Recent Comments

Prev  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  Next

Comments 72301 to 72350:

72301. victull at 00:20 AM on 20 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       Glenn Tamblyn@12 Interesting point you make here: *Also, this mechanism explains well the underlying thermodynamics of 'in-the-pipeline' warming. This is sometimes portrayed as if at some future time all this heat will start 'coming back out' from the oceans. But this doesn't make thermodynamic sense.* All the heat in the land, atmosphere and oceans must be represented in some form - existing water, air and land temperatures, ice melt, air/water vapour content. It seems to me that melting ice takes heat out of the surrounding water and heat should flow to these sinks until all the ice is melted. Would anyone like to explain the effect of sea ice in moderating ocean temperatures? Would sea ice anywhere on the planet prevent the oceans warming until it all melted?
72302. Eric (skeptic) at 00:13 AM on 20 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dikran, thanks. And sorry, that was Dana (#71), not you I was referring to.
72303. Dikran Marsupial at 00:02 AM on 20 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Eric (skeptic) If you are looking at a period that is relatively short compared to the characteristic timescale on which the forcings change (e.g. a couple of decades or less), then it is probably O.K. not to subtract out the effects of the relevant forcings. If you want to assert cycles on longer timescales then you need either to show there is a physical mechanism that can plausibly explain the magnitude of effect and/or control for the change in forcings.
72304. Eric (skeptic) at 23:50 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dikran, up thread you distinguished forcing changes from what you called "natural variations". I presumed that what you meant by "natural variations" was primarily the changes in ocean-atmosphere exchange that result in atmospheric temperature changes on a quasi-periodic basis. If I use that definition I would have to account for solar, aerosol and other forcing changes when I look at the long temperature series (subtract them out). Then I would analyze the periods of the remaining changes to determine the number of years that would indicate a statistically significant change independent of those natural variations. My claim would then be that such a statistically significant change was caused by a forcing change. Does that appear to be valid?
72305. MA Rodger at 23:44 PM on 19 October 2011
       Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
       Re The large sea level rise in Hansen & Sato 2011 Hansen & Sato discussed the dual subjects of (i) Whether 2oC global temperature rise would bring seriously bad sea level rise and (ii) The possible speed of that rise. While (i) was presented quite convincingly, (ii) was actually little more than speculation. They developed the idea of a 'doubling time' for accelerating sea level rise, suggesting that the limited GRACE data available (6 year's worth) indicates a 'doubling time' of 10 years. This would imply massive rates of sea level rise by 2100. Present rates of sea level rise are 3mm pa. The IPCC 'most pessimistic' forecast is for an annual rise of 13mm pa by 2100 (which is roughly the average rise during the climb out of the last ice age). With large increases in the rise due to melting land ice, there is a limit to the rise because of the latent energy required to melt the ice, a limit Hansen & Sato 2011 greatly exceed. But if enough land ice turns into icebergs, very large sudden rises can result. As Hansen & Sato 2011 say, past ice ages have ended with multi-metre sea level rise due to much smaller climate forcing than the present-day man-made forcing.
72306. Dana69 at 23:35 PM on 19 October 2011
       Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
       Hmmm..I have been looking at this issue in more detail and there seems to be some diverse thoughts regarding this topic. First off, The IPCC models tend to simulate a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation in most of the GCM simulations. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most positive phases hold colder air in the region thereby slowing the rate of ice loss? Wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the claim that rising CO2 increases temperature? Also, it seems like the Arctic Oscillation is viewed more as a weather event, and not a climate issue. Meaning, it is much more chaotic, and will not have a diverse affect on climate as a whole and vice versa.
       Response:

       [DB] The AO is what it's name says it is: an oscillation.  Thus, the long-term trend is nil.  But the reality shows that what is happening in the Arctic is indeed unlike a natural cycle and fits the understanding of the Arctic Amplification response to the ongoing warming of the world.  With the ongoing demise of the Arctic Sea Ice cap serving the role of the canary in the coal mine.

       As far as colder air forming a negative response to the amplification, see:

       BOE et.al (2009) "Current GCMs' Unrealistic Negative Feedback in the Arctic", Journal of Climate

       The vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere in the Arctic, characterized by a surface inversion during wintertime, exerts a strong control on the temperature feedback and consequently on simulated Arctic climate change. Most current climate models likely overestimate the climatological strength of the inversion, leading to excessive negative longwave feedback.

