Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 Next
Comments 62751 to 62800:
-
Camburn at 14:00 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom@70: Your assumption was surface water. You used it all. I looked at what surface water was composed of....swamps...etc. I took the fluid water.....the water that would be considered non-stationary. I am fine with you not discussing this subject with me. -
scaddenp at 13:57 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
If you are going to use soil temperatures to talk about temperature on the moon cf temperature on the earth, then make sure you talk about soil temperatures on earth. However, comparison is much more difficult since earth soils are mostly wet with the due effects on thermal properties. Deviner saw night range from 35-90K. Does that change the argument. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - Then what we are looking at with the short term data is simply a more accurate view of short term variance, not a long term trend. The GRACE data is very interesting, and certainly shows mass accumulations in numerous areas over the last few years. It will be interesting to see how that data evolves over time. But it certainly indicates water accumulations on land (due most likely to La Nina conditions) persisting for >year durations. -
Camburn at 13:54 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR@46: What YOGI is proposing will never be proven as he ignores basic physics. -
Tom Curtis at 13:53 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @66, I specified 2% of surface water. I did the calculations, and did them correctly. For you to switch that to 2% of river water in your calculation is simply bait and switch. To do so without specifying that you had changed the quantity measured, as you did in post 61 is blatant trolling. Given that there is no reason to think that excess rainfall would all be stored in rivers, and not in lakes and swamps (for example), there is no plausible basis for your change in the measured quantity. Frankly, I think the only reason you changed from surface water to river water only (without mentioning that you did so) was to minimize the value thus calculated. I need only to point out that while it may be drying in parts of the US, in Qld is is flooding again for the third record setting flood in 24 months (although not as extensive as the previous two). Further, I need to point out that the US is a small part of the world as well. I used Qld only to illustrate the many types of processes that can, and do delay the return of rainfall to the ocean. Finally, you have clearly established to my mind that you are just trolling on this thread. Therefore I have no more interest in discussing this subject with you. -
Camburn at 13:52 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR@67: I agree with you 100%. What I do have confidence in, is that the present state of the measureing instruments is the best we have ever had. The time frame of these instruments started in approx 2003-2004. That is the trend we are dealing with, to detect with a much higher degree of accuracy than could have been done prior to this time. The long term trend established with the data that was available at the time has not changed in any statisically significant way. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - You cannot divide the temperature by 8 to get an answer, as the SB equation is: Power = SB Constant * Emissivity * Area * Temp(K)^4 SB constant is 5.670373*10^-8 You need to consider the average incoming insolation, and work through the equation to get the temperature. Also - "But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too..." - Then you are ignoring the details. You're more than welcome to make up your own math, your own physics - but everyone else is therefore more than justified to ignore it. -
Camburn at 13:48 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: We are talking about the short term trend change in SLR. WE are not discussing the long term trend as scaddenp pointed out at 58. I am not ignoring the pictures...... I am very familiar with the Upper Mississippi water shed and the Red River Basin water shed of North America. The water that fell in 2010 is long gone. And while we are talking colors, it is very possible that the drought conditions in the Mid West and South Central canceled out the precipitation in the Upper MIssissippi water shed. Also, when looking at blue.....remember that the blue on Greenland is an increase.....it snowed a lot there and will stay on the ice cap for awhile. Overall, tho, Greenland has lost mass so that blue on Greenland would not be an increase in mass, but an increase in SLR. The question that is being discussed is why SLR has slowed in the past 10 years. And it has, skeptic or not, that is what the data is showing. Whether this slowing of the SLR trend persists is a seperate question all to itself. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - 5 years is a very short time period considering year-to-year variance, variance which has been seen over the entire ~150 year close observation period for sea level rise. Unless you can show some statistical significance for it, I would have to consider that 5 year time period far too short for trend analysis. And a 15 or even 10 year period (let alone longer ones) still shows considerable SLR. -
YOGI at 13:39 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR at 11:18 AM on 28 February, 2012 That is interesting as 171.9C * 0.7 (albedo) / 8 = 15.04C. But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too, then 120.5C / 8 = 15.0625C. Or if I include Earth`s surface emissivity: 15.06C * 0.98 = 14.76125C. -
