Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 Next
Comments 78151 to 78200:
-
Tony Noerpel at 21:49 PM on 1 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Killian is refering to Steve Keen's "Debunking Ecnomics". Keen shows that neo-classical economics, in which Milton Friedman/ Ayn Rand free market school happens to reside, is mathematically self-inconsistent. Ecnomics does not share the rigor of the hard sciences. The book was written in 2001 and foresees the economic meltdown. The second edition should be published this fall and is double the size of the first edition. A study by Bezemer (2009) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/MPRA_paper_15892.pdf shows that only 12 economists saw the recent economic crises coming. Keen was one of the 12. I wrote this book review here http://brleader.com/?p=5068 One mistake Ridley makes is to assume corporations, the loigcal outcome of unregulated free-markets, are somehow different than governments or organized religion. A great book but wait for the second edition. Tony -
Tony O at 20:06 PM on 1 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
"Life without state is nasty short and brutish" Thomas Hobbes Ridley's argument ignores the often missed fact that the rapid creation of wealth has occurred where there is lots of government. We undertake many transactions because we can do so with relative confidence. No government, no safety means transactions are done with considerable difficulty and so far fewer transactions will occur. Life without government: China in the thirties and Somalia today. Do we really want to negotiate dozens of tolls to travel a few miles. Do we want to spend a large proportion of our wealth on protection. Property rights do not exist in a vacuum. -
Robert Murphy at 19:38 PM on 1 August 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
#126: "No mention of green house gas emissions from volcanic sources. Why is this?" Because volcanic GHG emissions are tiny compared to other sources - about 130 to 150 times less per year than what we release burning fossil fuels, for instance.Moderator Response: Indeed. For details see "Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." -
ashleyj722 at 18:56 PM on 1 August 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
No mention of green house gas emissions from volcanic sources. Why is this? -
scaddenp at 18:45 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Of course, it should go without saying that if BP can conceive of no data that would convince him that he was wrong, then he is in boat as poptart and should be ignored. From some posts, he seems to be motivated by an abhorrence for windmills but I suspect AGW offends his political values. If so, then it would be interesting if he would comment on my comment concerning political acceptable solutions if convinced that mitigation was cheaper -
scaddenp at 18:37 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I asked BP what data would convince him that he was wrong which makes his choice of these parameters odd in my opinion. It would imply that these parameters are able to unequivocally show global warming whereas he denies more conventional measures. I am intrigued as to why he has picked these and also why not Argo which looks to me like the most precise instrument for global heat balance that we possess. -
Albatross at 17:13 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob, "and will he come back to apologize for slurs against Eric Rignot and co-authors, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon." Doubtful. Also, I have yet to see a 'skeptics" or someone in denial about AGW concede an error or correct said error. But we can always hope that if they are operating in good faith and being true 'skeptics' in search of the truth, that they will do so (i.e, correct errors and apologize for slurs against scientists). -
Albatross at 17:10 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @80, It may help for Berényi Péterto look at Hansen et al. (2011), specifically Fig. 18 and the accompanying text: "The "high" estimates in Fig. 18 for Greenland and Antarctica, respectively, 281 and 176 Gt/year (360 Gt = 1 mm sea level), are from Velicogna (2009). A recent analysis (Rignot et al., 2011) compares surface mass budget studies and the gravity method, finding support for the high estimates of Velicogna (2009). The low estimate for Greenland, 104 Gt/year, is from Wu et al. (2010). The low estimate for Antarctica, 55 Gt/year is the low end of the range -105 ± 50 Gt/year of S. Luthcke et al. (private communication, 2011). The high value for melt of glaciers and small ice caps (400 Gt/year) is the estimate of Meier et al." Also see my post @64 for a summary. The claim made here by "skeptics" for a mean annual contribution of 3.1 mm/yr from ice melt between 2005 and 2010 (the period under consideration) is simply not supported in the literature, even after allowing for acceleration. It seems that what Berényi Péter has done is to estimate rate of increase in 2011 (using a start value in 2006), and assumed that that value applies each and every year from 2005-2010. Ironically Berényi Péter repeatedly accuses Rignot et al. (2011) of