       H/T to the Artful Dodger.
       

72307. Bern at 22:25 PM on 19 October 2011
       Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
       newcrusader, I agree that they seem conservative, considering some of the recent papers suggesting non-linear ice sheet response. However, the curves only represent the central estimate, without the uncertainty shown except for at 2500. I think the important point to take away is that this sort of modelling helps to demonstrate why it is that we've really only got a decade or two to sort out GHG emissions. Wait another 20 years for more "certainty", and we end up with sea levels that are still rising five centuries from now...
72308. Dikran Marsupial at 22:16 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Eric (skeptic) Fine, but you will need to perform a statistical hypothesis test to determine whether there actually is a cycle in the data where there is no physical theory that can explain the observed magnitude of the effect. You also need to show that the cyclic behaviour is not the result of a coincidence of non-cyclic changes in the observed forcings for which there exist phsyical theories that do explain the observed magnitude of the effect (for instance that changes in solar forcing explain much of the warming in the first half of the 20th century, according to the IPCC WG1 report). If you think cycles can be determined purely empirically then that is only true in the absence of physical explanations, and even then you need to be able to show there is statistically significant evidence for the existence of the cycles, and even then you need to acknowledge that it is only a correllation not a causal link.
72309. newcrusader at 22:12 PM on 19 October 2011
       Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
       The estimates here seem very conservative for sea rise. They basically look at a very linear extrapolation. Hansen and Sato see a non linear rise- with as much as a 4-5 meter rise by 2090. During the Eemian interglacial when global temperatures where at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius warmer then today, sea levels where about 4 meters higher then present. With C02 levels reaching double the PI era by mid century, and a 2 degree rise in temperatures over the PI era; with arctic ice 4 decades ahead of IPCC estimates (which will hasten ice melt in Greenland) A 1 meter rise by 2100 seems too cautious.
72310. Eric (skeptic) at 22:05 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dikran, I'll look into that, but it will take a while. The significance of a trend of N years will depend on the periods of natural cycles and quasi-cycles as compared to N. Those cycles can be determined purely empirically by examining a long data set or semi-empirically by examining the mechanics of cycles themselves (PDO, ENSO, etc) their effect on GAT.
72311. Rob Painting at 21:32 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       Barry @ 4 - Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, you have me there. Seems a bit of a misnomer. The Earth System Sensitivity approach (as discussed in the Real Climate link) seems better, although harder to estimate.
72312. Dikran Marsupial at 21:27 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Prof. Pielke I would implore you not to sign off before giving a direct answer to the question of whether the evidence for your hypothesis that "the 9 year trend during this time period [2002-present] is different than the trend for the time period [1979-2002]." is statistically significant or not. The readers will indeed make up their own minds about what a failure to answer that question means, and I would have thought that they are very likely to conclude that (i) you know that the answer to this question is "no" (ii) you are unable to admit that the answer is "no" and (iii) you view your subjective interpetation of the observations as being more reliable than the objective statistical testing that are a cornerstone of modern scientific method. As it stands you are likely to do substantial harm to your scientific reputation, which is not something I want to see happen. I would rather we continued with a discussion of the science that aimed to uncover the truth, whatever that truth might be.
72313. pielkesr at 21:19 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Regarding "[DB] "If, for example, there are no more Joules in the climate system after one year" Straw man. In the absence of any significance testing, which you adamently refuse to do, a time series of just one year is meaningless" you do not understand the physics. The heat content of the climate system can be determined on a yearly basis. There is no lag as with the response of the surface temperature trend to heating. Anyway, there has been enough said on this thread for readers to make up their own mind. I will be signing off with this thread here, but will have several questions for SkS in the next day or so on my weblog that I will invite you to discuss on SkS.
       Response:

       [DB] "you do not understand the physics."

       Goalpost shift.  When confronted with a question (from Dikran about significance testing by you) you repeatedly and pointedly refuse to answer the question.  In this case, when pointed out that a time series of one year, in the vacuum of any significance hypotheses, is meaningless, you goalpost shift and question the knowledge of the questioner.  And again dodge the real question.

