Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 Next
Comments 78101 to 78150:
-
Eric the Red at 21:52 PM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muon, Quite interesting. He is basically saying that migration caused by past weather events has led to conflict in many cases; particularly when the migration crosses ethnic or cultural borders. Therefore, migration should be avoided. In order to avoid this type of migration, the least developed countries (LDC) should reduce their dependence on the land, i.e. increase modern development. Also, these countries should invest (with help from the developed world) in infrastructure to withstand environmental changes. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:39 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
muoncounter, excluding tsunamis which are rather rare, the effects of weather are dispersed unlike earthquakes and volcanoes. So volcanoes and earthquakes can stay the same and have the same number of "catastrophes". Weather, on the other hand, will cause an increasing number of "catastrophes" because their definition is based on dollar value. The dollar value of property in volcanic zones is not going to increase as much as nonvolcanic zones. And while earthquake zones may increase in dollar value, they have rigorous construction and zoning laws. That is not as true for flood zones, and likely not true at all for other types of storm zones. In short, weather can hit anywhere and cause more dollar damage to meet the catastrophe threshold whereas earthquakes and volcanoes can only occur where they have in the past. But that doesn't mean that such weather events are not increasing, just that some of the upward trend can be explained by population and wealth. -
Eric the Red at 21:34 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, I agree that six years is too short to make grand assertions. Therefore, neither von Schuckmann nor Rignot can be considered definitive. Getting past the obvious uncertainties, we can still evaluate the measurements in comparison to one another. I think we can agree that the Rignot numbers for SLR contribution from Greenland and Antarctica are high. Ignoring the extrapolation out to 2011, his 2010 value still leads to 1.7 mm/yr SLR, which combined with the mountain glacial loss from Meier results in 2.9 mm/yr. Whether you use this value or your quoted value of 2.6 mm/yr, the contribution from all glacial melt still exceeds the recently observed SLR of 2.2 – 2.4 mm/yr. Therefore, either the above values for SLR contribution from all glaciers are too high, or the steric component is negative. Simple math. -
CBDunkerson at 21:31 PM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, this is covered in the article above. There is no 'what if' here. It is absolutely the case that there is a delay between the introduction of an external forcing and the climate reaching a new energy equilibrium. However, that has nothing to do with feedback direction or strength. As explained in the article (see the 'It's the PDO!' section and the previous article linked therein), Spencer's model can produce a large range of feedbacks. Essentially, he set his ocean energy absorption and distribution variables to the values which would suggest the least global warming... but when those values are compared to real world measurements of ocean heating they aren't even close. Let me give you a simple example; Assumption 1: "The empire state building is about 16 times as tall as it is wide." - This is true and provides a very basic mathematical model Assumption 2: "The empire state building is 10 feet wide." - This is false. Conclusion: "16 * 10 = 160, therefor the empire state building is about 160 feet tall." That is essentially what Spencer did... except that his model had flaws even before bad variables were put into it. -
Kevin C at 21:07 PM on 2 August 2011Oceans are cooling
Highly relevant paper here (h/t Ari): http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf It is also interesting with respect to Kevin Trenberth's recent guest post on the energy imbalance. -
breath-relic at 19:07 PM on 2 August 2011Skeptical Science now an Android app
Xoom advises unexpected stop each time shortcut is chosen. -
lukeness at 16:59 PM on 2 August 2011An experiment into science blogging
Interesting... it actually still says "There are no comments posted yet" just above where it says comments are temporarily disabled... And I can see the comments on this post, just not the survey post. -
Albatross at 13:56 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hello Ken @103, No, sorry but you are still wrong-- and from your post I can see again where your logic continues to fail you. But I have addressed those problems (note plural) before, you are not listening. I used BOTH too (i.e., glaciers and ice caps, plus GIS and Antarctica), and I also allowed for the estimated increase, and you do not get a mean contribution to GSL from ice melt for the 2005-2010 window of 3.1 mm/yr, the value is very close to 2.6 mm/yr, 2.4 mm/yr if one does not allow for the expected increase. Please stop trying to float red herrings about Pinatubo. And it is not Richot, it is Rignot et al. (2011). -
muoncounter at 13:52 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
ThinkProgress posted a US version of the annual disaster count chart:
The global version appears here.
