Recent Comments

Prev  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  Next

Comments 66901 to 66950:

66901. e at 05:40 AM on 12 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       QuestionEverything, the example has nothing to do with distinguishing natural vs. man made. What it's illustrating is that you have to pay attention to timescales when claiming whether something is a long-term trend. On the scale of seconds, the waves can be considered a trend. On the scale of hours, the tide is a trend and waves are just short-term fluctuations. On the scale of days, the tide becomes short term variation. None of this tells us whether tides are natural or not. We know they are because we understand the physics behind tides, not because they happen to be periodic. There is no law that states that natural variations must be periodic or vice versa. The point is that we need to look at the appropriate timescale. When it comes to human well-being, that timescale is on the order of a human lifetime, i.e. multiple decades. On that scale, the data is clear: the earth is warming.
66902. exp137 at 05:38 AM on 12 January 2012
       Why does CO2 lag temperature?
       muoncounter#52: I've read the article, but it focuses exclusively on the timing of the termination as opposed to the onset. I'm very comfortable with the reasoning behind the lag at the termination, but still curious about the lag at the onset. If you look at the last interglacial period (before the current one) in Fig. 1, the temperature has dropped rather significantly while the CO2 concentrations are still largely above 270ppm. While the cause of the glacial onset may indeed be orbital forcings, does this really mean that the imfluence of CO2 on the glacial-inerglacial cycle is essentially neglegible? Or is it that the high levels of CO2 essentially "soften the blow" of the orbital forcings, by slowing the onset of the next glacial period? Please don't assume I'm a skeptic or unfamiliar with the basics just because I'm asking questions, as I am currently a graduate student studying paleontology. This is an argument I've heard from skeptics in the past and I'd like to find a solid explanation, if one is known.
66903. DSL at 05:36 AM on 12 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       QE: snort! If we push the analogy, we'll have to introduce something large gradually forcing a the water line to trend upward even as the tides cycle. Perhaps the underwater growth of the Kraken or a v e r y s l o w m o v i n g a s t e r o i d. Perhaps the displacement of the growing billions of boats on the water, all rising with the unlimited bounty of capitalism.
66904. QuestionEverything at 05:03 AM on 12 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       So if the observer stayed on the beach for several days, he would eventually realize that what he had mistaken for a trend was actually a natural variation, i.e. the tide.
66905. keithpickering at 04:53 AM on 12 January 2012
       Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
       TYPO: Linked article s.b. "How to assess evidence ..."
       Response:

       [dana1981] Corrected, thanks.

66906. Fred Staples at 04:30 AM on 12 January 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       “However, the most likely explanation for UAH showing less warming than models and atmospheric physics predict is that UAH is biased low? ”. Really? If we go to the Met Office HADAT site we will find a detailed comparison of MSU and HADAT data by RSS. Their figures are interesting because they compare mid-troposphere radio-sonde data with satellite data from 1978. The perturbation of the lapse rate on which AGW depends must start in the mid troposphere, where additional CO2 can make its presence felt. Satellite data is global, whereas the radio-sonde is not, and it is particularly sparse in the Southern hemisphere. To compensate, RSS sampled the satellite data to match the radio-sonde locations, and calculated matched data trends as follows: Mid-troposhere: HADAT 1.08 degrees per century RSS 1.35 degrees per century UAH 0.95 degrees per century But what about the lower troposphere? HADAT 1.95 degrees per century RSS 1.7 degrees per century UAH 1.76 degrees per century. So the satellites are not significantly lower than the radio-sondes, and their global figures should be respected as the best available. The crucial data is for the global mid-troposhere, where UAH quotes 0.5 degrees per century. For the lower troposphere the UAH trend is 1.4 degrees per century. These figures neatly reverse all the model data for mid versus lower troposphere trends Still, if the facts do not agree with the theories, so much the worse for the facts.
       Response:

       [DB] "These figures neatly reverse all the model data for mid versus lower troposphere trends"

       Please provide a source citation for this assertion.

       Inflammatory/trolling struck out.

