprisingly cool temperature reading despite the ongoing accumulation of heat. -
chriskoz at 23:20 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
I also was there glad that I could meet John (and sneak in his signature on the book) because I don't often go to Brisbane while Lane Cove is just round the corner (more precisely a bicycle ride) from my house in Denistone NSW. I realy like the initiative by Lane Cove Council to combine John's appearance with an example of a local family how shows you how much you can lower your footprint by doing simple things like installing PV panels, taking public transport and eating local food (best if it's your own grown veges). The exemplary family lowered their CO2 emissions from 18Mg to 7Mg a y-1. Good job John together with LCC. Theory of AGW and simple practice that it's possible to tackle it. -
Lloyd Flack at 22:37 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
I was there. John covered three myths chosen by the audience. One was temperature record reliability. Another was claims that CO2 is too insignificant to effect the climate. And the final one was the warmth is good bit. He only had a short ptime to do each and I think did well by concentrationg on only a few aguments. The second part of the workshop was alocal family going through some of the things they have done to reduce their carbon footprint. -
barry1487 at 22:29 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
Hope the mythbusting event tonight is at the very least educational, John C. Look forward to hearing about it. -
Neven at 22:27 PM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
What ubrew12 said. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:27 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Just as a reminder, YOGI was challenged to hang his/her hat on some particular issue, and chose a particular paper by Postma. Now it seems to me that YOGI needs to defend Postma's paper, where a fundamental error has been identified (on page 6 - thanks Tom and Riccardo for confirming my intuition), relating to the second law of thermodynamics: "No here's the clincher: imagine that you take a mirror which reflects infrared light, and you reflect some of the infrared light the blackbody is emitting back onto itself. What happens to the temperature of the blackbody? One might think that because the blackbody is now absorbing more light, even if it is its own infrared light, it should warm up. But in fact it does not warm up; its temperature remains exactly the same [because it is in radiative thermal equilibrium with the light source]" To remain at the same temperature, it would have to be radiating energy at the same rate that it is absorbed (Kirchoff's law). If you increase the amount absorbed using the mirror, the amount emitted must increase as well. However the Stefan-Boltzman law says that the rate at which a blackbody radiates energy is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature, so it can't increase emissions without an increase in temperature. Thus Postma is wrong on the fundamental application of the laws of thermodynamics. So YOGI, the challenge is for you to explain why Postma is correct and why his example doesn't violate Kirchoff's law or the Stefan-Boltzman law. -
dorlomin at 21:23 PM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Bob Carter does like to tout around a graph taken from Royer et al 2003 showing no correlation between CO2 and temperatures through the Phanerozoic but leaving out the changes in solar energy during the same time. As its mentioned in Royers paper one is left with less that charitable views on his reasons. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:11 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
The bulk of extra groundwater runs off in a matter of months. See, for example, figure 5 here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1996/4179/report.pdf -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:56 PM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
ELSA I gave you two challenges: "just what observations do you think AGW theory is based on. Note that the core of the theory was fully fleshed out by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. Please tell me which observations he used that are non-repeatable. and Now, what is your evidence that AGW theory has been modified to explain the 40s-70s cool period? Point to a paper where this modification was published. You didn't answer either question. For the first question, I note the lack of a list of observations used by Plass (I rather doubt you even bothered to look up the paper). For the second question, I note the lack of a reference to a paper where the theory was modified, just a repetition of your previous unsupported assertions. Your write "In its crudest form the AGW theory (and I grant you this is a simplification) postulates that with rising CO2 the climate will warm.". That simply isn't true, as I pointed out here where I wrote "CO2 radiative forcing is only one of the forcings that govern long term climate, as it says, for instance in the IPCC WG1 report. Does AGW theory say that temperatures cannot fall while CO2 levels rise? No, it doesn't." In other words, CO2 will only cause climate to warm, all things being otherwise equal. Now I know you are not ignorant of this as you wrote "even if we could the other things that affect climate will have changed too.". Which means that your arguments are clearly disingenuous. So, you make assertions that you are unable or unwilling to substantiate, you are unable or unwilling to give direct answers to direct questions, you ignore responses to points that you have raised, you use the fact that there are other forcings when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't. If you are going to behave like that, why on Earth do you think you should be taken seriously. I think it is time for DNFTT. -
