Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 Next
Comments 63851 to 63900:
-
Rob Painting at 17:39 PM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Neil - If you are talking about surface warming, there is a serious problem in the central argument presented here. I think you are confused by the difference between a "constant composition" atmosphere (which has warming in the pipeline), and the case of warming based on past emissions (for which there is no warming in the pipeline) The current TOA imbalance is that which the planet has yet to respond to. Most of the greenhouse gas forcing has already been used up in raising sea levels, warming the oceans and atmosphere, and melting ice over the last two centuries. The remaining imbalance is 'warming in the pipeline', i.e. further warming will rectify this imbalance, but of course, we keep adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - so it can't come into balance. I hope you can follow the distinction here - not all forcing from historic greenhouse gases have been used up. The slow response is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. "But don't believe me, look at the Damon and Weaver paper clarifying this misconception" I can't find a copy of the paper, but it was discussed over at Real Climate by climate modeler Gavin Schmidt back in 2010. It seems to be discussing something completely different from what you infer. I don't know how useful it is to consider an imaginary scenario where CO2 emissions suddenly drop to zero, but man-made aerosols (reflective particles of pollution that cool the Earth) don't. Sort of like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:31 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
Thread hijacking takes an initial trigger comment, followed by response comments from both 'sides' of the argument. If nobody bites, there is no hijack. I consider the Monckton thread which prompted this question to be illuminating, especially because it brought a number of clarifying responses which showed the trigger comment to be what it was: an ill-informed opinion contrary to the evidence. If it is convenient to do so, a method of barring further posts from the contrarian until the original issue has been completely dealt with would seem in order, but I take the view that discussion here should be as open as is consistent with remaining on topic. It would take a great deal of misbehaviour on the part of a commenter before I would seek to have their comments removed. I think the current level of moderation suits my taste. -
adelady at 17:21 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
HIjacking? Mostly annoying when people don't respond to guidance from moderators or other posters. But there are instances where this is a natural consequence of an on-the-spot education process. Given the nature and purposes of the site, we shouldn't automatically shut down an enquiring, if misguided, mind. Like it or not, it's all down to judicious moderation. I'm happy for earlier intervention on the move-to-another-thread basis. Allows an earlier move to warnings and deletions. -
owl905 at 17:11 PM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
@JP40 12 - If it's a general unchecked carbon-pollution bloom spread throughout the biosphere, the web of life will degenerate and collapse. The complexity introduced rivals the PTX, and the speed of the event rivals the KTX. The persistence of artificially high CO2 levels is a geological precedent. Humans have technology, past present and future, and that's the big game-changer. We may not be last on the snuff list, but we'll see most other species go before us. We'll be accompanied by pets, pests, produce, and ghosts. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:25 PM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Yep JP40. I have to agree. And the big extra factor(s) you don't mention are all the pressures on our capacity to grow food - ocean acidification, fisheries collapse, ocean dead zones, soil degradation, collapsing water tables, increasing fertiliser costs due to excessive demand for Natural Gas. And so far I haven't mentioned any of the global warming issues. Initially I think Global Warming will be a 'force multiplier', not too bad in its own right, but compounding all the other threats. Then later in the century it kicks in harder and really tips things over the edge. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:02 PM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Tristan @ 14, thank you for the clear explanation. I grasp the concept better now. -
Jose_X at 15:59 PM on 20 February 2012Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming
A new version of the paper (late 2011) can be found at the WUWT site. That and a comment I made: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/#comment-897319 It seems a quadratic was added to help improve some aspects of the curve-fitting model and maybe even contribute to their claims against the IPCC. Glancing at the older paper, I think they added some more refined spectrum analysis, making their overall analysis a bit more comprehensive. Note on page 10 that their equations not only mysteriously drop pretense that the future trend might be faster than linear (that would be inconvenient to their claims), but they limit their model to the 1850-2100 range, as if stating those bounds would protect their analysis from the dreaded hindcasting failures we get from most curve-fitting. -
Bernard J. at 15:05 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
