Recent Comments

Prev  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  Next

Comments 73051 to 73100:

73051. Bob Loblaw at 09:17 AM on 6 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       

       Jonathan@35: I moved from absolute costs to changes in costs just for your benefit, but you still think they are misleading.

       What was misleading was expressing them as percentages. I can't know what you intended to portray, but expressing it as a 10% drop in heating costs and a doubling (i.e. 100% increase) of cooling costs does not make it clear which change is larger in simple dollars. Taking two numbers and dividing them by two different denominators before comparing them is not useful. It's the numerators that give a clear picture. Is there a reason why you thought that percentages was a better measurement? The way you originally wrote it, it looks like it would take a huge (100%) increase in cooling costs to offset a small (10%) savings in heating costs. "Huge" and "small" in this context cannot be compared, as they have different baselines. When you go to actual dollars, the equivalency is crystal clear.
73052. Philippe Chantreau at 08:58 AM on 6 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       My comment was based on past experiences that go back to over a year, perhaps they have adjusted since. However, R.P. Sr. tried that avenue right here not long ago. In any case, thanks for the correction.
73053. Peter Hogarth at 08:33 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Micawber at 01:13 AM on 6 October, 2011 I don’t dispute significantly varying surface layer temperatures and profiles, (I’m not sure anyone is) so I hope we’re not at cross purposes here. However the diurnal etc variations are certainly accounted for in SST. I fear there may be confusion between SST measurements and OHC measurements (from profiles). SST: One of the best most recent papers on SST bias corrections is Kennedy 2011. For Marine Air Temperatures being used to correct bias in SST, see for example Smith 2001, For OHC, (forget intakes and buckets), latest paper on XBT corrections back to late 1960s is Hamon 2011. On upper layer OHC, for early 20th century temperature profiles were mainly recorded using pressure-protected reversing thermometers (used since late 19th century), by the 1950s these were accurate to around 0.02°C, and there were thousands of profiles taken globally, (starting to get something approaching sparse “global” coverage but not with fine depth resolution) we also had MBTs and then STDs and CTD probes as you know, see Ishi 2003. Another approach when looking at atmosphere/ocean interactions is to look at proxies such as the depth of the mixed layer Lorbacher 2005, which I imagine you'll find interesting. Hope these are useful. A lot of the detail on sensors is in your Emery and Thompson, I believe.
73054. DSL at 07:56 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Rob, I would agree that the planet will respond to any human-based forcings. However, if the forcing is rapid and severe enough, the current path of the biosphere will be permanently altered, and the biosphere has a great deal to say about the global carbon balance and the composition of the atmosphere. That idea of "self-correction" disturbs me, because it implies that a "correct" state is definable in the interests of something non-human. Roughly 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria altered the Earth (both the biosphere and indirectly the shape of the surface) permanently. There was no "correction" to this event. There was simply a permanent change, and life had to adapt or disappear.
73055. meagain at 07:41 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Hi Dana, I think by "SOURCE" you mean "SEARCH".
       Response:

       [dana1981] Correct, thanks

73056. muoncounter at 07:36 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       FundMe#18: "Which leads me to believe that you actually agree with people like Monkton that the climate has a low sensitivity" You are free to believe what you like, but we try to base our understanding on science. See the science-based thread on paleoclimate and sensitivity. You will note on that thread that paleo data is quite useful in determining a likely range of sensitivity far greater than anything Monckton dreamed up. All quite contrary to your as yet unsubstantiated 'other planet' assertions.
73057. KR at 07:34 AM on 6 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Philippe Chantreau - Actually, I have posted a number of times on several of the 'skeptic' blogs, and while some of the other posters have complained about my anonymous (but consistent) handle, the moderators there have (so far, at least) not objected, and indeed have once or twice told the other posters just that. Of course, that's subject to update if anything changes.
73058. scaddenp at 07:27 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       "that the climate has a low sensitivity response because it has been that way in the past." It has? Cant see that in the published science. "I just cant see how we can use the past to assert such claims for the future." Because the laws of physics are same. You use the same climate model for LGM as you use for tomorrow. The initial and boundary conditions are different but the physics and consequent processes are the same.
73059. scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 6 October 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Eric, that is great article. However, the worry about pricing externals is doing it efficiently and what to do about external prices that are very uncertain. I doubt any system is perfect though and insisting on perfection would mean doing nothing. I hope conservatives get behind Inglis - he is telling it like it is.
73060. L. Hamilton at 06:47 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       The University of Bremen researchers who had been producing the most detailed daily ice maps and extent time series based on AMSR-E have announced that they will be switching to SSMIS data over the next few days.
73061. Jonathon at 06:43 AM on 6 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       Bob, Yes, that would be a break-even scenario. It shows the relative reliance on the different energy sources. I moved from absolute costs to changes in costs just for your benefit, but you still think they are misleading. The new link worked. It appears that the AC failed due to overuse based on the severe conditions. Future costs to upgrading HVAC systems (both furnaces and air conditioning units fail over time) do not appear in the report, and would definitely influence the total costs.
73062. Micawber at 06:24 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Albatross@32 "But if you wish to insist that the data are not reliable prior to 1993, then also consider Willis et al. (2004) and Lyman et al. (2010). Both these papers show robust warming of the oceans between 1993 and 2003 and between 1993 and 2008, respectively" Yes I agree completely. The oceans certainly do show robust warming. Thank you for the comments.
73063. Philippe Chantreau at 06:18 AM on 6 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       GEP, the comments policy is well formulated. If you don't understand what is inflammatory, perhaps you should switch your focus from discussing climate science to working on your English. You should still feel privileged though: if we were using WUWT standards, the simple fact of being anonymous would earn you heaps of scorn and would likely get you banned. I'm not speaking on behalf of the mods, only as another commenter.
73064. RemootSensing at 06:04 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Some sad news regarding the ability to collect sea ice data has been published by Roy Spencer (and WUWT) with regards to the AMSR-E instrument which supplies the JAXA data. The instrument was designed for a 6 years mission and is currently at 9+. Unfortuntately, the device is creating too much torque and has caused problems for the other instruments on board the bird (Aqua) and has been shutdown. At first, the instrument was placed in a safe mode (4 rpm versus a nominal 40 rpm) but that still caused high jitter on the satellite and is now, essentially, shutdown. The next instrument to replace it, AMSR2, is not scheduled to launch until early next year.
73065. Micawber at 06:00 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Tom Curtis@32 I am very familiar with the papers you mention. Are you saying their data is based on scientifically acquired in situ measurements from calibrated instruments by fully qualified scientists? VOS data certainly is not. You need to put error bars on the SST data. Models are tuned with [ -snipped-] (OK call it diffusion factors) to fit the dataset so it can then be used for prognostication. If you input data with wide error bars then of course your model will struggle to adjust. I use SST in full knowledge that it used as the temperature of a supposedly well-mixed surface layer. There is no evidence of this well-mixed layer. Indeed, on the contrary, there is evidence, cited by me, of strong near-surface gradients in all the world oceans. Is this in dispute? If it is not well-mixed and there are substantial gradients and you took your sample from an unknown depth, just what is the heat content of the supposed well-mixed layer that isn't? Do you believe ocean surface layers are well mixed? Do you not believe the in situ evidence of temperature and salinity gradients in mid ocean? Do you have any in situ data on the correlation of Marine Air Temperature and actual SST? These are not strawmen. The papers you cite are all based on statistical data with no raw data available to check for corrections and are without error bars. I have looked at this in depth and this is real data-based skepticism. If the models based on this errorful ocean data were reliable, the predictions of warming would not consistently come out too low! The models are not working because they have been tuned to an error-prone oceanic dataset. Skeptics have trawled over the land data and there are no really serious problems with it (Climategate etc). This simply has not been done for the ocean data. I hope I'm wrong. If you know of detailed studies that have checked out bucket temperatures versus seawater intake versus satellite data and continuous data on salinity and temperature profiles from the surface down to 50m or 100m in all the oceans, I'd love to see them. I am a data-based scientist. Show me the evidence. Please do not quote evidence from models based on un-ground-truthed datasets with unknown error bars. Ocean heat from 1995 onwards shows a strong upward trend. Datasets for this period are more and more detailed and extensive though not in the near-surface layers. I believe if you tuned your full coupled ocean-atmosphere models for 1995-2008 period you would get more reliable results. We always need more ground truth. I know it is expensive. However, no amount of tuning models will substitute for detail accurate data from the oceans with known error ranges. Near surface dynamics are not trivial and require a detailed understanding of the dynamics from actual measurements. All the latest ground truth data from the oceans suggests they hold much more heat than the models suggest. Surely that is reason enough to check the original data for its validity?
73066. Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Funny how WUWT is always attacking the idea of science by consensus (which really is a strawman the way they define it); yet they engage merrily in scientific prediction by consensus, which amounts to nothing more than collective wishful thinking and ends up so far off it's a total joke. Djon, if Goddard got anything right at all in his history of ramblings on the Arctic, it is purely by chance. I nothe that neither him nor Bastardi made an attempt at explaining what kind of methodology they were using to come up with their "predictions." It is really unfortunate that so much time and attention has to be wasted on these people's disinformation efforts.
73067. Rob Honeycutt at 05:58 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Alleycat is correct that the planet will most likely "self correct" whatever we do to it. The challenge is how to survive the correction. Better yet, how do we avoid pushing the planet to a point where a self correction is inevitable?
73068. Albatross at 05:32 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Let it be noted that the posters here have been patient and polite to AlleyCat. Yet s/he keeps insisting that people are making comments about his/her persona, when all people are trying to do are point out the problems with his/her logic and understanding of the science. And rather ironic too, given that he/she has been the one making inflammatory comments about people here. But all that aside, even if people here were being rude or whatever, that would not be an excuse to dismiss the physics, the data and the observations.
73069. GEP at 05:14 AM on 6 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Thank you, once again, for your expert guidance. Perhaps I can prevail upon you to advise me on what you found inflammatory? I imagine such insights will prove especially instructive to us, the uninitiated.
       Response:

       [DB] "Perhaps I can prevail upon you to advise me on what you found inflammatory?"

       In your previous comment?  Pretty much everything after the first sentence.  An example from this comment above is "I imagine such insights will prove especially instructive to us, the uninitiated."  Perhaps you don't realize, but the tone is provocative.  Or perhaps you do.

       This forum exists for everyone to gain from the sharing of knowledge, free from condescending tones, heckling and invective (among other things). Seekers of knowledge here include scientists from other disciplines and lay people alike:  all are treated equally, and with respect.  Those that are able to contribute do so in the fashions and frequencies that they are able.

       It is noted that some feel the moderation policies here are too constraining and choose to take their participation elsewhere; this choice stands before you now. 

       Those that remain generally consider SkS to be one of the forums most conducive for learning things about climate science among the intertubes.

73070. dana1981 at 05:04 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       I don't have the raw ice age data, but it looks like the total amount of multi-year ice was roughly the same in 2010 and 2011. Basically the short-term recovery of ice extent after the 2007 minimum created more first-year ice, which in turn led to more second and third year ice the next few years. But the decline in total ice extent in from 2010 to 2011 roughly offset that short-term multi-year ice percentage increase.
73071. Djon at 04:47 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Dana, Maybe you should try to run the numbers. My attempt to do so after using an on screen pixel measuring tool to measure the percentage of 2-year and older ice in September 2010 and 2011 and multiply that by the monthly average extents yielded a result of his prediction just barely coming true. Whichever way that comes out, the point remains that his predictions are for ice age, not ice volume or thickness. Though he was certainly guilty of a bit of sleight of hand with his switch from discussing thickness to ice age, as though the two correlated perfectly.
73072. dana1981 at 04:03 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Yes it should, KR. Djon - Goddard said the amount of multi-year ice would increase, in addition to his likely wrong prediction about 5-year-old ice. Technically the total percentage of multi-year ice did increase, but almost all of that increase was from 2-year ice, and that's also an increase in percentage, not amount. I haven't run the numbers, but given the decrease in total amount of sea ice, I suspect his prediction of an increase in amount of multi-year ice from 2010 to 2011 is wrong.
73073. Djon at 03:42 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       I hate to defend Goddard but "Goddard Also Wrong on Ice Thickness/Volume" doesn't seem to me to be an accurate characterisation of what he wrote since the only thing he ventured a prediction about in the linked blog post was ice age. I think it's entirely plausible that he'll end up being right that there will be an uptick in the amount of five year ice in 2013 compared to 2012.
73074. Albatross at 03:26 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Hello Alleycat, The climate system is complex, no doubt, but scientists have increased their understanding on it immensely over the last 150 years or so. Not knowing everything, does not equate to knowing nothing. We do not know everything about how the human heart operates, but surgeons operate and save lives each and every day. We have known for some time (and past climate change has aided scientists in understanding this) now that doubling or trebling or even quadrupling CO2 levels in a very short time is going to have a dramatic impact on the climate system and biosphere. Indeed, those changes are already evident in data collected/observed across many scientific disciplines. No models required. You say "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself." You seem to be trying to apply Le Chatelier's principle, but in the wrong context. I encourage you to read this great article by Dr. Bill Chameides. "If this was all so obvious, then the majority of scientists would concur, but they don't." It has been quite obvious for quite some time now actually (e.g., seminal research by Tyndall,Arrhenius, Callendar etc.). Not that science is done by consensus, but the vast majority of scientists who are working in climate related fields do agree on the theory (not hypothesis) of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change. That there is allegedly "no consensus" is currently ranked as Skeptic Myth #4. Regardless, the agreement goes beyond "consensus", it is in fact consilience. Hope that this helps.
73075. Bob Loblaw at 03:25 AM on 6 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       

       Jonathan@33: the savings would likely outweigh the costs (a 10% savings in winter equals a doubling in summer).

