Recent Comments

Prev  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  Next

Comments 65751 to 65800:

65751. Rob Painting at 11:36 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - at comment @46 you claimed that thermal expansion contributed more to current sea level rise. When I asked for a citation at comment @47, you replied with an armflapping response about projections for the 21st century, you did not provide a citation to support your assertion. Your assertion is wrong. The addition of water mass (melt-water from ice sheets and glaciers) to the rate of current sea level rise is over twice that of that of thermal expansion from global warming. See Leuliette & Willis (2011) - Balancing the Sea Level Budget. It is clear from your persistently wrong assertions and unwillingness to learn that you are here simply to create the false impression of doubt, and also to waste people's time. I'm sure you can find other blogs where your commitment to non-learning and erroneous beliefs is appreciated. I would urge other moderators to not tolerate further nonsense -snip-.
       Moderator Response: [Albatross] I share your frustration but please tone it down. Thanks.
65752. Wcalvin@uw.edu at 11:17 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Continuing.... Most of the excess CO2 and heat is still in the surface layer. The North Atlantic is the only place with a lot of excess CO2 (and presumably heat) below the thermocline (Sabine et al 2002) and thus kept away from the atmosphere for a thousand years. That is the only part that can be considered to be in long-term storage. So yes, most of the excess CO2 and heat is now in the ocean. But it is only in the wind-stirred surface layer and not really in long-term storage.
65753. muoncounter at 11:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       DB, Yep, lovely. It appears the 'hiatus decade' started at +0.6C and ended above +1.5C. Anyone still saying warming has 'slowed down', 'paused' or whatever needs to explain this graph.
65754. Wcalvin@uw.edu at 11:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Re times for deep ocean heat to make a difference see Winton, Takahashi, and Held, 2009:  Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J.Clim, 2009 Deep ocean is 98% of the water so there is a 50-fold dilution of whatever excess CO2 and heat is sunk into it by the overturning circulation. Takes about 1000 years to make it back up.
65755. Utahn at 11:00 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Ah, it was before that...
65756. John Hartz at 10:15 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @Sphaerica #58: My suggestion that you and Pirate take your discussion off-line had to do with the deteriorating tone of your exchanges. I purposely did not post my suggestion as a Moderator's comment.
65757. Daniel Bailey at 09:18 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Then there was this lovely corroborative graphic derived from the BEST datasets from longtime Neven-contributor Wipneus:
65758. Bob Lacatena at 08:57 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       54, Pirate, The problem with your interpretation of that last bullet point is that you appear to be reading the phrase "to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening" as an implicit admission that "we don't know," when what they are actually saying is "we do know, and we need you as a teacher to convey that knowledge to those that do not know." As far as what the IPCC says about human activities causing climate change, first that is now 5 years old. What they said then you can see here, such as:

       Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

       But times have changed. Consider these recent posts (Huber and Knutti 2011 and Foster and Rhamstorf) here on Skeptical Science, covering the latest research. The upshot is that when you separate natural and anthropogenic causes, the warming is obvious, and natural factors are most likely to have contributed a net cooling effect. This means that not only is all of the warming you see today anthropogenic in origin, but it would also be even worse if not for the cooling factors. 55, John Hartz, No. This is a post about teaching the science, and Pirate is a science teacher. If this is not an appropriate topic of debate on this site, then what is?
65759. Daniel Bailey at 08:56 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       @ Tealy

       "ice melt and thermal expansions of oceans contribute to regional differences in sea level, but have not been able to explain why in scientific terms or provide a specific source that says it does."