On the matter of thread hijacking, I concur with dhogaza. Enforce with discretion, after warning, when it becomes obvious that the hijacker is attempting to obscure the original post. Any posts targeted could be moved to a bin, so that they don't go whining that they were censored off the site. On the matter of "Coming soon" pieces, is there still a plan to debunk Plimer's "How to get expelled from school"? It's getting some traction amongst some of my ignorant aquaintances, and having a SkS link to which to refer would be handy. -
DSL at 14:48 PM on 20 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie is undoubtedly a troll and has absolutely zero interest in engaging the science. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:39 PM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Neil at 27 Let me try an analogy on the 'in the pipeline' argument to see if it helps. I own a swimming pool centre with 2 pools, a toddlers wading pool and an olympic size swiming pool. They are connected by a pipe so at equilibrium they hve the same surface level. I have a float valve in the toddlers pool that lets extra water in if the level is low. Then I decide to raise the overall level of the pool. So I adjust the setting of the float valve so that it will aim for a higher level. So water starts flowing into the toddlers pool and its level starts to rise. As this happens the emerging difference in height between the two pools starts a flow into the olympic pool. Eventually the flow into the toddlers pool will match the flow into large pool and the toddlers pools stops rising while it waits for the olympic pool to fill. The olympic pool is the oceans. The toddlers pool is the surface - land, sea surface, air, ice, they components that contribute to determining radiative balance with space. And the level setting of the float valve is the GH gases. So if we have made a one off adjustment to the valve ( a step change in GH gas levels ) then eventually levels in both pools will stabilise and the valve will shut off - no more imbalance. However what we are actually doing is slowly but ointinually adjusting the valve higher and higher. So the water flow through the valve is steadily increasing. Thus the Toddlers pool is able to keep rising somewhat even though it is being retarded by flow into the Olympic pool. So your example of stopping all emissions is the equivalent of stopping adjusting the valve higher. But the filling of the pools still needs time catch up with the setting the valve is finally at before the water flow eventually stops. The real world situation would obviously be more complex enough but in essence the world must keep warming until surface temperatures rise high enough to cancel out the energy imbalance. And that can't happen until the oceans stop drawing down heat and limiting the surface warming. -
LucAstro at 14:19 PM on 20 February 2012Climate Change Denial book now available!
Have you checked the latest book from Michael Mann? It is in already in kindle form BEFORE it is printed on paper. At least this author is consistent on saving paper and energy. Fascinating story! The book EAARTH also appeared first on Kindle. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/12/422774/michael-mann-author-book-hockey-stick-climate-wars/ -
muoncounter at 14:17 PM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
TomC#98: 'Some level of volcanic activity' does not necessarily result in a measurable change in forcing. Robock 2002 is an excellent summary: what is needed is explosivity, a tropical location and the right geochemistry. Solomon et al 2011 make the case that there is 'persistent variation' in stratospheric aerosols even without volcanic input. -
Lloyd Flack at 14:07 PM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
What I think happens with people like Monkton is that they read maliciously. They skim through a document looking for the bits that they can see as supporting their position. And they seize on them and do not try to understand the whole context. They try to win, not to understand. I've had online discussions with denialists and have often had them ridiculously misunderstand a point I made. And I've asked myself, "Did I explain things unclearly?", And sometime I did. And sometimes there was no way that they could have misunderstood if they had tried to understand. Scientist try to fit things together into a coherent overall picture. Denialists are not interested in doing this. But in climate science it is the overall picture where the proof is. Lacking intellectual integrity, denialists cannot recognize it in others. They assume that others have to have their judgment ruled by politics the way that theirs is. How to get them to step back and reconsider? Difficult on the Internet, especially on a climate oriented site. Sometimes you can gradually get them to reconsider. One on one, face to face I think you can stop them evading, mostly by making them realize that they are doing that, But you can't do that on the Internet. All you can to is to stop them from misleading others. -
skywatcher at 13:57 PM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
muoncounter, Greenland settlement wasn't necessarily climate-limited - Medieval warmth is not a prerequisite to have Norse Greenlanders. Inuit are, of course a great demonstration that habitation of that part of the world, whether your technology be limited or advanced, is not strictly climate-controlled. And the Norse were also able to trade commodities with Europe, such as walrus ivory, providing a good incentive for settlement. Their survival well beyond the beginning of the Little Ice Age, on a diet that became much more marine (Arneborg et al, 1999), also shows climate not as the ultimate limiting factor. -
michael sweet at 13:48 PM on 20 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie, Here is today's anomaly map. Where is this "record cold weather" you speak of.
