Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 Next
Comments 78251 to 78300:
-
scaddenp at 09:41 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I dont see how you can call V&T an "outlier" unless you have other published analyses of the Argo data that give different answers. The paper was primarily about how accurately could measures could be made from the Argo data so have you got a criticism of their conclusions? What there seems to be is a broad consensus that Argo is a better instrument than satellites. -
Tom Curtis at 09:20 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
norandroids @5, that sort of suggestion is never welcome, and never appropriate. wingding @6, perfect analogy. -
Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#21 Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July, 2011 So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. Come on, I am talking about facts, you know, events that happened in the recent past (last 19 years or so) and were measured by actual instruments. No one can predict GSL reliably in 10 years from now, the science is simply not mature enough to do that. Perhaps never will be. -snip- So by your reckoning, what will the polar ice sheet melt rate be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on it? -snip-Moderator Response: Please refrain from making inflammatory comments. Thank you. -
KR at 09:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - From Von Schuckmann 2011: "Our revised estimation of GOIs indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends)." (emphasis added) Do you have a peer reviewed refutation of this? Because your post here is quite unconvincing considering your short term trend analysis. -
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
apirate - who do you propose pays for the adaption? Those that created the problem I hope? Where does my city send the bill to? -
KR at 08:50 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - I find it curious that you are arguing against increasing ocean heat content from sea rise numbers, when actual thermometers are measuring said increasing OHC. Curious, and unconvincing. As Albatross asked earlier, do you have any peer reviewed references that contradict Von Schuckmann and Le Traon 2011? Because I think that direct temperature evidence from the ARGO floats is more rather convincing than your indirect arguments (contradicted by direct measurement data). Especially given the error ranges on melt scales, and your quite frankly cherry-picked short term slope estimate. -
Albatross at 08:27 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, "What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow." I see also that you are here to try and attribute words and opinions to me that I never uttered. Stop it, I am not here not play word games BP. I do see a lot pontification and hand waving by you, with no published papers provided by you to support your assertions concerning OHC. Do you have any substantive facts to make to challenge Von Schuckmann & Le Traon's (2011) finding that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm...? Yes or no? "By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible." So by your reckoning, what will the GSL be 10 years from now? Would you bet money on the quoted figure. -
JonnyT at 08:25 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
It would help in these 'debates' if the opposition would point out the blatantly obvious inconsistencies in Monckton's polemic. At the start he says that you can't predict the climate because it is too chaotic and in the middle he says that it is immensely stable before then heading back to it being chaotic again at the end. "There is no physical basis in science for any such sudden lurch in what has proven to be an immensely stable climate." Also there was the classic idiotic statement he made in his spiel about the MWP, where he brazenly stated that the central England temperature series was "a good proxy for the global climate, it's at about the right latitude" ... wtf? These things stick out like a sore thumb, and they need to be hammered every time they do. -
Albatross at 08:22 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @19, I see. You are ignoring the fact that you are curve sitting the GSL data. Can we deal with one thing at a time please. -
Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#18 Albatross at 03:47 AM on 29 July, 2011 All of these papers note the importance of abyssal and deep oceans. I see. What you are effectively saying is that Rignot et al. 2011 is flawed somehow. That is, land based ice (GIC + polar ice sheets) are in fact melting at a much slower, possibly decelerating rate. Is that your opinion? By the way, the 0.1 mm/yr2 deceleration in sea level rise shown by satellite data is not negligible. Its absolute value is about the same as the 36 Gt/yr2 acceleration due to polar ice sheet melt according to Rignot. As for basic physics: Heat of fusion for water is 334 kJ/kg. To raise sea level by 1 mm by adding water to it you need to add 3.6×1014 kg, and to melt that much land based ice 1.2×1020 J is needed. On the other hand from data published