overestimating the ice loss, but he in fact appears to have artificially inflated their numbers. Although Berényi Péter used all the satellite data to calculate his rate of increase, it seems that he uses the rate of increase in in 2011 (he does not provide specifics or an equation, but it looks like a quadratic fit), and that value is of course in disagreement for the mean linear rate of increase obtained by all the official agencies for the same satellite GSL dataset. What he should be doing is looking at the mean rate of increase in the satellite GSL data for 2005-2010, just as the scientists at the agencies did. Finally, Berényi Péter has failed to demonstrate that the fit he decided to use (a quadratic or whatever he used) for the satellite GSL data is indeed better fit to the data than a linear fit at statistically significant level. So at the end of the day, Berényi Péter has failed to concede that he is wrong and correct his errors (despite a few people pointing this out and trying to explain to him where he went wrong), and he has failed to refute von Shuckmann and La Traon (2011). Quelle suprise. Now I am done wasting my valuable time on BP. -
Rob Painting at 16:41 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Scaddenp - windspeed over the oceans at mid latitudes is important for vertical mixing of heat into the depths. And cloud cover over the Southern Hemisphere has increased in the last decade (consistent with the indirect effect of aerosols). It's detailed in the Hatzianastassiou (2011) paper I linked to at @57. The paper should published at the end of August (hopefully). Albatross - I'm wondering whether BP's humongous error in his calculations has dawned on him yet, and will he come back to apologize for slurs against Eric Rignot and co-authors, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon? -
Albatross at 16:10 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Scaddenp @81, BP seems to be uncritically accepting the results of Paltridge et al. (2009) with regards to trends in upper-tropospheric moisture. He ought to read Dessler and Davis (2010): "In response to decadal climate fluctuations, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is unique in showing decreases in tropical mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity as the climate warms. All of the other reanalyses show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity." But this is going horribly OT. -
Rob Painting at 16:07 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Composer99 - Have you read the interview transcipt over at Joe Romm's blog?. It's a doozy. The whole thing is about the dead polar bears that Dr Monnett and his associate saw during the surveys. They spend almost 2 hours interviewing him about the 4 dead polar bears, and at the end of the interview decline to outline the details of the allegations against him. There's a couple of funny moments where the interviewers keep getting muddled up over the number of dead polar bears, trying to trip up Dr Monnett, they have a hard time grasping that 3 of the dead polars were seen in the survey area, and one was seen enroute to the survey area. Yeah, it's a witchhunt. -
Composer99 at 13:11 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Out of courtesy to my source, I should like to include a link to Deltoid. -
Tom Curtis at 13:11 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
apirate @51, given the line of questioning in the interview between the investigators and Monnet, the real story here is: Who accussed Monnet of wrong doing? and What evidence of wrong doing did they present? I suspect the motivation for the accusation was entirely political, and that it had no evidentiary basis. Last week in Australia, Christopher Monckton said that the anti-climate science movement was "coming for" the climate scientists, and that those climate scientists were going to be "locked away". Given the politically motivated investigations into Michael Mann, and now this investigation of Monnett, it appears he meant it seriously. Climate scientists have been given clear warning that if they tell the truth about climate, the American political right intends to treat them like criminals. -
Composer99 at 13:05 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Courtesy of Deltoid, I have found the link to the article by the organization PEER, which is advocating on behalf of Dr Monnett. I recommend the links provided at the bottom to documents pertaining to the case. -
Composer99 at 11:49 AM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
So let me get this straight: According to the news story, a scientist is under investigation for events occuring in 2004 which may or may not have anything to do with his observing a small number of dead polar bears in the water while undertaking other research. And this is somehow supposed to outweigh a study undertaken over five years which made use of GPS collars to accurately (given the known limitations of GPS) track polar bears. Right. -
muoncounter at 11:41 AM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