I see a sizable area of +20C, which has been record hot in Svalbard. The cold is only the coldest in the last 30 or so years. It is not cold by historic standards, they have just gotten used to it always being warm. Name your location that is as cold as Svalbard has been warm.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:46 PM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
muoncounter @97, there is nearly always some volcanic activity going on somewhere on the Earth. Given that, it is reasonable to assume as neutral conditions an average level of background volcanic activity. However, whether you treat this as a zero level so that reduced volcanic activity is treated as a positive forcing, or whether you treat zero AOD as the zero level, so that all volcanic activity is represented as a negative forcing is only a matter of baselining, and makes not difference to the final calculations. For the IPCC, volcanic forcing is (or should be) benchmarked at the presumed level of volcanic forcing in 1750 to bring it inline with the other forcing measurements. -
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
This is only marginally on topic, in that it is an example Monckton's misrepresentation of (easily determined) facts rather than of scientists per se. However it is certainly relevant to Adam's threadjack. In Monckton's St Paul Lecture he says:"[26:46] “... Gore knew the judge was right because in the year he made that movie he spent four million dollars buying – yes, some of you have got there already – buying a condo in the St Regis Tower, San Fancisco just feet from the ocean at Fisherman's wharf. [27:09] “So how many of you think, that as you went in through twenty feet of sea level rise, through the doors of that building he would not find himself going glug glug glug?"
(Numbers in square brackets are times on the tape.) When I first heard this comment, I was immediately suspicious. One of the few things I know about San Francisco is that it is very hilly, so that a few feet of difference can make a large difference in height above sea level. The map on Monckton's slide reinforced that suspicion. The hotel was apparently close to the Golden Gate Bridge, and as large bridges are placed at elevated locations near the shore, likely to be at an elevated location. So I did some checking. The first thing I found out is that St Regis Tower is indeed just feet from Fisherman's Warf. Nine thousand feet, give or take. That is a fact as easily ascertained as looking at a map which marks both locations. You have to wonder why Monckton chose words that suggest St Regis Tower is on the fore shore rather than over one and a half miles from Fisherman's Wharf, and three quarters of a mile to the nearest shore. Next I checked Robert Rohde's handy Sea Level Rise Explorer:
As you can sea, I have marked the location of St Regis Tower with the red diamond. As you can also see, the shading in that area is a yellowish green, indicating an altitude above sea level of between 12 and 20 meters.
So, do I think patrons of the St Regis Towers, San Fancisco will be going "Glug, Glug, Glug" as they enter the lobby if sea level should rise 6 meters? Not a bit of it.
Bearing in mind that Monckton is using the supposed altitude of the St Regis Towers lobby to make an accusation of fraud. You should assume therefore, that he has checked his facts, a task as easy as emailing the St Regis Tower and making inquiries. I do not know whether he did that, and deliberately lied, or whether he just has so complete disregard of truth that he didn't even bother. What I do know is that this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and a misrepresentation on which he built a slander.