on the NOAA NODC OCL Global Ocean Heat Content page you can easily derive that in the upper 700 m of oceans you need to add 7×1021 J to produce the same 1 mm rise by thermal expansion. That is, the same amount of heat is 58 times more efficient in rising sea level if it is expended for melting land based ice than for warming the upper ocean. Specific heat and volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of seawater depends on both temperature and pressure. The former not so much, but the latter one tremendously. It increases with both temperature and pressure. However, while pressure increases with depth linearly, temperature of oceans decreases fast in the upper several hundred meters, but as one goes deeper, this rate of cooling converges to zero. Therefore, although heat content changes below 700 m may be somewhat less effective in changing sea water volume than in the upper 700 m, but not immensely so, and beyond about 1000 m they start to grow increasingly efficient once again (due to pressure). Anyway, you can't put more heat in the abyss and expect its volume to shrink at the same time. Seawater (unlike fresh water) is the most dense at the point of freezing, provided its salinity is greater than about 30 PSU, which is obviously true for all major basins. -
ptbrown31 at 07:38 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
30, Sphaerica - The first item of your post that set me off was any requirement that DTR not merely be expected and detected, but that some level of attribution be made. To me, the latter is a ridiculous and unattainable requirement at this point in time, or in the near future. I don't really understand your complaint here. I am not the one who said that the DTR change needs to be attributed to anything. I am criticizing the fact that the OP attributed it to an enhanced greenhouse effect when the papers that are cited do not corroborate that conclusion. As far as your actual grasp of the factors involved, I was bothered by the "simple model" approach of your logic. This very, very often fails. It fails to include all of the variables, as well as to properly quantify those variables. The latter is very often a problem. I agree. All I was doing was giving a counter example to the conceptual model that SkS presents to argue for DTR changes being due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Both of our models are ultimately wrong on some level. You state that the earth "should radiate more heat to space during the day," and then conclude that "it does not seem obvious why an enhanced greenhouse effect should cause more warming at night." I see absolutely no tie between these two points, or why they should appear together in an argument. My only point here is that the greenhouse effect suppresses radiative cooling at all times, not just at night. When the earth is warmer (during the day) it is radiating more (to the 4th power of temperature) and therefore there is more radiative cooling to suppress. They seem to completely miss the actual reason why a GHE would expand the DTR... the simple fact that during the day, solar radiation dominates temperatures, while at night, only the GHE has an influence. I understand SkS's conceptual model. That point is exactly what I articulated in the quotes. The end result is not that your premise is wrong, but rather that the system is clearly more complex than this, so it is a dangerous premise to make without considering far more factors, and actually running the numbers or doing observations. I totally agree. I was not trying to say "SkS's conceptual model is wrong and my conceptual model is right". Instead I was trying to say that it is not obvious that SkS's model is correct. Therefore, it is not obvious that an enhanced greenhouse effect should decrease DTR. This would be fine if SkS had cited articles that went into a rigorous treatment of whether or not we would "expect" to see a decrees in DTR with an enhanced greenhouse effect. But the articles cited to not do this. None of them say anything to the effect of "an enhanced greenhouse should decrease DTR because....". This bothers me slightly because I would prefer if SkS's missions was to DEFEND the established science against bad skeptical arguments not make up its own physical arguments and cite sources that don't back up those arguments. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:22 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
adelady... I wouldn't expect Peter would do that. Literally it's just a no-win to debate with someone who is so willing to tell such bald-faced lies. That's what Monckton does for a living. He is a master of telling lies with such zeal and confidence that people who don't know better just believe him. It's easy to battle this when you have the time to pull up the actual research and read through it to see where he gets it wrong. That's been a very effective tool at dealing with Monckton. John Abraham did a great job. Peter's Hatfield and Sinclair have both done excellent video series. There are lots of other articles online which Dana has now added to. The only really effect moment in a debate against Monckton was when Tim Lambert caught him out on Dr Pinker's work. And that was mostly effective just because Monckton clearly didn't even realize that Pinker was a woman. While Denniss did a good job of getting his own message out, generally I think it's not a good idea to give Monckton any kind of microphone. It's just allows him one more opportunity to project his lies. -
