Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 Next
Comments 73351 to 73400:
-
Doug Mackie at 11:11 AM on 5 October 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Bernard, sorry you were confused. In post 4 we stated that "You may recall from school that a pH of 7 is neutral" and went on to explain about the dissociation of water and then clarified that "So, we define a neutral pH has the same concentration of H3O+ as pure water" (and that 'has' should have been 'as having'). We had hoped that it was obvious that this meant "...as pure water at the same conditions of temperature etc" but we can see how people might not have appreciated this. Nevertheless we felt it was as concise a definition as we could give without (as we had said we would not do) mentioning activity or delving into the intricacies of the several pH scales used for seawater. -
DSL at 11:09 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Alleycat, I think you'll dig this Alley cat. -
muoncounter at 10:53 AM on 5 October 20112011 Sea Ice Minimum
NASA weighs in on the 2011 melt season. The near-record ice-melt followed higher-than-average summer temperatures, but without the unusual weather conditions that contributed to the extreme melt of 2007. "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels," said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. Two good video segments. -
pauls at 10:44 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Albatross - See above. SkS has been doing just that, some examples: Certainly, I guess my concern is that SkS doesn't get drawn into meaningless debates about microclimates. JMurphy - My point is that we know there are microclimates and small regions which don't follow the wider regional and global trends. With this in mind debating the historical evolution of a microclimate (Warming Island) about which we know nothing earlier than the 1970s and very little after that is speculative at best. Observational data in the area is sparse so much better to remain focused on wider regional trends, at a level where we can make genuinely meaningful statements. As Albatross shows, SkS has a wealth of information on this. -
Stevo at 10:13 AM on 5 October 2011Between St. Roch and a cold place
My first thought when I heard that vessels have navigated the passage decades ago was, "Did they sail in an ice-breaker?". As your article makes clear, if St Roch is not an ice-breaker then she is something equivalent. One point, which may sound like a quibble but is important to ex-naval types like me is could you please refer to St Roch as a ship, not a boat.Moderator Response: [JMurphy] Oops, sorry about that ! Looking into it, the basic definition seems to be that a ship can carry a boat but a boat can't carry a ship. I think I understand... -
skywatcher at 09:43 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
#81, 82: Take yourself to the Most Used Climate Myths, you'll see such gems as Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and Does breathing add CO2 to the atmosphere. You can search for more as well. I'd also recommend Richard Alley's AGU talk about why CO2 is the biggest control knob on climate despite the small overall percentage in the air. One of the best bits of science communication you'll see, and a better use of an hour of your time than browsing on most climate blogs! -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:36 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Alleycat... You getting a few things wrong here. First, water vapor responds to heat. More heat, more water vapor. This is very basic. The only way you get more water vapor is to turn up the heat somehow. Second, the sun varies only a very tiny amount. Of the ~1370Watts/m2 it only fluctuates about 0.5W/m2 over the course of an 11 year cycle. The sun is very stable, it just doesn't change much. We know with a high degree of accuracy how much the added CO2 has changed over the past century and we know the radiative forcing change for it (and the other man-made greenhouse gases) is about 2.4W/m2. That is a big change that turns up the thermostat and causes more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere. Human's exhaling doesn't actually add to the carbon in the atmosphere because, well, where did that carbon come from? It was already part of the natural carbon cycle. The problem comes from burning ancient carbons in the form of fossil fuels. -
JMurphy at 09:29 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Alleycat, you would do well to look at (and comment further, if you wish) the following threads : CO2 is a trace gas Water vapour It's the Sun Human exhalation of CO2 -
Alleycat at 09:14 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Still, compared to water vapor, CO2 is such a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere. Water vapor and the sun itself seem to play a much greater role in the natural cycle of heating and cooling the planet. Take the sun out of the equation and no amount of man made warming would keep the planet from turning into a frozen world. You can't regulate or outlaw water vapor any more than you can CO2, they are the essential building blocks of life. Has anyone considered that the sheer numbers of humans exhaling has increased several fold over the past 100 years? Where are we now 6 billion? It was barely 2 billion when I was a kid. Could that account for increased CO2? -
