Recent Comments

Prev  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  Next

Comments 66201 to 66250:

66201. Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Grant Foster (Tamino) has updated the analysis from Foster and Rahmstorf to include (most of) 2011's data. The "most of" is because HadCRUTv3 has not yet released their data for Dec 2011. He has also switched to using sunspot data rather than TSI to allow for the influence of solar activity. For the computer savy, he has also updated his publicly accessible programs. His summary of the unadjusted data:

       "For GISS data, 2011 was the 9th-hottest year on record, for NCDC it was 11th-hottest, for HadCRU (using only data through November) it was 12th-hottest, for RSS it was 12th-hottest, and for UAH 9th-hottest."

       And of the data adjusted for exogenous factors:

       "In the adjusted data, GISS ranks 2011 as the 2nd-hottest year on record (just behind 2010), NCDC ranks it 5th, HadCRU (using only data through November 2010) ranks it 5th, RSS ranks it 2nd, and UAH 2nd. No, global temps are not in a crash — they still fluctuate (for a lot of reasons, including exogenous factors) but the trend continues. It’s called “global warming.” It’s caused by human activity. It’s dangerous."

66202. climateadj at 09:35 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       @John: The source of my assertions are my own calculations. The link below is my analysis. Since I'm just a hack with marginal programming skills, there is a high likelihood of error. I am not a scientist of any sort. Caveat Emptor: https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/ocean_variance
66203. Alex C at 09:17 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       @Chris G: The running average I think is given at the center of the time interval, which only exists with an odd number of months. I don't think it has to do with removing the solar cycle.
66204. John Hartz at 09:07 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Dana, Recommend that you move the text caught up in the right-hand margin of the graphics to underneath the graphics.
66205. John Hartz at 09:03 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       For a portend of what’s on the horizon, see “NASA Sees Repeating La Niña Hitting its Peak” posted on the NASA/Jet Propulsion website.
66206. Chris G at 09:02 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Curious, why the 133-month average? I most commonly use a 132 because that smooths over any 11-year solar cycle effect, but then...I'm thinking that the solar cycle average may not be, actually, is highly unlikely to be, exactly 11 years, on average. So, maybe your rationale is the same, just using a more refined number for the period. I'd be surprised if it made any noteworthy difference though. Ah, good old friend Google. Seems the solar cycle average is more accurately 11.1 years; 133 it is.
66207. muoncounter at 09:00 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       actually thoughtful#1: "1910-1940 warming looks similar, in slope, to the 1970-2010 warming" Another big difference is seen here: Summer warming, driven by solar output, was faster than winter warming in the early 20th century. Latter 20th century (and ongoing) warming shows winters warm more rapidly; a greenhouse effect.
66208. John Hartz at 08:52 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       climateadj: What is the source of your assertion that GCMs "can't even mimic seasonal ocean temperature variability"? BTW, climate models cannot "replicate" the real world, they can only "simulate" it.
66209. Daniel Bailey at 08:50 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       @ actually thoughtful You will note from the 3rd figure in the OP that the La Niña's are consistently getting warmer.
66210. actually thoughtful at 08:44 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       I suspect La Ninas will bring us more coldest/driest and El Ninos will bring us more record heat. That we are getting record heat in a La Nina should give doubters pause. Very big pause.
66211. PT_Goodman at 08:23 AM on 22 January 2012
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       The 2nd reference, "Physical Principles of Meteorology and Environmental Physics", under Further Reading is not free. The Table of Contents and Chapter 1 can apparently be freely downloaded for free.
66212. Johnb at 08:23 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Quote However, the big questions, like "Is human activity warming the planet?", don't even require a model. The only things you need to answer those questions are a few fundamental physics and chemistry equations that we've known for over a century. You could take climate models right out of the picture, and the answer wouldn't change. Scientists would still be telling us that the Earth is warming, humans are causing it, and the consequences will likely be severe Exactly my point - For the Public Understanding of the issue the science is clear and uncomplicated. By surrendering that clarity of message and allowing the skeptics to muddy the waters a great dis-service has been allowed. Within Science itself of course debate, experiment and challenge must continue to tease out the nuances, feed-back loops and the simple understanding of process and detail but how Science works shouldn't have obscured the basic science and the clarity of its message to the General Public. Johnb.