       An unsupported assertion. After using misleading absolute costs, instead of changes in costs, you now are using percentages of those absolute costs, which is also misleading. Let's say I spend $700/year on heating, and $70/year on cooling. I save 10% on heating, or $70. I double my cooling costs, and I've spent the $70 again. That's a break-even example (and probably a realistic ballpark estimate). The "10%" or "doubling" comparison is irrelevant. And that's just operating costs on an existing system, not modifications to add capacity. The link in my comment 32 appears to have an extra "/" at the end. Try this: Brutal heat, humidity wreaking havoc at hospitals No, it wasn't a record temperature. It was a prolonged period of near-record temperatures, but the important point is that those high temperatures were accompanied by high humidity, which is unusual for the region: Heat Waves is a link to a SaskAdapt web site with an article on adapting to changing climate conditions. It includes a discussion of the 2007 events and adaptations required by the hospitals.

       I do not know the costs of upgrading either a heating or cooling system for a hospital.

       Apparently Regina-Qu'Appelle Health Region does: $3.7 million. That's for two hospitals, but I have no idea if the modifications are designed to handle just the 2007 conditions, or whether they've planned in advance to deal with continued increases in heat and humidity in the future. (Note that the $3.7 million figure also includes some non-HVAC operating room changes, but the list of upgrades is in the press release, and most of it is in the HVAC systems.) News Releases: Improvements to Heating, Ventilation and Air Cooling Systems, Regina General Hospital and Pasqua Hospital, June 24, 2008
73076. KR at 03:14 AM on 6 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Shouldn't "took up the reigns" be "took up the reins"?
73077. Albatross at 03:07 AM on 6 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       Kevin @33, Have you seen this new paper by Padilla et al. (2011)? "For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, we find a most-likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K with 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3–2.6 K, and we estimate that this interval may be 45% smaller by the year 2030. We calculate that emissions levels equivalent to forcing of less than 475 ppmv CO2 concentration are needed to ensure that the transient temperature response will not exceed 2 K with 95% confidence. This is an assessment for the short-to-medium term and not a recommendation for long-term stabilization forcing; the equilibrium temperature response to this level of CO2 may be much greater. The flat temperature trend of the last decade has a detectable but small influence on TCS."
73078. DSL at 02:50 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Alleycat, "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself. WE ARE A PART OF THAT SYSTEM, not some separate alien invader corrupting it." Alleycat, The idea that the planet tends to correct itself has a definite problem: what is "correct"? What is the ideal state? You don't know, because if you did, and you had evidence, you'd either be considered a major prophet or everyone would already also know. Humans have enjoyed a relatively stable climate for roughly 10,000 years. It's understandable that climate instability is not an element of any original narrative--except perhaps as a distant echo in certain practices and pieces of wisdom. It's also understandable, then, why climate stability might be represented with a Gaia-type character: Earth-and-biosphere-as-being, and as a being in some sort of balance that has recently been upset. No. The earth is what its historical and material conditions (including us) make it. It has been wildly variable in the distant past, and for long periods (very inhospitably so). There is no base climate that the Earth returns to after excursions. There is no base climate that the Earth is heading for (well, there is a set of unpleasant end scenarios involving the "death" of the sun and the "heat death" of the universe). To think that we can't alter climate is to set us outside of nature. We can alter nature, and we make choices every day that increase or decrease the long-range chances for our own happiness, health, security, and freedom (and the same for other parts of the biosphere). I assume from your use of "outlaw" that you are concerned with individual freedom and government regulation. The more that AGW is allowed to become a problem, the more likely a government solution will be necessary--perhaps even a global government solution. At some point, you're going to have to set aside the universals and start up from basic physics. Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits (in all directions) at a specific set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the range at which the Earth emits (having been initially warmed by the sun)? If no, then read the advanced version of this page (again) and provide evidence for your position here. If yes, then do you accept that humans are the primary reason why atmospheric carbon has been rapidly increasing over the last 150 years? If no, then provide evidence for your position here and/or here. If yes, then you are pretty much forced to believe that humans are responsible for the activation conditions of a warming mechanism. The question then becomes one of energy balance. Is there enough warming (through positive forcings and feedbacks) to overcome the effects of negative forcings and feedbacks? Answer that question here after reading the article(s).