Camburn at 13:37 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: Australia is a wonderful country, but the small amount of water stored in Lake Eyre doesn't amount to much on a global scale. The flooding on the Mississippi water shed in 2011 has all reached the oceans as the lake levels of the dams are actually lower now than early spring of last year. Also, the water in the Red River Basin has been gone for months. That aside, the 0.3% of global water in the surface pool does not all go to the oceans. It would have to do so to achieve the 6mm dip and recovery that you showed. Where I got the 0.05mm from was as follows: 2.55 rate of sea level rise. Rivers have approx 2% of the 0.3%. Assuming that all the rivers ran dry, take the 2.55mm x 2% (which would still be too large, but I was trying to show how small the contribution is)....you get 0.051mm. We have a finite water budget on earth. The link I provided shows the distrubtion of that water presently. -
Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @63:"A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument: Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline Ignore the long-term trend Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change"
Dana Nuccitelli And here are the colours Camburn persists in turning a blind eye to:
-
owl905 at 13:23 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
Just as Neville Chamberlain could not grasp the reality of warmongers on the loose, it should not be assumed that the pro-pollutionists are honest skeptics. In the sales game, one of the first priorities is to "qualify the prospect". Buyer? Tire-kicker? Attention-seeker? Gossip-gatherer? There's little value in debunking a mythtake if the opposite side has no interest in the truth. -
Camburn at 13:22 PM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Upper Midwest...ND. I visit SkS, Pielke Sr., WUWT, Judith Curry, Nevin Arctic Page. -
Tom Curtis at 13:22 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @61: If the Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, they would raise sea level by nearly 60 meters (60,000 millimeters). If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, it would raise sea level by 6.5 meters (6,500 millimeters). (I choose not to use the 80 meter estimate from the later source in order to be conservative.) From your source, surface water represents 0.3% of all freshwater, while Icecaps and Glaciers represent 68.7%. That means there is only 0.44% as much water in surface water as there are in Icecaps and Glaciers.
Rounding down, we therefore have that the contribution of 2% of surface water to sea level would be 0.02 x 0.004 x 66000 millimeters or 5.28 mm. I have no idea where you got your 0.051 mm figure from.
For comparison, here is the Jason 2 data for sea level rise:
(AVISO
You will notice the approximately 6 mm dip and recovery that dominates that later part of the graph. Clearly a 2% increase in surface water would be enough to explain all, or nearly all of that dip.
Not only are you wrong about the magnitude of the effect, you are wrong about the rapid recovery. Much of the water from the January 2011 Queensland floods, for example, still remain happily below sea level at Lake Eyre. It took several months to get there because of ht low gradient, and because of that low gradient, most of the rest of that water that was not captured in Qld's many dams has only recently reached the sea at the mouth of the Murray river. Much of the water will also have replenished surface aquifers, soil moisture content or been stored in newly refreshed plant life.
The notion that rainfall immediately runs of to the sea is simply bizarre, and as a farmer you should know that.
However, as noted, and although it took about two years, the sea level has recovered, and most of that water has now returned to the sea.
There remains therefore only your strange contention that so large a dip in sea level (in the short term) could have no effect on short term trends. The contention once considered is clearly seen to be false.
-
Camburn at 13:16 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR: The average SLR between 2005 and 2010 is 1.3mm/year. Page 8 of the following link. From the following paper: An excellent analysis of where we are concerning current SLR I have not read a good reconstruction of historic sea level on a global level. The contents of the above link show the difficulty in using a few sites to try and reconstruct sea level rise rates etc. The above also discusses the difficulty using satillites, and hopefully, most of these issues have been resolved with the improvements of combining data sources to achieve a clearer picture. We know that the ice mass loss of Greenland, and potentially Antarctica, has not slowed down. With the above in mind, it shows that something has slowed down the rate of rise of SL. ARGO data shows us that, at least in the upper boundary of the ocean, OHC has not increased. That assumption is also demonstrated in the observed balance of radiation presented in a paper presented on this site. -
lloyd at 12:56 PM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Lloyd Smith From Mid-America USA: In addition to "SkepticalScience", I follow RealClimate, Nasa GISS and Earth Observatory Notes from the field, NSIDC and Neven's Arctic blog. I also keep up with freshwater issues on Pacific Institutes website and publications. -
YOGI at 12:26 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February, 2012 "Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong." From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step.Response:[DB] "From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step."
This is insufficient in a science-based forum and amounts to you being argumentative for form's sake. If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to do the maths (show your work) or to provide supportive links with an appropriate measure of explanatory context as to what you understand the link to show and why it is pertinent to the discussion.