shoyemore at 20:51 PM on 28 February 2012New research from last week 8/2012
Ari, Once again thank you for your assiduous work in collating these papers and publishing them regularly. At least two look to be to be of more than "ordinary" importance Cohen et al on the "recent lapse in global warming". Olsen et al on a new climate sensitivity estimate. -
Rob Painting at 20:17 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Matthew L - "My problem with the missing heat being at the bottom of the ocean is that heat will expand the sea wherever it is hidden. Surely the sea would be expanding more quickly rather than less if both the temperature of the deep oceans was rising and the glaciers melting? I have seen the explanation of recent flooding due to La-Nina but am sceptical that this could account for such a large and sustained decline in the rate of sea level rise." It's doubtful that thermal expansion during the "noughties" was higher than the 1990's. Certainly James Hansen's work shows otherwise. Glacier melt seems to have reached a point where it has accelerated through the noughties, even as ocean warming was progressing at a slower rate than the 1990's, which suggests it has passed a 'tipping point' of sorts. A combination of slower ocean warming in the noughties, combined with strong La Ninas at the end of the decade (more rainfall over land - and lower sea levels) have contributed to the sea level trend over the last 5 years. But it's unlikely to last. The solar cycle will see more ocean warming for the next 3-5 years, and shift back to El Nino will see more short-term sea level rise. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:29 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn. You seem to be assuming that increased rainfall over various regions will be returned to the oceans relatively quickly. If extra rainfall drains quickly across surface soils into fivulets, streams rivers etc yes. But you seem to be discounting two other factors. Increased water uptake by dry soils and sub-soils that doesn't drain away at all. And water uptake by the land but doesn't flow relatively quickly to the sea but starts to percolate down and recharge aquifers. Your presumption of relatively quick transfer of increased precipitation back to the oceans sounds rather simplistic. -
Jose_X at 16:13 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
gallopingcamel #40, we should have a conversation on that WUWT article over there not here; but what I saw when I glanced at it just now were a few mathematical claims (which I have not yet verified but which conclusions seems inaccurate) made on what is recognized to be a simplified radiation model (that everyone knows doesn't include convection or high precision radiation absorption and so is used as a toy for introductory purposes) purporting to dispel the foundation of climate science. This makes no sense obviously (read between parenthesis above). Then they suggest a theory that appears to be curve fitting with little or no derivation from first principles. To recap: they attack the wrong model, probably making mathematical mistakes somewhere, and then put up a "theory" that is but a formula they hatched out by looking at data points. What kind of predictive capabilities can we expect from a formula based on curve fitting today's earth data points and no understanding of the dynamics of our changing planet? [That was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it: probably little better than what trend analysis predictions offers us on distant future stock market behavior. Next to nada.] I think this comment is off topic, but I couldn't help myself. -
Jose_X at 15:42 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Some important differences I have noticed between what I remember (or looked up) from feedback analysis and what I see in Roe2009: When system subblocks are analyzed, a transfer function is considered. Transfer functions may be the result of Fourier Transforms. These transfer functions will have dependencies on frequency. This frequency domain approach allows time domain convolusions (which are necessary calculations to understand system response to inputs) to be replaced with simple multiplication of the system functions. Further, the subblocks tend to be attached to each other through some sort of nonlinear mechanism that allows two signals from two or more subblocks to unite or to multiply with negligible coupling (eg, opamps for analog modules; standard digital circuits mechanisms; nonlinear nonmodeled mechanisms (possibly using electronics as control) between physical nonelectronic components)). This isolation is