JMurphy at 08:59 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
pauls wrote : "The thing is that there are currently places where glaciers are advancing, places that have been cooling for the past few decades." I'm sure there are (although it would be interesting to hear from you about those cooling places - what further information do you have ?), and anyone can check to see just how many comparative glaciers are retreating/advancing at The World Glacier Monitoring Service - how many are advancing, would you think ? But, what are you trying to say with that sentence ? -
Albatross at 08:43 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Hi Pauls @35, Oh dear, we do seem to be talking past each other and talking in circles. I'll try and communicate more clearly. "What logicman and myself have said is that you can't necessarily assume that the trends...in one location are representative of another single location even if they are nearby" Actually, I think that we are in broad agreement on this. But the degree of agreement probably depends how accurately one wishes to quantify the trend at one location using the trend data from a nearby location. But this is all rather moot and we are getting away from the fact that Michaels was not speaking about trends (or anomalies) at all, he was speaking about absolute annual temperatures as shown in his chart. "I really don't think the relative condition of a single tiny island will have much of an impact on political action to tackle global climate change." Pardon my cynicism, but I have unfortunately witnessed too many times how such chicanery by Michaels et al. has been amplified and propagated far and wide using the internet. Such demonstrably false assertions such as those made by Michaels cannot go unchallenged. "You're on a much better grounding talking about the wider regional changes across Greenland and the rest of the Arctic." See above. SkS has been doing just that, some examples: # Arctic Ice Part 2: A Review of Factors Contributing to the Recent Decline in Arctic Ice # Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area # Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check # Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean? # Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made? # Arctic sea ice... take 2 # Arctic Sea Ice: Why Do Skeptics Think in Only Two Dimensions? # Arctic Warming and Hadley # Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered # DMI data on Arctic temperatures: Hide the Increase? # Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer # Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview # Greenland's ice mass loss has spread to the northwest # Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes # Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes # Not so Permanent Permafrost # The Arctic is cooling? DMI and GISS Arctic Data -
pauls at 08:05 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Albatross - That is not what logicman said. He said: "Even though only 75km apart, the Daneborg and Warming Island microclimates are not, I suggest, comparable." And "Most definitely a single station's temperature series is not enough to prove that a location 800km distant exhibited exactly the same trends year on year." Nothing about anomalies. If you're talking about trends it doesn't matter whether your data are expressed in anomalies or absolute temperatures. There wouldn't be any difference in the trends. Actually his second quote basically says the same thing as I did in post 24. I do agree that the anomalies at nearby stations can probably be used to infer the anomalies or rate of warming at Warming Island, but unless one knows the offset, one cannot infer the absolute temperature, and that is what the ice responds to. We're getting a bit off track from the original point here and I would suggest you're now disagreeing with the second of your quotes from logicman. What logicman and myself have said is that you can't necessarily assume that the trends (I'll use that word because there has been some confusion over my use of 'anomalies') in one location are representative of another single location even if they are nearby. Do we really want to delay taking action on AGW because of disinformation from someone like Michaels? And that is the very inconvenient fact that Pat Michaels and Watts desperately want to distract us from. I really don't think the relative condition of a single tiny island will have much of an impact on political action to tackle global climate change. The thing is that there are currently places where glaciers are advancing, places that have been cooling for the past few decades. I think refocusing the debate to be about remote microclimates like Warming Island is the distraction that they're after. You're on a much better grounding talking about the wider regional changes across Greenland and the rest of the Arctic. -
Alleycat at 07:59 AM on 5 October 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
