Recent Comments

Prev  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  Next

Comments 73251 to 73300:

73251. KR at 04:17 AM on 4 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakeslee - The Laschamp anomaly certainly indicates that magnetic field variations (induced either by solar activity or Earth field fluctuations) do not affect climate via throttling cosmic ray activity. And no matter what affect the magnetic fields have upon cosmic rays, there has been no appreciable change in cosmic ray amounts over the last 100 years during this time of global warming. Your other theories (as presented in this thread), including Landscheidt's cycles, are equally poorly supported. Cosmic rays are just not a major forcing.
73252. Steve Brown at 03:27 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       @FundMe #6 - I think you could arguably say the very distant past is "another planet", but the more recent past i.e. the past few million years is very definitely the "same planet". The Earth during the Last Interglacial is virtually identical to todays Earth - the continents and oceans are in virtually the same place, atmospheric composition is similar to the recent past, and it pretty much has the same species of plant and animal (barring those that have recently gone extinct). So looking at the proxy record of the recent past can be extremely valuable for allowing us to constrain climate sensitivity to various forcings, as well as understanding the rate of change and responses in the environment. All the various factors that can have an effect on climate change operate on wildly different timescales. The increasing energy output from the Sun has happened over billions of years. The sequestration of carbon and changes to atmospheric compostion has taken hundreds of millions of years of plant evolution. Plate tectonics changes contintental configuration over tens to hundreds of millions of years. The increased rock weathering from mountain uplift, leading to sequestration of atmospheric CO2 to the ocean and formation of limestone also happens over millions of years. Changes in insolation due to orbital configuration happens over thousands to tens of thousands of years, ice-albedo feedbacks operate over decades to centuries, global land use changes and massive clearance of forests by humans happens over 8000 years, short-circuiting the long term carbon cycle leading to the greatest rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in Earth's history happpens over a few decades.....
73253. renewable guy at 03:19 AM on 4 October 2011
       Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
       Long wrong Patrick Michaeals. Some people are paid to be accurate and correct in what they do. Others are paid to be professionally wrong. Weather men and women take great care to be as accurate as possible, while Micheals is paid to be inaccurate enough to be plausible.
73254. John Hartz at 03:10 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Gavin Schmidt posted "Global warming and ocean heat content" over at Real Climate today (Oct 3 US).
73255. tblakeslee at 03:09 AM on 4 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       KR 114 I finally found time to watch the lecture to the 40 minute mark only to find a brief mention of Laschamp. I'm glad I watched it though as it brought me to discover some fascinating work on the interaction of the earth's magnetic field with that of the sun. During Laschamp event the earth's magnetic field was greatly reduced with little effect on the earth's temperature as measured by C14 and Be10 isotopes. The key seems to be in the fact that cosmic rays include a wide variety of energy levels: The Be and C isotopes are mostly formed high in the atmosphere. Only extremely high energy particles effect climate because they can survive all the way down to the low cloud altitude below 2000 meters. Here is a quote from a 2007 paper by Svensmark: "Although the climate changes of the last 12 000 years have indeed followed the cosmic-ray variations, Beer and Muscheler were already co-authors of a paper arguing strongly that the cosmic rays were not the driver (Wagner et al. 2001). They had striking evidence from 40 000 years ago, in the Laschamp Event when the geomagnetic field became very weak, in what may have been a failed reversal of the field. Without the screening effect of the geomagnetic field, the cosmic-ray influx increased dramatically. In a Greenland ice core, the counts of beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 atoms produced by cosmic rays went up by more than 50% –and no cooling ensued. The result was compelling because the climate indicators – oxygen-18 and methane abundances – came from the same layers of ice as the radionuclides. This clear example of the climate failing to follow the cosmic-ray variations was challenging. No quantitative answer was forthcoming until recent calculations traced the origin of the penetrating muons that are responsible for most of the ionization of the air at low altitudes (Svensmark and Svensmark 2007). Then a clear and consistent picture (figure 7) emerged from the CORSIKA program developed for the Karlsruhe Shower Core and Array Detector of orschungszentrum Karlsruhe, at progressively higher energies of the incoming primary cosmic rays. Most of the penetrating muons come from relatively rare primaries of such high energy that they are indifferent even to the solar magnetic field. Primaries of low enough energy to be repelled by the geomagnetic field account for only 3% of the low-altitude muons. So it is unsurprising that the near-disappearance of the geomagnetic field, whether in Laschamp-type events or full reversals, should have little effect on climate compared with changes due to solar modulation. On the other hand, radionuclides are mainly produced higher in the atmosphere, by cosmic rays of lower energy that are more susceptible to variations in the geomagnetic field. Although they remain invaluable for registering cosmic-ray changes due to solar variability, as in figure 5 for example, radionuclides can no longer be taken as infallible guides to climatically effective cosmic radiation, when either the geomagnetic or the galactic environment changes. http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf Our current understanding of the interaction between the sun and earth is undergoing rapid change. New satellite discoveries are confirming that Alfvin's ideas of an electrical basis were probably correct. Here is a recent discovery: "NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. "The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms". Even more impressive was the substorm's power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 1014) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake." http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
73256. Dana69 at 03:04 AM on 4 October 2011
       There is no consensus
       Albotross, Sorry for taking so long to answer your questions posed @447. Just for the record this thread is regarding consensus; my views regarding any particular point is not relative to this topic. If I am to follow the conclusions of the so called "consensus", any meaningful result would have naturally stemmed from the consensus itself, and not my own views. It becomes circular.
73257. michael sweet at 02:51 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Micawber, 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? How long should we wait? It seems to me that it is better to go with the data you have and then see how your models fit current observed data. Dr. Pielke suggested we should use ocean heat content as the primary measure of AGW, he did not seem concerned about past data problems. The deep ocean has only been lightly sampled in the past. Even today deep ocean data is sparse. If we want to anticipate the future changes we must rely on models to fill in the holes. You make your model with the best data you can. If better data becomes available later you adjust your model to take that into account. That is how scientists do their work. Suggesting we should wait for perfect data is suggesting we should do nothing. The model results are interpreted with the data limitations in mind.
73258. michael sweet at 02:37 AM on 4 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Will the record rain lead to future flooding? Note that the rain is due to weather the entire month, and follows previous flooding, while the snow is due to a single day event.
73259. Micawber at 02:01 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Jonathon 25 Thanks for the comments.Could you supply a link to the Kirtman & Vecchi paper please.
       Moderator Response: [grypo] Here you go.
73260. muoncounter at 01:26 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       FundME#6 No, the past is not "another planet." Paleoclimate provides vital clues to what may happen as we tinker with the environment - given that we understand the impacts of such things as tectonics and orbital parameters. But on the time scale of the next century, of what concern are tectonic and orbital changes?
73261. Jonathon at 01:03 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Thank you Micawber for that very insightful post. I express similar feelings about data vs. modelling, and look forward to future posts. I would add the recent Kirtman and Vecchi paper "Why Climate Modeler Should Worry About Atmospheric and Oceanic Weather" to your list.
73262. FundME at 00:47 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       Am I right in assuming that we can explain the past by examining the proxy record while taking into account all of the various factors tectonics, orbit, etc etc but cant use any of the record to extrapolate the future because of the vast differnces found. As the saying goes "The Past is another Country" but I think in this case we might as well say "The Past is another Planet".
73263. damorbel at 00:22 AM on 4 October 2011
       The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
       Re #293 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I quote your question:- " black-body at a temperature above zero Kelvin. Do you agree that it radiates photons at random time intervals in random directions, with a total power given by the Stefan-Boltzman law (power per unit surface area proportional to fourth power of temperature)?" My response was about 'total power'. Power is 'rate of change of energy' (dW/dt); but there is no need for a body at any temperature to lose energy if it is in a steady state, the mere presence of radiation does not mean a body is losing energy i.e. 'transferring power'. For example, a total internal reflecting cavity, whatever its temperature, does not lose any energy from its interior by radiation. Perhaps what you meant was 'a black body embedded in a black cavity at zero K'. The problem with the usual explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that the photons emitted seem to disappear into some black hole which is not really a useful concept. In the real world 'black body' is also receiving photons from its environment.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K. in response to your obfuscation I will clarify the thought experiment. Consider a exactly spherical blackbody, in an vacuum of infinite dimension (so it is not recieving photons from its environment), without an internal heat source (i.e. it is not at a steady state, although that is irrelevant). Do you agree that it emits photons at random intervals and in random directions, such that the total power (over all of its surface area and over all wavelengths) is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature, according to the Stefan Boltzmann law?