       For all readership by now are painfully aware, the real question is not whether I or they understand the physics.  The real question, whether you understand significance testing, is left patently answered by your utter refusal to properly address the question & continual efforts to change the subject.

       So unless you wish to properly answer Dikran, the answer is that you do not, that there is no significance to your short time series and the conclusions you continually impugn to them and that the time to move on has indeed come.

72314. Rob Painting at 21:11 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       Steve L @ 8 - Question 1: solar radiation, temperature, humidity and wind speed, all affect the rate of evaporation from the ocean surface. The giveaway is figure 2 which shows a clear relationship with longwave radiation and the cool skin layer temperature gradient. This would not likely be the case if evaporation were controlling the temperature gradient. Also, if you're saying that solar radiation (via evaporation) cools the ocean (as your post seem to suggest), then how would the oceans ever undergo long-term warming or cooling, as we know they have in the past? Perhaps I've misinterpreted your question. 2. No. It's just a description of the diurnal cycle. The important point to remember, is that lowering of the temperature gradient in the skin layer reduces heat lost by the ocean to the atmosphere, and thereby enables the ocean to steadily accumulate heat over time.
72315. Dikran Marsupial at 20:50 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Eric (skeptics) A nine year trend is so short that the difference is extremely unlikely to be statistically significant for any reasonable set of assumptions. It is Prof. Pielke's hypothesis, and so it is his responsibility to test his hypothesis rather than mine, but if he can provide a plausible set of assumptions under which there is a statistically significant difference in the trends, then that would be a perfectly reasonable answer as far as I am concerned. However, whether the difference in trends is statistically significant or not, I would like Prof. Pielke to give a direct answer to this question. This question can be answered with a "yes" or a "no", the difference either is statistically significant or it isn't, and I don't think it unreasonable to ask an eminent scientist whether his hypothesis has statistically significant support from the observations or not. If you would like to help Prof. Pielke by stating the appropriate set of assumptions and performing the test yourself, that would make a useful contribution to the discussion.
72316. Eric (skeptic) at 20:39 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dikran, regarding your question about the statistical significance of the difference in trends 1979-2002 and 2002-present, it depends on the assumptions about the domain (in this case TLT). Could you please point out where those assumptions are described?
72317. Bart at 19:36 PM on 19 October 2011
       Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate
       Could anyone indicate where exactly I can find the data as presented in figure 2 above? That woulod be very helpful!
72318. Dikran Marsupial at 18:31 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Prof. Pielke You have put forward the hypothesis that "the 9 year trend during this time period [2002-present] is different than the trend for the time period [1979-2002].". Do you agree that the difference between these trends is not statistically significant, yes or no?
72319. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:09 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       This is an interesting post Rob. I wasn't aware of the particular impact of skin temperature changes on the heat transfer balance. Bob Loblaw @9 The interesting challenge is actually the movement of heat from the skin to just below that without this heat returning to the atmosphere. Once it is down in the sub-surface waters there are a range of mixing processes that will move it down further, down to 50-100 metres. This upper layer of the ocean is referred to as the Well-Mixed Layer. Its depth varies around the world and the seasons but is typically less than 100m. Here various mixing processes dominate; wind, waves, tides, even the movement of organisms - megatonnes of krill, zoo-plankton and phyto-plankton moving vertically over the course of a day can have a surprising impact. Once additional heat has reached this depth, over-turning currents within the oceans can carry it further down. The major overturning current flows, mixing the surface with the abyssal depths happen in several defined regions in the oceans. But lesser flows and gyres exist in some locations that can move heat further down without reaching the bottom. Also, this mechanism explains well the underlying thermodynamics of 'in-the-pipeline' warming. This is sometimes portrayed as if at some future time all this heat will start 'coming back out' from the oceans. But this doesn't make thermodynamic sense. Prior to AGW, the temperatures of the air and ocean would have been in some sort of thermal balance. Not necesarily the same temperatures, but at temperatures where the heat fluxes between ocean <-> air where in balance. So as AGW starts adding heat to the atmosphere & oceans the much lower thermal mass of the atmosphere would mean that the temperature of the atmosphere starts rising faster than the oceans - which we have observed. Thus the temperature differential between oceans and air starts to change, creating a 'brake' on the rate at which atmospheric temps can rise. If atmospheric temps rise faster than ocean temps, this will tend to increase the energy flow from air to oceans, limiting the rise that is possible in the air until the temp change in the oceans 'catches up'. Not a heat flow from oceans to air 'later' warming the air. Rather a heat flow from air to oceans limiting the rise in air temps 'now' until this flow subsides when the temp imbalance is rectified as the oceans warm. Looking at Rob's 4 step process, step 3 - 'surface layers become warmer than atmosphere'. If the atmosphere warms, then the surface layers are warmer compared to the oceans, but not as much as before. Therefore step 4 - 'ocean looses heat to cooler atmosphere above'. They don't loose as much and retain more. Since the oceans aren't losing as much to the air, heating of the air is restricted while heating of the oceans is enhanced. But there is a lot of ocean. Its not heat coming out of the oceans that is 'in the pipe-line'. It is heating of the oceans eventually taking the brake off heating of the atmosphere that 'is in the pipeline'