-
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - "...about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time." Actually, since the rate of change of SLR is still positive, still higher than the ~1.3mm/yr pre-industrial level, the strongest statement that could be made is that OHC, while rising, is not rising as fast as it has in the recent past. I will note that decadal variances in sea level rise are quite obvious in the last 150 years while showing accelerating sea level rise:
-
YOGI at 12:12 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom Curtis "In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction." Its because they never get any sunlight. -
YOGI at 12:08 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom Curtis "Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics." Subsurface Temperatures Heat flow measurements made during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (Langseth et al. 1973) revealed that the top 1-2 cm of lunar regolith has extremely low thermal conductivity. The mean temperature measured 35cm below the surface of the Apollo sites was 40-45K warmer than the surface. At a depth of 80cm the day/night temperature variation experienced at the surface was imperceptible. This implies that habitations in the lunar subsurface exist that are not subject to the harsh temperature extremes prevalent on the surface. http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml You should have read on further.... -
Camburn at 12:04 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: That 2% would have long been back in the oceans. And 2% amounts to .051mm, a very small amount of short duration. Even considered as noise, such a small change would be vitrually undetectable. On a short term noisy timeline, the rate of change of SLR has slowed. One can't derive any long term conclusions as to why, or if this trend change will continue. Using the information available, about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time. The only other conclusion would be that the ocean bottom has developed a new hole somewhere that we do not as of yet have knowledge of happening. -
Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @35, your source gives the equatorial mean temperature at 207 K. It specifies the relationship of surface to subsurface temperatures taken at two different sites at times which where far from the zenith hour for the Sun (as shown by the shadows). As such the sub surface temperatures would represent something close to the average for their respective latitudes, but surface temperatures may have been well below that average. Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. -
scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
35cm deep gives a lot of thermal mass. Hardly comparable to measurement of GMST. IR hitting the ocean - change of topic again? Your point? By any chance is it misunderstandings with dealt with here? -
YOGI at 11:36 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
"[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier.." Want do you require ? evidence that near Earth space temperature measurements give 121C maximum?, i.e. the same as Lunar daytime maximum. Or evidence of peak daytime temperature measurements on Earth being much less ? -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - What do you think happens to back-radiation impinging on the ocean surface? Rather than presenting red-herrings and open questions, what assertions are you making about the behavior of the climate? You have thrown, quite frankly, a lot of open-ended questions about. Unless and until you bring forth a testable assertion, or a question relevant to the topic (i.e., with some explanation of how it supports/undermines a particular hypothesis), you are (IMO) just generating static. -
YOGI at 11:30 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
So what happens to all the IR back-radiation the hits the ocean surface ? -
Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn, if the entire Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet where to melt, that would raise sea level by approx. 66 meters. According to the site you linked to, surface water represents just 0.4% of total water in ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. In other words, if all surface water was returned to the Ocean without replacement, it would raise sea levels by 280 mm. Conversely, a 6 mm fall in sea level only requires a 2.1% increase in total surface water, based on the information provided by your link. I fail to see how your link shows the 2010 La Nina could not have increased total surface water by 2%. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Addendum to my last post: * Earth with ~240 W/m^2 average insolation, 0.98 emissivity: ~ -18C temperature. -
YOGI at 11:24 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
scaddenp The Lunar Thermal Environment http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml Apollo soil temp` measurements at 35cm deep give an equatorial average of 255K with a diurnal variation of +/- 70K. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI * Flat 1m^2 object, with perfectly insulating back, pure blackbody absorption/emission: 120.5C * With 0.98 IR emissivity (as per surface of Earth): 122.5C * With 0.612 IR emissivity (as per Earth surface as seen through the atmosphere): 171.9C * Conductive blackbody plate, two sides radiating: 57C And: * Earth (spherical object with larger surface area, 0.3-0.35 albedo in visible, 0.612 emissivity in IR): ~15C --- Details matter. -
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @30, if you are going to think scientifically, you need to be able to follow the implications of assumptions made. Specifically, for the 2.7 K, the assumption was made of no specific heat, ie, that temperatures will move to radiative equilibrium with no delay. On the Moon, the night time temperature is around 90 K because of the specific heat of the Lunar rocks which prevents instantaneous changes in temperature. In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction. However, if you want to use the Moon as an example, its mean temperature at the equator is 220 K, with its overall mean being lower. It has this low mean temperature despite a lower albedo than Earth's. Once again, the point is clear that the Earth's atmosphere reduces maximum daytime temperatures but increases the Global Mean Surface Temperature (even before you consider the greenhouse effect).
-
Camburn at 11:06 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
DB@56: Refer to Rob Painting at 29 of this thread. He posted the temperature data of the 0-700M volume. Scaddenp: Your comment made me smile......you are 100% correct @ 58. We are talking abotu change at the noise level. However, the thought that the La Nina changed the rate by much is shown to be not correct by the link that I posted showing the distribution of fresh water on our planet. -
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong. -
YOGI at 10:45 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Moderator, why are you deleting my comments ?Response:[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier, here. Supporting the earlier assertion with links to peer-reviewed studies appearing in reputable journals would be an example of adding to this discussion. Merely repeating yourself, such as you did, detracts from the discussion and begs intervention by the moderation staff.