Chris G at 06:56 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
#13 scaddenp, An excellent point Phil. The cost of shifting can be managed by gradually replacing the infrastructure that goes offline anyway. I didn't rush out and buy a ground-source heat pump as soon as they became available, but I did make the investment when my AC died. A shift to a new energy infrastructure is bound to cause an increase in energy costs in the short term. The reason we use so much fossil fuels now is there is very little that can compete with the internal costs of getting energy from them. We have learned, and our knowledge is increasing, that the external costs are going to be difficult to live with. I very much like the idea of a phased-in carbon tax (+dividend) to give utilities incentive, and time, to shift from FF plants to alternatives. Let the market sort out which alternatives work better in different places. Any time you get more energy out of a system than you put into it, energy becomes cheap. So, there will be a increase in costs in the near term, but in the long run it will be fine. I believe that from now on, fossil fuels are going to be increasingly expensive, especially petroleum-based forms. So, we can use some of that energy now to shift to alternate ways of generating energy, or we can wait until fossil fuels are even more expensive, and we find our situation is even more dire and that we have to make the shift even quicker. -
adelady at 06:47 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Me? I'd like to see Monckton debate Potholer. Two reasons. Firstly, audiences who are superficial enough to find Monckton's accent and speaking style impressive will have to listen to both sides presented by apparently similar voices and accents. (Let's leave aside discussion about the Australian and American propensity to favour any British accent as classy and, therefore, persuasive.) Secondly, potholer is, like a few other people, expert on Monckton's version of science rather than being a scientist himself. And this is the crucial thing in this sort of endeavour. Never ever presume that he will respond appropriately, or even acknowledge, the reality of another's point. Behave as though you're a schoolteacher dealing with a smart aleck 14 year old full of self-righteous justifications for shoddy work and you're on the right track. -
wingding at 06:31 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monckton is fast becoming a kind of Kent Hovind of climate figure -
muoncounter at 05:32 AM on 29 July 2011Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
Pirate#20: "in an area that is melting sooner or faster than normal, then that is most likely a sign of climate change. " Agreed at last! That was the point of comment 6: So in late July of 2011, it is already melting back beyond the mean September sea ice extent for 1979 to 2011. -
JonnyT at 05:28 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
I'm only 20 mins through the film but did I just hear a former (and points it out all the bloody time) member of the Thatcher government praise the 'heroic miners' of a country. Seriously? A proud member of the regime that totally destroyed the UK's mining industry has the gaul to make himself sound like the champion of mining and miners? Even by Monkton's standards that is mendacity of utterly breathtaking proportions. Good grief! -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:13 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
Chris G @ 121 Nicely written. I am not callous. Just realistic. Human history is rife with events that reduced our population size on regional and global levels whether it be plagues or natural disasters. And, we should absolutely be good stewards of the earth. I think it is smart for you to teach your kids to be strong and independent. I do the same with mine and I am trying to teach them survival skills. I am sorry your sister has decided NOT to have kids. The Earth is a dynamic planet. Changes are always occurring. We have the capacity to adapt and will. Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet. -
Chris G at 05:09 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate, DSL, I would hazard a guess that even though Pirate knows that a lot of starfish are doomed, he still wants to save some. Personally, my main disagreement with Pirate is in that he treats global warming like the inevitable storm, and I still think there are things we can to do mitigate the severity of the storm. The Star Thrower -
Chris G at 04:53 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate, Sally, et al, For the sake of discussion, I put some thoughts down, but though there are ties to this thread, I found they fit better under the 'It's not bad' topic per MounCounter's suggestion. -
Chris G at 04:52 AM on 29 July 2011It's not bad