Geophysical events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions show no pattern of increase. All the increase is due to meteorological, hydrological and climatological events which have all more than doubled. From an insurance point of view it certainly looks like the climate is changing.
-
Ken Lambert at 13:17 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross #102 Rob Painting at #80 and again at #98 has told HALF the story. In both posts he has only included charts for Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet loss. He has not mentioned Glacier and Ice Cap loss which roughly DOUBLES the equivalent SLR. BP has simply combined the two and run down the trend lines shown on the Richot's charts starting in 2006. This gives a mass SLR of +3.1mm/yr in 2010. That was his point. If you believe Richot et al (2011) then that is the result. That was BP's point - not whether Hansen or others have lower numbers. There is no 'colossal' error - just a logical conclusion from analysing Richot's numbers. Richot may well be at the upper limit. Take Hansen's numbers if you like. Would you also take Hansen's 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect' as an explanantion for the reduced warming imbalance as well? -
thingadonta at 13:11 PM on 2 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
"The past is the key to the future". Hansen and Sato 2011. This is a reversion of the classic statement that took decades in 18th and 19th centuries geological science to establish: "the present is the key to the past". It is not a simple idea, and has numerous political ramifications and subtleties. Historically, creationists were the ones fighting for the idea of the reverse, which is what Hansen and Sato are also doing: that the past is the key to the present, and the future, which is not valid. Just because A leads to B, does not mean that B leads to A. The reason it is not valid is we cannot determine the past as accuately as we can determine the present, neither can we determine the future as accurately as we can determine the present. Centuries of earth scientists fought hard to establish these basic truths, Hansen and Sato with one statement seek to sweep this history aside. The rest of the arctile has similar issues. Eg "However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades." This 'fast-rate' cannot be determined from the past due to the inability to determine rates and feedback in sufficient resolution on geological time scales. In other words, the rate of the warming in the e.g. Eocene thermal event cannot be sufficiently determined below an error of at least 1000 years, which means the fast feedback rate as stated by Hansen above cannot be determined, nor the negative feedbacks which act to slow this rate etc. -
Albatross at 12:40 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Hello Ken, Re your comment "All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss." Yes, I know that he used both sources of ice loss, as did I, as did Hansen. BP's numbers are not right, and you have now elected to make those errors yours as well. You both have been told (and shown) why that is multiple times now by several people. Yet you steadfastly refuse to listen. And instead of soliciting unnecessary apologies from Rob Painting, you should rather be asking BP to apologize for slandering scientists on this thread and for sending us all on a wild goose chase. -
Ken Lambert at 11:25 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob Painting #98 "And is typical of BP, he never acknowledges his mistakes, or apologizes for slurs against actual scientific experts, but simply moves on to the next bit of nit-picking. It's a shining example of the lengths even very intelligent people, like BP, will go to in order to fool themselves." Incorrect - I did see BP acknowledge a mistake once (a couple of years ago) - obviously he has improved his act since. There are TWO sources of land ice loss. What you have ignored in your charts above is half the story viz: Glacier & Ice Cap loss in 2006 is 402+/-95 Gt/yr. You have only shown the charts for the Greenland & Antarctica Ice Sheet Loss which was 475+/-158 Gt/yr in 2006 All BP did in his calculation was run along the trend line from 2006 to 2010 for BOTH sources of land ice loss. I will graciously accept your future apology to me and BP can please himself.Response:[DB] "I did see BP acknowledge a mistake once (a couple of years ago)"
The mind simply boggles at this statement.
"I will graciously accept your future apology to me"
??? Who appointed you BP's Agent Provacateur? You would do well to focus less on the moderation others receive, Mr. Lambert, as it tends to reduce your comment to caricature, which surely is not your intent. You are capable of far better than that.