       Please do not attempt to extend the thought experiment in any direction, and give a direct answer to the question. We will get onto the discussion of the temperature of the body and its energy balance later, once we have agreed the nature of its radiation.

73264. Composer99 at 00:18 AM on 4 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       From Steve Brown @ 4: There is also the matter of no period in Earth's history that has seen a very rapid increase in the number of mammals with the ability to cause rapid changes in land use and short-circuit the long-term carbon cycle in the space of a few hundred years. Quoted for truth.
73265. Steve Brown at 23:11 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       @Inconvenient Skeptic - Thanks for your kind comments about the series. However, it seems that you are still bending over backwards to exclude any explanation other than the Sun as being the cause of warmer climates. I'll refer you back to my responses to your earlier comments in Part Two of the series, in particular the fact that modelling studies show that albedo effects from vegetation changes quadrupled the orbital insolation effect during the Eemian. Feedback effects can't be wished away. Also, it's not me who is working too hard to explain the NH warming This series is merely an unbiased review of the range of published literature on the topic. The explanation I'm giving is broadly that of the cumulative body of work on the subject. @FundMe - I'm afraid I can't think of a period off the top of my head where temperature and CO2 match closely to what is currently happening. Marine Isotope Stage 11 Interglacial around 400,000 years ago may be a better analogue for the next century compared to the Eemian / MIS 5e Interglacial, as the orbital configuration is a much better match to the neasr future. Also, MIS 11 was a much longer warm period and may have been slightly warmer than the Eemian. However, atmospheric CO2 was still at a pre-industrial level and no higher than it was during the Eemian. The last period I can think of where there was a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 and a shift to a much warmer climate in a relatively short period of time would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Optimum around 56 million years ago. The problem with finding a past period that is a close analogue of the present day is that there are numerous factors that affect climate: Continental configuration, configuration of sea-ways between oceans, volcanism and tectonic activity, mountain uplift and rates of rock weathering, distribution of vegetation, type of vegetation and marine organisms, energy output of the Sun, Earth's orbital configuration, mix of greenhouse gasses etc. Unfortunately there are no periods in the past where every one of these factors has been similar to today. There is also the matter of no period in Earth's history that has seen a very rapid increase in the number of mammals with the ability to cause rapid changes in land use and short-circuit the long-term carbon cycle in the space of a few hundred years.
73266. Micawber at 23:05 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       [snipped] There are few actual reliable in situ observations especially in the critical near-surface layers. Vecchi et al. (2008) suggested anomalies between HadCru and NOAA SST mid-twentieth century data-sets were due to change in measurement methods from buckets to seawater intake to satellite. (Vecchi, G. A., A. Clement, and B. J. Soden (2008), Examining the tropical Pacific’s response to global warming, EOS, 89(9), 81, 83.) A similar report appeared about the same time in Nature: Thompson, D. W., J. J. Kennedy, J. M. Wallace, and P. D. Jones, (2008), A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature, Nature, 453, 646-649 Seawater intake temperatures were substituted for bucket measurements particularly on US ships during WWII to minimise potential for enemy action during measurements especially at night. A statistical analysis of WMO data suggested a possible error was due to engine room warming of the intake waters. This is included in textbooks as a given (eg Emery & Thomson (2001), but there is no proof and the physics is conclusively negative. (Emery, W. J., and R. E. Thomson, (2001) Data analysis methods in physical oceanography, Elsevier, ISBN 044450757566, 638pp) Indeed a US ONR report suggested engine room warming was extremely unlikely. My calculations suggest that engine room warming of incoming seawater even at air temperatures of 50oC is negligible using realistic flow rates, pipe size and length. Certainly the 0.3oC correction applied is physically unlikely and in the wrong direction. Moreover, there is very strong evidence of substantial temperature gradients in the near surface layers. A temperature gradient of minus 0.1oC/meter has been measured in all oceans with substantially larger or smaller variations depending on the ocean and season. (Federov, K. N., and A. G. Ostrovskii (1986), Climatically Significant Physical Parameters of the Ocean, IOC Time series of ocean measurements Vol. 3 – 1986 IOC Tech. Ser. 31, UNESCO, 9-31.) Soloviev, A V., R Lukas,(1997) Large diurnal warming events in the near-surface layer of the western equatorial Pacific Warm pool Deep Sea Res., 1055-1076 Near Surface dynamics are extensively discussed in the Soloviev and Lukas 2006 book that has recently been issued in paperback The near-surface layer of the ocean By Alexander Soloviev, Roger Lukas Springer 2006 - 572 pages Much of the