72320. barry1487 at 15:30 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       @7: Glenn Tamblyn Thanks for the breakdown. I'm familiar with TCS and ECS, and was curious about the choice of running with the Charney sensitivity as opposed to effective (immediate) response or long-term sensitivity. I googled about after reading your reply and rediscovered this post from realclimate. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/target-co2/
72321. barry1487 at 15:20 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       @9: Great addendum, Bob. The exposition on this sub-topic really highlights, for me, the challenges when deciding how much complexity (and uncertainty) to sacrifice in order to describe scientific understanding to lay people. There will always be genuine questioners who want more detail, as well as queries from people less curious and more disposed to find or expose fault, incompetence or iniquity. So there will always be a need for new posts here. Having lurked here for several years, I enjoy SkS as a conversation as well as resource for rebuttals. Topics are returned to and refined. It has been a pleasure watching arguments and explanations unfold and evolve, and I really appreciate the time taken to engage with my own queries.
72322. Tom Dayton at 13:39 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Adding to muoncounter's reply, since the signal we are interested in is the long term trend, then by definition all the short-term changes are noise interfering with us detecting that signal, even if those short-term changes are measured without error.
72323. muoncounter at 13:32 PM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       pielkesr#88: "It says nothing about the long term trend, but it certainly not "noise" as long as the measurements are robust." I beg to differ: Robust measurements of a noisy signal may indeed be noise. That's a commonplace problem in seismic exploration. Much effort in geophysics goes to the improvement of SNR through acquisition methods; the noise may be reduced, but it is always there. Look to particle physics for other examples: are those faster-than-light neutrinos signal or noise? Are GCRs 'signal' against a background of solar cosmic ray 'noise'? Both are present in very robust measurements.
72324. Bob Loblaw at 13:15 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       One concept that is useful in understanding these sorts of exchanges is the "surface energy balance". For the case of the ocean, think of the ocean-atmosphere interface as a plane surface separating the ocean and atmosphere. This plane has no mass, so it can't store energy. With no capability of storing energy, the fluxes of energy towards and away from the surface must sum to zero. You can express this in mathematical terms. There are variations depending on what you decide to call + and - for fluxes, but one convenient form is: net radiation = sensible heat + latent heat + ocean heating where net radiation is the sum of incoming radiation (solar and IR) minus outgoing (reflected solar and upward-emitted IR), sensible heat is thermal energy transported into the atmosphere, latent heat is the energy of evaporation transported into the atmosphere (i.e., the flux of water vapour, expressed in energy terms), and ocean heating is the flux of heat into the ocean. With the water surface allowing penetration of solar radiation, things are really a bit more complex than this, but it still serves as a useful model. I'm also ignoring chemical reactions, for simplicity. (Photosynthesis would be the largest of these, and is still quite small.) The sensible heat flux is dependent on the temperature gradient between the surface and the lower atmosphere (and wind and a few other details). The latent heat flux is dependent on the humidity gradient between the surface and the lower atmosphere, but due to the condition of vapour saturation at the water surface, the latent heat is also dependent on surface temperature. Lastly, the flux of heat into the ocean is also dependent on the temperature gradient away from the surface (and the rate of mechanical mixing). Of the radiation terms, only the outgoing IR is strongly dependent on surface temperature (unless you run into freezing or thawing). The usefulness of this model is that it helps illustrate how surface temperature is linked to the energy fluxes. Stop mixing the air, and you reduce the fluxes into the atmosphere. Response? Surface temperature rises, increasing the fluxes again - but more will go into the ocean. Restrictions on evaporation (easier to image on a land surface) will cause a rise in atmospheric and sub-surface heating. Mix the ocean more (wind), and more heat is carried into the ocean leaving less flux into the air (both heat and vapour). Both the ocean and the atmosphere will exhibit stratification effects. The atmosphere, when heated from below, will become unstable and mix more easily; when cooled from below to the point of a strong temperature inversion, heat (and vapour) transfer is limited due to the reduced mixing. Wind affects waves, which affect solar absorption, too, so there is lots to keep track of in developing a comprehensive mathematical model. But you can still end up expressing it in a form where each component is a function of surface temperature plus some other terms, and if you can define the other terms you can solve for surface temperature.
72325. scaddenp at 13:15 PM on 19 October 2011
       El Niño: Unaffected by climate change in the 21st century but its impacts may be more severe
       Adrian, instead of referencing a propoganda piece, how about directly referencing the peer-reviewed research that backs your claim. Then we can have a serious look at it. I wonder though. Would you continue to trust a source (eg Pat Michaels) even if shown to be producing disinformation? If you will uncritically accept information so long as it says what you want it to, then there is little point discussing points with you except to ensure others are not led astray.
72326. Fran Barlow2 at 13:14 PM on 19 October 2011
       Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
       