-
JP40 at 13:34 PM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
I am pretty sure that if greenhouse gass emissions remain unchecked, civilization will collapse before enough damage is done to set of the chain reaction of doom that killed almost all life. A special on the History Channel called Earth 2100 imagined a worst-case scenario of the affects of climate change, and most other issues that people worry about, like epidemics and border riots. It predicted the total collapse of modern, co2 emitting civilization at about 2100, with widespread anarchy starting at about 2080. -
muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
TomC: "unusually low volcanic eruptions contributed, particularly in the early twelth century." A 12c volcanic lull wouldn't explain the prior Norse settlements in Greenland. You seem to suggest that 'neutral' conditions (0 net warming), requires some level of volcanic activity. Why would that be? -
scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 20 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Gee, try reading what the scientists are trying to tell you. Do you notice the record high temperatures as well? (ie where you live is not the world). -
Copie at 13:17 PM on 20 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Give us all a break you "Global Warming" religion cranks! Trying to convince us that record cold weather is really global warming is a sick joke. Go and do something useful, help someone who is suffering from the extreme cold. -
scaddenp at 13:16 PM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
"Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted." I am trying to encourage Adam to do just that. Adam, how many things from say Monckton, CO2"science" etc need to be shown to you as misrepresentations before you would stop relying on such sources? -
actually thoughtful at 13:01 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
Hi-jacking seems to be a subset of the overall comments process on SkS - someone will post something provocative or false, then 5-10 different posters will kindly point out the errors of their way. It would be nice if one person would point out the errors, ask the poster to retract or justify their comments - and have it be enforced that they can't post anywhere else until they either document the claim or retract it - that would, to my mind, be the platonic ideal of holding skeptical commenters accountable. If you mean, by hijack the thread, long back-and-forths as a person works through their particular issue (in a reasonable way) - I view that as fairly healthy, and I suspect if an honest person is confused on something, probably many others are as well, so we all benefit from their process of understanding. -
dhogaza at 12:57 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
"Hijacking is annoying but just a variation of "off topic". Like "trolling" it is rather subjective. Heavy-handed use would silence debate that should be happening. " The debate that should be happening is debate about the original post that heads a particular thread. Hijacking is by definition an attempt to end that legitimate debate by changing the subject. Obviously enforcement would be somewhat subjective, but this is true of the entire moderation policy. It's unavoidable. I'd say yes it should be against the comment policy. Enforcement should be similar to the enforcement of other elements of the comment policy, which typically is a warning, followed by comment editing plus warning (if only part of a comment is in violation), and if the offender's persistent enough, deletion of comments in violation. -
Pierre-Normand at 12:39 PM on 20 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
"So future warming requires future imbalance." That's certainly true. However it takes time to restore any new imbalance (unless the variation is so slow that the state never is transient). It takes time for oceans to warm. So, if there is a variation in the absolute values of the forcing between some time t1 and a later time t2, the resulting imbalance (that will need to be restored from t1 onward) is F(t2) - F(t1) + I, where F(t) is the total forcing at t, and 'I' is the previous imbalance caused by past variations in forcing that had not yet been fully restored at t1. -
Pierre-Normand at 12:27 PM on 20 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Sorry, Ken Lambert. You are right. I had thought the 1W/m^2 variation in TSI that I had found was TOA. This is indeed rather close to 0.25W/m^2. You say that you are considering the warming imbalance from all effects. But is the modelled 0.9 to 1 W/m^2 that you mentioned based retrospectively on the true (estimated) forcings or was it produced by the models as an ensemble average? -
Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam @57, very briefly: 1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event; 2) Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming. This is most obvious with the graph purported to be from Dansgaard and from Schonweise (diferent papers) which shows a MWP preceding 1000 AD and a LIA that finishes around 1500 AD. Therefore if you constructed a global proxy form the data in those graphs, the periods of peak warming would be significantly reduced compared to that shown on the individual graphs, and hence significantly reduced relative to today (which truly is a global warming). 3) One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. Using the standard lapse rate to convert the altitude difference to a temperature difference shows a temperature difference of 0.23 degrees C above the reference for the MWP. As this is much less than the difference in Mean Global Surface Temperatures between 1980 (the apparent termination of the graph data) and the present, the graph does not show what Monckton purports. 4) Monckton's errors are too frequent and too persistent to be considered accidental. Further, when his attention was drawn to them, he did not resile from any of his claims with regard to these temperature graphs (see his response to Abraham). Therefore by his own standard (also stated in his response to Abraham) these are not mistakes, but lies. 5) It is evident that people viewing this collection of graphs from the audience of the presentation would not have been in a position to make these detailed comparisons. Therefore Monckton's presentation of these graphs had the likely and probably calculated effect of deceiving the audience. 6) And leaving aside the MWP, there is little point in your persistently asking me to read something that I have already read. 7) I notice you declined my request to discuss Abraham (or Monckton's) presentation slide by slide. Your response to that request was to cite the entire discussion of sea level rise, which occupies three slides in Monkcton's presentation, and five slides in Abraham's original presentation. Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted. 8) I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. In this you follow Monckton who "quotes" Al Gore as saying:" “Right, the melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are going to raise sea level by 20 feet imminently.”