66907. Gestur at 04:07 AM on 12 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       dana1981 @ 5: Re your point about the model’s estimated changes, according to the data provided by LR08 (Table 1), the model over-estimates the actual temp change by 16% for the 25 year period, over-estimates it by 20% for the 50 year period and under-estimates it by 11% for the 100 year period. Given the considerable uncertainty in the temperature change itself, not to mention in some of these components other than athro forcing, maybe taking the point estimates of each and using them to express model variable impacts as a percent of actual temperature change, as you have done, causes more confusion than it provides insights. Of course, you hear this same thing in effect done fairly frequently and I’d personally say to good rhetorical effect. But for a more rigorous summary, maybe the way to go would be to use some bootstrapping of the model—including these post-estimation calculations—to show the full uncertainties in these percentage attributions. Thanks for another good post, though.
66908. muoncounter at 03:05 AM on 12 January 2012
       Why does CO2 lag temperature?
       exp137#51: Read through the original post, especially the mechanism given after Figure 2. The temperature change is initiated by orbital variation and reinforced by atmospheric gas concentrations. It's important to understand the time frame when you say "temperature starting to fall very abruptly". That is really not the case: glacial onsets are typically much slower than terminations (see Figure 1 and note the time scale). Terminations can take 100s-1000s of years; cooling to full glacial is much slower. The temperature graphs take on a 'sawtooth' shape. --source
66909. dana1981 at 02:55 AM on 12 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       I have to say, clinging to UV as a significant cause of global warming at this point isn't skepticism, it's desperation. There's just no evidence for it.
66910. JamesWilson at 02:40 AM on 12 January 2012
       It's aerosols
       Rob Painting you got the right graph from here(http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-The-Hottest-Decade-Was-Not-Hotter-.html). Quoting "After a rapid rise in global surface air temperatures during the late 1970s to 1990s" Notice that the Sulfur emissions are higher in 1980 than they are today. ie if Sulfur emissions reflect sunlight then we should have been freezing in 1980 and cold today. Not the other way around. ie that graph blows the premise of the article. As for CFC thing it had the other forcing value in 2007 according the IPPC however it has been scrubbed apparently. I'll see if I can find a link on it to show it. Until then I won't discuss it further. I did find this link which claims CFC cools in the upper atmosphere. http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq under Ozone. As a side note in the same section they claim that that "This paradox occurs because the atmosphere thins with height, changing the way carbon dioxide molecules absorb and release heat." I have never seen a physics experiment that shows that temperature and/or pressure effects the way CO2 absorbs and releases heat. Nor CFCs for that matter. A plausible claim again with no proof I've seen. I like your links scaddenp. The Aerosol one doesn't clearly prove that aerosols actually reflect any light from a physics perspective. The crux sentence seems to be here "Here we use state-of-the-art satellite-based measurements of aerosols6, 7, 8 and surface wind speed9 to estimate the clear-sky direct radiative forcing for 2002, incorporating measurements over land and ocean" The satellites are used to measure the amount of aerosols *not* the amount of reflection by them. Notice the word "estimate." It doesn't mean Aerosols don't reflect light. Just that article doesn't prove that property. Not wrong just not proof. To give an analogy. Measuring forcing from the quantity of aerosols present and known atmospheric behavior would be like trying to figure out the speed of a bus by knowing the velocities and locations of the air molecules around it. You might get an reasonable result, but it probably would be a lot more accurate to measure the speed of the bus itself.
       Response:

       [DB] Note:  This comment was moved from the Myth of the Mini Ice Age thread to this one, where it is much more on-topic.