73079. muoncounter at 02:48 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       alleycat#91: "So even if it is 'man made' it's still 100% natural. " What a useless tautology. Cars are man-made and are therefore 100% natural (by your 'logic'). Yet there are laws to control the use of cars. Should nature just self-correct wayward drivers? Volcanoes? Biggest in recent memory was Pinatubo and it did have an effect on climate - for about 2 years. So? You can learn something about the science here. Thus far your claims (such as 'volcanoes emit more CO2') have all been factually incorrect and everyone commenting has politely told you so -- with references. No one is name-calling and demonizing; the first to accuse another of doing that is usually the one who has lost the argument. If you find it necessary to go that path, you'll find the moderators will quickly show you the door.
73080. Kevin C at 02:46 AM on 6 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       The image is now broken for me, I'm afraid. I've moved it to an image host with which I've got more experience: I've had a quick look into the TCR (transient response) question. The TCR for modelE is 1.5-1.6, which accounts for the difference in results. My empirical value is very similar, but then I use the GISS forcings. This report says "The full range for TCR in the CMIP3 archive is 1.3 to 2.6°C, with a median of 1.6°C and 25 to 75% quartiles of 1.5 to 2.0°C (Randall et al. 2007). Systematic exploration of model input parameters in one Hadley Centre model gives a range of 1.5 to 2.6°C (Collins, M., et al. 2006).". Which is somewhat ambivalent. Dana's method of scaling the TCR happens to give almost exactly the right answer for any given climate sensitivity. Why? Because as it happens the CO2 forcing has increased pretty linearly over the past 40 years (not shown), and the gradient when projected back crosses the zero line about 70 years ago. So we've effectively lived through a TCR experiment scaled down by a factor of 2, and the resultant temperature rise due to CO2 alone is thus also half of TCR. The only question is what is the correct value for TCR: 1.6 or 2.0°C? GISS modelE and most of the CMIP3 models are around the lower end. However more recently Tung at U.Wash has argued for significantly higher values from solar cycle data.
73081. Albatross at 02:35 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Tom @32, We cross posted. You of course make a very valid point about oceanic heat content and sea surface temperatures. Someone seems to be intent on arguing strawmen.
73082. Albatross at 02:27 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Micawbr, I'm sorry but you are saying an awful lot without really saying anything substantive, and are not raising issues that have not already been dealt with in the literature. I encourage you to read Lau and Weng (1999), AchutaRao et al. (2007), Lyman and Johnson (2008), Domingues et al. (2008), Levitus et al. (2009), or DelSole et al. (2011). These papers deal with the sampling and instrument issues, and they all note that decadal variability is evident in the ocean SSTs and OHC. What scientists are now interesting in determining is what exactly is happening during hiatus periods, and models are a very useful tools for such experiments/investigations. "I personally do not consider the periods before [1995] then to be valid until I see proof of the input data." That is your opinion and not that of the scientists who work in the field. As for the reliability of the early OHC data, Lyman and Johnson (2008) conclude: "From 1955 to 1966, in situ ocean sampling is inadequate to estimate accurately annual global integrals of the proxy upper OHCA. During this period, the SI for the sampling pattern of any given year underestimates the 13-yr trend in proxy OHCA from 1993 to 2006 by around 70%, and confidence limits for the WI are often very large. From 1967 to 2003 there appear to be sufficient data to estimate annual global integrals. " So we can perhaps agree that one should be looking at data since ~1967 and not 1955. The hiatus periods identified by Rob Painting include that interval of what is deemed to include reliable data. More information on the various OHC chronologies can be found here But if you wish to insist that the data are not reliable prior to 1993, then also consider Willis et al. (2004) and Lyman et al. (2010). Both these papers show robust warming of the oceans between 1993 and 2003 and between 1993 and 2008, respectively. You claim "Argo floats switch off near the surface and in any case only operate in deep waters". That is not an accurate description. There are two standard mission operations: "In the simple mission, the float descends to a certain depth, often 2000m, and then begins its temperature and salinity profile from that depth. In the park and profile mission, the float descends to a certain depth, 1000m is recommended, and then descends to 2000m to start the temperature and salinity profile. In the beginning of 2010, 70% of floats profile to depths greater than 1500m. Another 20% profile to between 1000 and 1500m."
73083. Tom Curtis at 02:05 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Micawber @31, ocean heat content measurements and SST measurements are not the same thing. Therefore your issue about buckets and intakes is a non-issue with regard to ocean heat content. Further, there have been frequent studies of the influence on various measurement techniques on the SST record, including: Jones and Briffa, 1992 Parker et al, 1995 Folland and Parker, 1995 Casey et al, 1999 Rayner et al, 2003 Rayner et al, 2006 Thompson et al, 2008 and Casey et al, 2010
73084. Tom Curtis at 01:45 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Alleycat @91:

       "Name calling and demonizing someone because they don't agree with your 'deeply held beliefs' is the first sign that you've lost the argument. "

       Actually, claiming somebody has lost the argument based on some trivia entirely unrelated to the science is a fairly sure sign that you have no substantive argument to offer. As an aside, the whole "global warming"/"climate change" issue is a complete non-issue that just makes you look silly (watch the video - you'll know what I mean).
73085. Micawber at 01:41 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       There was an excellent example of the jet stream loop in the north Atlantic at the beginning of October 2011. It could be seen on some weather charts looping up the western side of the Azores high and the eastern side of the Iceland low. This brought unusually high temperatures to northern Europe and southern UK while Northern Ireland and central Scotland had cloudy, warm frontal conditions. Now the jet stream has resumed its West-East flow and normal westerlies bring temperatures more usual for this time of year. One would think a large volume of warm salty water was transported northward during the period. Thank you for a great explanation of the conditions applicable during these transitions. Is there a site where real time jet streams can be found. I currently use ugrib weather that shows isobars and rain. Jet stream has to be inferred.
73086. IanC at 01:33 AM on 6 October 2011
       It's ozone
       Shibui, The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area ... The abnormally cold arctic stratosphere this spring is attributed to a lack of polar vortex disruption (which is turn is a result of weak planetary waves). The strong vortex keeps the arctic stratospheric air isolated, allowing it to cool sufficiently to form clouds. As the stratosphere continues to cool due to an increase in green house gas, it'll be interesting to see if this occurs more frequently.
73087. IanC at 01:23 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Alleycat, Your understanding of climate science is deeply flawed. The shift to the term "climate change" because the effect of global warming goes far beyond a simple increase in temperature. It affects rainfall pattern, ocean acidity etc. Global warming is the cause, climate change are the symptoms. No working climatologist believes that we are heading into an ice age. Global warming theory came long before the first computer arrive, and the theory have been verified through multiple observations and experiments. None of the 10 fingerprints albatross cited requires the use of a computer model. Computer models themselves are tested continuously against observations to ensure that the physics are captured correctly. You should also check out How reliable are climate models? Your belief that Volcano emits more CO2 is flat out wrong, as Dikran pointed out.
73088. Micawber at 01:13 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Michael Sweet@27 “The issues with sea temperatures that you point out are well known. The scientists involved try to adjust the data to correct the problems. Are you suggesting that we should wait until "someone" decides to fund much improved ocean sampling before we attempt to model anything?” What first alarmed me was the graphic at the beginning of the post. “Ocean Heat Content 1955 – 2008”. From 1955-1995 WMO VOS obtained surface seawater temperature (SST) by methods which changed from hand sampled buckets to seawater engine intake temperatures to satellite IR. Method changes occurred at different times for ships of different nations. I believe UK ships used bucket methods longest and even designed their own meteorological bucket. Corrections were made, the most drastic of which were during the two transition periods. Original raw observation data are not always available to go back and look at. As far as I can research, there have been no published scientific studies of either bucket or seawater intake corrections and their proven validity. That applies to corrections for supposed, but not proven, evaporative cooling of buckets on deck and engine room warming of intake seawater. As I originally pointed out, the physics for the latter is wrong. If heat flowed from a hot room into room radiators/convectors we would use them for central cooling not central heating. Seawater intake piping is generally not a good heat absorber being short, cylindrical metal pipes with fast flowing water. Moreover since seawater intake temperatures were measured at an unknown depth and, like bucket temperatures, were made by un-paid, unsupervised, non scientists with uncalibrated instruments, I am very skeptical of the validity of that data for the period 1955-1995. I spoken to people who were volunteers on merchant ships who confirmed that methods were very sloppy because they got no feedback. I am a physicist with experience in meteorology and oceanography and in instrument design, deployment at sea, data analysis and modelling so I am well aware of both the need for models to run with Navier-Stokes equations correctly accounting for the physics and with the most reliable input data. If you know SST corrections applied in the critical period and have examined the raw data together with the depth of the samples, then I would be very glad to see it. The published data rely on statistics rather than examining actual raw data in detail. Until the raw data and corrections applied become available I remain skeptical of data for the period. Data were derived by climatologists for use in climate models. The last seagoing meteorologist I could find in the literature conducted bucket measurements in 1926. Oceanographic data by seagoing oceanographers were taken in the deep sea and did not sample the near-surface layer as I stated (even along Line P). I am aware there are attempts to build surface sampling Argo floats but that only addresses part of the problem. Has there been any follow-up to the extensive Soviet near-surface work on gradients I cited? In short, your graph 1955-2008, can only be considered in the period 1995-2008 when satellite, ship, buoy and float data became available. I personally do not consider the periods before then to be valid until I see proof of the input data. So the answer to your questions is Yes, use only the most reliable data for models and that comes after 1995 not before. Rob Painting@30. I am sorry you do not understand my comment on the upper 50m. I understand that STD casts take at 3m and 10m sample depth at best and current generation Argo floats switch off near the surface to avoid contaminating sensors. Vertical exchange near the surface due to diurnal and seasonal heating and cooling are an interesting and important component of ocean heat budget. I eagerly await your post on the surface layer exchange.
73089. pauls at 00:59 AM on 6 October 2011
       Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
       skywatcher - Sorry, the two 'places' weren't meant to imply the same location. All the instances I know where glaciers are advancing are likely caused by increased precipitation due to warmer conditions. There is a post titled Speculative polar cartography that's just gone up on RC.
73090. Alleycat at 00:58 AM on 6 October 2011
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       Albatross, NO ONE seems to understand the science behind climate change, not even the scientists who espouse it. Remember when you were all calling it 'Global Warming'? Now it's 'climate change' because you're all not sure if we'll end up with an ice age instead. A science that relies mostly on computer models as opposed to observation is completely flawed. If this was all so obvious, then the majority of scientists would concur, but they don't. muocounter, one volcano can throw out more CO2 and ash into the upper atmosphere than all the coal power plants on the planet combined. What are your plans to stop that? Outlaw volcanoes and undersea gas jets? The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself. WE ARE A PART OF THAT SYSTEM, not some separate alien invader corrupting it. So even if it is 'man made' it's still 100% natural. The earth created us and it can destroy us just as easily. I'm fine with that, but you all seem to think you're some splendid shepherds of the planet, when in fact we're just another life form on it. Name calling and demonizing someone because they don't agree with your 'deeply held beliefs' is the first sign that you've lost the argument. [snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory comment deleted, please read the comments policy and make sure your posts conform to it more closely in future. We are very happy here to discuss the science with those who disagree with the mainstream poistion. However, it would be helpful if you were to first find out what the mainstream position is on the science, for instance volcanos do not produce more CO2 than anthropogenic emissions. Many of these facts can be easily checked by looking at the list of most used climate myths (on the left of the page), and then if in doubt, following the links given to the peer reviewed science. There is a possibility that you have been mislead, and some self-skepticism is a valuable quality in anyone wishing to discuss the science.