(25 minutes, 41 seconds on the tape) Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't) Why is it that Monckton seems reticent to quote anybodies exact words? Why does he present his "paraphrases" as though they were exact quotations? And why do his paraphrases change the original meanings of the quotes repeatedly? -
From Peru at 12:22 PM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
To moderator: the rescaling of the images does not work, it breaks the link to the third image instead. The source of the disturbing map (widespread flooding during the PETM) is here: Physical Oceanography & Climate Dynamics Winguth's Webpage -
actually thoughtful at 12:21 PM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
From the original post (just above first graphic): "It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted." - what does "It puts paid" mean? I am not familiar with this turn of phrase. Sphaerica @ 22 - when I first read your post at 17 I thought what you did at 22 - that La Nina would be the worst case (ie .5C +/-.43 is the most we will see, not the least). However, while this paper is based on the ARGO network, the authors also included land and atmosphere - so they are really stating that the .5C is where we are at and it is La Nina/El Nino independent. I presume that number will get revised up as the balance of evidence suggests a higher number. Am I missing something in reading it in this manner? -
From Peru at 12:18 PM on 20 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
As the old saying says: The peoples that forgot their own history are doomed to repeat it... History like the deadly transitions: Permian/Triassic
Paleocene/Eocene
All due to huge releases of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and CH4 ...
This(current global warming) is the worst mass dying occurring in tens of millions of years.
The deniers, the polluters, the corrupted politicians are doing everything they can to have their hands stained forever in blood(or I should say H2S emitting purple-sulfur bacteria slime?)...
We must stop them. If we don't, I am afraid we deserve to become extinct like most therapsids (mammal-like reptiles)after the Permian/Triassic event.
-
scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 20 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
Hijacking is annoying but just a variation of "off topic". Like "trolling" it is rather subjective. Heavy-handed use would silence debate that should be happening. What would be better would be an easy way for moderation to move an offtopic hijack attempt to a more appropriate thread. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Funglestrumpet, a wide range of Monckton's BS is addressed by Peter Hadfield and very well documented. See this SkS post and watch the videos, they are very informative. I really mean that: take the time to watch. I find it far more damning than anything done by Abraham, Dennis or SkS. As I said earlier, the part where Monckton does that little speech about how Dr Pinker is a great guy is really funny and says everything one needs to know about the individual. Used car salesman, snake oil merchant, take your pick for the stereotype that best matches his methods. -
Tom Curtis at 11:27 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn and others, I refer you to this discussion of the issue by John Cook. It should be noted that solar forcing is not the only change of forcing during the MWP. In particular, unusually low volcanic eruptions contributed, particularly in the early twelth century. Elevated CO2 levels also contributed about 0.2 W/m^2, which is significant relative to other changes at the time. The argument is revisited in this blog post by dana1981. Based on Crowly 2010, net radiative forcing in the MWP was < 1 W/m^2 greater than during the LIA. As 1750 had significantly higher radiative forcing than was typical of the LIA, this means that MWP radiative forcings are significantly less than current radiative forcings relative to the LIA. It follows that if the MWP was warmer than at present globally, climate sensitivity is greater than currently believed, and we have significantly more warming in the pipeline than currently expected. -
John Hartz at 11:24 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Given the conscerns expressed about Adam's posting habits, I posed the following question in the Issue of the Week section of the 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7. "Should the SkS Comment Policy be amended to explicitly prohibit the hi-jacking of a comment thread by an individual commentator?" Please respond to this question in the comment thread to Weekly Digest #7. -
kaustubh at 11:20 AM on 20 February 2012Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
Riccardo, I would trust paleoclimate proxies more than reanalysis or gridded temperature products for pre-1950 data. Proxies may not have spatial coverage, but they are remarkable in their being reproducible and repeatable. The issue here is NOT that Singer trusts proxy data over instrumental data. The issue is that proxies DO IN FACT show the 20th century warming signal. Here is a blog post where I compile a short list of papers where the authors discover 20th century warming in their paleoclimate proxies: http://paleowave.blogspot.com/2012/02/proxy-evidence-for-recent-warming.html -