CO2 is a heavy gas that tends to stay close to the ground. (otherwise plants couldn't consume it) Heat always rises, it does not fall, even when radiating in all directions, the hotter the air the faster it rises. So explain to me how CO2 is keeping any heat from simply slipping past it and rising into space? Additionally, on a cloudy day, temperatures go down, not up. Heat rising with water vapor in it tends to create more clouds and thunderstorms, which cool things even more. I can see how (at night) cloud cover would keep some heat from escaping the atmosphere, but once you're more than a few feet off the ground (even in the heat of summer) the air temperature drops dramatically. I have personally observed this as a glider pilot. Even 3000' off the ground you can see ice crystals form on your canopy with the sun shining and ground temp at 90 degrees. So someone explain it to me (taking real world observations into account).Moderator Response: CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly measured with ground stations at various altitudes, aircraft, and spacecraft. Not an assumption, but a repeated observation. That's different than what happens in a small enclosed system such as a jar. Clouds keep the surface warm at night because they prevent some infrared radiation from escaping to space. During the day they do the same thing but also prevent some of the Sun's radiation from reaching the surface, and the energy prevented from coming in can exceed the energy prevented from getting out to space. Heat does not rise. Hot air does. It cools as it rises because its pressure drops because its surroundings are at lower pressure. -
damorbel at 07:51 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #298 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] "To avoid any further obfuscation, I will re-word the question. Do you agree that body A will radiate photons in random directions at random intervals, with total power proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of body A (i.e. according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and that this remains true regardless of the temperature of body B?" Yes.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Good. Do you agree that the photons radiated from body A are carrying away some of the thermal energy from body A with them? -
Jonathon at 07:24 AM on 5 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Composer, Albatross (#5) mentioned that an earlier report concluded that the pros are probably going to outweigh the cons. This recent report, while acknowledging that there are pros, only mentions them briefly, completely excludes them from their calculations. I cannot say if the pros will outweigh the cons, but to completely omit them yields a false impression.Moderator Response: [John Hartz} You missed the point of my prior moderator comment. By design, the analyses contained in the report were focused on the costs of climate change to Canadians. It was not intended to be a cost-benefit analysis. The report is what it is. -
Composer99 at 07:19 AM on 5 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Jonathon: It was your reaction to the report, rather than the report itself, which I found to be of interest in this comment thread. I have no problem with a report produced for Canadian policy-makers which focuses on Canada. I would have a problem if the policy-makers only review the Canadian situation. You seem to be concerned that Canadians are getting a false impression about AGW from the NRT report. Based on your comments thus far, am I correct in guessing that you conclude that the benefits from AGW for Canada would outweigh the costs for Canada? A simple yes or no response will do. If yes, my question is: Even if it is the case that Canadians would stand to benefit materially from AGW for a number of decades, whether Canadians (or any subset of Canadians) should ignore the overwhelmingly negative implications of AGW elsewhere when making policy. -
L. Hamilton at 06:55 AM on 5 October 20112011 Sea Ice Minimum
Relating to my Gompertz graphic above, and other discussion about S curves, I just posted several updated versions including one based on the complete 1972-2011 Uni Bremen extent time series,
and another for PIOMAS volume,
More explanation/discussion at Neven's place:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/september-2011-sea-ice-extent-looking-ahead.html
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/september-2011-sea-ice-volume-looking-back-and-ahead.html
-
Albatross at 06:54 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Pauls, I'm sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree. "I don't disagree with this but we're not comparing the melt rate at two different locations." I gave an example, I am well aware that we are discussing what might have transpired at a given location (i.e., Warming Island). You say "logicman's argument was that the 'nearby' station shouldn't be used to infer temperature anomalies at Warming Island because the climate conditions are different." That is not what logicman said. He said: "Even though only 75km apart, the Daneborg and Warming Island microclimates are not, I suggest, comparable." And "Most definitely a single station's temperature series is not enough to prove that a location 800km distant exhibited exactly the same trends year on year." Nothing about anomalies. Also, the temperature chart that Michaels showed was annual temperatures, not annual anomalies, so those data