implicit in this modeling leveraging transfer functions. OK, so Roe2009 doesn't really apply these items just mentioned. The climate doesn't readily appear to have these nonlinear buffer zones that would allow subblock transfer functions to multiply as depicted on page 5, for example. I'm only on page 6, but I have seen no invocation of Fourier or other transforms to derive such transfer functions. Pictorially, there is no traditional "+" or "-" uniting the feedback path to the main one or to any other path, bringing doubt to this idea of isolation between subblocks. The 2xCO2 forcing appears to be a monotonically increasing function of some sort or at least an almost acyclical or perhaps very low frequency signal (relative to important system time constants.. I'm guessing). And of course, the principal negative feedback (S-B radiation/cooling) is not modeled as a feedback. In short, I don't question (or for that matter ascertain) the accuracy of the sensitivity analysis in Roe2009 from what I have seen so far (mostly through page 6 of 25), but it doesn't resemble at all the "feedback analysis" that I am familiar with from engineering, even though the language used in Roe2009 and many of the features of the analysis appear to mimic traditional feedback analysis. [At least based on my modest/low level of experience.] Interesting. I have much to think about and read. Any insight into this would be appreciated. -
gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Chris @35. Thanks for recommending Grant & Petty but you are a little late. In the same spirit may I recommend you read Rodrigo Caballero (University College, Dublin): http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf scaddenp @35, The N&K calculations I was referring to in #31 are based on physical laws from which the DALR can be derived. One of the quibbles I have with N&K is that their calculations do not make corrections for water vapor (moist adiabat). Even so, their analysis fits the facts very well for Earth, Venus and Titan: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ In a nutshell, the main variables that determine planetary surface temperatures are TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), and surface pressure). There are plenty of smaller influences such as albedo, cloud cover, ocean currents etc. There are even some respected scientists who claim that CO2 affects the climate. For example, Richard Lindzen: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/#more-7386 -
Camburn at 14:43 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR: Yes, portions of Greenland do, but according to Grace data, overall Ice mass on Greenland is continuing to delcine, so that contribution must be ignored, and rather the data demonstrates that even with the Northern Greenland gain, the over loss of ice mass is a steady contribution to SLR. The Amazon basin of Brazil was actually in a moisture deficit, as was Argentina and that area. As far as Columbia and Venezala, (the blue area of South America), that area is also well drained. I think the Grace data is now pretty good. There was a paper published not long ago of which I didn't save, and can't find the link, that showed some problems with the algorythems and one would hope those have been adjusted. Tom@74: Rainfall will affect lake levels, but for only a very short time period in most circumstances. Lake Eyre is an exception, and should not be extrapolated to other large water shed basins. The Upper Mississippi water shed, North Central Great Plains area, drains fast and hard. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Camburn - Agreed; without basic physics (or at least a willingness to learn), no progress will be made. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - The GRACE data (which I suspect still is in the ground-truth calibration phase) certainly shows North America as not a major influence. But Australia and Brazil have huge mass accumulations, as do portions of Greenland and northern Russian regions. Always important to look beyond the local neighborhood... -
Johnny Vector at 14:14 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
owl, yes that applies to the pollution mongers. But most people don't have a vested interest in damaging the world. Among them, there are some who are unreachable, but there's a large muddy middle that honestly thinks climate is unpredictable or the science is still in dispute. They've heard the myths, and think they are truth. Assuming you can get the message to them, it does matter whether you can make it stick. -
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
I notice that Camburn stands firmly behind his opinion that rainfall will not effect lake levels. No more need be said. -
Camburn at 14:06 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR@71: Yep.....short term varience, as there has not been enough time to change the long term trend. As far as water accumulating on land tho...in North America is wouldn't persist for years. From Tom's post, Lake Eyre would seem to be an exception to normal water shed activity as it is below sea level. That would make a difficult drainage basis, and I wish the best for him and folks that live near there.
Prev 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 Next