What now, polarbeargate? the disclosure has generated a firestorm on the blogosphere as climate change skeptics are wildly speculating Only on FoxNews (your source) does 'under investigation' mean 'guilty'. Except for Rupert Murdoch. -
muoncounter at 11:35 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#74, Sorry, nothing personal. I read the 'at least' in "the Navy at least is developing contingency plans" as a qualifier on what they were doing (at least they are developing plans). But this is now wayyy off topic. -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:12 AM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
I wish this article had been out a week earlier! Polar Bear Researcher Under Investigation for Integrity Issues -
apiratelooksat50 at 11:10 AM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Michael Sweet at 48 Directly from the article: "The cubs of the bears that have been around for a while appear malnourished and far too small for the end of June." Obviously, the mother and cubs had been in hibernation per elementary polar bear biology. You clearly did not read the article for its content. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:55 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muon@73 You are so predisposed to find fault in anything I write, that you are not reading what I write. I typed "the Navy AT LEAST". That doesn't exclude the other branches of the US Military. Earlier in July I was in the panhandle of Florida and drove through Tyndall AFB on the way out. It is a very low lying area and will obviously be affected by any SLR down the road. I plan on doing IronMan Florida there in 2012. One would expect the US Army with most of their bases being inland to be the least concerned about SLR.Response:[DB] It strains credulity beyond the breaking point that the Joint Chiefs would have all of the branches developing contingency plans except for one.
-
muoncounter at 09:21 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#68: "the Navy at least is developing contingency plans for SLR" Confusion? Hardly. Eglin is a large Air Force Base in 'panhandle' Florida. Camp LeJeune is a Marine Corps base on the coast of North Carolina. And who is building all those floodwalls in New Orleans? The US Army Corps of Engineers. The other branch of the service is called the Coast Guard; I think they're up to speed as well. -
scaddenp at 09:19 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
"at some point in the future the oceans will recede again" planning for 10,000+ years in future seems somewhat impractical. -
scaddenp at 09:18 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Walk to work, send kids to schools they can walk to, public transport, renewable electricity purchase, (NZ is 73% renewable anyway), dont fly overseas - dont attend conferences, converted from gas heating to wood pellet heating, double-glazed and double-insulated (rare here), minimize on gadgets - especially from coal-fired sources - paying more for goods that will last longer, advocate for renewable energy (eg this article. Answering my last question should be question of amount of embodied energy imported from China (especially compared to say 1992 which was last time USA had a trade surplus I think?). -
Rob Painting at 09:05 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate -"Think about this: at some point in the future the oceans will recede again and the naval bases will have to extend instead of retreat.' I doubt very much there'll be a US navy in the years 2200 -2500. -
scaddenp at 09:03 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP - that is intriguing list. From that I take it Argo would not cause you to change your mind. "A long, continuous, global, dense and consistent database of UTH (Upper Tropospheric Humidity) would be nice. The same for cloud cover. And windspeed over the Southern ocean." Now what robust predictions from climate theory about these data sets cause you to think that these would change your mind? And yet data sets that directly measure warming you discount? -
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
"I will leave it up to you to tell villagers in Asia, Africa, or South America that they can't have" Their rights, like yours, like mine, only extend as far as not constricting the rights of others. As far as I can see, that means reducing CO2 emissions much faster than now. The Western world is responsible for almost all of the current increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and so it seems to me that we are beholden to the most to reduce. Whatever you personal choices, I would say US government action has been exceedingly ineffective. And by the way, looking USA trade deficit, how much of the very modest reduction in emissions is from exporting these emissions to China? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:58 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
muon @ 65 I plaiinly stated that the Navy at least is developing contingency plans for SLR. I don't understand your confuion. Bases built in areas of low elevation are going to have to address any possible future changes in sea level. Think about this: at some point in the future the oceans will recede again and the naval bases will have to extend instead of retreat. -