       Try these papers and articles from around SkS and the web:
       1. Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia
       2. Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise
       3. Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
       4. Sea Level Rise
       5. Global sea level linked to global temperature
       6. Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
       7. Sea Level Hockey Stick
       8. The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
       9. 2000 Years of Sea Level (+updates)
       10. Melting Threat From West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Be Less Than Expected; But U.S. Coastal Cities At Risk
       11. Reassessment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
65760. owl905 at 08:40 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       It's taken a bit of time to really filter through - the observations of the methane degassing seems to have triggered another round of attention. It's a pity that the IJIS tracking system went down last October - between its 15% baseline and DMI's 30% baseline, there was an easy way to do daily tracking of extent. Do not expect any political action. Brace yourself for the worst-case forecast being the mid-line of possible outcomes. You might as well tell the Conquistadors to stop looking for gold.
65761. CBDunkerson at 08:17 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, you misread. The trade winds are responsible for the entirety of the phenomena you are calling 'zonal tilting'. What is tiny is the long term change in sea level due to changes in the trade winds. Basically, you are ignoring the two largest factors causing sea level rise (i.e. thermal expansion in the short term and ice melt in the long run) to concentrate obsessively on a factor which disappears in the rounding. Think about it for a moment. Do you really think that the slight increase in sea surface height due to wind blown water, caused by the slight increase in trade wind strength (caused by global warming), is going to be more significant than adding more water and increasing the volume of the water already present? It's like arguing that the water level in a pot isn't rising because the chunk of ice inside is melting and the water is getting hotter... it is rising because there is a slightly stronger breeze blowing over the surface.
65762. John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Here’s another piece of the puzzle… On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came. The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained, "Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom." What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all emanated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Source: “ALEC Model Bill Behind Push to Require Climate Denial Instruction in Schools” by Steve Horn, DeSmog Blog, Jan 27, 2012 To access this detailed expose, click here.
65763. andylee at 08:08 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Brian, I also saw it on Neven's blog too last week, and although IANACS, was immediately struck by its significance, as well as the its lack of coverage in the media. Hopefully it'll get mainstream airtime soon.
65764. michael sweet at 08:03 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, "Zonal Tilting" appears to be a term that you have made up so it is not surprising that you get no hits. The IPCC projection is outdated and incomplete. Current worldwide sea level rise is about 3.2 mm/yr. The Tuvalu excess is only 2 mm/yr or 4 cm over the past 20 years. That rate could go on for decades. Worldwide average global sea level rise is currently conservatively estimated at 1-2 meters by the year 2100. That is about 15mm/yr over the entire globe (but the rise will not be linear). Obviously, that includes Tuvalu. You suggest that the rise at Tuvalu will be substantially less than that. You must provide evidence for your extraordinary claim. Since you appear to be unaware that 1-2 meters by 2100 is the current projection, you need to read the background so that you can contribute to the discussion.
65765. Albatross at 07:25 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Utahn @26, "Oddly, he often uses your submitted email to reply to any complaint, rather than in the comments.." He is not permitted to do that. Your email on that site is meant to be confidential. If if he has emailed you or someone else in the last week or so), please let me know.
65766. Tealy at 07:04 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       CB @ 52 Yes people have told me that ice let and thermal expansions of oceans contribute to regional differences in sea level, but have nnot been able to explain why in scientific terms or provide a specific source that says it does. I have looked to my wits end and cannot find an explanation or source either, hence why I am asking. Zonal tilting is the name for the regional difference that occurs across the pacific, it's the macro regional difference. If trade winds are a tiny cause of the zonal variations, what are the large causes?