HadCru ocean data are taken from the Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) program of WMO. Seawater intake temperature was routinely measured as sea surface temperature. Corrections were routinely applied to obtain ‘corrected’ surface temperatures. There is great doubt as to what the relationship of the seawater intake temperatures so derived is to the actual surface or skin temperature given the certain knowledge of substantial temperature and salinity gradients throughout the oceans. The problem is particularly severe from 1955-1995 because there is no record of seawater intake depth on the VOS fleet for that period. The problem, I believe, is further complicated by the substitution of supposed sea surface temperature (SST) for marine air temperature (MAT) in model data. Standard 10m wind data and Stevenson Screen temperature data are used over land. But over water surface wind and SST are used. If the temperature in question is from some unknown depth and correlation to MAT is poor, we are likely to have [snipped] We now have accurate skin temperature and salinity measurements using infrared satellite data. But there is still little data in the upper 10m – 50m of the oceans. Argo floats switch off near the surface and in any case only operate in deep waters. There are huge changes occurring with coastal run-off and ice melt that affect coastal regions and have impact on ocean heat, vertical circulation as well as acidification as detailed in other SkS posts. It is pretty clear that models are not working eg the unexpected rapid arctic ice melt. It is only a year since everyone was predicting that the ice was actually increasing in area. It was only with the discovery, by getting out and looking, that the ice was mostly single year rotten ice, not largely composed of dense thick multi-year ice that the true decline was established as fact. Satellites just did not give those kind of details. So this is a plea for detailed near-surface ocean data especially in near-shore regions where the most rapid change will occur. Until we have better observational data in the near-surface and numerical models that incorporate the full range of air-sea interaction, we should not place a lot of faith in model-based suggestions let alone treat them as forecasts or predictions.
73267. FundME at 23:01 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       DB thank you for your response. If I wished to inform myself as to the future by using the past I would look for a point at which conditions intersect. One could then extrapolate those conditions into the future. My understanding is that Anthropogenic or natural variations in CO2 are indistinguishable with regard to their effect on the climate. I am genuinely interested to see what past conditions were closest to present conditions. I am trying to do the research for myself but it is difficult without the relevant software to produce the graphs accurately and thought that someone else might have done so already thus saving me the work. If in the past there were no meaningful conditions that match the present because of tectonic changes etc how can we use these conditions to extrapolate the future with any certainty. If I am wrong in this assumption I would be glad to be corrected.
73268. Marcus at 22:34 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       I'm going to query that claim about a slow-down in the rate of warming. I have data from both GISS & UAH that show warming for 2000-2010 being *faster* (around +0.015 & +0.017 degrees per year respectively) than the period of 1979-2000 (+0.012 & +0.009 degrees per year respectively). Now sure 10 years of data isn't statistically significant, but that's all the more reason to deride any claims of a "slow-down" in temperatures.
73269. Jonathon at 22:13 PM on 3 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       It appears that there is a misunderstanding among some posters as to the climate of the land known affectionately as the "Great White North." First off, most of us who live north of the 45th parallel do not have air conditioning. We do not need it. Consequently, any increase in summertime temperatures will only marginally affect cooling costs (fans are cheap). On the opposite side, increased wintertime temperatures will gretly affect heating bills. Since the recent warming has resulted largely from warmer nights and milder winters and is projected to continue to do so, any allusion to greater energy costs is ill-informed. Also, any comparison to agriculture in Texas or California is ridiculous. The Canadian wine industry will not be hampered severely by changes in the climate. The few Ontarian growers might actually experienced a boom. While the precipitation increase has been nice for farmers, and added atmospheric CO2 did no harm to the plants wither, the greatest influence was that of a longer growing season. An additional two weeks (or more in some places) greatly increases a relatively short summer. While Spring occurs for many of you on March 21, we are lucky if spring occurs as early as April. Also, color season has already peaed here, and most farmers are preparing for winter (we have already had a good frost and freeze). You may choose to refuse to admit that these changes have occurred, but that does not hide the facts that they have. There is no grasp for positives here, simply stating the truth. But remember, what happens up north may not necessarily be the same as what happens down south. What would be foolish, is to think that it does.
       Response:

       [DB] "First off, most of us who live north of the 45th parallel do not have air conditioning.  We do not need it."

       First of all, those of us who do live north of the 45th parallel (since you don't) do have occasional need of air conditioning.  Do not presume to speak for a set of population to which you do not belong.

       "any allusion to greater energy costs is ill-informed"

       Again you prosecute your long-standing policy of making unsupported allegations as you routinely did in your first iteration here as Eric the Red.  Please change that policy or cease doing so.  Last warning on this issue.

       "The Canadian wine industry will not be hampered severely by changes in the climate."

       IBID.

       "color season has already peaed here"

       Here in this part of the North, color is at peak right now & will remain so for about 1 more week before ebbing.  Note that this is about 2 weeks after normal peak.

       "You may choose to refuse to admit that these changes have occurred, but that does not hide the facts that they have. There is no grasp for positives here, simply stating the truth."

       Actually, the refusal plainly evident is on your part.  You have historically prosecuted an unsupported agenda here of "It's not happening", "It's not us" and "It's not bad", with the continual hand-waving emphasis on the unsupported.

       Your future participation in this Forum is dependant upon a behavioral change on your part.  The choice is yours.

73270. FundME at 20:58 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       Is there a period in the proxy record of past climate, where if we drew a graph showing Global average Temp and CO2 over time and overlay it on a graph of today's Global average Temp and CO2 over time, we would not be able to tell the difference between the graphs apart from the time(historic period). If not at what period in the past were we closest to the present day with regard to CO2 and Temp.
       Response:

       [DB] Try this:

       

       Note that at no point in the last 800,000 years has CO2 levels exceeded 298.7 ppm; thus current CO2 levels are far, far outside the bounds of natural variation:

       

73271. Crispy at 20:48 PM on 3 October 2011
       Monckton, the Anti-Nurse
       The 'Crownies' episode 13 I mentioned at comment 8 is now available through iView online at the ABC. The ep has been picked up by Clive Hamilton at The Drum, and of course the usual bunfight has broken out in comments. Sensible people are linking back to SkS. :)
73272. Eric (skeptic) at 20:14 PM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Yesterday's climate summary from NWS State College (central PA):

       Add another one to the record books for central Penn...Earliest observed snow accumulation at several coop sites across the Allegheny Plateau this morning. 1.2 inches at Philipsburg and 0.7 of an inch at Laurel Summit. trace of snowfall here in State College and Altoona...se across the higher terrain of Huntingdon county /reported by NWS personnel/. Monthly climate summaries for MDT/IPT highlighted by the wettest september ever on record at both sites. With a monthly total rainfall of 18.43 inches...September 2011 is now the wettest September ever on record at Harrisburg. The previous wettest September was in 1975...when 14.97 inches of rain fell. With a monthly total rainfall of 15.97 inches...September 2011 is now the wettest September ever on record at Williamsport. the previous wettest September was in 1999...when 12.60 inches of rain fell.