presented by Michaels really do not say much about the temperatures at Warming Island. I do agree that the anomalies at nearby stations can probably be used to infer the anomalies or rate of warming at Warming Island, but unless one knows the offset, one cannot infer the absolute temperature, and that is what the ice responds to. But us not forget what Michaels said: "As it turns out, maps show that Warming Island, indeed, was very much an island a mere 50 years ago, when Greenland, in fact, was warmer than it has been for the last 10 years." None of the data presented here support such a confident assertion by Michaels. The period of warmer temperatures was actually much earlier than the 50s (when temperatures were actually declining) and as shown by Box et al., the claim that the temperatures in Greenland 50 years ago were warmer than recent temperatures is demonstrably false. Some might use stronger language than I to describe the claims made by Michaels.... -
keithpickering at 06:46 AM on 5 October 2011Between St. Roch and a cold place
FYI, the St. Roch still exists, and is on permanent display in the Vancouver Maritime Museum.Moderator Response: Yes, and the first link in the post is to that museum; but, unfortunately, the actual pages for the St. Roch are currently being redeveloped and are not accessible. -
Jonathon at 06:41 AM on 5 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
John, I have no problem with the report focusing on Canada. Others seem to be objecting that the costs and benefits are not seen in a global light. But as you say, the focus was designed to be solely about Canada. -
Albatross at 06:26 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Pauls, "Certainly Michael's argument for why it was has been taken apart here, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's incorrect." Actually, the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that Michaels and his apologists are very likely incorrect. 1) The temperature data from nearby stations suggest that temperatures peaked in the thirties, showing a decline/drop until 1957 (see Michaels' own data, and the data shown by Dana and Robert). Those same data show that current temperatures are in fact warmer than they were back then. 2) Similarly, positive degree data (Box et al.) shown by Tom Curtis show two important things: i) The number of melt days in the 30s and 40s were, on average, fewer then those observed of late; ii) The number of melt days declined from the maximum in the late 30s (which was lower than maxima of late) until around about 1970, after which they increased again, with a sharp increase after 1990. 3) Photos of nearby glaciers (again shown by Curtis above) show that the glaciers in the 30s were in much better shape back then than they are of late. 4) The transient warming observed earlier in the 20th century certainly did not result in a ~180m increase in sea level. The fact that Michaels uncritically accepted the map as proof that Warming Isl. was present in 1957, speaks to his confirmation bias and once-sided skepticism. Do we really want to delay taking action on AGW because of disinformation from someone like Michaels? Box et al. (2009) talk of a warming period between 1919 and 1932 over Greenland, long before the 1957 map. More importantly though is what the past tells us about the future, and that is that the ice sheet is sensitive to warming, that warm spell in 1919-1932 was transient, indications are that we can expect Greenland to continue warming for many decades to come (barring of course volcanic activity or prolonged negative phase of the NAO): "Climate warming has pushed the Greenland ice sheet beyond its threshold of viability in recent years (Rignot et al. 2008). The ice sheet seems poised not to grow without substantial regional and global climate cooling. It therefore seems much more likely that not that Greenland is and will be for the foreseeable future be a deglaciating Pleistocene Ice Age relic." And that is the very inconvenient fact that Pat Michaels and Watts desperately want to distract us from. PS: Box et al. (2009) do note that there is evidence of glaciers and ice sheets retreating in the 20s and 40s in response to the warming (contrary to what Michaels and Watts would have you believe that is evidence that climate sensitivity is high not low), but not the fifties. However, as shown by Tom Curtis above, we know from the analysis of several glaciers in Greenland is that the glaciers back then were much larger/extensive than they are now. -
DSL at 06:20 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
While I agree with Philippe, I do like the re-wording of the question. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:08 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Dikran, you are wasting your time.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes, I know I probably am, but I am trying to give damorbel a chance to demonstrate that he is more than just a troll and willing to engage in a proper discussion. Currently he is wasting the opportunity with extreme pedantry. -