66911. KR at 01:37 AM on 12 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       skept.fr - "...this point of TSI-UV-EUV correlation, albeit probably marginal or null in terrestrial temperature trend, is still in debate among solar scientists." (emphasis added) That, the emphasized portion, is a critical point - the largest part of solar variance seems correlated with TSI (or sunspots - Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 found no significant difference when substituting sunspot number for a TSI index). And once the major contributors to temperature change are identified we gain a better understanding of climate - some ability to predict future temperature evolution. The results in Lean and Rind 2008/2009, Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, and others - these all indicate that we have a pretty good grip on the major influences behind climate change. Other influences are certainly there, with varying degrees of uncertainty - but they appear quite small. While small changes around the edges are interesting, and quite worthy of research effort, we really do know what the elephant in the room is - anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
66912. DSL at 01:27 AM on 12 January 2012
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Retro, it was difficult for me because it's the kind of disaster that doesn't develop at "human speed." The boiling frog analogy applies to a certain extent. The average world citizen non-scientist has to take it on faith that the consequences are serious or spend a lot of time becoming familiar with the basics (which requires retirement, unemployment, being single, owning the means of production, or having a certain type of job). It's hard to take it on faith or even understand the basics with mass media trying to turn it into a commodity by making a debate out of it--and institutions like Heartland that are openly dedicated to creating unskeptical doubt.
66913. DSL at 01:07 AM on 12 January 2012
       There is no consensus
       The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just moved the Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight (11:55). Meaningless to the science, but something worth noting anyway within the domain of climate science communication. From the report in the Guardian: "A number of the scientists who took part in the deliberations said they were also dismayed by a growing trend to disregard science." "On climate change, the scientists warned the global community may be reaching a point of no-return unless there is a push to begin building alternatives to carbon-heavy technologies within the next five years."
66914. exp137 at 01:00 AM on 12 January 2012
       Why does CO2 lag temperature?
       Not sure if I'm too late to get a response, but I have another question regarding the lag. I understand that cause for the lag at the initiation of warming, but it appears that in every case, as the climate shifts back to a glacial period, the temperature drops while the CO2 is still near it's peak concentration, with the temperature starting to fall very abruptly before the CO2 even begins to decline. Is there any explanation for that?
66915. catamon at 00:53 AM on 12 January 2012
       Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
       No Android version?? Sniff, whimper??
66916. skept.fr at 23:24 PM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       #6, 8, 9 : this point of TSI-UV-EUV correlation, albeit probably marginal or null in terrestrial temperature trend, is still in debate among solar scientists. For example, see Frölhich 2009 : long term trends of TSI and UV seem to differ, the minimum of TSI for 2008 did not produce a similar minimum in UV irradiance.
66917. MarkR at 23:13 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       119. William Haas; Air temperatures are linked to sea surface temperatures pretty strongly, and higher temperatures mean a higher water vapour content in the atmosphere. Satellites measure a pretty constant relative humidity, so it suggests this is true. You asked in another thread about the GWP of water vapour. Global Warming Potential is defined as the integrated heating caused by a molecule over some time: typically 100 years after you've added it to the atmosphere. Water vapour's mean life is about 10 days in the atmosphere. Iirc, on a molecule-per-molecule basis, largely due to saturation, water vapour is weaker than CO2 by an order of magnitude or two. So the GWP of a water vapour molecule could be estimated as between 0.00003 and 0.000003 relative to CO2. However, this is an overestimate because water vapour evaporates and condenses. It will condense in the upper atmosphere, releasing heat which 'short circuits' a chunk of the greenhouse effect. The water vapour feedback is reduced by about half by this, so you're more likely looking at water vapour molecule = 0.000001 CO2 molecule. That's only water added by combustion and volcanoes etc: water vapour from the ocean is constrained by temperatures and can't act as a long term forcing.
66918. RetroC927 at 21:44 PM on 11 January 2012
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       I still struggle and fight with myself about global warming and the science behind it. It's hard to argue with the science and impact though. Theoretically it is very simple what is happening and what our actions are causing. The question, the debate, the argument is how much this is exacerbating this or conversely how much this would naturally occur and happen anyway without us.
       Moderator Response: See the Skeptical Science posts "It’s not us" and "It’s a natural cycle."
66919. Paul D at 21:39 PM on 11 January 2012
       Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
       Would be interesting to incorporate the Skeptical Science 'Interactive History of Climate Science' app (or a variation of it) with this one. Maybe as a visual that is shown in a box at the same time or can pop up on demand.
66920. Rob Painting at 21:28 PM on 11 January 2012
       Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
       Is it intentional that the narrator sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer voice? Great work on the app though.
66921. Tom Curtis at 20:26 PM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       I note that chirhophoros recent post has been deleted for moderation complaints, as had a previous comment. In light of the requested discussion of the comments policy above, I believe his comments where on topic on this thread, and that deleting comments critical of the comments policy or its administration on this thread is counterproductive to the aim of gathering a proper range of feedback. I understand that moderators are rightly cautious against the possibility that the aim of legitimate discussion of the comments policy may be used as an excuse for straightforward trolling. Never-the-less I believe it would be better if chirhophoros posts where restored. Regardless of the moderators decision, I should note that chirhophoros' examples where noted, and that several moderators have expressed a desire for more impartial administration of the comments policy in private conversation, thereby correcting any slippage from the normally very high standards of SkS moderation. chirhophoros and other readers should certainly not read into the enforcement of the comments policy on this thread any idea that his criticisms have simply been swept under the carpet. They have not been.