       [My notes: converted from upper case. Accum. snow was generally above 2k feet elevation. Culprit was upper low 5 sd's below normal for this time of year, record low max temps in my locale, No. VA]
73273. ianw01 at 19:36 PM on 3 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       Sphaerica (18): Actually, I'm with you on all those points, and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I do quite a bit of work modelling nonlinear systems and believe that I have a good feel (well, at least much much better than average feeling!) for the level of complexity we are facing. I'm definitely not grasping for "positive" straws to cling to. However I'd like to nudge us back to the presentation of the report - both in the media and here on the Sks site - and whether it looks foolish to those who really need to understand it and change their minds. Many people don't have the time to digest all the complexities and referenced reports in an article. The article gets a lot of attention based the huge costs but leaves itself open to easy criticism. It may be right, but if it *looks* foolish or is easy to make fun of, we've done something wrong. Moderator [John Hartz]: Sorry, but I stand by my comments above - without reading the report.
73274. Rob Painting at 19:08 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Peter Hogarth @ 17 - here's those papers on volcanic eruptions: - The climatic effects of the direct injection of water vapour into the stratosphere by large volcanic eruptions - Joshi & Jones (2009) - Krakatoa lives: The effect of volcanic eruptions on ocean heat content and thermal expansion - Gleckler (2006) - Observational evidence for volcanic impact on sea level and the global water cycle - Grinsted (2007)
73275. damorbel at 19:02 PM on 3 October 2011
       The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
       Re #291 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- "with a total power" - No, I don't agree. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Wikipedia defines the Stefan-Boltzman law as stating "that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (also known as the black-body irradiance or emissive power.), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T". In his book, "principles of planetary climate", Ray Pierrehumbert says that "the total power F exiting from each unit area of the surface of ablack body" is the Stefan-Boltzman law (page 142). Both of these support the statement I made. Are you saying that both Wikipedia and Prof. Pierrehumbert and his book are wrong on this point?

       The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can be changed from one form into another but not created or destroyed. This has no bearing on radiation from a black body as no energy is created or destroyed, merely radiated from the black body out into the surrounding space. The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the rate at which energy is radiated.

       Now it is possible that you simply misunderstood, in which case, simply agree with the original statement and we can proceed. Otherwise please explain how the Stefan-Boltzman law violates the first law of thermodynamics. Please do so without digressing onto any other topic.
73276. jyyh at 18:24 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       There are obviously many phenomena that can affect decadal temperature swings. Thanks for presenting one of them - and for comments mentioning others. One further possibility, the atmospheric (well on ground also) nuclear tests throwing stuff up on the stratosphere that were banned in 1963. If this was the sole reason for hiatus that would give a residence time of about 15 years for this exotic effect of nuclear arms.
73277. damorbel at 18:16 PM on 3 October 2011
       The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
       Ha! I made a mistake. What I wrote in #291 is the energy per particle, not per photon. The photon energy is hv where h in the planck constant in Joules per Hz and v is the frequency of the emitted radiation.
73278. damorbel at 18:10 PM on 3 October 2011
       The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
       Re # 290 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote:- "Do you agree that any body at a temperature above zero degrees Kelvin will radiate photons of energy?" Um, it should be 'Kelvins', not 'degrees Kelvin'. The answer should be very clear from my posts. Yes bodies above 0K emit photons, with energy kT Joules, where k is the Boltzmann constant (Joules per Kelvin) and T is the temperature in Kelvins.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Thank you for a direct answer (however please don't get sidetracked by the details at this stage). Now lets consider an exactly spherical black-body at a temperature above zero Kelvin. Do you agree that it radiates photons at random time intervals in random directions, with a total power given by the Stefan-Boltzman law (power per unit surface area proportional to fourth power of temperature)? Do you agree with that (again please answer directly without digression).