Riccardo at 11:01 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
There has been several ups and downs of the sea level in the last few days which average to zero. So the lowering of the sea level in the last couple of hours must have a different cause. Or not? -
scaddenp at 10:56 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
And with reference to last decade - La Nino's have dominated since 2005. Now what climate science expects is that when natural factors go positive then global temperatures will steadily rise again. If they dont, then climate science needs fixing. On the other hand, if they do will that be enough to change your mind? -
funglestrumpet at 10:51 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
We must make sure that all of Monckton’s misrepresentations are properly documented in the event that the authorities decide to prosecute him for deliberately trying to thwart attempts to combat climate change. He can have no defence regarding the potential dangers seeing as he is not a scientist and his views are in direct conflict with those of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, as this post clearly gives some evidence of. When the public eventually catches up with the risks that Monckton is exposing their children and grand-children too, I imagine he might be glad to be safely locked away. Can there be any doubt regarding the need to ditch the idea of hereditary peerages? It is a mystery to me that someone can be ennobled just because some dim, distant ancestor pissed up the same tree as the king. Even offering to hold it for him hardly qualifies. -
Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
neil - To repeat a post from another thread (as it's even more appropriate here): That is not the case. As long as there is an energy imbalance at the TOA, as long as the oceans in particular are in thermal disequilibrium, there is "warming in the pipeline", or as I prefer to term it, unrealized warming. This is only made worse by the increasing greenhouse gas forcings we are putting out. To quote Galileo, ""Eppur si muove. When the energy content of the climate stops moving, attains long term averaged equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere, then we can state that there is no longer "warming in the pipeline". Not before. If we were to stop emissions tomorrow, there will still be decades of warming before the TOA imbalance is addressed - simply due to thermal inertia. -
skywatcher at 10:37 AM on 20 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn, as stated by many before, with copious references, you can't have it both ways. Climate responds to forcings. A strong MWP either requires a large forcing comparable to today (not apparent from the Sun in the Steinhilber et al 2009 graph that Svalgaard uses, or in Delaygue et al 2010) or it needs high climate sensitivity to a period where solar activity was respectable for an extended period of time and volcanic activity was relatively low. If you don't see this extremely simple physical logic, there's little reason in discussing it with you. Do you have a hitherto unseen large forcing? If you want low climate sensitivity you need one, or you need to forget the MWP being a large global event. Add to that all the other geological and historical evidence for climate sensitivity somewhere around 3C per doubling (Hegerl et al 2006; Knutti and Hegerl 2008), and the argument becomes ridiculous. It is indeed, as muoncounter eloquently puts it, "the pseudoskeptic's dilemma" -
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
"So ENSO is not the explanation for the last decade stasis in surface temperatures" Foster and Rahmsdorff however show quantitatively that combination of ENSO, Solar and aerosol are sufficient to explain the observations. You dont like the method but so far I dont see are sensible critique of thus other than you dont like their results. -
skywatcher at 10:14 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
#65 paulhtremblay - perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections. The variations of the past millennium do provide us with some indications of climate sensitivity, but they still rule out very low values, and don't rule out values high enough to be really scared of (Hegerl's 5-95% is 1.5-6.2C per doubling). A more bent hockey stick will probably increase Hegerl's 5% boundary. Though the MWP and LIA were dominantly regional events, they were strong enough and widespread to have some effect on global temperature, even if it was only 0.3C here and there. BTW, is Adam actually Monckton in disguise? He's Gish Galloping with the best of them! -
Tristan at 10:12 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