       Economists who apply a high discount rate in calculating the real cost of coal are not intentionally dismissing the cost to future generations. What they are doing is expressing their belief that the future effects of climate change on the economy will be much below those anticipated by science and most climate scientists. From a commercial perspective, it could be argued that they are telling us that short term profitability is far more important than reducing the future effects of climate change.

       Or put another way, they think spending money now on mitigation or adaptation or any other measure designed to avoid harm in the future will not create as much benefit in the future as doing nothing specific (or only so much) about the future impacts of climate change. Imagine that you knew that you were going to die in 12 months time. Someone offers you a fabulous investment which matures in 11 months. The benefit is enormous but you only get to enjoy it for one month. A much less fabulous investment that gives you some benefit from day one might be better. How can you work it which is better? You apply a suitable discount rate. The other thing is that we humans have to deal with uncertainty. We don't know for example, that in the future some presently unknown suite of technologies won't make it possible for people to scoff at our concerns for their safety and well-being. Foregoing our well-being now for people who may be better off than we are in the future, seems unreasonable, especially if it can be argued that we may actually be making them worse off (following the above logic on future benefits). Moreover, if you ask people how concerned they are about their children's life chances, they tupically put a high value on this. Ask about those of their grandchildren, and once again, a high value follows. These things are existential because we want people who have been born early enough to know us to think well of us after we die. This is as close as we get to immortality. Yet if one asks what one thinks about the interests of people born 100 years from now, the concern is far more diffuse. Sure in a general sense we'd like not to prejudice their chances, but it's hard enough for people to imagine the world in 2111 let alone have concern for the people being born then. They may think us as foolish as we think of the folk in 1911, and perhaps more so, but as we will never have met them, most feel less concern. Hence, benefits for these people are less important than benefits for us now. Let me say that this is not my view. IMO, we have an absolute and minimal obligation to do whatever we reasonably can to hand over the biosphere in no worse condition that it came to us. Now that we know that the generations before us acted first in ignorance and then in reckless disregard of sustainability, we are bound to play a robust part in clearing up the mess, rather than making it worse. That IMO, is many times more important than passing on the family home to the kids or not creating financial debts for future generations. This is especially important because some of the harms authoried during the last 100 years are being visited upon people right now, and the IPCC projections strike me as somewhat optimistic.
72327. Steve L at 12:26 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       A couple of questions I came up with while skimming this. (1) How was the cooling effect of evaporation controlled for in the Tangaroa study? I think I read that light (not just heat) increases evaporation considerably. (2) There's something counter-intuitive here -- ignoring the mechanistic explanation, it seems like you're saying that stratification increases the mixing down of heat. I'm wondering how much this relies on diurnal heating. If just not diurnally heating and cooling, but just receiving an intermediate amount of solar energy constantly, wouldn't stratification slow the warming of the ocean? Cooling allows the warm layer to sink? Doesn't it sink below a warmer layer which then loses its heat to the atmosphere? I suppose I could read the links provided before asking ignorant questions!
72328. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:23 PM on 19 October 2011
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       Barry @4 Climate Sensitivity is defined in terms of three different time scales. - Transient CS is days/weeks/ maybe a year. This is mainly radiative effects - GH gases, Water Feedback, Aerosol changes due to pollution or volcanoes. - Short Term CS is decades out to around 50 years - this is the one you are referring to. This takes acount of changes in sea ice, movements in weather patterns, upper ocean heat changes etc. This is the one commonly referred to as Climate Senstivity in the literature when they aren't being more specific. It is also called the Charney Sensitivity after the scientists who first coined the term in the Charney Report. - Long Term CS is centuries to even millenia long. This includes effects like whole of ocean warming, Land ice changes, major changes in vegetation patterns, desertification, changes in ocean circulation pattern, methane feedbacks from permafrost and clathrates etc
72329. Albatross at 11:33 AM on 19 October 2011
       Comparing Global Temperature Predictions
       Nice plots Icarus. It would be nice to include those data from Hansen's 1981 paper in the above figures.
72330. KR at 11:17 AM on 19 October 2011
       El Niño: Unaffected by climate change in the 21st century but its impacts may be more severe
       Sphaerica - SourceWatch lists that site here; it's 'a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" run by ... Patrick J. Michaels' (emphasis added). adrian smits - The translation of "advocacy science consulting firm" is "lobbying group". Their posted information will be biased towards their customers - not a good place to look for science.
72331. skywatcher at 11:16 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dr Pielke, can you agree with the following statement: "The TLT temperature trend from 2002-present is not statistically significantly different from the TLT trend from 1979-present. We must therefore assume, in the absence of data to the contrary, that the significant trend from 1979 to present continues." Yes or no? Additionally, what fraction of the world's oceans is 0-700m? Why not consider a greater fraction of the world's oceans, as pointed out to you by Albatross on the linked thread? It looks to me like a few Joules of heat are accumulating between 700-2000m.