Rob Painting at 08:47 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP "Rignot also says ice loss of polar ice sheets accelerates at a rate of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, which makes 0.101 ± 0.006 mm/yr2 (and 2006 was five years ago). Also, he happens to mentions GIC (Glaciers & Ica Caps) which add another 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, that is, 1.1 ± 0.3 mm/yr. Also with acceleration of course, 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 in this case, that is, 0.033 ± 0.014 mm/yr2................Go figure Go figure indeed. At least I now know how you arrive at your erroneous calculations, so it's useful in that respect. Just how much of Rignot (2011) did you read? You committed the logical fallacy of linear extrapolation. Here's a hint:
I think it's a bit rich for you to proclaim the experts wrong when you don't even understand the basics.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 08:43 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
mufon@63 Thank you for the link. I followed it and found many interesting papers. Some of the research was actually done in my state and at research centers that I have worked at. Very cool! I have not had time to read more than a few of the presentations. But, at least one them mentioned something that I have been thinking about. Of course SLR will eventually cause freshwater marshes to convert to saltwater marshes and then the saltwater marshes to disappear as the water gets deeper. However, it should be remembered that that new marshes will be created at the same time. Simple arithmetic will confirm that overall there will be a loss of wetlands because of shrinking land mass, but they just don't go away. The pluses have to be factored in with the minuses. I think too many times the minuses only are focused on. And, I am providing a link to my thesis to show you that I really have studied and worked with these people. I am not sure if the thesis will pull up or not. My focus was on crawfish, but I did a tremendous amount of work with redfish and oysters as well. -
muoncounter at 08:43 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#64: "I talked to two of my friends..." Is that what constitutes research? Let's try the Google machine: Here's a .mil website about SLR impact that cites the CNA study. A recent study directed by a board of senior retired military officers also recommended that the DoD conduct assessments of the impact on United States military installations of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years. Here's a DoD workshop: The project’s sea level rise risk assessment moves beyond the arguments of cause and effect and begin planning to address its potentially devastating effects. The consequences of climate change and sea level rise are clear, the disruption of the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. This from Defense News: A sea-level rise in the Arctic over the next two decades is "highly certain to occur and highly certain to come with economic costs" in a region thought to hold more than one-fifth of the world's untapped hydrocarbons, it said. I don't know who CNA is, nor do I care. The fact is that the US military recognizes this problem, whether you do or not. -
Berényi Péter at 08:23 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#77 scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 1 August, 2011 In short, is there any conceivable data that would cause you to change your mind? A long, continuous, global, dense and consistent database of UTH (Upper Tropospheric Humidity) would be nice. The same for cloud cover. And windspeed over the Southern ocean. Declassifying some military databases perhaps? Mining them for climate indicators? -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:14 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
muoncounter @ 40 I was intriqued by your link to the CNA document. I talked to two of my friends who are active duty military. One is a Lt. Colonel in the US Army and has served extensively overseas in combat sitatutions. The other is a Lt. Commander in the US Navy and has served stateside only in various functions. The Army officer has never heard of this document, and further stated that he has never been briefed on any security issues relating to climate change. The Naval officer had heard of this study. He did not know who it was commissioned by. He said the USN is looking at contingency plans for their ports and bases as it pertains to sea level rise. However, he had no knowledge of security issues related to SLR. -