       N.B. I will be teaching for the next four hours or so, but please be patient and wait for a reply before going any further.
73279. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 17:36 PM on 3 October 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
       Like the previous articles, this one is very well done. I have been waiting a while for this article and am glad that it has finally arrived. I still argue that you are going through a lot of extra work trying to explain the warmer NH climate during the Eemian by using vegetation and ocean currents when insolation is such a direct cause for the warmer climate. The weaker SH insolation at the same time also explains the cooler SH during the Eemian, but aside from that complaint, this is an interesting article. I fully agree that the ocean currents were unstable during the Eemian. This is evident as well from the NGRIP ice core. It shows some very rapid step function changes in temperature ~119,000, 116,000 and 111,000 YBP. The NGRIP shows such changes through the last glacial as well as during the early Holocene. Changes to the ocean currents are clearly the most likely cause of those temperature changes. Much like what happened 8,200 years ago and on a much smaller scale during the Younger Dryas. Based on the full length of the NGRIP data, the past 10,000 years have been unusually stable (which I propose is due to the slow rate in change in 65N insolation). There have been 20+ rapid changes in the NGRIP data which covers the last 125,000 years. If each of those were associated with a change in the ocean current, we are about due for another. If such changes in the ocean current are natural and have happened with regular frequency over the past 125,000 years, then why should we expect that type of behavior to change now or in the future? The Eemian insolation and temperature was comparable to today's climate when it experienced its first rapid drop ~119,000 years ago. Such a drop should be expected because that is exactly what the Earth has done in the past. Overall this series is probably the most useful set of articles I have ever found on this website. ;-)
73280. GEP at 17:33 PM on 3 October 2011
       Sea level rise due to floating ice?
       That seems a curious position. If a comment is so off-topic, what possible incentive is there for anyone to pursue it? Am I being too naive here?
73281. muoncounter at 12:41 PM on 3 October 2011
       Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
       There's an eerie familiarity to some of his rhetoric. One simply has to replace 'dinosaur' with 'AGW': "Dinosaur" bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure for academics to publish papers. Museums are in the business of producing displays that are popular and appealing. Movie producers and the media need to produce material to sell to stay in business. The mainstream media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige, fame and attention. There is the bandwagon effect and crowd behaviour. And then there are people and entities pursuing political and religious agendas.
73282. DSL at 12:02 PM on 3 October 2011
       Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
       DB, if that's the equal of a Joe Romm head vise alert, I agree. I read that comment stream the other day and thought I felt something pop! in my frontal lobe. That is one of the great all-time conspiracy lines, though: "Deep probing questions need to be asked of the entire dinosaur business."
73283. Chris G at 11:45 AM on 3 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       PaulS, Kevin C, Thanks, good information. Yeah, I looked at some model runs, from climateprediction.net, and decided the definition of transient did not need to be precise. He isn't playing with the numbers quite as I was guessing, but I still think he is playing numbers games. For instance, he does not talk about feedbacks at all, and I would think that if you are talking about how much CO2 forcing has affected a warming change, you would have to include the feedbacks induced by its initial forcing. Obviously, this is easier said than done, but he is still answering the wrong question. He talks a lot about black carbon, and acknowledges that the increase in black carbon is from the burning of fossil fuels. So, how would you reduce black carbon? Reduce the consumption of fossil fuels would be one way. Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels would also be the answer to how would you most effectively reduce the rate of CO2 increase. So, there isn't much to be gained by arguing how much is carbon black versus how much is CO2. When he says: "2. Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose." IDK, but if any policy that reduced CO2 also reduced black carbon, and you are downplaying CO2 increases because of BC increases, why would that policy be inadequate? It remains interesting from an academic standpoint, but makes no difference to policy. He also talks a lot about methane; what would be causing a change in methane balance? You can't eliminate an increase in global temperature as causing an increase in methane. So, he could well be mixing initial with feedback forcings, but he treats an increase in methane as an initial forcing. I have heard several plausible physical mechanisms by which it could be a feedback to a warming, I have not heard of any mechanisms other than warming which would cause it to increase. Well, then, there are cows, but do cows really produce more methane than an equivalent biomass of other animals? It now strikes me that the question sounds simple, but might be tricky to answer. Do you include best-guesses on induced feedbacks or not? In particular, if you are disinclined to use global average temperature as a metric, and you have a history of downplaying potential feedbacks, your answer is likely to be at odds with the predominant view.
73284. Ken E at 11:18 AM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Both this and the potential role of aerosol output coming from China, as competing theories which could certainly also be operating simultaneously, are troubling for long-term trends for the future. Whenever they cease to operate in the direction observed recently, warming will likely see an unpleasant positive adjustment period. I'm weary of where the next ten years go.
73285. muoncounter at 09:04 AM on 3 October 2011
       Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
       For an interesting back and forth between the much-esteemed neven and an Arctic-ice-is-not-melting guy, see this article from the Nunatsiaq Online. The gentleman in question also apparently believes that Apollo mission 'inconsistencies' need to be answered and dinosaurs did not exist: Are we being deceived and brainwashed at an early age into believing a dinosaur myth? Deep probing questions need to be asked of the entire dinosaur business. With that kind of insight, his observations re Arctic ice melt are sure to be spot on!
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-Liquid-Alert-Warning!  Following the links to the materiel therein can be hazardous to computer keyboards and monitors if hot liquids are present!