66213. Pete Dunkelberg at 08:17 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       The apparent cool spot in south Florida (fig. 4) is just lake Okeechobee.
66214. climateadj at 08:17 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       @John: I suspect that GCM's model radiative forcings, conduction, and convection. Annual variability is a function of all three. It is predictable and testable against observations.
66215. MA Rodger at 08:07 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Another noteworthy event from the 2011 temperature records. The UAH annual temperature anomaly is higher than RSS for the first time ever. The differences between them were getting more divergent up to 2000 since when they have converged and now swapped places with the UAH anomaly diverging at a rate of 0.3 deg C per decade!
66216. actually thoughtful at 08:04 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Ironically two threads I am posting on over at WuWT are invoking the 1910-1940 (nothing to do with me or this post). Having just reviewed the solar contribution to the 1910-1940 I was able to quickly set the record straight. (not holding my breath that anyone posting at that site will accept said reality). In regards to WUWT - Must...stop...posting
66217. climateadj at 07:39 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       @John/Riccardo: Seasonal ocean temperature variability is a somewhat constant feature. I'm not talking about trends which fluctuate. It's simply measuring the annual variance of temps for each gridbox, averaging out the longitudinal dimension, and plotting the results. The ARGO derived pattern is consistent from year to year or any 12 month period, regardless of ENSO. There's a clear pattern that the CMIP3 ensemble doesn't replicate very well. Now the CMIP3 models were generated circa 2004 when the ARGO network was in it's infancy. Perhaps this test is asking too much. It'll be interesting to see if the CMIP5 ensemble does better.
66218. actually thoughtful at 07:19 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Dana - thanks. Still groggy from my time at WUWT. The evidence I find most compelling, when comparing 1910-1940 to 1970-2010 is the higher solar activity in the former time period, which is notably, stunningly absent in the the last 40 years (even more so for the last 10 years).
66219. Albatross at 07:14 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       actually thoughtful @1, You seem to be missing the point. In the absence of a log term underlying warming trend global SAT anomalies in 2011 should have been between -0.1 and -0.2 C. Instead they were over +0.5 C (w.r.t the 1950-1980 baseline) and according to GISTEMP the 9th warmest year on record. That, despite just emerging from a prolonged solar minimum and increased aerosol loading and about 7 of the 12 months having an ONI of <-0.5 (ONI values of -0.5 or less are typically consistent with La Nina conditions.
66220. wili at 07:04 AM on 22 January 2012
       Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
       John, I left this comment over at the ClimateProgress reposting of the interview, but in case you miss it there: In your second to last paragraph you say: "we now know without doubt that methane is venting to Earth's atmosphere from parts of the ESAS seabed in copious quantities as a response - a positive feedback - to warming." What I would like to know is what in this interview or in other things you have read, seen or heard leads you to come to such a firm conclusion that this is already certainly part of a feedback. I think it most likely is, but this seems to be exactly the thing that is being hotly debated, and I have not seen Shakhova come out and say that it the methane releases she has observed are definitely part of a GW feedback--quite the opposite: she has pointed out that they have NOT made such a claim. So if you have some source or data that you are basing this conclusion on, I would definitely like to know what it is. Thanks ahead of time. Oh, and what do you think of the AIRS images posted above. Art they further evidence that something unusual is going on with Arctic methane this year? Should we expect levels to be much higher already?
66221. Riccardo at 06:57 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       climateadj how can I tell that next summer will be warmer than now if I can't predict the weather 10 days from now? Short term variability is one thing, climate another.
66222. John Hartz at 06:55 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       @climateadj: I suspect that the GCMs were not designed to "mimic seasonal ocean temperature variablilty."
66223. climateadj at 06:47 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Question: Why should I trust GCM's future projections when they can't even mimic seasonal ocean temperature variability? The CMIP3 ensemble was lacking in this regard, but perhaps CMIP5 will be better.
66224. actually thoughtful at 06:37 AM on 22 January 2012
       2011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
       Looking at the first graphic, the 1910-1940 warming looks similar, in slope, to the 1970-2010 warming. Of course one is 30 years, and one is 40. But wouldn't we expect an increase in the slope as CO2 is driving temp up even more than it was in the 1940s? Or am I missing something.
       Response:

       [dana1981] See "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"

66225. Riccardo at 06:22 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Icarus @ 25 the graph is taken from The Copenhagen Diagnosis, page 32 of the first edition. They say:

       This dramatic retreat has been much faster than that simulated by any of the climate models assessed in the IPCC AR4 (Figure 13). This is likely due to a combination of several model deficiencies, including: 1) incomplete representation of ice albedo physics, including the treatment of melt ponds (e.g., Pedersen et al. 2009) and the deposition of black carbon (e.g. Flanner et al. 2007; Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008); and 2) incomplete representation of the physics of vertical and horizontal mixing in the ocean (e.g. Arzel et al. 2006).

66226. michael sweet at 05:21 AM on 22 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       In my post above I misplaced the decimal. It should read minimum of 8.0 mm/yr and central estimate of 16.0 mm/yr for the entire globe. 16.0 mm/yr is three times the current rate (at Tuvalu). The expected rate of sea level increase is not linear so averaging the rate as mm/yr over the entire time period is not very meaningful. It does indicate that Tuvalu is in for a world of hurt when the sea really starts to rise.
66227. Icarus at 05:11 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Fascinating article, many thanks for writing and posting it. I thought it was particularly interesting that the models are run from scratch rather than trying to initialise them with real world data. The fact that they then accurately simulate observations is good evidence that they have 'skill' and aren't just being tweaked by making them adjust to observations, as some would have you believe. Here's something I'm curious about: In the example of Arctic sea ice extent falling substantially faster than projected, is that because the projections got the Arctic climate wrong (perhaps polar amplification is greater than projected), or is it because they got the climate right but the ice has turned out to respond faster than projected? Or is it neither of these things, or both? Cheers...
66228. climatesight at 05:01 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       #21 michael sweet: I am an undergraduate math student just starting to get into climate modelling research. Eventually I want to develop and run experiments on climate models (not necessarily GCMs, I am also interested in lower-resolution, faster EMICs). Last summer I did a project with Steve Easterbrook, a computer science professor at the University of Toronto, to examine the software architecture of climate models: how they are built and organized. I give a summary of our research and findings here. #22 apiratelooksat50: 1) In general, it's really easy to get access to GCM code. I summarize my experiences here: the process ranges from an open download to an automated registration process to an informal email requesting access. Some of the models developed at governmental labs outside the United States require that a more formal license agreement be signed. 2) Not really. Input format depends hugely on the architecture of the model, which changes so drastically between GCMs. 3) Yes, absolutely. You can give the models any combination of forcings, whether natural or anthropogenic, that you want. You can even turn the Sun off and see what happens. What actions I realistically propose - this is straying away from my original post, so I must stress that I am taking off my scientist hat and putting on my public hat. That said, I am a fan of the revenue neutral "fee and dividend" system that James Hansen advocates.
66229. DMarshall at 04:46 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Thanks to Kate for this accessible explanation. The "skeptical" sites tend to trivialize the computer models as if they were an iPad app that "alarmists" whip up in their spare time.
66230. Lars Karlsson at 04:28 AM on 22 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       A typo in the text:

       Tett et al. (2000) used an "optical detection methodology".