muoncounter at 08:08 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#60 and EtR: "I honestly want to know about the ecosystems that are definitely in danger due to SLR" There's an ample list of ecosystems among the papers I referenced here. Do the homework. "SLR is going to be slow in human terms" Do you still refuse to accept the well-documented conclusion that SLR, however slow, a. Has already had serious effects b. Shortens the return time of the '100 year storm' c. Makes storm surges worse? I suspect so, because you're still going on about this being a slow problem, one that can be postponed for someone else to solve. If so, you've proved my point here. Or as a wise man once said, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:06 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp @ 61 Americans are reducing our emissions. There is a lot of pushback and a lot of that is from environmental groups whether it concerns solar or wind or nuclear. I get my power from nuclear and hydroelectric. I am not sure where you are coming from on your last sentence. Everyone on Earth should be able to enjoy the benefits of electricity and transportation. I am quite sure you do. Food lasts longer, living conditions are more tolerable, medicine can be properly maintained, etc... I will leave it up to you to tell villagers in Asia, Africa, or South America that they can't have that because CO2 emissions lead to AGW and that leads to SLR. Certainly, there are smarter ways to do manage our use of FF. Certainly, mistakes have been made. But, I feel quite certain in the next few decades new sources of energy will come online and be dependable and affordable. -
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate - I live in NZ. And yes, those are difficult questions. That is whole point. Americans in particular push the viewpoint of individual liberty of action and with it goes the responsibility for the consequences. However, responsibility can be very difficult to assign, especially for inter-generational debt hence the need to governement action. You cannot find a way to cost the responsibility, therefore you limit your emissions. Either solve the problems of assignment of responsibility or dont incur the liability. You dont seriously entertain the idea that western world should enjoy the benefit of FF use while the rest of the world pays for the consequences? -
Berényi Péter at 07:49 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#65 Rob Painting at 01:19 AM on 1 August, 2011 The Rignot (2011) paper cited by BP says this: "In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 G t /y r , equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise." How do we get from that, to BP's 3.1mm per year? Just a bit more attention, please. Rignot also says ice loss of polar ice sheets accelerates at a rate of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2, which makes 0.101 ± 0.006 mm/yr2 (and 2006 was five years ago). Also, he happens to mentions GIC (Glaciers & Ica Caps) which add another 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, that is, 1.1 ± 0.3 mm/yr. Also with acceleration of course, 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 in this case, that is, 0.033 ± 0.014 mm/yr2. Go figure. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:31 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Eric the Red Thanks for stating my point better than me. I honestly want to know about the ecosystems that are definitely in danger due to SLR, not the ones that may be. It is a much more prudent path to take to address issues that may arise. SLR is going to be slow in human terms regardless of how fast it may be in geological terms. And, again, let me state that there are an awful lot of actions that we should be doing anyway that are helpful for the "health" of this planet. Many of those actions would be beneficial in reducing CO2 emissions. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:26 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp@58 What country do you live in? How do you plan on assessing how much to "bill" each country? How will that cost be passed on to the average citizen? How will the procured funds be distributed? We can go on and on with these questions - but, I think its obvious that it is a practical impossibility. The USA might be tops on your list for "responsibility", but that is because we are a developed country that has industry. We make stuff for people worldwide, so based on your thought pattern anybody who buys our products needs to pay up too. Ain't going to happen. -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP - what is refreshing here is to see you that you do have faith in the Argo network. I am working from memory here so correct me if I am wrong, but I understand your position on the evidence for global warming so far to be: Surface temperature records are wrong - it underestimates the UHI effect. Glacier/ice are melting due to black carbon, not increasing temperature Satellite LT measurements are way too complicated with too many corrections needed. Cant trust the results. GSL is rising only due to melting ice from black carbon - the rest of the rise is due to placement of tide stations and of course highly unreliable satellite measurement. So, if after 15 years, say 2020, of full coverage argo network (so full sun cycle is sampled), and it shows OHC continuing to increase, will you accept that we have global warming? - or will you then decide that Argo network is flawed? In short, is there any conceivable data that would cause you to change your mind? -