pauls at 06:08 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Albatross - Absolute temperature does matter for melting ice is the, how many "melting" days there are. Two nearby locations can warm at a similar rate or have anomalies of similar magnitude, but if one is starting from a lower base temperature (beause of microclimate, for example) it will take that station longer to reach a critical threshold such as the melting point. I don't disagree with this but we're not comparing the melt rate at two different locations. We're comparing melt at a single location at two different times: the 1950s and the 2000s. It has then been pointed out that a 'nearby' weather station shows temperature anomalies that were about the same in the 1940s & 1950s as in the 2000s. So logicman's argument is still valid. logicman's argument was that the 'nearby' station shouldn't be used to infer temperature anomalies at Warming Island because the climate conditions are different. Barry was asking how this could be since it is within the 1200km distance used by GISS to infer spatial correlation. I've given my answer in post 24. I don't think citing the difference between anomalies and absolute temperatures supports logicman's argument and I don't think it is relevant in this case. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:03 AM on 5 October 2011Between St. Roch and a cold place
Nice work JM. Another "skeptic" argument demonstrating how skepticism is all but lacking.Moderator Response: [JMurphy] Thanks. The 'argument' has never sounded convincing but some people just seem to accept it - not true sceptics, as you suggest. -
damorbel at 06:00 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #296 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You wrote "This is obfuscation. I explicitly said that the temperature of the bodies was a point that will be discussed later" Temperature will be discussed later? Then what do you mean when you write:- 1/(in #290):- "Do you agree that any body at a temperature above zero degrees Kelvin will radiate" 2/(in #291):- "power per unit surface area proportional to fourth power of temperature" 3/(in #294):- "is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature, according to the Stefan Boltzmann law?" 4/(in #295):- "Unlike the first black body, the second is at zero Kelvin" 5/(in #296):- " so now consider the case where B is above zero Kelvin, but cooler than A" 6/(in #297):- "O.K., say B is at the same temperature as A." And so forth?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Your pedantry does you no favours. O.K. I shall reword it for you, we will discuss the change in temperature of the two bodies later. Now please give a direct answer to the question I posed. If you want to demonstrate that you are merely a troll, this sort of pedantry, whilst avoiding answering the question is exactly the right way to go about it. I am trying to do you a favour here by encouraging a more productive discussion by going through it step by step to see if you are willing to engage with the discussion. You a wasting an opportunity here, but it is your loss. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:42 AM on 5 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
175, Eric,...Masters' energy concept and Ostro's "confluence" of natural factors with AGW. Those are too loose and too vague...
I agree. The connection between energy and weather is logical, but lots of things seem logical at first thought but turn out to be far more complex and nuanced. -
Albatross at 05:20 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Pauls @29 and Barry, "What is being discussed is a change in conditions over time at Warming Island, not the absolute temperature, so it is anomalies that matter in this case too" I was trying to clarify the confusion about the auto-correlaton length for the anomalies. Absolute temperature does matter for melting ice is the, how many "melting" days there are. Two nearby locations can warm at a similar rate or have anomalies of similar magnitude, but if one is starting from a lower base temperature (beause of microclimate, for example) it will take that station longer to reach a critical threshold such as the melting point. So logicman's argument is still valid. But that is air temperature, we know also that ocean temperatures are warming and some of the recent melt was probably also attributable to the warmer ocean temperatures in that region. -
Jonathon at 05:20 AM on 5 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Composer99 Except for the Arctic ice cap, none of those places are within provinces or territories of Canada. Therefore, why should they have been included in a report about Canada? I do not believe that anyone here was encouraging climate change. Even those posters who suspect that Canada will benefit financial are not espousing climate change. The report was carefully cherry-picked to only include those items which produced the desired outcome. If you think that heating bills will not be affected, you may want to think again. Focusing on only the cooling side of energy bills is akin to presenting data that the Antarctic peninsula has lost ice, therefore all of Antarctic is melting, or that Tuvalu has gained area, therefore all pacific islands are growing. Do you see the problem with focusing on a relatively small fraction of the whole?Moderator Response: [John Hartz] The analyses summarized in this report were by design focused on the potential costs of climate change to Canada. If