       I believe it should say "optimal".
66231. muoncounter at 03:52 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal: "In 1970, scientists of the day were saying ... I want to know what makes scientists today right, when the only thing they have is computer models." One thing that gives us greater confidence in what we say today over what may have been said forty years ago is an additional 40 years of observations. Much has changed in those 40 years: satellites, computers, worldwide monitoring of GHGs, etc. So to posit that 'they only have computer models' is nonsense. They have lots more data to work with - and more data allows lower uncertainty. Then there is the undeniable fact that the global warming signal was barely emergent in the 70s, but may well be in full swing now. You should investigate the parable of the frog in a pot of water. While you investigate, be sure to read the SkS posts that explicitly address your need to be 'convinced.'
66232. apiratelooksat50 at 02:53 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Kate, I have some experience in using modeling software (CORMIX for water and Beeline for air). As anything else accurate output depends on accurate input. Your article is very interesting and informative. I have a few questions: 1. Is the software available to the general public? 2. Is there a standard database for the input? 3. Are you able to remove/add anthropogenic factors? Also, I'm curious about what "actions" you realistically propose.
66233. Tom Dayton at 02:41 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal, you are wrong that it is hard to get the raw data and that the algorithms are closely guarded secrets. Really, really wrong. Links to all those are here among other places: Tamino's Climate Data Links; look in the comments on that page for even more links. RealClimate's Data Sources page of links.
66234. Tom Dayton at 02:28 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal, see the Skeptical Science argument "Ice age predicted in the 70s."
66235. prokaryotes at 01:35 AM on 22 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Here is a shorter version of above video part, of the Greenhouse Effect: Carbon Dioxide, heat trapping
66236. muoncounter at 01:11 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       skeptikal#18: A quote illustrating a rather premature conclusion based on a statistically insignificant period of time. Your prior comment expressed doubt based on 30 years being too short a time period; you now make a conclusion based on just a few 'recent years'? If one claims to be skeptical, one must not be so selective. But here is Rahmstorf in the same article: "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Note that this was written in 2009. Subsequent events included one of the warmest years on record (2010) and the warmest la Nina year on record (2011): source It would appear that Rahmstorf was correct.
66237. JMurphy at 01:09 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       Is that what you call a "recent article", skeptikal : one from over two years ago ? Do you have anything more recent ? Did you also read some of the other statements in that article from Latif, including these : "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations" "In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal." Does that make things clearer ?
66238. Eric (skeptic) at 00:43 AM on 22 January 2012
       A detailed look at climate sensitivity
       Albatross, and Tom, yes, this discussion is about K&H08, figure 3b. I'd like to ask 1) whether the red squares in 3b in your comment are useful added information for threads such as this one (to wrap up the discussion from Serial Deleter thread), 2) whether the lines of evidence in K&H2008 fig 3b are independent and thus have meaningful agreement (to address Albatross's post 68), and 3) about paleoclimate sensitivity estimates (Tom's robustness claim in 72). I'd also like to discuss Dr. Huber's "heading for the Eocene" claim after reading a journal article or two (I found some links with google scholar and will choose some of those if necessary). On 1, the link to an unrestricted PDF of K&H08 is a good way to provide a lot of context including the added information on the sensitivity estimates in figure 3a that are shown in 3b. I would point out that K&H refer mostly to figure 3 rather than "3a" to point out various aspects of PDFs. But they separately call out fig 3b: "Figure 3b is a partly subjective evaluation of the different lines of evidence for several criteria that need to be considered when combining lines of evidence in an assessment." Thus the threads at SkepSci that "combine lines of evidence in an assessment" should utilize the information from fig 3b in some way, probably in the text. I think the OP in this thread, for example, is combining lines of evidence to some extent. Specifically I think the caption of figure 3 above or elsewhere in the OP should describe some of the red boxes. I think that would match the authors intent for assessments. On 2, the primary issue is the uncertainty of the climate regimes in paleoclimate. The radiative equilibrium is at TOA and that depends on many climate variables including convection in various zones, jet stream position and other factors that affect the effective radiating temperature. Those in turn are affected by ocean circulation patterns and other short term factors. These factors are not radiative forcings and can not be used to calculate sensitivity. There are many medium term factors (e.g. tilt and eccentricity) that are also not simple radiative forcing changes. While some of these can be simplified into a number like an albedo change, mostly these require a GCM. With any climate regimes and nonradiative forcing there is a CO2 amplification. The amplifier uses rising temperature to create more GHG and then more warming. We currently are short circuiting the amplifier by raising CO2 directly. This is not hard to model and can be used to predict the immediate temperature response (e.g. line-by-line applied to the average cloudy and clear day and nights over various zones. The problem comes when the regime changes, atmospheric (clouds and other weather) and oceanic weather (circulation) changes in a warmer world means that a GCM is required. Once a GCM is required to determine the temperature response to a radiative forcing, the evidence for forcing is the same, the GCM, not the data since the GCM is tuned to match the data (applies equally to paleo or present data). So to answer your question Albatross, yes, there is agreement, but it is because the same models are used. On 3, the sensitivity calculation for paleoclimatic data range from "Simple calculations relating the peak cooling to changes in radiative forcing..." to GCMs. Yet, transitions can be forced a number of nonradiative factors that can create metastable states, e.g. http://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/profs/mecanique/Thomas.Dubos/MEC580/2008/Binnendijk_Bouteiller_Schmittner02.pdf In another example http://www.skepticalscience.com/LIG2-1906.html the temperature changes come from a number of factors that are difficult to evaluate and measure in paleo data. At this point I do not have enough information to know how to define robustness in such estimates. Can you define that for me and I will try to read more on how such estimates are made. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to do much today, until later this evening.
66239. skeptikal at 00:38 AM on 22 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       muoncounter@17, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."
66240. michael sweet at 00:29 AM on 22 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, Where are you coming up with your sea level rise estimates? The current science based estimates range from 75 cm to 2 meters by 2100. That is a minimum of 80 mm per year over that time frame. A central estimate would be 160 mm/yr, more than three times the current rate. It is absurd for you to claim that sea level rise will decrease when it is expected to dramatically increase. Please provide a reference for your extraordinary claims of a change in sea level projections. Perhaps if you read some of the posts on SkS you will learn about expected sea level rise. I found about 20 posts using the search function in the upper left corner.
66241. michael sweet at 00:07 AM on 22 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Excellent an informing post. For those of us who do not already know, what is Kate's research on? It must be interesting.
66242. Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       barry @19, "liking" the facebook page is not an endorsement of Hayhoes science, let alone he Christianity or her politics. It is an endorsement of the fact that engaging in politics by intimidating opponents with threats of violence to their children, and death threats to them is not acceptable. How can it be inappropriate in any context to make that stand? In fact, of any critics of climate change are reading this, I heartily recommend that you "like" the "We support Katherine Hayhoe" page as a clear endorsement of your opposition to politics by intimidation.
66243. Rob Painting at 21:24 PM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       "Therefore it is not valid to extrapolate the zonal tilting component from sea level rise ad infinitum" True, but that is a strawman argument of your own making. As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, projected future trends are contradictory. You don't appear to be comprehending this rather obvious fact. "Would appear there is no validation to use a figure as high as 5.1mm/yr for the next 100 years. Does anyone know a source for a P50 of the sea level rise around Tuvalu ove the next 100 years." Well no one here, apart from you it seems, expects sea level rise at Tuvalu to only be influenced by the change in wind and ocean circulations. It's sinking too remember? And I don't know what you expect to keep all that ice in the West Antarctic ice sheet from melting, and to a lesser degree, the Greenland ice sheet. That melted ice will contribute significantly to sea level rise, including at Tuvalu. They'll be extraordinarily lucky to just see 5.1mm of sea level rise over the next 100 years. The height of the Eemian interglacial (around 125,000 years ago) saw ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica not too dissimilar in size than today. Yet under the gradual orbital forcing of that period the ice sheets collapsed. This was principally the West Antarctic, even though the solar insolation forcing was focused on the northern hemisphere. Multi-meter sea level rises occurred over century-long timescales, i.e at least four times the current rate of sea level rise at Tuvalu. If that happened from the slight orbital forcing nudge back in the Eemian what prospects from the almighty shove we humans have given the climate? We already have roughly 25 metres of sea level rise to come over the next thousand years or more, just from the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere. And, of course, given current rates of fossil fuel burning all the coral at Tuvalu will be dead in a 100 years time, from a combination of mass bleaching and ocean acidification. There's clearly no point trying to minimize this, the science is very clear - it's bad, very bad.