-
Dale at 10:54 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Just a quickie, but what if (as the satellite data does tend to suggest) there is actually a delayed build up and release of energy? Might there actually be a possibility that this delay could mask later responses and cause a possible erroneous result (in the case Spencer harps on about, a weaker positive feedback)? If an expert could school me on the specifics as to why it wouldn't, I'd be appreciative. -
Albatross at 09:07 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @89, Yes. It may be worse than that though. As I noted earlier @84, the "skeptics" elected to start in 2006 when they should have started in 2005. Worse still, they appear to have then decided to calculate the expected contribution in 2010 (using the 2006 start and then applying the expected annual increase) and then assumed that that 2010 value (the end point value) applies to each and every year in the 2005-2010 period. The mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 (allowing for increased melt) was about 2.6 mm/yr (I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I will have to double check that). So yes an error on the order of 0.5 mm/yr when the error bars are also about 0.5 mm/yr is significant. But maybe Ken is coming around. He was adamant @63 that: "so therefore steric rise must be negative (-1.1mm/yr if isostatic rebound is included)." Now he is saying @89 that: "means that steric rise is very small, negligible or negative." So perhaps he is finally getting the point. The point being that 6 years is simply too short a period to be making grand assertions that "the oceans are cooling", or the science of AGW has major inconsistencies or that the centennial-scale warming is 0.2 C. Moreover, as shown by Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011) such slowdowns (or even periods of cooling) are not fairly common. The fact the the rate heat is accumulating in the oceans may have decreased in this time is not equivalent to cooling, they are just accumulating heat at a slower pace, probably in response to the dramatic increase in aerosol loading and the prolonged solar minimum. What also makes me a little nervous with these calculations is that a zero lag is assumed, and we know that there are lags in the system. So that too complicates matters. You are correct Rob, this thread is yet another example of the tricks of the trade used by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. -
Rob Painting at 08:09 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR - 'I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not." The deep ocean is warming, particularly the layer between 3000-4000 mtrs deep. See Kouketsu (2011). Does that mean you agree the surface is warming? -
Rob Painting at 07:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL- "Where is BP's 'colossal' error in this calculation? Ken are you serious? Look at Rignot (2011):
2006 was a year of exceptional ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, but look at 2007-2009, ice mass increased. So how can they be contributing to total sea level rise in those years? Go back as far as you like, there is huge year-to-year variability in the surface ice mass balance.
Compare the observations to BP's calculations - he simply assumes that the ice loss that occurred in 2006 has happened every year since, and yet he was the one that referenced Rignot (2011) in the first place.
And is typical of BP, he never acknowledges his mistakes, or apologizes for slurs against actual scientific experts, but simply moves on to the next bit of nit-picking. It's a shining example of the lengths even very intelligent people, like BP, will go to in order to fool themselves.
-
pbjamm at 07:43 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob Honeycutt@5 This would be a great way to expose hypocrisy unless the contrarians chose, once again, to ignore the facts. Likely they would focus only on the flaws in *your* methods and ignore evidence of Spencer's errors. -
Andy Skuce at 07:26 AM on 2 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. I deliberately avoided discussing the merits of Ridley’s ideas about the importance of trade in human history and prehistory, although he certainly downplays the positive influence of government on human development. I would be surprised if many anthropologists and economic historians did not disagree vehemently with his ideas. The aim of my counter argument was to show that laissez-faire won’t work for the unique challenge presented by climate change, even if Ridley is correct about the past. Tony Noerpel, thanks for the link to your interesting review of Steve Keen’s book. I also enjoyed your article Ideology Versus Reality which makes similar points to those that I am trying to make in this series. I had already referenced the Bezemer (2009) article in my part three. On the subject of Ridley’s political beliefs, it’s probably an error to label him a right-winger or a conservative, especially in the context of how those terms are currently used in the USA. The following quote is his own account of his political views, taken from a recent discussion with Mark Lynas.On the topic of labels, you repeatedly call me a member of “the right”. Again, on what grounds? I am not a reactionary in the sense of not wanting social change: I make this abundantly clear throughout my book. I am not a hierarchy lover in the sense of trusting the central authority of the state: quite the opposite. I am not a conservative who defends large monopolies, public or private: I celebrate the way competition causes creative destruction that benefits the consumer against the interest of entrenched producers. I do not preach what the rich want to hear — the rich want to hear the gospel of Monbiot, that technological change is bad, that the hoi polloi should stop clogging up airports, that expensive home-grown organic food is the way to go, that big business and big civil service should be in charge. So in what sense am I on the right? I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view. Rich toffs like me have self interest in conservatism, not radical innovation.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Okay, that is perhaps the best way rather than hijacking another thread. -
muoncounter at 06:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Stephen Baines#9: "he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin ... he can spout such garbage" Unfortunately, we've been conditioned to listen to both sides and expect that somewhere in the middle lies a form of objectivity (or at least a balanced view). As Paul Krugman observed, Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” This creates pressure to move towards increasingly extreme views, so that the 'center' moves in your direction. However, this is supposed to be science, not political debating. In science, it is very possible that one side is utterly incorrect. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Moderator - in writing that comment, I am very conscious that I walked into political territory but it is my belief that political values are an important part of the question as to whether someone is in skeptic camp or not. Furthermore, I am trying to get some constructive engagement with right wing thinkers on alternative policies. I would plead that posts provide for such engagement be allowed through.Response:[DB] Phil, as long as the comments continue to be tangential to this thread, then go ahead and conduct them here. As long as the participants construct their comments to comply with the comments policy and keep them relevant to the topic of this thread, "Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?" then it will be allowed.