       By the way, understanding is not binary, there are issues in climatology that are very well understood, others where there is considerable uncertainty. This is much the same as in any other science. The use of computer models is not an indication that science is flawed. For example predicting planetary orbits into the distant future (i.e. astronomical timescales) is a special case of the n-body problem, which is analytically intractable, and as a result you need a computer to do the calculations. Does this mean that the science of planetary motion is flawed? Of course not. (note that the observations we have of planetary motion are the merest blink of an eye on astronomical timescales, so the science of planetary motion is no different from climatology from the point of use of observations).
73091. FundME at 00:30 AM on 6 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       muoncounter. Only within this context. What we can learn from the Last Interglacial time period. Understanding this period may provide clues on how the environment may respond to similar conditions in the future. Which leads me to believe that you actually agree with people like Monkton that the climate has a low sensitivity response because it has been that way in the past. I just cant see how we can use the past to assert such claims for the future. If you read my earlier posts and the replys to them you will be able to see how I arrived at this conclusion.
73092. muoncounter at 23:50 PM on 5 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman#178, While it may be possible to shrug off the 2003 European heat wave as 'just weather,' what about the 2006, 2007 and 2010 heat waves? FYI: here is the WMO definition of heat wave; others may have differences. Please avoid citing disinformation denial sites as 'references;' a practice that does little save damage your credibility.
73093. muoncounter at 23:36 PM on 5 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       FundMe#16: "today's world is so different in might as well be another planet" Please clarify this statement, with reference to supporting literature. As it is, it contradicts fundamental principles of sciences like geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, certain aspects of physics and chemistry, etc.
73094. Jonathon at 23:25 PM on 5 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       Bob, That is one of the unanswered questions. With projected temperatures to rise more in the winter than summer, the savings would likely outweigh the costs (a 10% savings in winter equals a doubling in summer). The link to the Regina hospitasl is broken, and apparently did not come close to any of the records. http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/hottest.php I do not know the costs of upgrading either a heating or cooling system for a hospital or any other business. Another reason why this report contains too little information.
73095. Kevin C at 23:21 PM on 5 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       Here's my calculation of temperature due to CO2 forcing. The data is MLO from 1959, from here from 1832-1958. Forcing calculated as 3.7*log(co2/284)/log(2). Temperature response function calculated from (a) GISS model E forcings vs 20thC temps, (b) GISS model E forcings vs CMIP3 GISS model E ensemble average temperature. The temperature change estimate of 0.9C from CO2 alone in the article looks a touch on the high side. Why the difference? I get a slightly lower transient sensitivity than 2C/x2 for both the empirical and modelE cases. I think that's consistent with Hansen & Sato 2011 - I think the modelE response is slower some models, giving a lower ratio of transient to long term response. However, I haven't checked to see if they report a figure for transient response.
       Moderator Response:

       [mc] fixed image link

73096. mspelto at 23:13 PM on 5 October 2011
       Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
       Tom #44 well put, the idea of an advance in the 1960's and 1970's sufficient to cross a deep water albeit narrow strait is just not realistic. This would be a major advance for a small glacier like this. First it would have to thicken enough to remain and advance into the deeper water without simply calving more icebergs. There have been plenty of glaciers examined during this period in Greenland and this does not fit the pattern. Notice the Mittivakkat update from Mernild for 2011
73097. Eric (skeptic) at 21:34 PM on 5 October 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Just a quick followup on Bob Inglis: he lost to the Tea Party in a primary last year and the baby went out with the bathwater. Although it's going to be difficult to turn the Tea Party back to the path of science, it's not impossible.
73098. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:30 PM on 5 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman Yes, I recommend reading the US Climate Change Science Program report. I read it when it first came out - it's more technical than Powell's book and it may answer some of the questions you have. With regards to the European heat wave, I understand that anomalous meteorological conditions were the main cause of the event, but I don't see how, without a quantitative analysis, you can conclude that human-induced global warming did not contribute to the event. Nor can you state categorically, of course, that global warming did contribute to it. The take-away point from that section, according to Powell (based on Stott et al.'s paper), is that such heat waves become more probable in a warmer world. Which set the scene for the 2010 Russian heat wave, an event that was even more unusual than the 2003 European heat wave. I don't think cases should be taken in isolation though - it is the number of record-breaking high temperatures worldwide in recent years that make the case. I'm not sure what to say about your point on the lack of mechanism to explain more intense rainfall and drought. This is fairly well established in the literature. Would this article provide the information you need? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
73099. JMurphy at 21:24 PM on 5 October 2011
       2011 Sea Ice Minimum
       This image always amuses me, and it can be applied to any year which isn't a record : (Source)
73100. barry1487 at 21:17 PM on 5 October 2011
       Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
       KR@27 You say;

       "There's definitely correlation of anomalies, as has been demonstrated over and over again. However, in this case, those stations are entirely too far to to judge the actual temperature. Anomalies correspond over great distances, but the offsets at each location are very much determined by local geography and weather patterns. An anomaly dataset from 800km just doesn't tell you what the offset at Warming Island would be."

       I'll be frank - I haven't read Pat Michaels article (please don't make me). But the correlation of anomalies is the point, not the absolute temperature. All that is needed is to show that 1957 was about as warm as 2005 at some station <1000kms from W. Island. Then it may be inferred that W. Island was as warm in 1957 as in 2005, and therefore W. Island was visible in 1957, and therefore recent warming is not unusual and Al Gore shops at Big Men. * This point is now moot. The counterargument based on nearer proxies and the lack of multi-annual warm temps in the 1950s (for equivalent melt) seems pretty strong to me. I appreciated the replies to my query, including yours, KR.

Prev  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  Next