73286. skywatcher at 08:53 AM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman, I can't believe you don't see that what you are doing is cherry-picking, and finding occasional anecdotes to support a very weak position. I'm glad to see you finally admit that 2011 was extreme in Texas - it actually fitted every definition of the word extreme, yet you clung to a single reporting measure (days over 105) to try and claim it wasn't, while you ignored that it was record-breaking in pretty much every single other category. BTW, the UK just broke it's all-time October high, with 29.9C. Probably won't kill people, but there'll be some very confused animals and plants wondering what season it is, and it still qualifies as 'extreme'. Extremes in spring and autumn (UK had both this year) don't hit the news quite so much though, do they?
73287. Rob Painting at 06:12 AM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Dave 123 @ 12 - see figure 4 in the post. The hot-coloured oceanic regions at mid-latitudes are where heat is converging in the surface layers and being driven down into the deep ocean. The upwelling component in equatorial regions brings deeper water to the surface to be warmed by sunlight - which is why this La Nina-like hiatus period is a time of greater-than-average ocean warming. This is the natural variability of the climate system, which is superimposed on a long-term warming trend. I'm writing a companion piece (all but done), because another SkS author pointed out the mechanism was as clear as mud. Barry @ 14 - hyper-link fixed, thanks. I've already written a piece on how the oceans are warmed by greenhouse gases. It's scheduled for the end of the week. I will cover a few more ocean-related topics in the next 2 weeks - so hopefully this will all be a little bit clearer. Icarus @ 16 - TOA & OHC is the subject of an upcoming post. Pete Hogarth @17 - There are a few interesting papers on volcanic eruptions and the oceanic response, but I have to run now - will dig them out and link to them later. Muon @ 18 - La Nina, El Nino - yeah, there's an interesting emerging idea about how ENSO fits into all of this. Yup, subject of upcoming posts too!
73288. muoncounter at 03:25 AM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman#151: ""I would not disagree that the drought in Texas or Lousiania is extreme (well outside the normal)" I beg pardon. I must have misunderstood that reply, as well as these items, among others: a. your statement "2011 was not much different than 1980 in this area" b. your comparative "Maybe you can't stand it when the temp should be 88 (normal) and it is now 89 on a regular basis. For you this would be significant. Maybe not for others." c. your generalization "There have been some extensive and extreme droughts over this time period as well as some very wet years that cover large areas." d. your dismissive "My perception is that weather extremes take place every year. ... It is only the globalization of media that exposes so many areas extremes to us in a rapid fashion that we feel things are getting really bad, even though they may not be." I must excuse myself from this conversation until such time as I can better understand these kinds of statements. Perhaps it will all become clear when Eric reads the book and reports back.
73289. Peter Hogarth at 03:24 AM on 3 October 2011
       2011 Sea Ice Minimum
       Hi Rob, eloquent post and interesting comments. As we now have fifty without a dissenting voice, is this a new record Arctic sea ice skeptic minimum? or do we expect a recovery anytime soon...
73290. Norman at 02:57 AM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @ 149, I did answer you question in 144. "I would not disagree that the drought in Texas or Lousiania is extreme (well outside the normal). Nor severe tornadoes in 2011. Nor even that 2010 and 2011 had extreme weather events occur. Yes they did have extreme weather events." The answer is yes.
73291. muoncounter at 02:25 AM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       RobP #10: The mid-century surface temperature 'hiatus' was explained quite fully here. There's no question of the statistical significance of that hiatus. But the 'hiatus' decade of 2000-2009 was addressed in your prior 'why wasn't hottest decade hotter' and the best conclusion there was sulphate aerosols muting the ongoing increase in CO2 radiative forcing. I am not questioning the Meehl model results, nor the idea that stored ocean heat will indeed come back to bite us - it may already be doing that in 2011. My concern is two-fold: a. Based on graphs like this, I don't see how 2000-2009 qualifies as a hiatus on the scale of 1950-1975. b. We've agreed that 10 years does not a significant trend make. As a result, I fear these decadal studies confuse the issue. Certainly, it takes some scrutiny to reconcile the model graphs in your figure 2 with its inset - they do not graph the same things and thus using an inset format is misleading. And statements like: the general pattern of warming and ocean circulation in the model, during these hiatus periods, is very similar to that which occurs over shorter timeframes in the La Niña phase of ENSO will touch another round of its el Nino!.
73292. Peter Hogarth at 02:17 AM on 3 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Rob, most explanations for the global downturns in SST and I guess upper layer OHC relate to the SO2 aerosols from major eruptions. Here I've averaged the optical thickness data over the tropics, which I have assumed is where most of the solar input to the Oceans happens. Interestingly this seemed to enhance the effect of Agung relative to Pinatubo, at least using this data set. The red line is a "last five year" average of OHC. I think it is possible that the recent short term surface layer hiatus may tie in with continuing deeper warming. A ten year average of upper level OHC shows no recent hiatus or significant trend change whatsoever, and this is the kind of long term integration pattern we might expect lower layers to follow if they warmed through vertical diffusion alone.
73293. Philippe Chantreau at 02:16 AM on 3 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       I'm not sure on the causes of denialism but it seems that some scientists had enough of the stupid nonsense some try to pass as information. Good to see them speak up.
73294. Eric (skeptic) at 02:09 AM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       My kindle should arrive Monday and then I will order and read the book. This page seemed interesting: http://climate.met.psu.edu/www_prod/features/rainextreme.php It includes the recent extreme rain in early Sept. which clipped Harrisburg, PA. I have no idea how valid the analysis is. I would have also liked to know the period of record for each station and whether that would be a factor in the statistics.
73295. muoncounter at 01:35 AM on 3 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       Norman#145: "states this without graphs or trend analysis so it is his opinion" Circular reasoning. There are graphs aplenty; the question I asked you relative to the 3 graphs in #126 still stands: "Can you see from these graphs that the current situation is unprecedented and a good example of 'extreme'? " Please answer this yes or no. "there are extreme weather events every year somewhere on the globe." I'm sorry, I find that statement to be utterly devoid of meaning. We're 100+ comments into this thread and going in circles; we went in circles for 400+ the last time this happened. I wonder: Do you understand what is meant by 'extreme' in the context of weather?
73296. Kevin C at 23:55 PM on 2 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       Chris G@11: (Sorry, I'm a bit late to this discussion, hope this point is still of interest) The 0.9C figure is indeed an oversimplification because the 'transient response' is not linear over the 70 year period used to obtain the 2C/x2 figure, although it's almost an aside to Dana's argument, so I'm not very worried. Not sure how accurate it is - I suspect not far off. But I can produce a better estimate using my energy balance model trained against either 20thC climate or to reproduce GISS-modelE enesemble results. I'll try and do that this week, but it may take a few days (exams to set).
73297. Bob Lacatena at 23:36 PM on 2 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       146, Norman, Bastardi and Watts are first class, agenda driven masters of distortion. They are also absolutely, positively, not scientists, let alone unbiased observers. Using them as an appeal to authority completely invalidates your argument. It is in fact one of the real definitions of the fallacy of an appeal to authority, that is to appeal to someone who is not actually qualified as an authority on the subject. (-snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] Emotion-laden comment snipped.