Or, if you wish, put together a specific guest post of your own geared to that and we can discuss it with John.
-
Stephen Baines at 06:20 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dean...I see... he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin. And that somehow means he can spout such garbage out the yin-yang, while on the federal dime as well. -
Berényi Péter at 06:19 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
At least let me get the message through, please. Dear scaddenp, if you happen to find a public place which is [...], let me know please. We could continue the thread there. I suggest the same to you, Eric. -
Berényi Péter at 06:05 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
#457 scaddenp at 13:33 PM on 11 July, 2011 Government action is portrayed as theft of the rights of fossil fuel property holders but is their situation any different from asbestos property holders? Our knowledge of the toxicity [carbon dioxide & asbestos] has improved in both cases and the response of the industry has been rather similar. #458 Eric (skeptic) at 10:02 AM on 14 July, 2011 Note for the record, I am taking up scaddenp's offer to discuss this by email. I have replied to scaddenp 457 here, but it got deleted. On the other hand I am not willing to discuss it in private like Eric (skeptic) does, { complaints about moderation again, snipped }Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Only hostility to speech here is hostility to speech that is off-topic and/or violates the Comments policy. But you knew that already. -
bbickmore at 04:54 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob @2, I don't think Spencer knows he's wrong. My impression (and it could be wildly off) is that he has a chip on his shoulder because other scientists haven't been particularly polite about it when he's ticked them off in the past. Maybe some of their objections were even a little overblown. But instead of swallowing his pride and asking himself whether there wasn't anything useful in the criticisms (like the rest of us do when we get a bad review that isn't sugar-coated or is somewhat unfair,) he allowed himself to be embittered. Now he seems to have a vendetta against the rest of the climate science community, and it's his mission in life to find that one key piece of evidence that takes down the whole house of cards. (Which leads me to believe that he needs to read a few books on philosophy of science, as well.) -
Bibliovermis at 04:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Let's do a quick "back of the envelope" calculation. Ocean's Depth and Volume Revealed ocean volume: 1.332 billion cubic kilometers water heat capacity: 4.186 joule/gram °C 90% x 1.322 billion cubic kilometers x 1 million grams / cubic meter x 1 billion cubic meters / cubic kilometer x 4.186 joule/gram °C x 0.002 °C = 9.96 x 10^21 joules argument #122: Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 10^20 joules per year. --- The surface is warming the deep ocean, rather the deep ocean inducing the surface to warm. The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. You are simultaneously presenting contradictory arguments and dismissing entire fields of research with that hand waving. -
Dean at 04:26 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
As have been noted by a few, Spencer himself has commented upon what his scientific motives are in the context of his political struggle. -
CBDunkerson at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob, while it certainly seems like they should "know they are wrong", I don't believe that many of them do. Frankly, I consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming... but Spencer disputes that too. Likewise, it seems self-evident that pure free-market capitalism is just as hopelessly flawed as pure socialism... but that doesn't prevent Spencer from ascribing to that viewpoint as well. Ditto his partner Christy. Indeed, ditto most of the 'skeptics'. So either these folks are all actively promoting views which they know are false and will lead to potential disaster... or they are deceiving themselves first and their adherents second. Self deception is a powerful force and seemingly endemic in modern society. The old saying about, 'you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts' has long since been tossed aside. On many topics there are two (or more) radically different versions of 'reality'. Personally, I consider this the single greatest problem we face. Global warming is bad... but we could deal with it if we were all living in the same universe. Spencer and most of the other 'skeptics' aren't. Having half the population believe in an array of 'facts' which are actually pure nonsense leads to self-destructive decision making. We have to work on getting everyone accepting the same reality... probably the best way to go about that is to structure things so that the consequences of believing fiction strike the person directly rather than everyone around them. For instance, if some scheme had been enacted in the 80s where avowed AGW 'skeptics' would pay lower taxes if temperature anomalies went down while AGW 'believers' would pay less if anomalies went up then I doubt there would be many 'skeptics' left by now. Yet since there haven't been any consequences to believing this nonsense they have been able to continue updating their false beliefs and still hold that it has 'just recently turned around' every time temperatures dip at all. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I would be very interesting to use Roy's model to produce a "paper" showing extremely high climate sensitivity and publish it in the same journal this one was published. -