that gives you heartburn, so be it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:12 AM on 5 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Sphaerica, I generally agree. Some phenomena like intense rainfall have a much more linear relationship to AGW than others like tornadoes or (to some extent) hurricane formation and intensity. Maybe a good compromise for a book like this is to briefly describe the connections, the direct ones like increased evaporation causing floods and exacerbating droughts. Then the indirect ones like instability, lapse rate, horizontal temperature gradients, etc which will vary nonlinearly with AGW but are also much more prone to natural variations. The author should either explain it somehow or leave it out (e.g. strong tornadoes) but not just repeat Masters' energy concept and Ostro's "confluence" of natural factors with AGW. Those are too loose and too vague IMO and do not justify adding strong tornadoes into the book. -
robert way at 04:44 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 4 October, 2011 Pauls @24, I believe it is a mistake to assume ice behavious is a simple function of annual temperatures. In fairness, the statistical relationship between temperature and sea ice minimums for a year is very strong. http://clearscience.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/predicting-past-sea-ice-extents/ The issues I have with Middleton are the use of GISP2 and greenland anomalies to characterize sea ice extent. I think I demonstrated somewhere recently that the relationship between ice volume and arctic air temperature is R2 = 0.77 (I was going to do a post on it one time). That's a pretty strong result. Maybe I should respond? haha -
damorbel at 04:38 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #296 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] you wrote:- 1/ "say B is at the same temperature as A. (i) Would you agree that the emission of photons from A is not affected by this ". Yes, as long as the temperature of A is not changed by this.2/ "or does it [A] continue to emit photons with total power according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law " I think this is the same question, no 'or' about it; if A is still above 0K then A continues to emit photons, some of which will continue to be intercepted by B. 3/ "ii) Some photons from A will still hit and be absorbed by B, thus transferring some energy from A to B." No, there would be no change in the energy of either A or B because they are at the same temperature.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is obfuscation. I explicitly said that the temperature of the bodies was a point that will be discussed later. I asked whether you agree that the emission of photons from body A remained as before, with photons emitted at random intervals and in random directions with total power given by the Stefan Boltzman law (which already describes the dependence on temperature). To avoid any further obfuscation, I will re-word the question. Do you agree that body A will radiate photons in random directions at random intervals, with total power proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of body A (i.e. according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and that this remains true regardless of the temperature of body B? -
Composer99 at 04:32 AM on 5 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Jonathon: What part of 'global' in AGW are you missing? Are Bangladesh, the Netherlands, the southern US, tropical countries world-wide, small Pacific islands, the Amazon basin, and the Arctic ice cap so insignificant that Ontarians should encourage global climate change to save some money on their heating bills? Also, given the wide range and scope of impacts (e.g. the destruction of pine forests as noted upthread, or the ongoing glacier melt and Arctic impacts), focusing on heating bills strikes me as a carefully-chosen cherry-pick. -
Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
...Regarding previous comment - But of course, you knew that, since we're commenting on the Crux of a Core thread in the first place. I have to be more careful about context when following recent comments - sigh. -
Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
citizenschallenge - That site, and Ole Humlum in general, have been discussed here. Search on "Humlum", which will take you to here, here, or here. Ole Humlum has repeatedly focused on the GISP2 core (a local record), leaving out or incorrectly matching the recent instrumental record, cherry-picking short time frames, and in general making a hash of the data to support his "it's not happening" points. Rob Honeycutt's Crux of a Core series addresses this topic quite thoroughly. -
citizenschallenge at 02:55 AM on 5 October 2011Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum
Does anyone know of others who have been examining and debunking Climate4you? I've been doing various web searches but am coming up disappointingly empty. Seeking further info -
pauls at 02:46 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Albatross - What is being discussed is a change in conditions over time at Warming Island, not the absolute temperature, so it is anomalies that matter in this case too. 'Why shouldn't the anomaly trends at 800km-away Angmagssalik be representative of those at Warming Island given Hansen's oft-referenced 1200km radius?' is the question Barry is asking. -