72332. Rob Honeycutt at 10:58 AM on 19 October 2011
       El Niño: Unaffected by climate change in the 21st century but its impacts may be more severe
       Sphaerica... In the "Staff" section we find... Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr. Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger So, I think you're correct. This is a CATO funded site. What was Michaels' quote? That 40% of his funding comes from oil interests? I think that's accurate.
72333. Riduna at 10:54 AM on 19 October 2011
       Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
       Economists who apply a high discount rate in calculating the real cost of coal are not intentionally dismissing the cost to future generations. What they are doing is expressing their belief that the future effects of climate change on the economy will be much below those anticipated by science and most climate scientists. From a commercial perspective, it could be argued that they are telling us that short term profitability is far more important than reducing the future effects of climate change. There is of course another view, that retaining coal production and use are essential to protecting the comparative advantage and competitiveness of countries now heavily dependent on fossil fuel use. Those who espouse this view ignore the fact that countries implementing policies to minimize use of coal and oil (eg. Sweden, France and other EU countries) have not experienced commercial disadvantage. In Australia, where the Opposition Leader (Tony Abbott) and his spiritual mentor (Cardinal Pell) have both denied AGW and its expected effects this century, government has placed a price on carbon. In doing so, it has ignored Green Party demands for coal and oil to be priced taking into account the true cost of externalities and named a starting price of $23/tonne CO2. This price appears to have been calculated having regard to the need for a clear price signal to investors in electricity generation, more efficient use of electricity, and the development of clean energy alternatives. The Opposition has vowed to repeal and reverse the measures taken by government and warned business not to comply with government measures when they become law. Why? According to Abbott, because they pose a threat to the economy, employment and national prosperity – though he produces no supporting evidence. In reality because of a perceived threat to the fossil fuel industries, denied by government but in fact quite true and almost certain to occur over the next 50 years – hopefully sooner. For their part, proponents of the Australian scheme point to the billions raised by pricing carbon, earmarked for investment in new technology, clean energy and its improved delivery. They point to new employment opportunities which will be created and the economic advantage accruing from early adoption of clean energy compared with trading partners (eg. China, Japan, Korea, India etc) who are slow to abandon fossil fuels.
72334. Bob Lacatena at 10:46 AM on 19 October 2011
       El Niño: Unaffected by climate change in the 21st century but its impacts may be more severe
       18, adrian smits, What a bizarre site form which you've chosen to get "information." It doesn't allow comments. It claims to be "exhaustively researched, impeccably referenced" and yet I found wildly egregious errors in the first three posts I perused. It also claims to be "acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate," but I find that very hard to believe. It looks like just one more wildly wrong, Cato funded denial machine to me. I would suggest that in the future you take a very skeptical eye to anything you see there... look for someone who has something else to say about it, and weigh the two positions before getting on board with take from the "World Climate Report." [Actually, from what I can see you'd be better off just avoiding the site altogether, unless you enjoy being misinformed.]
72335. Icarus at 10:43 AM on 19 October 2011
       Hansen etal hit a Climate Home Run -- in 1981
       Confidence in CO₂warming today must be... what, 99.9999%, or something? - Maybe we could say 1 in 1,744,277 chance of the warming being due to natural climate variability.
72336. Icarus at 10:28 AM on 19 October 2011
       Comparing Global Temperature Predictions
       muoncounter: Excellent! Many thanks.
72337. Stevo at 10:01 AM on 19 October 2011
       El Niño: Unaffected by climate change in the 21st century but its impacts may be more severe
       DanaHicks, thanks for the data. Okay, I think I'm starting to get a handle on this now.
72338. Bob Loblaw at 08:18 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Re. Roger Pielke @88. Well, if the data really do speak for themselves, then why do you need to say "the warming has stopped"? And just exactly what "warming" are you refering to? The warming since yesterday? Last week? No, it is the long-term statistically significant trend. If all you want to really say is "there is no accumulation of heat that time period", then say it. By making statements like "the warming has stopped", you are comparing that time period to what has come before, and making a statement about its [perhaps non-statistical] significance. You are attempting to attach importance to the data, and that implied importance is not supported by a proper statistical analysis. Basically, your claim that "the warming has stopped" is just handwaving, and your desire to "move on" appears to me to be a desire to avoid proper scientific scrutiny of your claim. It may be that in other areas of the blogosphere, a statement by Dr. Pielke that "the warming has stopped" will be accepted without skepticism and trumpeted from the rooftops, but from what I've been reading here at SkS over the past few months suggests that this isn't the place to try to get away with that. ...and trying to call it an "obvious fact" or saying "it is trivial" - as if anyone that interprets the data differently from you and comes to a different conclusion is an (-snip-) - does not seem a particularly constructive way of engaging in a dialogue.
       Response:

       [DB] I don't believe that Dr. Pielke at any point has characterized anyone with that specific, snipped, term.  Let us not descend to the verbiage used at the website RPSr defends.

72339. Rob Honeycutt at 08:12 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Dr Pielke @ 88... It seems to me that global warming has stopped before, only to come back again. Below is every 10 year trend in the UAH record. Is there a compelling reason we should expect this time to be different? [Source]
72340. Albatross at 07:37 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Bob @87, Excellent points. Despite claims to the contrary, the spin is not coming from you.
72341. Albatross at 07:35 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Hi Dr. Pielke @86, "In the mean time, can you avoid your nitpicking. :-) " I'm sorry, I was somehow of the understanding that eminent scientists should be held to a higher standard, and that getting the facts right is what we scientists strive to do. Silly me :) Some, not I, might even go so far as to post a picture of Pinnochio in association with someone's name because they were perceived to be in error ;) The nice things about blogs Dr. Pielke, is that it is much easier to make corrections or post updates than it is to get a corrigendum published. I'm sure that readers here are looking forward to seeing you correct the record on your blog regarding 1) The 1998 start date, 2) The relative contribution of CO2 and 3) The claim about OHC. You have posted updates in the past on your blog, so doing so is not without precedent. PS: I have responded to your claims about OHC here.
       Moderator Response: fixed link
72342. Albatross at 07:33 AM on 19 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       Dr. Pielke, The amount of heat accumulated in the top 700 m varied by the team processing the data, and one is dealing with a very short window of time, so we should be very cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions or making generalizations. You seem to be making the same error with the OHC data as you are with the RSS data--drawing conclusions that are not justified by the data, or more specifically, the shorty time frame involved. For what it is worth, the accumulated heat since 2003 using the data of Palmer et al. is actually slightly higher than what you estimated using Hansen et al.'s (2005) estimate-- time will tell which analysis is more reliable.
72343. Bob Lacatena at 07:26 AM on 19 October 2011
       Comparing Global Temperature Predictions
       16, muon, The 2010 post to which you refer should be added to the Lessons from Predictions button search results.
72344. pielkesr at 07:25 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Bob Loblaw - You can keep seeking to spin, but the data do speak for themselves. If, for example, there are no more Joules in the climate system after one year, the heating (in terms of an annual average) there is no accumulation of heat that time period. It says nothing about the long term trend, but it certainly not "noise" as long as the measurements are robust. Statistical uncertainty can be placed around the actual value, as Josh Willis did. If you cannot agree to this obvious fact, I am sure others who read this weblog will. Time to move on.
       Response:

       [DB] "If, for example, there are no more Joules in the climate system after one year"

       Straw man.  In the absence of any significance testing, which you adamently refuse to do, a time series of just one year is meaningless.  Therefore any conclusions (those comments/inferences you persist in making) which follow are also without meaning; a noise in the wind.

       The science moves on to things of substance; your persistence in prosecuting this meme speaks volumes.

72345. muoncounter at 07:15 AM on 19 October 2011
       Comparing Global Temperature Predictions
       Icarus#15: "Hansen's 1981 projections" Did it way back here.
72346. DSL at 07:08 AM on 19 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Steven Sherwood has a piece in this month's Physics Today comparing climate science denial with "inconvenient truths" of the past. The comment stream is, of course, filled with unevidenced silliness.
72347. Icarus at 07:06 AM on 19 October 2011
       Comparing Global Temperature Predictions
       How about Hansen's 1981 projections? - Unfortunately I'm not up to the task of adjusting these projections according to how emissions have actually panned out in the last 30 years, but it seems to me that Hansen did pretty well even that long ago.
72348. Bob Loblaw at 06:00 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       In addition to Dikran's description of the Scientific Method in #79, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that when writing about scientific work, it is fundamentally important to distinguish between observation, interpretation, and conclusion. In terms of something statistical, the data are observations, the regression is an interpretation of the data, but to draw conclusions pretty much requires some sort of significance testing. In Dr. Pielke's comment #69, he says

       First, I am NOT saying anything about the effect of the lack of warming in the global-annual average surface temperature since 2002 or 1999 (or whatever start year) on the long term trend. I agree it is too short of a record. However, it is trivial in my view (and does not need any statistical evaluation) to see that the warming has halted,

       ...so that although he admits that the time period is too short for significance testing, he is going to go ahead and draw a conclusion anyway. The phrase "the warming has halted", is not an observation. It is not an interpretation. It is a conclusion. An unjustified (and in this case, unjustifiable) conclusion. Dr. Pielke is trying to say something, and he appears to be wanting to be able to say it even though he knows there is no significance testing to back it up.
72349. pielkesr at 05:59 AM on 19 October 2011
       Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
       Hi Albatross "Additionally, you initially claimed on your blog that there has been zero accumulation of heat in the upper 700 m of the oceans since the beginning of 2003 (that error is still present on your blog for all to see), not "limited warming" since 2004. I am, sadly, beginning to have serious doubts that you are interesting in discussing the science in good faith." You should date when I made these statements. In the figure in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf provided by Josh Willis, there was no warming, averaged over a year using his best estimate of the mean (with uncertainties shown). In 2011, the plot http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/, the plot is still ~flat since ~2003. However, on SkS, data has been shown that has some warming in the upper oceans. In order to be inclusive of your view and that of others at SkS, more recently, I wrote (and presented at my Waterloo talk) that there has been some warming. In any measure, however, it is well below what the models predict in terms of the long term accumulation. I see in the SkS post bt Rob Painting that it is expected to resume at a higher rate. This is a good test of the models and time will tell. In the mean time, can you avoid your nitpicking. :-)
72350. CBDunkerson at 05:16 AM on 19 October 2011
       SkS Weekly Digest #20
       Gotta disagree with you there John. The 'false equivalence' bit is what most of the media does. Fox, on the other hand, gives you your choice of multiple clueless blowhards.

Prev  1439  1440  1441  1442  1443  1444  1445  1446  1447  1448  1449  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  Next