chris at 04:16 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
"I wonder what edification he get's out of this process?" Good question; however if he wants to get proper ocean heat transfer he really needs to put in some sort of eddy-fication! -
Berényi Péter at 04:11 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#96 Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August, 2011 Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? Of course. But the warming we are taking about here is only 0.002°C annually, fifty times less than your 0.1°C. That's close to the accuracy/precision limit of thermometers applied by ARGO. And even if it were 0.1°C: how would it induce a more than an order of magnitude larger warming on the surface? The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. -
Stephen Baines at 03:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Great post Barry. Seriously though, the mistakes are so simplistic (though not necessarily easy for others to see) that Spencer must be aware of them. I mean, no one would model ocean heat transfer as a purely diffusive process. I wonder what edification he get's out of this process? Is he really just so tired of trying to get things through peer review that he's just given up? Has he traded in science for applause from the madding crowds of "skeptics." -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Roy Spencer is not trying to do science, that much is very clear. What he's trying to do is get "science-y" sounding material propagated into the denial machine. He doesn't care if it's right. He only cares that it motivates the deniers. At this point I believe virtually ALL of the lead (faux) skeptics out there know they are wrong. They are now only engaging in ideological battles. -
Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? -
Berényi Péter at 02:38 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#94 Eric the Red at 01:22 AM on 2 August, 2011 I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not. More than that. The surface may warm on average, still, temperature of the abyss is determined by the coldest patch of open water available, which is just above freezing as long as sea ice exists anywhere. Distribution of salinity may complicate the picture somewhat, but since with large scale freezing of seawater salinity of the fluid phase increases by brine exclusion, it does not make much difference. -
Just Put the Model Down, Roy
...still laughing over the "rainbow monkeys" bit. Seriously: >30 unconstrained parameters? What a pointless exercise. -
Eric the Red at 01:22 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken, It appears that we were in the same mind frame. Thank you for the compliment. I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not. Any warming of ocean water will simply cause that water to rise closer to the surface, and settling at that depth which corresponds to its density. BP says this quite well. -
Berényi Péter at 00:58 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#90 Ken Lambert at 23:58 PM on 1 August, 2011 No steric rise means no heat sequestered in the oceans which as the major heat store on the planet means no warming. Personally I don't believe much heat can be sequestered in the deep ocean. That's because its temperature is regulated. Not by simple quasi-linear feedbacks, but by a true nonlinear regulator, a thermostat. At least as long as there remains some sea ice anywhere on the planet in any season. And not even the wildest projections suggest it would disappear altogether any time soon at any conceivable level of CO2 (lets say in a million years). Simply the current configuration of continents is such it can't happen at all. Sea ice, even if it is gone for the summer, winter come returns. Now, downwelling happens where seawater is densest, that is, where its temperature is just above freezing. If there is sea ice, it must happen somewhere close to the edge, where there is still open water (to make heat exchange with the atmosphere possible). Temperature of these water masses is not determined by climate, but by the physical properties of water. If climate changes, the location of downwelling can (and does) shift, but it always finds the proper place where temperature is next to freezing. It means if by some increased mechanical forcing (probably more intense winds) a bit more heat gets mixed down to the abyss, sooner or later abyssal waters get lighter than ice-cold waters at certain locations above, so they simply switch place. It does not mean heat content of the deep ocean can't fluctuate, because characteristic reaction times of the system can be quite large. Actual location of downwelling can also