       Some added context for the lay reader:  both Bastardi and Watts have a history of making conclusions not only unsupported by science, but also in violation of many laws of physics.  Various debunkings of both are readily available throughout the blogosphere.  The best are at Open Mind.

       The difference between B&W and Dr. Masters is that Dr. Master's observations and conclusions are supported by physics and the literature in climate science while that of the former duo is not.

73298. Bob Lacatena at 23:32 PM on 2 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       146, Norman, You are creating strawmen. First, obviously there is going to be noise in the system. You know very well that your requirement of 2010 > 2009 > 2008 > ... is not valid. Second, you also recognize that you've been following an anecdotal argument to a statistical question. You admit that the question becomes one of average frequency and intensity, and yet you've been arguing it by cherry picking events from the past, as if finding a previous, intense drought or hurricane invalidates the intensity we see today. Third, you know that we've already been through a variety of measures of extreme event intensity (dollars in damages, loss of life), and you know that there are many obscuring factors (such as changes in population, early warning and engineering improvements, total property value exposed to danger, changes in reporting methods, etc.) that make comparisons over long time periods difficult. Lastly, you know that we are still early in the game, so gathering the statistics to demonstratively prove the point simply cannot happen at this point in time. So in the end what your comment tells me is that you know that everything that you have been saying is wrong. You know that anecdotal evidence of past extreme events is meaningless. You know that there is noise in the system, so an obvious, stepwise progression is not going to happen. You know that the statistics have not yet been there to definitively prove the case. And you know what the whole point of this post and thread was about. From the original post above:

       It is within this context that Dr James Powell, whose book 2084: An Oral History of the Great Warming is reviewed here, aims to find out whether there is now a 'preponderance of evidence' showing that climate change is truly under way, a situation which he argues warrants a response.

       You said you were going to buy and read the book! Have you done so yet? Perhaps all of your questions would be answered if you did. Making what you know to be incomplete, invalid and confusing arguments in the meantime is unacceptable.
73299. Icarus at 23:31 PM on 2 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Thanks for the reply and references Rob. I thought I remembered reading from one of Hansen's papers that the TOA radiative balance can't be measured directly with sufficient accuracy, and therefore had to be inferred from other metrics, mainly OHC... which would make Meehl 2011 something of a circular argument, if you see what I mean. I'll read the Trenberth et al paper and see if things become clearer :-)
73300. Norman at 22:07 PM on 2 October 2011
       Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
       muoncounter @ 143, The data I have seen would indicate that there are extreme weather events every year somewhere on the globe. I have been called wrong or incorrect (although what I am doing is looking on the web for extreme weather events in the past...not sure how this proves I am wrong). When I make some declarations it is with a "maybe" or "possibly". I am not making a statement "it is". The question is are they increasing trend wise. Even if 2010 was an overall extreme doe that mean that the trend for extreme weather is increasing? Did 2009 have more extreme weather events (in number, duration, or intensity) than 2008 and 2008 more than 2007 etc...that would be a trend in increasing extreme weather. One or two years will not make a trend. If 2012 is calm then what of the thesis?

Prev  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  Next