65767. Brian Purdue at 07:02 AM on 27 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       I first saw this on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Blog and it was informative to read ClimateProgress’s further coverage. The accumulated evidence from what’s happening to the planet’s ice and the ever-worsening news coming out of the Arctic show things have reached the point of being excruciatingly obvious but the politicians just continue to stare the other way. The “political” penny should have dropped so heavily about the vanishing ice and global temperatures that it registered above eight on the Richter seismic scale and caused a tsunami of appropriate action. Instead, the denialists are reaching new heights of intentional misinformation, like this “analysis” of what’s happening in the Arctic I came across a couple of weeks ago. “-------The Arctic ice extent is almost back to average, the Arctic has been doing nothing unusual, but they continue to pretend that the Arctic ice is dwindling. I wish they would try addressing the real world rather than their politically-biased fantasies”. This beggars belief because not one single word is true, and manifestly so, starting with the absurd claim about the ice extent. As for “the real world and politically-biased fantasies”, I’ll leave you to work out who’s really off with the fairies – that shouldn’t take very long. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
65768. Utahn at 06:20 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Martin, if you'd like to bring up something to him, or link to these articles, you can comment at his Forbes "Climate of Fear" website. Ironically named, because the only fear evident is his fear of any government regulation...Oddly, he often uses your submitted email to reply to any complaint, rather than in the comments...
65769. Rob Painting at 05:56 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Eric (skeptic)- "How much of the heat that is stored in the deep ocean not coming back in decade timescales?" Probably none. See SkS post on Meehl (2011) - Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us? It's heat in the surface layers of the ocean that are lost to the atmosphere. That's why the oceans lose heat during El Nino - nothing to do with the deep ocean. Victull @ 15 - The confusion is yours, no point in trying to blame the blog post . In one sentence you point out that heat lost during ENSO must be balance by cooling elsewhere, and the very next you write about the warming rate highlighted in Loeb (2012). You gave yourself a very strong clue toward processing this information, but then failed to connect the two. Sunlight entering the surface layers warms the ocean. La Nina is when there is a large gain in ocean heat, and El Nino is when the heat is lost to the atmosphere. Although the cloud-related changes due to ENSO do affect sunlight reaching the ocean surface, the tilting of the thermocline is essentially a re-distribution of this heat already in the ocean. It's that process which affects surface temperatures so greatly. This information is spelled out in the post.
65770. Trent1492 at 05:00 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       I am sorry to stay off topic, but I think it might be helpful to have a page of climate linked modern extinction events that is regularly updated.
65771. John Hartz at 03:51 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       apiratelooksat50 & Sphaerica: It would benefit everyone if the two of you would take your Hatfieild-McCoy feud off-line. You guys have previously communicated via email. Please do so again.
65772. dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Thanks Martin. World Climate Report doesn't ever allow comments. It's intended more of a disinformation propagation site than a discussion blog.
65773. CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 27 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, as people have told you several times now, ice melt and thermal expansion do contribute to regional differences in sea level. Your continued insistence that 'zonal tilting' is the only relevant issue for regional (vs average) sea level is simply false. Indeed, changes in the zonal variations caused by the trade winds are comparatively tiny.
65774. apiratelooksat50 at 02:16 AM on 27 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica at 53 I refuse to engage in a pointless back and forth with you over your misunderstanding and manipulation of anything I say. FYI - even the IPCC doesn't make the statement in your first bullet. But, I will humor you on your last question. From Climate Change 101's last bullet (and last bullet only!), I can pretty much agree with everything in the following paragraph. Can you? "It is possible to prepare for climate change and to avert the worst effects of it, but to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening and make informed choices as individuals and communities based on the scientific evidence. Information alone is not enough to choose appropriate policies and strategies to limit some climate changes and prepare society for changes that are already well under way, but without understanding the basic causes and effects of climate change, we will be unable to make informed decisions that will affect generations to come."
65775. barry1487 at 01:31 AM on 27 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
       Thanks, Albatross.
65776. KR at 01:26 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       victull - "I would like understand the mechanism of how this heat gets back up into the atmosphere." Even a tiny change in sea surface temperature affects heat flow in/out of the atmosphere. What the ENSO does is allow (in La Nina) more energy from the TOA imbalance to go into the oceans by warming cool surfaces, or alternatively slightly reduce the energy flow into the oceans due to warmer surface waters (lower gradient, hence lower flow into the oceans) meaning that imbalance goes into the atmosphere instead. The oceans represent ~93.4% of the heat storage, the atmosphere ~2.3% - a very small change for ocean heat flow is by comparison a very large change for atmospheric heat flow. [Source] See also the Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall thread.