change, because the thermostat only requires downwelling to happen somewhere (anywhere) along the ice edge, where salinity happens to be the highest and/or cooling is most vigorous. For example under certain circumstances downwelling in the North Atlantic can shift south or cease for a while altogether (for several centuries) which can have a huge impact on the local climate of lands bordering this ocean (Europe & Norh America), but would not influence deep ocean heat content much, because if it increases, flux of downwelling integrated over the entire surface should also increase and temperature of downwelling water is strictly constrained. -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR#75: "You may be interested in this paper" Yes, there are some interesting conclusions drawn. Forgive the lengthy quote, but it's always fun to read exactly what we've heard as skeptic arguments demolished point-by-point: Critics may argue that climate change is slow, providing ample adjustment time. However, climate change is expected to raise the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which play a role in migrations. Critics may also argue that economic growth in LDCs will solve the problem, financing mitigation and adaptation, and reducing dependence on the environment. However, this will considerably raise their demand for energy, and with the current technology, accelerate climate change. Facing this conundrum, I propose that we take initiative early on, defending against climate change problems before they grow. This effort should focus on LDCs most vulnerable to environmental migration and conflict. For example, vulnerable LDCs could lessen their dependence on the environment for livelihood or protect certain areas against rising sea level. These programs will likely be lengthy, complex, and expensive ... Nevertheless, assuming we decide to implement this effort, who would fund it? The ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle which DCs implement at home, suggests that DCs should finance most of the effort required to defend the LDCs against the effects of climate change, as over-reliance of the DCs on fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change. -- emphases added, albeit hardly necessary -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - Thank you, that clarifies matters a great deal. Berényi took the highest available melt estimates (and not checking whether accelerations from >5 years ago held until now), the lowest available SLR estimates (very short term, statistically unsupportable), and used those singular values to claim Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) was invalid. A reasonable approach might be to look at the high and low estimates for both melt and SLR, with uncertainties, and see how the Von Schuckmann paper estimates fell relative to those bounds. But that wouldn't have supported his argument. So - cherry picking numbers from both extrema of input/output values that contradict, possibly confirmation bias, no consideration of uncertainties or disagreements in the field - yet another BP kerfuffle, another waste of time. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:10 AM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB at 73 I never stated that the US Army was not. I stated that my friend who is a Battalion Commander has never heard of any climate related security issues. So, if the Army is working on something it has not filtered down yet.Response:[DB] Speaking in generalities tends to draw unwanted attention; had you been more precise, I would not have intruded.
That said, expecting the rank-and-file to be kept "in-the-loop" by the powers-that-be is not credible.
-
Kevin C at 00:09 AM on 2 August 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
While I'm very wary of drawing any conclusion from a single paper (an error which this article suffers from particularly, in my opinion), the following paper adds another piece to the puzzle. (Whether it is in the right place is another question. Given that they claim an increasing sea ice trend, when the trend itself is barely significant, I have reservations about the statistics.) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2011.pdf (via Ari at AGW observer) -
Ken Lambert at 00:09 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR #89 I posted #90 at the same time as you did #89. It seems we are saying pretty much the same thing - except you probably said it better. Can you find any 'colossal' errors in BP's posts? In fact I find his contributions startling, original and well researched, and when the smoke clears from the flak BP attracts - his arguments invariably stack up. -
Kevin C at 00:06 AM on 2 August 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
While I'm very wary of drawing any conclusion from a single paper (an error which this article suffers from particularly, in my opinion), the following paper adds another piece to the puzzle. (Whether it is in the right place is another question.) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2011.pdf (via Ari at AGW observer) -