66922. Tom Curtis at 19:22 PM on 11 January 2012
       Positive feedback means runaway warming
       William Haas @106: Suppose that increasing the temperature by 1 degree C brings about effects that result in a further 0.6 C increase in temperature. That 0.6 C increase will as a result bring about a further 0.36 C increase, which in turn will bring about a further 0.216 C increase, and so on. As can be easily checked, this series converges on a total increase (ie, the sum of all individual increases) of 2.5 times the initial input. The formula is that the total response, f, equals 1 divided by (1 minus the gain at each step, g), ie: f= 1/(1-g) which for a gain of 0.6 times the initial stimulus gives a feedback of 1/0.4 = 2.5 times the initial stimulus. I note that Sphaerica has already covered this ground in his response to you at 104. I have chose a slightly different example simply because with a gain of 0.6 times initial stimulus, and an initial stimulus from doubling CO2 concentrations of 1.2 degrees C, the expected climate response from doubling CO2 would be 1.2*2.5 = 3 degrees C. There is nothing unstable about that. There is no possibility of a runaway effect. The only thing there is a possibility of here is your continuing to ignore simple mathematics in pursuit of an agenda. Ergo, if you do continue to ignore this simple mathematics, that will be proof that you are in fact simply trolling. Either learn, or leave.
66923. William Haas at 17:39 PM on 11 January 2012
       Positive feedback means runaway warming
       I think that modeling this situation as a linear feedback system is both improper and incomplete. I can understand the idea of the amplification. But as a linear feedback system it is unstable yet we do not actuall experience runnaway global warming.
66924. dana1981 at 17:30 PM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       ms2et @6 - ditto what Tom Curtis said @6, which was also pointed out in the penultimate paragraph of the post above. Anything correlated to TSI, which includes EUV and cosmic rays, is taken into account through this multiple linear regression approach.
66925. Tom Curtis at 16:59 PM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       ms2et @6, because the solar influence is determined by a regression against TSI, that influence includes all influences of the Sun on Earth's temperature that are correlated with TSI. Svenmark's theory of the influence of cosmic rays on climate argues that low solar magnetic field (as when the TSI is low in the sunspot cycle) results in more clouds, and hence lower temperatures, and conversely when TSI is high. Hence it is correlated with TSI in its influence on temperature, and is therefore included in the regression. Therefore the solar influence detected by Lean and Rind is the sum of the influences of TSI, cosmic rays, and what have you.
66926. skywatcher at 15:03 PM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       #6, TSI is not just visible light - it includes the radiation beyond visible light. As for solar wind speed and geomagnetisn (though the geomagnetic field is technically the Earth's magnetic field), you'd need a mechanism by which the solar wind, or charged particles from the Sun and beyond could affect Earth's climate. So far, no mechanism has been found, and there is no evidence of any event being caused by magnetic field variations. If you have evidence otherwise, reply on an appropriate thread. So really using TSI for the Sun's contribution is like measuring the entire orchestra's output, yet perhaps ignoring the slightly squeaky floorboard beneath the tuba player's foot...
66927. ms2et at 14:43 PM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       Interesting to see that they've used only used TSI to measure the sun's contribution. What about changes in EUV, UV, solar wind speed, geomagnetism etc...? To confine the sun's influence on climate to TSI is about as sensible as measuring the sound-effect of a symphony orchestra by reference to the volume of the first violinist.
66928. scaddenp at 14:39 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       William - AGW is about global warming not your local weather. On global basis, the various interactions do indeed result in water vapour being closely tied to global average temperature. There are indeed decadal cycles associated with internal variability of the system (distributing heat around the globe) which is why climate is about 30 year averages not tomorrows weather. However, if you want to discuss this further put it on an appropriate thread, not here.
66929. scaddenp at 14:34 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       Your hypothesis that water is the dominant greenhouse gas is correct. No one in climate science is disputing that. The question is so what? Because it condenses, you cant change the global water vapour content without first changing the global temperature. Water vapour acts an amplifier to any temperature change caused by say sun, aerosols, GHG changes. CO2 is also an amplifier since its concentration is also temperature-dependent but over very long time-scales. How did I calculate it? Crudely. Including overlap, water vapour = 60% CO2 = 26% (From Keihl and Trenberth) 60/26 = 2.3 10 molecules of water for 1 of CO2 so per molecule cf CO2 = 0.23 If I used Schmidt et al 2010 I guess I would calculate 0.25
66930. William Haas at 14:32 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       Thank you for your reply. So if the ocean temperature falls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will fall and vis versa. This seems to appear in the historical record. Yes the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapor it can hold but that does not assure that more water vapor will actually appear in the atmosphere. As ocean surface temperatures warm I would expect that more water will evaporate into the atmosphere but it also depends on humidity next to the water, winds,and sea state. I believe that much of the temperatures that I experience where I live are a result of convective heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere. Local ocean temperatures depend a lot on current and current changes. The ocean where I live has apparently had various cycles of warming and cooling that do not seem to be related to at least short term variations in CO2.
66931. Tom Dayton at 14:03 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       William, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the atmosphere's temperature. So if the CO2 were gradually removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall, which would cause a fall in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which would cause more cooling of the atmosphere. CO2 also falls as ocean temperature falls, because cooler water absorbs more CO2.
66932. Daniel Bailey at 14:01 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       William keeps posting, in probable innocence, asking the question:

       "What is the GWP of water vapor?"

       Without realizing that the question itself is a non sequiter. As scaddenp points out above, water vapor concentrations are a function of air temperature, and thus serve as a feedback to the other GHGs. As a condensable GHG, water vapor does not even have a GWP even calculated for it. Only the non-condensable GHG's like CO2 and CH4 have GWPs calculated, as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Values William, I strongly recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest temperature control knob.
66933. William Haas at 13:59 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       Thank you for your reply and for giving me a value for the GWP of water vapor. Water vapor alone is a green house gas and contributes to the insulating effects of the atmosphere as do the other gasses. Water vapor causes warming which causes more water vapor ... I doubt that the world would be at 0 degrees K if there were no CO2. How did you arrive at a value of .23?
       Response:

       [DB] "Water vapor alone is a green house gas"

       Vastly incorrect.  Read more, post less.

       "Thank you for your reply and for giving me a value for the GWP of water vapor"

       You ignore the caveats given.  Read my response to you here.

       "How did you arrive at a value of .23?"

       The GWP equation can be found here.

66934. scaddenp at 13:54 PM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       See replies on the linked article. Continue discussion there. You might also like to more formally state you "hypothesis" since you think it somehow contradicts climate theory.
66935. Daniel Bailey at 13:41 PM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       To paraphrase the Bard, "The Trend is the Thing..."
66936. scaddenp at 13:40 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       William, (linking from here) it doesnt make much sense to talk about GWP of water vapour as it is a feedback not a forcing. Water vapour concentration depends on temperature. If you tried to put water data into the GWP equation you run into a problem with the time part of the equation - residence time will depend on temperature. However, if you kind of ignored that, you would end up with a GWP of about 0.23.
66937. William Haas at 13:30 PM on 11 January 2012
       Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
       I am trying to understand this. Water vapor causes warming which causes more water vapor which causes more warming ... What is keeping the earth from vaporizing because of this? What is the GWP of water vapor?
       Moderator Response: The feedback is a gain less than 1. That means the increase gets progressively smaller. See Positive feedback means runaway warming.
66938. scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       GC - whoops missed the link. Take the challenge here
66939. skywatcher at 13:20 PM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       all good with me DB! The trend is, as ever, troubling.
66940. Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       In that I took the simple route, you are correct sky. So let's take this a bit more step-by-step for the second part of the proof (is 2010/2011 hotter than 2004?). We know that, looking at 5 temperature records covering the past 100+ years, that the most recent decade is quite obviously the warmest in the instrumental record: And the same by looking at 10 temperature records: So, dialing it back to discerning between the years of the most recent decade we turn to Foster and Rahmstorf, who by removing the exogenous effects of various factors that add noise to the overall data, we can now see the most recent decade with increased clarity: Which was then summed up by this graphic (which I posted earlier): Lastly, we know that the 2 hottest years are: 2005 & 2010 Hindsight, being 20:20, shows the longer route does indeed provide clarity. For those preferring brevity, the route pursued in the earlier response should serve. Crumpets, anyone?
66941. scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       GC, you seem to be subscribing to "anything but CO2" (an improvement from "we are not warming") - I mean ignore good physical explanation of climate and instead looking for magical cycles. Now what would be the motivation for that? Given your comments about "billions of dollars every year", I wonder what you will think when Scafetta turns out dead wrong? Look for another magical explanation? Perhaps you might like to take the challenge here.
66942. skywatcher at 11:47 AM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       ... warmer than most of the Holocene.
66943. skywatcher at 11:46 AM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       DB - a quick aside, I agree with you on graphic #1, but I think using graphic #2 to suggest that the present is actually warmer than 2004 is a bit misleading, as the graphic is adjusted temperature. Better to use GISS or whatever to show that temperatures now are similar to those in 2004, confirming your point. What the FR figure shows is the futility of hoping it will start cooling any time soon, ie the trend underneath the variation... The overall point of your green comment is, however, absolutely right! We are now warmer than the Holocene.
66944. Bob Lacatena at 11:12 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       James, You have repeatedly been asked to support your claims and assertions with links. You have yet to do so. Please support your assertions or retract them. Further comments along the same previous lines will be considered common trolling and treated accordingly.
66945. Daniel Bailey at 10:38 AM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       Actually, John, Tom Curtis has already ably explained that 1st graphic in his comment (#9) above.
66946. funglestrumpet at 10:12 AM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       Glenn Tamblyn @11 "Anyone who knows a Republican Congressman, Tea Partier etc - get them to come to SkS and simply spend some time reading." Nice idea, but I think something a little simpler would need to be read first as a primer. The Smurfs' Pop-up Guide Climate Change would be ideal.
66947. William Haas at 10:10 AM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       (-Snip-). Everyine seems to agree that the majoriety of the green house effect is caused by water vapor. Just how much of a majoriety seems to be a point of contention. Since some very rare green house gasses have been assigned GWP values it seems that water vapor needs a GWP value assigned to it to. Where I live water vapor stays in the environment a very long time. I have lived here more than 40 years and the relative humidity has never fallen below 10%. Please, what is the GWP value for water vapor?
       Response:

       [DB] "Everyine seems to agree that the majoriety of the green house effect is caused by water vapor.  Just how much of a majoriety seems to be a point of contention."

       Then read the intermediate tab of the link you were given: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

       "Where I live water vapor stays in the environment a very long time.  I have lived here more than 40 years and the relative humidity has never fallen below 10%."

       Straw man.  Comparing local, anecdotal observations to regional/global metrics is a non-sequiter.  Water vapor is a well-mixed gas; additionally, local perturbations precipitate out in about 9 days time, especially near large bodies of water.  In times of rising CO2 concentrations, as now, water vapor acts as a feedback to the forcings from CO2, raising temps in a limiting fashion (with all other forcings/feedbacks being neutral).  This is well-known & well-understood.

       Perhaps a suggested new course of action for you:  Polite questions will get you better and more useful responses.

       Inflammatory tone snipped.

66948. Rob Honeycutt at 10:01 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       I always find it fascinating how much people attribute to the IPCC as if they were some huge government body that was doing all the research on climate. The IPCC just produces a report on the latest research. If you have contentions with what is reported by the IPCC you have to go to the research they source and see what it says.
66949. Glenn Tamblyn at 09:46 AM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       Great summary Mark. A few years ago I would have classified myself as an Alarmist on Arctic Methane. That the magnitude AND pace of release from the north was cause for serious concern. My fears about the pace of that release have diminished in the last couple of years but I think concerns about the eventual impact of Arctic Methane still seem justified. Just because it may take centuries rather than decades doesn't reduce the ultimate threat to our descendents. The psychological impacts of living generation after generation knowing that, perhaps slowly, but inexorably, things will get worse and is virtually unstopable could be devastating I also tend to agree with Killian. The more immediate, shorter term impacts of AGW, compounding the worlds other resource and population pressures is more than enough to threaten the viability of Civilisation - in military parlance, AGW is the ultimate 'Force Multiplier' The good news from 2011 is that the SCience so far isn't saying that things are much worse than we previously thought. Unfortunately its not saying its any better either. Anyone who knows a Republican Congressman, Tea Partier etc - get them to come to SkS and simply spend some time reading.
66950. dana1981 at 09:44 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       Glenn - re your 1st point, the lack of natural warming (due to flat solar and volcanic forcings since mid-century) also contributes to the increasing anthropogenic component. re your 2nd point, LR08 do include anthropogenic aerosols (see the inset in Figure 2d). The fact that their individual contributions sum to more than 100% is probably mostly due to the model not quite fitting the data over that timeframe.

Prev  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  Next