66244. barry1487 at 20:29 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       Rob@16 - empathise completely. I've slogged it out in the trenches to the limits of my meagre ken and become raw with frustration. Carried the effects around for a while, too. muon inline @14 How does the article on a Christian scientist's 'values', the abusive responses to her video, and the suggestion at the end to 'like' a facebook page against scientific intimidation fit within the context of removing "the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science"? That's the clearest recent example, but it's not the only one. It looks like a subtle shift is under way here, and if so it should be flagged one way or another, embraced or warded against. (Don't mean to drag the thread off-topic. Let me know if there's a better place to discuss this - if the comments are worth pursuing)
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] My observation regarding prior 'advocacy' articles was to suggest that there is no evidence of a change in trend. If you would like to continue discussing support for Dr. Hayhoe, here is the appropriate thread.
66245. prokaryotes at 20:18 PM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Re #15 & #22 Go here for a visual explanation based on heat sensitive camera, about the heat trapping properties of carbon dioxide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkLHxQe-SU&t=20m30s , starts at minute 20-21
66246. prokaryotes at 19:50 PM on 21 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       More about human causes and current approaches.. Natural Gas venting – a major Global Warming Contributor ..leaking gas are the subject of a paper that Phillips, Crosson, and Ackley presented at a conference last spring sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Their research suggests that 7 percent to 15 percent of manmade methane (the main component of natural gas) in the atmosphere comes from these urban emissions. Jan. 19, 2012 — Researchers Note Gas Emissions From Marcellus Shale and Other Sites Linked to Significant Increased Risk of Near-Term Climate Change “Shale Gas creates 40-60% more methane to the atmosphere from the natural gas industry, than conventional gas.” – Professor R. Howard Link
66247. Tealy at 19:41 PM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       RP @41 No I am not confusing zonal tilting with a thermocline, and you could work on your tone and choice of words. A thermocline is a temperature change in a body of water that changes with depth. Ref Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline. Zonal Tilting is the difference in height across an ocean. Again I will quote a lay resource, Wikipedia:- "... by the Australian Government,describes a strong zonal (east‑to-west) sea-level slope along the equator...The trade winds that push surface water westward create this ZONAL TILTING of sea level on the equator" While a thermocline can contribute to zonal tilting, these are not the same thing. My reference to an "observational report" vs an "analytical report" was on purpose. Such parlance is common among analytical science backgrounds. It is a strange term, say look at this meteorological website where the reporting of such things as humidity and barometric pressure are called observations, when in reality how can you observe barometric pressure? http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60901/IDN60901.94767.shtml An analytical report seeks to analyse and explain observations. Referring to Timmerman (2010) there are some answers thank you. As I suspected there is major uncertainty as to predicting the anomolous rises in sea level above the mean sea level rises as recorded at places like Tuvalu. "Recent assessments of future sea-level rise have focused on global mean sea level rise and the contributions due to thermal expansion, glacier melting and the disintegration of ice-sheets (e.g. Church and White (2006); Rahmstorf (2007); Bindoff and et al. (2007)). However, there is still a major uncertainty with respect to the regional characteristics of projected future sea-level rise, as stated both in the third and 4th assessment reports of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (e.g. Hesselbjerg Christensen and et al. (2007)). Identifying the causes of this uncertainty and developing a better understanding of the drivers of future regional sea-level change, in comparison to the global mean estimates, would be very beneficial for policy-makers in many different countries and Island Nations." The report does discuss trade winds and deepening thermoclines as increasing these "regional sea level rises", which brings me back to my original point and that the regional increase does have limits. For example a thermocline can only deepen until it hits the seabed. And trade winds can only increase so far. Therefore it is not valid to extrapolate the zonal tilting component from sea level rise ad infinitum, as Timmerman has refrained from doing. Would appear there is no validation to use a figure as high as 5.1mm/yr for the next 100 years. Does anyone know a source for a P50 of the sea level rise around Tuvalu ove the next 100 years.
       Response:

       [DB] "you could work on your tone and choice of words"

       Please refrain from picking at nits when from your first comment you have continually downplayed the unknown (by you) continuum of experience held by the various participants here relative to your own when it is patently obvious that you have not fully comprehended the OP of the post you are commenting so authoritatively on. Or, when others have tried to help you achieve the understanding you are looking for, you incorrectly perceive their helpful comments as a personal attack.

       Phrases like "glass houses" and "pots calling kettles" or worse come to mind.  If you want objective, science-based dialogue free from invective and snark, model it for others to emulate.

66248. Tom Curtis at 18:41 PM on 21 January 2012
       It's satellite microwave transmissions
       jmorpuss @6, your 271 GW of ERP represents just 0.0005 W/m^2 even on the false assumption that all that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere or surface rather than being radiated away to space. What is more, it is impossible for the accumulated radiated power of all artificial radio sources to be a significant source of heat because total primary energy production is just 0.015 W/m^2. Necessarily, the energy radiated by artificial radio sources is less than total human energy production, and hence less than 0.015 W/m^2. In fact, it is not just less, it is much less. Anybody deluded enough to think otherwise should ask themselves which is the largest energy consumer in their city? The local TV station, or the local Steel Mill (or equivalent)?
66249. KBow at 18:05 PM on 21 January 2012
       How do Climate Models Work?
       This is from the viewpoint of a non-scientist aka one of the general public. From the general public’s point of view, most people would make a prediction about who will win the super bowl. Projection is viewed as a potential range. There are two reasons why using prediction can be a problem – especially when discussing models. First, it is more than a simple understanding for the public. People that understand, and communicate the information to the public frame the discussion for the rest of us. With a prediction, ‘we’ will have a mindset of high expectations for accuracy. Anything less will encourage doubt amongst those that are not yet familiar with models if/when they are off by very little. Projection sets the frame of a range of possibilities, and allows for a broader view of what we may expect. Second, when this does not come to pass with the “exact” prediction it gives ammo to create new arguments as well as sidetrack and confuse the important issues. Particularly, the arguments models are inaccurate, scientists do not understand climate well enough etc. Neither word is wrong, but coming from experts they carry more weight than may be realized. This does not take away from the post, however I feel it is important that science communicators understand how they can affect viewpoints and expectations. Regardless, this is the best information I have read about climate models. Great post!
66250. Rob Painting at 18:02 PM on 21 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       'Anyone studies up on such articles?' Yes, no less than 3 such peer-reviewed scientific papers are hyper-linked in the article above. Timmerman (2010), Merrifield (2011) and Qiu & Chen (2011). As for zonal tilting, I think you may be confused with the tilting of the thermocline that occurs during El Nino/La Nina, a periodic event. Long-lived changing wind and ocean circulations are responsible for the anomalous sea level rise at Tuvalu. And your comment about observational versus analytical is nonsensical. It appears as if you are scrambling around to find something to nitpick at so that you can dismiss the findings of Becker (2011). What you choose to believe is up to you, but the facts are the facts, and as is often the case with global warming, they are extremely inconvenient. As I will point out in future posts, the coral atolls of the Pacific Islands have other threats looming fast on the horizon - mass coral bleaching and ocean acidification. Sadly, atoll islanders are living on borrowed time.

Prev  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  1324  1325  1326  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  Next