pbjamm at 02:19 AM on 5 October 2011Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
A ray of hope from Republican former Congressman Bob Inglis. Perhaps more conservatives will have the courage to speak about the conflict of Conservatism vs Science. "When it comes to energy and climate, these are not normal times. We’re following sentiment, not science, we’re turning a blind eye to accountability, and we’re failing to use the power of markets." -
Albatross at 02:15 AM on 5 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Barry @22, Please note KR's post @27. There lies the answer-- Hansen's group is looking at the correlation of anomalies. From the NASA GISTMEP site: "The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. " -
Bob Lacatena at 01:38 AM on 5 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Eric, I think the tornado issue is a strawman anyway. No one ever said that every weather event had to increase in frequency and intensity, or that such increases must be detectable in the same time frames. It is quite possible that some events (floods, droughts) will increase in frequency and intensity, others (hurricanes) only in either frequency or intensity, and some (tornadoes) may even diminish in one or both of intensity and frequency. Or they may diminish at first, and then undergo an unexpected increase at a later date, when a new tipping point is reached. Tornadoes in particular seem to rely on extreme temperature gradients rather than available energy. So an increase in temperatures with a reduction in the gradients may decrease the frequency and usual intensity of storms. But the higher energies and temperatures available in the system may also make short outbursts of more or more intense storms more possible and frequent than before. So you'd see an overall reduction in storms and intensity, and yet begin to have more experience with the nasty scenario of a weekend of a flurry of nasty, evil storms. So that's something you'd wind up measuring one way (overall statistical decrease) when reality to the people withstanding the onslaught is very different. -
damorbel at 00:55 AM on 5 October 2011The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Re #296 Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] you wrote:- 1/"so now consider the case where B is above zero Kelvin, but cooler than A. (i) does this affect the radiation of photons from A," No. 2/"or does it [A] continue to emit photons with total power according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law " I think this is the same question, no 'or' about it; if A is still above 0K then A continues to emit photons, some of which will continue to be intercepted by B. 3/ "ii) Some photons from A will still hit and be absorbed by B, thus transferring some energy from A to B." Yes.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K., say B is at the same temperature as A. (i) Would you agree that the emission of photons from A is not affected by this and that it still emits photons at random intervals in random directions, such that the total power radiated is proportional to the fouth power of its temperature (as per Stefan-Boltzmann)? (ii) Would you agree that some of these photons emitted from A strike and are absorbed by B, transferring some energy from A to B? -
Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
barry - "Does this not raise questions about the utility of Hansen's (and others) 1200km radius choice for the whole globe?" 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. Angmagssalik might have been quite warm - regardless of how the temperature anomaly tracks, just how much colder is the more northern Warming Island location? -
IanC at 23:55 PM on 4 October 2011It's ozone
Shibui, The ozone hole is a result of both the cold and CFCs. The abnormally cold stratosphere allows the formation of clouds, which serves as a catalyst for the destruction of ozone. The reaction also requires chlorine, which is supplied by CFCs. -
Tom Curtis at 23:54 PM on 4 October 2011Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island
Pauls @24, I believe it is a mistake to assume ice behavious is a simple function of annual temperatures. David Middleton makes that assumption at WUWT makes that assumption about sea ice extent (see link @6), and produces this reconstruction of 20th century sea ice extent:
Unfortunately for his reconstruction, there are extensive records of Arctic sea ice extent predating the satellite era:
Middleton uses a 13 month running average of ice extent, which is comparable to the annual average (black squares) in the second chart. As you can see, while Middleton's reconstruction lies under 13 million Km^2 for almost the entire duration, and drops as low as (approx) 11.4 million Km^2 in 1939, the actual sea ice extent trends around 13.5 million Km^2 until the 70's, and never drops below 13 million Km^2 in the 1930's and 1940's.
The ice bridge that used to connect Warming Island to Liverpool Land was a glacial tongue, not sea ice. Therefore the sea ice extent is not directly relevant, but the caution against simply assuming a simple correlation between ice melt and temperature.