Berényi Péter at 07:16 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#74 KR at 05:43 AM on 1 August, 2011 Hence your statement [...] is quite puzzling Would you please read first what was being said? For calculating deceleration (with error bars, −0.1 ± 0.03 mm/yr2) for GSL, I have used the entire satellite record, which spans 18.3249 years at the moment. The six year period was chosen for land based ice melt rates, relying on Rignot 2011, it seems wrongly, because their estimates are unrealistically high. Even in this case I have used their entire dataset and restricted the estimates to 2005-2010 only because Von Schuckmann & Le Traon uses that specific (too short) period in their paper. the basic physics of the greenhouse effect It is off-topic here, but basic physics predicts a much lower rate of warming. It can only be made high by playing with feedbacks, which is not basic physics. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Pirate - moving is not cost free (especially if it say a slum in Dacca). And this "until the next ice age" - even without extra CO2, another ice age isnt expected for around 50,000 year (see Berger & Loutre 2002. On top of that, it's not clear that climate will go into ice age with CO2 at 400ppm. This looks like a "look squirrel" to avoid answering questions about taking responsibility. And for "we must adapt" - adapting to 20cm of sealevel is a lot easier than adapting to 1m. Its a choice - mitigate the emission or take responsibility for the costs of adaption. -
Eric the Red at 06:52 AM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Sphaerica, I think you are dodging pirate's question. Just because the possibilty of something happening exists, does mean that drastic measures should be taken now to prevent it. I think he has a legitimate issue. Is there an ecosystem that is threatened by current SLR? If so, then we can take steps to counter the threat. Absent any specifics, the only general reply is to move away from the coast, or at least far enough so that if the seas were to rise by a foot in your lifetime, you will not be negatively affected. -
Berényi Péter at 06:44 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#58 Rob Painting at 08:23 AM on 31 July, 2011 That's curious Ken, for the best part of 18 months at least you have been proclaiming the ARGO dataset as the best measure of ocean heat content (it is - but still has issues to be resolved), but now it is clear that the oceans are still warming, albeit at a slower rate than the 1990's, the ARGO floats are now worthless? They are certainly not worthless. And as I have already pointed out, coverage was virtually global by the end of 2003 (but not before). It got denser later on, but that's another question which can be dealt with using larger error bars for the early period. Systematic errors due to the gaping hole in the Southern ocean (and to a smaller extent elsewhere) are gone by that time. So it is rather hard to justify cutting data at the beginning of 2005 as Von Schuckmann & Le Traon do. The issue for the last 18 months was with using ARGO data from 2002-2003, when coverage was still poor to justify the huge jump of estimated OHC in late 2002 − early 2003, so that's another question. Unfortunately I can not access the full Argo database online at the moment, but the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat Content page provides data for the upper 700 m of oceans (from the beginning of 1955, but since about 2003 their data are derived almost exclusively from ARGO). This dataset is based on Levitus 2009. They also provide proper error bars, so it is possible to calculate rate of warming for this layer for seven years between 2004-2010. It is 0.088 ± 0.076 × 1022 J/year, which is 0.077 ± 0.067 W/m2 if projected to the ocean surface (as Von Schuckmann & Le Traon do) or 0.055 ± 0.047 W/m2 if projected to the entire surface, which is certainly better, as it is directly comparable to TOA (Top of Atmosphere) radiative imbalance. Even if we suppose twice as much heat was sequestered below 700 m, it is still only ~0.17 W/m2, which is less than half of their figure for 2005-2010 & 10-1500 m (0.39 ± 0.07 W/m2). If adding a single year to the data makes such a huge difference, one can hardly say with any certainty that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon have proven that the oceans are still warming at any specific rate. BTW, for 2006-2010 the Levitus data give −0.011 ± 0.109 × 1022 J/year (for the upper 700 m), which is -0.007 ± 0.068 W/m2 globally, so it is very hard to refrain from the notion the specific starting year 2005 was cherry-picked on purpose. -
Publicola at 06:12 AM on 1 August 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech: "That is a false and distorted context of what I stated." Again no, it is not. Let me break this down for you again, Poptech: 1. I asked you how you knew that some articles that are on your list of purportedly "peer reviewed" papers were in fact peer reviewed. [1] 2. You responded by saying "because" said articles "can be" peer reviewed. [2] HTH. -------------------------------------- [1] Me: "Your joke of a list counts multiple "viewpoint " - aka OpEd - articles authored by non-natura l scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed? " [2] Poptech: "Because these can be and you have not demonstrated otherwise. " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:10 AM on 1 August 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