65777. IanC at 01:25 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       victull, ENSO is a result of a coupling of atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. During the La Nina years, the easterly trade winds over equatorial Pacific is abnormally strong. The result is that the warm surface water piles up along the western boundary. As ENSO transitions from a La Nina to an El Nino state, the trade wind weakens, and the water water spreads out over the surface due to gravity (warm water on the west is less dense compared to the cooler warm to the east). The result is the warm abnormality that you see during El Nino years. When the surface is warmer than usual, either heat is released into the atmosphere, or the ocean is absorbing heat at a lower rate. Both of these results in elevated atmospheric temperatures over the surface. Below is a series of graphics depicting the transition (from NASA earth observatory)
65778. victull at 00:27 AM on 27 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Eric @14 As a lukewarmer, I must admit that there seems to be some confusion of surface temperature warming with heat energy absorption in the oceans in this post. If ENSO is an internal redistribution of global heat then warmer water and air somewhere must be balanced by cooler water or air somewhere else. The net accumulation of heat in the oceans is listed above as 0.5+/0.1Wm-2 for 6 years down to 1500m depth whereas research quoted by Ari on 24Jan SKS post has this statement from Loeb et al: "We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean." The difference is in the confidence limits which are much larger in the Loeb paper. With this global heat accumulation stored as slightly elevated temperatures in the oceans - then the complex circulations can only move heat deeper if it is given up to cooler water. I would like understand the mechanism of how this heat gets back up into the atmosphere.
65779. Tealy at 23:46 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Ms@ 49 can you be specific and tell me which part you disagree with and why. That way I can respond. And do you have a source for seawater expanding from 0C to 4C, when as you acknowledge fresh water doesn't (actually contracts) I have searched all through the website and find lots of articles on SLR, but very little on the zonal tilting or regional differences.In fact zonal tilting got zero hits! As the main article for this forum is about region difference in sea level rise (zonal tilting), that is all I am looking at. If ice sheet melting adds water to the oceans, why will Tuvalu get more rise than the ocean average rise? A simple why? Not interested in the average rise (that's a different topic) just the increase in zonal tilting. Can we please stick to zonal tilting or regional differences and not average rises?
65780. Tealy at 22:46 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Michael @44 Its good to discuss and learn, thats the point of forums. There are two types of people; those capable of independent thought, and those that follow what they are told to think and do not question and analyze. We should all strive to be the former through avenues such as forums. I am not claiming sea level will decrease, I believe it will increase. To be clear:- I agree average sea level rise has been about 1.8mm/yr over the last 100 years. I believe Tuvalu has been sinking about 0.5mm/ yr for the last about 50 years. I believe there has been a zonal tilting increase (regional increase if you want) of about 2.6mm/yr over the last 50 years. What I can't find is agreed and validated causes for the zonal tilting or a validated projection for the increase in zonal tiliting until 2100. I have searched references as you suggested but I have missed it or it's not there.  Timmerman actually stated that there is major uncertainty as to the future regional characteristics of sea level rise.  IPCC AR4 (2007) report predicts that sea level rise will be 0.6 – 1.9 feet by the year 2100 You state a central estimate of 16mm/yr for Tuvalu. This would be 4.6 ft over the next 88 years. Meaning that zonal tilting would increase by 2.7 ft to 4.0 ft. I cannot find any science that supports that such a large differential in level across an ocean can exist. I am talking physical sciences. If you have a specific source as to large zonal tilting please let me know.  My specific point is, that we don't know what caused the zonal tilting, so on what reasonable basis can we expect it will continue to increase? As RP stated @43 the future trends for the regional variations are contradictory In fact if you refer to http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf It shows that the sea level rise in the Tuvalu region was about 1.6 to 1.8 mm/yr for 1900 to 2003. So over that century Tuvalu experienced average sea level rise. As it received higher than average in the second half of the century, then it must have received lower than average for the first half of the century to be average over the whole century. So what caused the lower than average sea level rise in the first half of the century? Is it a cycle? The point is that zonal tilting is poorly understood yet it is the basis for stating that Tuvalu will have high than ocean average sea level rises until 2100. Statements that Tuvalu will experience massive sea level rise over the next 100 years will only drive away investment they critically need. But there is no solid science that Tuvalu will experience higher than average sea level rise. If time proves that Tuvali only experiences average sea level rise, then this will have been a travesty.
       Response:

       [DB] As Michael Sweet has already pointed out to you, it is better to spend time reading up on SLR before speaking so authoritatively about it.  Use the Search function to find many articles here at SkS using much more recent estimates of SLR than contained in the IPCC AR4.

       Projected SLR increases are based on land-based ice sheet losses, primarily from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).  These losses are increasing in greater-than-linear fashion.  Indeed, recent research shows decadal-scale doubling of losses can be expected.

       Thus, solid scientific research in the peer-reviewed literature documents massive sea level rises can be expected by 2100 relative to past rates of SLR.  The travesty is denying this documented research without actually reading it first.

65781. newcrusader at 22:29 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       The winter thus far in the Northeast (US) Has been 'wimpy'. Also of note the USDA has come up with its new map of climate growing zones- reflecting a warming climate. Gardeners will delight in knowing their gardens have been kicked up a half zone or more. Fig trees in Boston? Yes. Palms along the southern New England coast? Yes. The USDA Map reflects the years 1976-2005- with digital imaging. http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/#
65782. Eric (skeptic) at 22:20 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       How much of the heat that is stored in the deep ocean not coming back in decade timescales? I.e. if some deep water is warmed from 35F to 35.1F it will not warm the atmosphere if it rises back to the surface.
65783. Martin Lack at 22:04 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Two excellent posts, thank you. I notice that Patrick Michaels is not allowing comments upon his response. Why is that, I wonder?
65784. michael sweet at 21:59 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, When you make statements that are completely wrong no-one will listen to what you say. Please read some of the extensive background at Skeptical Science about sea level rise before you spout more nonsense. I used the search function with "sea level rise" and got about 30 hits. Please read some of them like how much will sea level rise. Until you have some background knowledge it is difficult to discuss the subject with you. Possible sea level rise from thermal expansion starts immediately (not at 4C, the sea is salt water, not fresh). Thermal rise is estimated at about 1 meter total and immediately flows over the land. Sea level rise from melting ice can be as much as 70 meters. If you do not know the basics you cannot inform anyone else.
65785. Tealy at 21:24 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       RP @47 Not much of the world has land based ice, and that ice melt has to spread out and rise all of the oceans. Its a big ass ocean, so its logical to question the impact of ice melting. The average ocean depth is 4 km, and its the thermal expansion of this 4 km high column that causes the top of the column, sea level, to rise upwards. Eg 1% expansion of 4 km equals 40 metres, but some does flow outwards onto land. Many years since I've seen papers on impact of ice melt vs thermal x, so ill have to google one. Try this from Science Org http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm Quote:- "Thermal expansion While thermal expansion is a less obvious process than melting ice (mainly because you can't see it happening) the IPCC projects that thermal expansion will be the main component of expected sea-level rises over the 21st century.".. People say it's ice melting rise because as it's something they can see and touch, but it's a misnomer that should not be propagated. It's wrong, its patronising, and it destroys credibility to change the facts in the belief people wouldn't have understood.
65786. Rob Painting at 20:01 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy -"Ice melt is the lesser component of sea level rise And the recent paper supporting this would be?
65787. Rob Painting at 19:56 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       owl905 - in comment @ 2 you wrote that the title of this article was a disservice to the science, a blatant form of trolling. I pointed out to you that you were wrong, the NASA scientists are very clear on this point. Would it really have hurt for you to read the post or the NASA analysis before posting ill-informed comments? The rest of comment @ 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the NASA analysis. Now you drag up Keenleyside, and previous predictions of the solar cycle - again nothing to do with the NASA analysis. It appears you are staunchly resistant to actually reading the NASA paper, so I'll make this clear: 1. The solar cycle has already started it's ascent to the peak of the next cycle. It will take around 18 months for this extra heat to manifest itself in global surface temperatures because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. If you think this won't happen please explain how such a thing is possible. 2. As explained in this post El Nino and La Nina are the flip sides of a natural oscillation. They balance out to zero over the long-term. We are overdue a few El Nino, and therefore more rapid warming of surface temperatures. If you think this won't happen in the next 2-3 years it would be interesting to hear how this is possible. 3. Both these natural cycles are large compared to the planetary energy imbalance. So they can have a significant impact if they either oppose or reinforce the global warming signal. If you don't think this is so please enlighten us. 4. And lastly, what you think passes for learned comment is not so here. An anonymous person on the internet is not more qualified than eminent scientists from NASA. Hopefully you have sufficient humility to realize that.