Pirate, Sally Moore, et al, I think Malthus will eventually be proven correct, simply because energy available to the human species is finite. (With infinite energy, we could terraform Mars, but let's not get fanciful.) In a broad sense, the agricultural revolution was possible because we leveraged fossil energy to produce more food. Now we are bumping into other limits: a reduction in the availability of fossil fuels to produce fertilizers and pesticides and drive tractors, arable land, and changes or exhaustion of supplies of water for irrigation. At the same time there is a shifting of climate zones and general disturbances in weather patterns which can only hurt the yields of industrial agriculture. How much we degrade our food supply depends a lot on how much climate change we induce. It is not going to be just agriculture, we are already severely stressing oceanic fish, and acidification represents a threat of food web destabilization. Whatever numbers you project, an increase in population at the same time as a reduction in food supply is some uncomfortable math. Given the current state of things, and the lack of any progress in the last decade, my guess is that a bottleneck in human population is inevitable. In that light, I understand Pirate's attitude. However, how much of a bottleneck remains to be seen, world war level, black plaque, something less, or something more. If we can avoid an anoxic ocean event, the species will likely survive. But, just because you believe you can not avoid a car wreck is no reason not to shift your foot from the gas to the brake. It might make the difference between minor injury at one end of the range of possibilities and death at the other. Since we have no record of changes to the climate as rapid as the one we are causing, we only have educated guesses as to what will happen. Skeptics decry the uncertainty of climate models, but I don't know of any credible ones that paint a rosy picture. As has been said before, uncertainty is not our friend. How many of us survive is still important. Thinking of yourself, your friends, and family, is it better that 1 of 20 die, or 3 of 10? Continued BAU for too long increases the likelihood of that first number becoming zero. So, Sally, I'm not a scientist, but I also worry, a lot. My sister has decided not to have kids. I'm more optimistic, or maybe I just don't want to give up, or maybe it was a biological urge I could not resist, or maybe I'm egotistical enough to think the world is better off with more people like me. I raise my own kids to be as strong and independent minded as I know how, with as broad an experience and educational background as I can give them. Parents have always done this, but I think the coming generations will suffer more than most past generations have from living sheltered lives. -
DSL at 04:31 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate: "Still, human populations will one day outpace the ability of the earth to provide those 3 basic needs. At that point, there is only one result. It's simple biology." Why did you install wells in Africa? Why not let "simple biology" take over? -
dana1981 at 04:16 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Thanks Daneel, correction made. I transcribed the quotes myself while listening to the video of the debate, so there may be some typos in there like the one you caught. It's certainly a lot of work to respond to these Gish Gallops. -
DaneelOlivaw at 04:04 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Where it says "in the London inurance market" it should say "in the London insurance" ;). Nice series of articles. I cannot even imagine the pain of going through this horrific Gish Gallop of nonsense! -
Scott at 03:57 AM on 29 July 2011Models are unreliable
Does anyone have any comments on the following paper? R. Fildes and N. Kourentzes, Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change, Working Paper -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:52 AM on 29 July 2011Gripping video of Arctic sea ice melting away before your eyes
TC @ 6 Sea ice melting and refreezing is a normal cycle. If Buoy #2 is in an area that is melting sooner or faster than normal, then that is most likely a sign of climate change. -
Albatross at 03:47 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @16, "Accelerating ice melt and increasing heat storage in the abyss are inconsistent if sea level trend is measured correctly by satellites." So much hand waving (mis-)attributed to "basic physics". Actually, BP you are talking through your hat. Here is why. Have you read Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011)? Probably not. I draw your attention to their section 3.2, "3.2. "Deep ocean warming", in which they say: "In addition, at times when the 8-yr anomalous trend in UOHC [Upper-oceanic heat content, 0 - 700 m] is negative, the deep ocean heat content (DOHC, defined as the integral over 700–3000 m) displays a positive trend that on average compensates 35% of the upper ocean changes (Fig. 4a). In part, this appears to be a response to a decreased Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation(AMOC)." And from