-
JMurphy at 10:45 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
OK, JH, I'll try to 'send' something in over the next few days. -
YOGI at 10:44 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
#29 "the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation)" Why are you throwing such wildly incorrect figures around ? Even the Moon`s night time does not get that cold. Even in the coldest place in our solar system, which is in craters of the S pole of the Moon it does not get that cold. -
Tom Curtis at 10:29 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @27, the mean global surface temperature is 288 degrees K, corresponding to a black body radiation of 390 W/m^2. The temperature required to match the Sun's 1368 W/m^2 TSI at noon, with the sun vertically overhead, and ignoring albedo and assuming zero specific heat would be 394 degrees K. However, the sun is not always vertically overhead everywhere. So if we ignore albedo and specific heat, the temperature everywhere else on Earth would be less than the point where the Sun is vertically overhead. Indeed, ignoring albedo and specific heat, the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation) Any location within approx 2000 Km of the dawn or dusk but in full daylight would have a temperature less than 288 K. Most importantly, even if we assume all areas in full daylight are at 394 K, while all night areas are at 3 K, the Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 198.5 K. That is 90 degrees K less than the current GMST, and over 50 K less than the GMST of the ideal black body with perfect conduction which is used in simplified calculations of the Earth's effective temperature for radiative equilibrium. In other words, while the atmosphere (and ocean, and thermal capacity of rocks and soil) clearly do mitigate the peaks in daylight temperature, in doing so it also minimizes the minimums in night time temperatures. What is more, the overall effect is to increase the Global Mean Surface Temperature. So your assumption is wrong. -
barry1487 at 09:56 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Dennis @ 1, there is a link to what you suggest in the body of the article. http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-to-McLean-El-Nino-paper.html And more generally, try here. elsa @ 7, Maclean et al selected the data upon which the peer-reviewed criticism of their paper relies. -
scaddenp at 09:55 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
" Non repeatability (if that's a word)" This is an old one. By same logic, most geological theory is unscientific and this one is also leveled at evolutionary biology. However, nature and man deliver different forcings all the time and models, based on first-principle physics, manage to predict how climate will behave (which is not to be confused with weather forecasting). -
dana1981 at 09:53 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
barry - yes, corrected, thanks. elsa - please refrain from making unsupported accusations about climate scientists. -
Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
elsa - You continue to (incorrectly) assign all of climate science on forcings to CO2, then claim to have 'falsified' that science. Again, and I stress again, I suggest you read the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread. You are building a strawman, engaging in the Fallacy of the single cause. In addition, I would point you at Lean and Rind 2008, where they explore this very question - solar, volcanic, ENSO, and anthropogenic forcings and their attributions to temperature change. Current warming would simply not be occurring without the anthropogenic influence. As to repeatability - we can repeat all of the related science. Spectroscopy of various gases, sampling of atmospheric contents, satellite observations of spectral changes in IR to space, atmospheric water content, oceanic heat content, isotopic attribution of CO2, O2 depletion, and all of the various fingerprints of warming - ongoing changes, currently measurable, observable data, which support the science. Your continued rejection of the data represents (IMO) nothing more than denial - repeatedly making unsupportable assertions while (essentially) sticking your fingers in your ears regarding the science. And all that, while presenting zero evidence (references would be nice) for any alternative hypotheses. -
scaddenp at 09:48 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Well Camburn, I thought we were talking about change at the noise level. -
barry1487 at 09:43 AM on 28 February 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
"He is just one of three lead authors on the Heartland Insitute's NIPCC report"
Did you mean to say that Carter is one of just three lead authors? -
muoncounter at 09:40 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
elsa#80: "In its crudest form..." So? We are not here to discuss 'crudest forms.' It is clearly a part of the overall understanding of climate that aerosols can cause significant cooling. Hence your claim of falsification of a cherry-picked part of valid science is false. You need to stop coming up these silly, pedantic objections and move on to improving your own understanding the science. Otherwise, your just wasting everyone's time. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - It would correspond to a uniform temperature of 17.4C; see the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The average temperature (~15C) of the Earth surface radiates a bit more effectively due to variations - given positive and negative variations, and the T^4 relationship for radiative power, any variations will increase the energy radiated. Please read the OP, including the reference to Selsis 2007 for airless bodies with slow rotation rates like the Moon or Mercury. This is very unlike the more quickly rotating Earth with oceans and atmosphere to distribute heat far more evenly. You are continuing to compare apples to, well, coconuts. I would strongly suggest that you read up a bit on IR absorption and the lapse rate, and how they together cause a much lower emission of IR energy to space than would occur if we did not have greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Postma's nonsense will, IMO, not be helpful to your understanding. -