65788. Tealy at 18:43 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Ice melt is the lesser component of sea level rise and sea based ice contributes zero to sea level rise (Archmedes) only land based ice does. Thermal expansion is the main component of sea level rise but only if the water is above 4c and for practical purposes above about 6C. The focus on ice melting is merely something the general population can understand.
65789. owl905 at 18:12 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       @Rob Painting - after citing examples of things that didn't come true, like the Kennlyside model forecast, you want examples. Take your advice about reading and say to the man in the mirror. In 2009, the Maunder crowd feasted on NASA's downward Solar Cycle 24 prediction to a peak of 90 - the lowest in a century. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/ In 2010, the prediction peak dropped to 70:- http://www.appinsys.com/NASASolar.htm In December 2011, the count hit 98 (and its still a year or two from the curve peak: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif As to the 'what I think', it's in the original post. Your response is a strawman, inferring that my opinion is a forecast of no imminent warming.
65790. prokaryotes at 17:38 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Re andylee "I fear it will be too late to mitigate without drastic action and a crash in the quality of life for the majority." I suggest we A) demand mandatory actions from the fossil companies (which rake in record profits and record subsidies) to fast pace transitioning to clean technologies OR B) to size their assets and do it. The question is: "How long do we wait?"
65791. Bob Lacatena at 16:02 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       52, Pirate, You need to study the science well enough to correct the following misstatements:
       • human activities contribute to [cause] it
       • no one knows [climate scientists know] how [very] bad it may or may not [could] be [as well as at a minimum how bad it will be]
       Can I presume from your closing statements that you will begin better educating your students and fellow teachers (and yourself) on at least some of the gravity of climate science? Or is it simply easy to say "act immediately" but easier to drive by SkS and say whatever you can to influence people to do the opposite? As a teacher and someone involved directly in environmental action, can you take the position of The National Center for Science Education to heart, and follow through with it?
65792. Rob Painting at 15:27 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Actually Thoughtful - "But given that the skeptics are trying to make a science issue political, it doesn't make any sense to give them any ammunition whatsoever." Once again, this is not ammunition for fake-skeptics, it is an analysis of the scientific evidence. My challenge to him applies to you as well - if you think there's something wrong with the NASA analysis let's see what it is. The contribution of La Nina, and the cool phase of the solar cycle, to global temperature is rather large compared to Earth's radiation imbalance (i.e global warming). "Let the observations speak for themselves." The woman and man in the street isn't going to be able to make sense of the observations, especially with distortions by fake-skeptics. That's why we exist - to communicate this information in a, hopefully, comprehensible manner. To expect a public audience to be able to process this information without guidance is foolish. "Let the skeptics show their colors by either understanding the nuance, or not" No nuance necessary, both posts clearly spell out that the La Nina/El Nino phenomenon is cyclic, ergo it will not contribute to any long-term trend. Neither will the 11-year solar cycle - as pointed out in part 2. The small (in relative terms) but persistent, increase in greenhouse gases is causing global warming. The conclusion in part 2 makes this very explicit.
65793. apiratelooksat50 at 15:26 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica at 49 Again you are proving yourself very adept at applying your misconceptions to my comments. Furthermore, you are making assumptions for which you have zero basis other than your own bias. I only commented on the first bullet from the NCSE Climate 101 page. And, out of that bullet I only questioned the extinction statement. How you can so inaccurately infer my thoughts on the other three bullet points is beyond comprehension and reflects your own ideology. The first bullet point on the NCSE website could be more accurately reworded to state: ..."and contribution to the extinction of plant and animal species"... For instance, from the IUCN website on the Golden Toad (that Painting and Paul D referenced) they list the following major threats: "Its restricted range, global warming, chytridiomycosis and airborne pollution probably contributed to this species' extinction." Essentially they say what I would like to see and consider more accurate. And, for the last time I will reiterate my thoughts on climate change: it is happening (always has), human activities contribute to it, no one knows how bad it may or may not be, and in the meantime we should be acting immediateley and responsibly in the areas of conservation of resources and the R/D of new dependable energy technology that will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use.
65794. Daniel Bailey at 14:49 PM on 26 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
       