If I were to make an estimate regarding the existence, or otherwise, glacial tongue in the 1940's and 1950's, I would probably refer to a reconstruction of Greenland glacial melt such as this by Box 2009:
As you can see, it provides no particular reason to expect the glacial tongue to have been absent mid 20th century. Indeed, where glacial melts have left datable moraines, they also indicate that recent melt is greater than that in the mid 20th century.
Consequently, I would not be surprised if the glacial tongue did connect Warming Island to the mainland in the mid 20th century.
You are right about one thing, however, that this is an issue of trivial importance. I find the genuine process of scientific discovery, as by Schmidt, fascinating, and enjoyed this blogpost for that reason along. But if I were to try and find a wider significance, it would not be in the trivial issue of whether Warming Island was, or was not an island in 1957. Rather, it would be in the complete lack of skepticism shown by Michael's in his initial argument, and by the fake skeptics such as Middleton in picking it up, and uncritically repeating it.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:43 PM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
FundME, neither of your two scenarios is even remotely possible under current conditions. On the other hand, sufficient climate change to cause the deaths of billions of people is theoretically possible. That kind of disruption would also certainly lead to wars which, if nuclear (or worse) weapons were involved, could potentially eliminate our species. If you are not concerned by that then you can indeed ignore climate change. -
muoncounter at 23:35 PM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
Fund#13: "only two scenarios that I believe should concern me." What makes you say that? Or more precisely, what part of the scientific literature on global climate change suggests that those are the only two areas of concern? What part of the scientific literature allows such an easy dismissal of all the other areas of concern that are part of global climate change? BTW, that is better suited to the thread 'its not bad,' which you will find linked under 'Most used climate myths' in the left-hand column of every page. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 23:17 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
Erik (sorry for misspelling your name earlier) I can't agree with your assertion that the suggestion from the chapter is the heat and moisture are the only needed ingredients. In the first sentence of the chapter on tornadoes, he mention the two main factors that drive tornadoes: instability in the atmosphere and wind shear. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this - I don't think that he needs to explain the science in detail since he's only trying to assess whether climate change contributed to the tornadoes in question. And he makes no claim that it has, only that it's a possibility. -
Shibui at 23:01 PM on 4 October 2011It's ozone
OK - so it's the cold rather than a drop in CFCs? Or, maybe it's due to the cold, period(?). -
FundME at 22:49 PM on 4 October 2011The Last Interglacial Part Four - Oceanic Influences
Thanks to everyone for replying. My hypothetical time slice of the present represented by a graph showing Temperature and CO2 concentrations could only be moved backwards in time as far as the beginning of the Pleistocene. Any further back and tectonics make it useless. However I believe it would have been futile to examine even this period with an eye to predicting the future behaviour of our climate by looking for similar conditions in the past. There are a lot of interesting hypothesis that postulate the consequences of a given set of climatic conditions. But as to cause and effect there are so many, in fact I think there are too many, competing ideas for the average layman to wade through with any confidence in their veracity. There are only two scenarios that I believe should concern me. 1) A runaway greenhouse effect leading to Venusian conditions. 2) Global cooling If we are to believe people like Monkton the runaway greenhouse effect is constrained by the past because the climate sensitivity has been limited (who knows by what) or we have to say that there is a lot of uncertainty in the past record and no past conditions match today's conditions to such a degree that it allows us to make such conclusions(low sensitivity). Back to another Planet.Moderator Response: Please take discussion of your two scenarios to the thread "It’s not bad." -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:49 PM on 4 October 2011Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
True, I didn't notice he said the frequency has not changed. But he follows that with Masters' comments on a "higher energy state" which, AFAIK, is not well-defined. A better followup would be about the ingredients for tornadoes which may increase or decrease (or stay the same) with GW. The suggestion from the chapter is the heat and moisture are the only needed ingredients. But the heat and moisture travel from the gulf every spring, at least several times, but the tornado outbreaks are much more rare than that. Also the heat and moisture remain after tornado season dies down. It suggests that there are more important ingredients and those ingredients should at least be mentioned WRT AGW.
Prev 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 Next