elsa at 09:31 AM on 28 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
1. Non repeatability (if that's a word) We cannot rerun the climate. By this I mean that we cannot experiment with the climate. We cannot try what the temperature would be with a given CO2 concentration because (a) we cannot fix the concentration and (b) even if we could the other things that affect climate will have changed too. 2. Modification In its crudest form the AGW theory (and I grant you this is a simplification) postulates that with rising CO2 the climate will warm. In the period 40s to 70s this not only failed to happen but probably the temperature actually declined. The usual escape route for the AGW theory is to attribute this to aerosols. Thus the theory needs to be modified. In its crudest form it has been falsified. -
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Matthew L @48: 1) Your assumption of rigid constraint of the Ocean on all sides is incorrect. The Ocean floor (except over continental shelves) is a thin layer that flexes with the addition of further mass to the Ocean. The effect is to slowly push magma from under the Ocean floor to under the Continental crusts, thereby pushing them up. With the reduction in steric sea level rise over the last few years, and the increase in sea level rise due to the melting of glaciers, ice sheets and ice caps, this will have been a more important effect over recent years. Unfortunately I am unable to quantify it for you, and it will explain only a small part of the reduced rate of increase of sea level. 2) There has been a distinct decrease in steric sea level rise over recent years. That is due in large part to the deep solar minimum over the period 2008 - 2011. In fact, from the 2001-2002 peak, TSI has declined by about 0.25 W/m^2 averaged over the Earth's surface, or about a quarter of the average Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance over the last few decades. Evidence suggests a further 0.25 W/m^2 reduction from other sources since about 2004 with possible reasons including the impact of aerosols from industrial expansion in China and India, possible slight changes in TOA energy balance due to the effects of ENSO, or even a very slightly enhanced solar effect due to Solar specific feedbacks. SFAIK, the exact balance of reasons is still unknown, and nor is it known that all possible candidates are even being discussed. 3) Finally, the very large dip in sea levels from 2010 - 2012 is attributed to increased land storage of water due to the very wet 2010-2011. According to the IPCC, 100 Gigatonnes of water will result in 0.28 mm of sea level rise. The dip is just over 5 mm at its deepest, and therefore represents just over 2,000 Gt of water stored on the land surface. -
skywatcher at 09:22 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Based in Australia. I'll regularly check up on: RealClimate Open Mind Neven's Arctic blog Deep Climate (BTW, an interesting new post on how GMU have just released their very tardy and weak fndings on the Wegman scandal, and a hypothesis that they did so under the cover of the Heartland fiasco - "good day for bad news"?) I might also pass by Deltoid, Science of Doom, Rabett Run and keep an eye out for new videos from ClimateCrocks and potholer54 (Peter Hadfield) - both often superb video debunkings. -
neil at 09:14 AM on 28 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
@ Rob 51 I did not say the IPCC failed to consider carbon-climate models. I said the fully-coupled models were predominantly 'physical' models only, with no carbon cycle which is true. For example, this list gives the 23 AO GCMs used in CMIP3 / AR4. I also said in my previous post that some models (mainly intermediate complexity models, not full AO GCMs) like UVic, Bern and Climber etc did have carbon cycles. This is exactly what your link above shows (11 models, from C4MIP), so we agree here. I fully agree about uncertainties in the land-carbon storage etc of the models; but for the C4MIP model configurations (as listed your IPCC table), the carbon-climate response (thus warming from past emissions) is basically constant in time on scales from hundreds to thousands of years (as shown in Mathews et al. 2009), which is the point that I have been making all along. Again, for the umpteenth time, I give you that there is an 'aerosol' based warming in the pipeline, but not one from the carbon cycle, based on the C4MIP/AR4 generation of carbon-climate models. About the ocean heat ; yes there are many terms in the heat budget. I never said heat only travels downwards, I was saying the net of all these terms is a downward heat flux. If you do not agree that there is a net downward heat flux in the ocean under global warming, I just don't know what to say. In fact, I think we agree on almost everything, I was just trying to politely point out that the C4MIP models, with constant aerosols, show no 'warming in the pipleline' for past emissions on medium to long timescales, as documented amply in the literature. I feel that more than anything I've been attacked for this, rather than engaged, so at this point I'm going to withdraw from SKS.
Prev 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 Next