       "He also links to a town hall meeting at University of Michigan (Yooper country)"

       Nay, dat be Troll Country ('cause deys from below Da Bridge, eh?).
65795. actually thoughtful at 14:48 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Andylee, based on the evidence I predict the following: 1. Deny it happening until that is 100% untenable. (We are about 50% through this - I still see "skeptics" in their native habitat darkly riding down the up escalator). 2. Ratchet up the "there is no direct evidence that CO2 is to blame" - ie natural causes, the sun, cosmic rays, warming out of the ice age, climate has been changing for billions of years. This will be played until the end, whatever the end is. The next El Nino spike will be the last realistic chance of changing major government policy and being effective for this century (with relatively minor changes spread over decades). 3. "There is nothing we can do about it" - ironically, the longer the skeptics are allowed to free range roam without the people rising up and demanding the established science be acknowledged and acted upon - the more true this one is. I personally take it as self-evident that this is the goal of the whole operation, insofar as rational thought is involved in anyway.
65796. actually thoughtful at 14:39 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Dana - in evaluating Hansen's 1988 paper in relation to Skeie's work - is it more valid to consider GHG only, or Anthro?
       Response:

       [dana1981] See my comment #16 in part 1.  Short answer, it depends on what you're evaluating.  If you want to know about the model accuracy, then you should look at the net forcing, because the model is simulating the climate response to the net forcing.  It just so happens that Hansen only input GHG forcings (and a couple volcanic eruptions) into his model.

65797. andylee at 14:38 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       @actually thoughtful, these explicit graphs should finally expose cognitively-challenged climate skeptics' attempts to subvert the obvious and embarrass them off the field. They are behaving just like turkeys trying to convince everyone else to vote for Thanksgiving Day.
65798. apiratelooksat50 at 14:33 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Stephen at 48 I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change.
65799. Tom Curtis at 14:16 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
       For any readers who are unsure of the maths, a linear growth rate is a constant absolute growth rate in absolute termw, while an exponential growth rate means a constant percentage growth rate. With variable growth percentages, we take the geometric mean to determine the constant growth rate over a period that would have resulted in the same growth rate. Having done so, we find that the geometric mean of the growth rate in CO2 concentrations from 1978-1987 was 0.436%, while that from 1998-2007 was 0.515%, a clear increase, or more than exponential growth. In contrast, the geometric mean of the growth rate over the period 1988-1997, the period covered by Michaels' testimony, was 0.387%, a clear decline from the previous decade, and hence less than exponential growth. Indeed, as Albatross's graph shows above, for much of that decade, CO2 levels did not even maintain linear growth. For what it is worth, the geometric mean of growth rates in CO2 over the period 1988-97 in Hansen's scenarios are: Scenario A: 0.475% Scenario B: 0.470% Scenario C: 0.422% In other words, the growth rate in CO2 concentration over the period covered by Michaels testimony was two thirds as much below that in Scenario C ( 0.035%) as Scenario A was above Scenario C (0.053%), and seventeen times as much below Scenario B (0.087%) as scenario A was above Scenario B (0.005%). On that basis, apparently, Michaels concluded that scenario A GHG concentrations matched reality sufficiently better than Scenario B or C that the latter two could be excluded without comment.
65800. actually thoughtful at 14:12 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       I think owl905 raises a good point. I personally expect an El Nino, this year or next (this year would be much, much better from a US policy point of view). But warming doesn't end natural variation - we could get a triple dip La Nina. A weak El Nino. Stay ENSO neutral for 5 years. These outcomes are less likely. But given that the skeptics are trying to make a science issue political, it doesn't make any sense to give them any ammunition whatsoever. Let the observations speak for themselves. If warming is showing up at the decadal level for 30 years or more - than one can certainly claim the warming signal is so strong it even shows up at at the decadal level. But now or later, should the warming not show up for a given decade (solar influence, super La Nina, high volcanism, major aerosols (as a few vectors a 10 year flat or ever-so-slightly cooler could appear)) - those who ignore the science in favor of the political will again give shrill voice to the skeptic argument. While I respect this came from climate scientists at NASA I share Owl905's vague sense of unease that this could become fodder for the anti-science political propagandists. (Note the linked web page from NASA in the OP sheds light on all of the above and suggests the notably warmer part of the cycle is more likely in 2013 or 2014). I think on balance, I like the prediction. Because it is short term, very likely to be true, and if it isn't you could go right back to that page and look at the events the authors claim will cause the warming and observe they didn't happen. Let the skeptics show their colors by either understanding the nuance, or not.

Prev  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  Next