Ken Lambert at 23:58 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, KR, Rob Painting Quoting the original Rignot et al.(2011) paper thus: "Using techniques other than GRACE and MBM, the mass loss of mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC), includin the GIC surrounding Greenland and Antarctica, has been estimated at 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, with an acceleration of 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 over the last few decades [Kaser et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2007]. Our GRACE estimates and associated errors account for the leakage from the Greenland and Antarctica GIC, and, as discussed earlier, this leakage is small. The MBM estimates completely exclude the GIC. In year 2006, the total ice sheet loss was 475 ± 158 Gt/yr(regression line in Figure 2c), which is comparable or greater than the 402 ± 95 Gt/yr estimate for the GIC. More important,the acceleration in ice sheet loss of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2 is three times larger than that for the GIC. If this trend continues, ice sheets will become the dominant contribution to sea level rise in the next decades, well in advance of model forecasts [Meehl et al., 2007]." Glacier & Ice Cap loss in 2006 is 402+/-95 Gt/yr Ice Sheet Loss in 2006 was 475+/-158 Gt/yr Total in 2006 : 877+/-253GT/yr Acceleration both respectively: 11.8 + 36.3 = 48.1Gt/yr2 BP at #9 then multiplied the acceleration by 5 years (2006-10) to give an approx extra 240Gt/yr. The total in 2010 was therefore 877 + 240 = 1117 Gt/yr. Equiv sea level rise assuming 360Gt/yr = 1mm/yr is therefore 1117/360 = 3.1mm/yr. Where is BP's 'colossal' error in this calculation? Now Rignot et al.(2011) might be an overestimate of land ice melt and these SLR estimates have wide error bars - however if satellite total SLR has slowed to about 2.3mm/yr then ice melt mass contributions in the 2-3mm/yr range (even Dr Trenberth quoted 2mm/yr in his Aug09 paper)means that steric rise is very small, negligible or negative. No steric rise means no heat sequestered in the oceans which as the major heat store on the planet means no warming. -
Eric the Red at 23:58 PM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate, I appreciable the compliment. It appears that we are searching for similar problems and solutions to specific, rather than generic, issues. SLR has been an issue for mankind since we first started migrating about this planet. Some, like New Orleans and the Netherlands have adopted large engineering feats to combat this issue, while Blangladeshis moved to neighboring lands. You may be interested in this paper. http://130.238.7.16/h/heax7669/Samh%E4llets%20Geografi/Artiklar/Reuveny.pdf Never underestimate mother, mother ocean. -
Eric the Red at 23:29 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
You would not think that the Rignot (2011) paper would create such a controvery. People seem to accept part of the conclusion, but not others, even though the are connected. Everyone seems to agree that the Rignot paper claimed an ice mass loss of 475 +/- 95 Gt/yr. There appears to be disagreement about whether the ice mass loss is accelerating, and whether it is linear. If it is linear, 36 Gt / yr as shown in the plot by RP in @80, then the ice loss for 2011 would be 655 Gt, which equates to about 1.9 mm / yr of SLR. Rignot (2011) also mentioned that the contribution from mountain glaciers was 402 Gt/yr, with an accelerated rate of 12 Gt / yr. Albatross @84 showed that this values comes from Meier, et. al. (2007). That would amount to another 1.3 mm /yr of SLR. Eliminating the rounding, results in a 2011 SLR of 3.1mm / yr. As Albtatross pointed out in @84, this is at the high end. Wu found a total of 159 mm /yr from Greenland and Antarctica, which equates to 0.44 mm /yr of SLR. We clearly have a wide range of values. Since the values taken from Rignot (2011) exceed the recently measured SLR (The University of Colorado has acknowledged a deceleration recently from the 18-year trend), claims that these values overestimate the loss of glacial ice from Greenland and Antarctica appear justified. This is supported by the findings of Leuliette & Willis (2011) showing a SLR of 2.2 mm /yr. The question posed is whether Rignot (2011) contradicts the results of von Schuckmann and La Traon (2011). Clearly, both cannot be accurate, unless the SLR values are significantly low. Either Rignot's mass balance valus are too high, or his acceleration is in error, or von Schuckmann and La Traon are calculating too high of a steric component to SLR. Both of these calculations appear to much greater sources of error that the measured SLR values. Personally, I believe they are both too high, and am siding with the values presented by Leuliette & Willis (2011). -
Composer99 at 22:13 PM on 1 August 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
The link to the US Department of Commerce in point 8 of the list of inquiries clearing the scientists (Intermediate rebuttal) is now broken. -
Alan E at 21:56 PM on 1 August 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Get a recognised qualified economist to formally critique Monckton's analysis for media publication. Gotta carry weight.
Prev 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 Next