The deletion of all poptech's posts was unintentional. He had been allowed 250+ posts till that point and given a lot of opportunity to make a coherent argument. When an attempt to delete one post deleted all of them he probably should have been notified of the mistake. That said, all they showed was that after a pointless exercise in rhetoric he admitted that his definition of peer-reviewed meant 'something that someone could review'. -
neil at 10:00 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Rob: I think you should be more clear about what you mean about "warming in the pipeline". If you are talking about surface warming, there is a serious problem in the central argument presented here. I think you are confused by the difference between a "constant composition" atmosphere (which has warming in the pipeline), and the case of warming based on past emissions (for which there is no warming in the pipeline). This is common mistaken even among climate scientists. We are NOT committed to any surface warming from past emissions. As a thought (or climate modelling) experiment, imagine emissions went to zero tomorrow - would the world keep on warming? The answer is no. The ocean would absorb CO2 out the atmosphere, drawing down the radiative forcing over time. The heat from the radiative forcing of the 'excess' CO2 still in the atmosphere is also almost completely absorbed by the ocean. Thus no further surface warming occurs. Of course the (deep) ocean does warm and expand. But don't believe me, look at the Damon and Weaver paper clarifying this misconception: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo813.html -
paulhtremblay at 09:51 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam:"But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low." That is incorrect. First, the MWP was not global, so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity. If you believe otherwise, can you please be specific? -
Ken Lambert at 09:38 AM on 20 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
DM & CBD DM "There is no need to invoke some unknown ocean circulation as ENSO already does a good job" According to Fig 3 there have been 6 La Ninas and many 'other' ENSO cycles since 1975. The effect is supposed to be neutral on the overall warming imbalance. So ENSO is not the explanation for the last decade stasis in surface temperatures. CBD "The answer to your original question thus continues to be that these aerosol effects are not "taken out" because they cannot be quantified precisely enough to do so." It seems that when a tough question is posed - the resort is to "we can't accurately measure this". If that is the case then confident predictions of the magnitude of the warming imbalance can't be made either. -
Dean at 09:32 AM on 20 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Loeb et al's paper is quite new so we'll see how it holds up. I think one should note that the error bars given applies only to this work. If you do a meta-analysis of more papers on the subject, you get different combined error bars. Interestingly, Trenberth has given some critical comments of the paper as referred by science journalist David Appell. -
scaddenp at 09:28 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I believe poptart's posts were deleted by mistake actually. A shame because they were very revealing - including the admission that no conceivable data could convince him that climate science was right. However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. However, the challenge is the same as for CO2"science" - find something that you find convincing - any paper on that list - and then discuss it on the appropriate thread -
paulhtremblay at 09:15 AM on 20 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
>>Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles. Good grief! None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. Look at the actual thread presented here at SS. Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech, which does nothing to address the outright fabrication of poptech's claims. Adam, you are continually engaging in a moving target argument. You were asked to bring up one paper from CO2 science to bolster your claim that the MWP was global. You have not done so. Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way. Stop dodging and filling up these boards with BS.Moderator Response: [JH] Please use "SkS' when referring to Skeptical Science. -
A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
dhogaza - You are correct, Monckton has on occasion made truthful statements. I will therefore qualify my comment to: Monckton has yet to make a single supportable statement on contradiction to established climate science. Adam - It's quite clear that Huang's data and conclusions do not support Monckton's statements. I am glad to see that you understand that; he should not have claimed that Huang supported his presentation. Again, Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect) - hence he has the burden of proof. Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable? In the meantime, folks, DNFTT.
Prev 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 Next