UAH press release on Spencer & Braswell 2011 - more like the paper than the other press material. -
dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 1 August 2011Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
also Sphaerica, I'm trying to simplify their post into a Basic rebuttal, and I'm going to make use of your bullet points in comment #87, if you don't mind. Thanks! -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - From Leuliette & Willis (2011), "Because of both uncertainties in the observational systems and interannual variations, it has been estimated that a minimum of 10 years is necessary to meaningfully interpret global trends in sea level rise and its components" They also note that "Global mean sea level change from TOPE X/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 has had a relatively consistent trend of 3.2 ± 0.8 mm/yr over 18 years." Hence your statement that "rate changing from 2.3 to 3.1 mm/year between 2005 and 2011" (a six year period, not 10) is quite puzzling. You have certainly not presented a refutation of Von Schuckmann & Le Traon. If anything, your posts point to the differences in opinion about the GIA values - Von Schuckmann & Le Traon use one rate for their calculations, Leuliette (page 5) uses a different one with a 1 mm/y difference. There are certainly going to be short term variances in OHC trends. There's also going to be changes in forcings, such as Asian aerosols over the last decade. None of this significantly affects the long term path we've chosen (CO2 increases) that includes a great deal of warming over the next century and then some, sea level rise effects on many coastlines (and here we are, essentially a littoral species according to population distributions), and serious costs for adaptation. You've misrepresented L&W 2011, cherry-picked some short term data to claim a major decrease in warming rates, assume that this will continue for a significant period of time, and assert that "In this case current rate of ocean warming is 0.2°C/century and land based ice is not in immediate peril. I can live with that." This is notably contradicted by observed accelerating land based ice melt rates (so so many references), ARGO OHC data, and the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. It amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalala...". While I dislike characterizing it as such, this is an awful lot of work put into denial. -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 1 August 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Thanks for the details spencerd. As I noted in the article, right-wing American think tanks employ the same sorts of shenanigans and Monckton does to inflate the actual costs of this proposed climate legislation. In the US, serious estimates put the costs of previously passed legislation at somewhere around $100 per average household per year as well. This of course doesn't account for the money saved by reducing the effects of climate change. -
dana1981 at 05:20 AM on 1 August 2011Michaels Mischief #1: Continued Warming and Aerosols
We'll be re-posting the RealClimate article by Trenberth and Fasullo in the near future. -
Berényi Péter at 04:49 AM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#71 Albatross at 02:15 AM on 1 August, 2011 BP has also repeatedly ignored the challenge made to him by KR and me to "As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011?" No need for that. Leuliette & Willis (2011), cited by #62 Rob Painting already refutes Rignot's exaggerated claim of sea level rise by melting land based ice (rate changing from 2.3 to 3.1 mm/year between 2005 and 2011). Actually not even half that value is true (according to Leuliette & Willis), which allows for some mild warming below 700 m by increased deep turbulent mixing indeed. So, just for the record: ice is not melting that fast. _I also notice my reply to #51 Albatross has disappeared. It means I am supposed to tolerate insults from Albatross, but even mild irony is unacceptable if it is directed to him. Understood, reworded version follows.#51 Albatross at 16:37 PM on 30 July, 2011 To assert that [current rate of ocean warming is 0.2°C/century] is absurd, and just bad science period. Even with Trenberth's 0.9 W/m2 imbalance at TOA (which was never based on actual measurements, but on virtual "experiments" performed on computational climate models and which is ruled out by now) warming rate of oceans is still at most 0.4°C/century.In order to get dangerous warming in a century (as projected by IPCC) one has to find a way to maintain ~3°C more temperature difference between the oceans and the surface than there is today. Unfortunately the more vigorous deep turbulent mixing is supposed to be, the more impossible it seems to achieve that goal. And Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are trying to push exactly that process to the limit.Response:[DB] Your implications of fraud and malfeasance are insulting, revolting and disturbing (in no particular order), and are a violation of the Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Prev 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 Next