their section 4: "Long timeseries of DOHC trends that have been corrected for instrumentation problems [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007; Wijffels et al., 2008; Willis et al., 2009] are not available, but the observation that the OHC over 0–2000 m has risen substantially over 2003–2008 [von Schuckmann et al., 2009; Song and Colberg, 2011] while it has reached a plateau in the upper ocean [Lyman et al., 2010] supports the view that part of the ‘missing heat’ is to be found deeper in the ocean. The uncertainty in the trend over 0–2000 m [von Schuckmann et al., 2009] can easily accommodate the ‘missing’ anomalous DOHC trend of about 35%×0.3 · 1022J yr−1 deduced from the model analysis (Fig. 4a)." Now how about Palmer et al. (2011)? In which they note: "Surprisingly, we find that one must integrate OHC to depths in excess of 4000 m before the gain in information with depth becomes saturated. We note that the upper 4000 m in these models represents about 90% of the total ocean volume." Song and Colbert (2011) find that: "Adding a GRACE-estimated mass trend, the data-model combination explains not only the altimetry global mean SLR but also its regional trends fairly well. The deep ocean warming is mostly prevalent in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and along the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, suggesting a strong relation to the oceanic circulation and dynamics. Its comparison with available bottom water measurements shows reasonably good agreement, indicating that deep ocean warming below 700 m might have contributed 1.1 mm/yr to the global mean SLR or one-third of the altimeter-observed rate of 3.11 ± 0.6 mm/yr over 1993–2008." These findings are consistent with the analysis of 0-1500 m OHC data presented by Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) above. All of these papers note the importance of abyssal and deep oceans. "Skeptics" wishing for the planet's oceans to be only 700 m deep is a fine example of cherry-picking and confirmation bias.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed /bold tag. -
Eric the Red at 03:29 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
As BP has shown, the numbers obviously do not add up. According to Rignot, et. al., 2011, the accelerated mass loss of mountain GIC and the combinded Greenland / Antarctic ice sheets is 48.1 gT / yr., and therefore, the combined mass loss of 877 gT in 2006 would increase to ~1118 gT in 2011, equating to 3.1 mm in sea level rise. That would equate to the entire sea level rise using the higher value posted by KR and Albatross. If the glacial loss is accelerating at the stated rate, then the sea level rise should be acclerating similarly, unless the ocean has cooled. Clearly, accelerated glacial loss and warming oceans should not yield the sea level plot in #10. -
Berényi Péter at 03:08 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#12 KR at 02:17 AM on 29 July, 2011 My pardon, but I cannot find the logic in this statement. Increasing heat storage in the climate system should both raise sea levels and accelerate ice melt. There is no mutual exclusion there. Can you explain what you mean? Yes. Accelerating ice melt and increasing heat storage in the abyss are inconsistent if sea level trend is measured correctly by satellites. Latent heat required to melt that much ice which would increase sea level by the same amount as thermosteric expansion is negligible indeed in comparision. Therefore you can match sea level rise that way without sequestering much heat. It is basic physics. -
Albatross at 03:04 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @13, Now that gave me a good laugh-- no idea what the goodness of fit is or what the heck that grey line is mean to represent. Good scinetists provide those pertinent and important details. And of course you seem to be under the misguided impression that you know better than eminent scientists studying GSL rise have all got it wrong. Please inform UofC that their trend is incorrect. Try again.....seriously please try again and up your game. -
Berényi Péter at 02:57 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#11 Tom Curtis at 01:47 AM on 29 July, 2011 So how does the sum go if you do not totally misunderstand the paper you are quoting You forget about contribution of mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC) along with acceleration. Think again. -
Berényi Péter at 02:51 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#10 Albatross at 01:41 AM on 29 July, 2011 you are not accurately reporting the satellite estimates of GSL rise I am. Sea level rise is clearly decelerating (linear fit is not appropriate). Current rate is 2.3 mm/yr, deceleration is 0.1 mm/yr2.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 02:39 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
DSL @ 21 This is OT and will probably be deleted. I am a parent of 2 and a teacher of about 180 this year. I volunteer at my local YMCA. I've been to Africa as part of a not-for-profit group installing wells and water filtration units in remote villages. Don't mistake my large scale pragmatism for an inhumane attitude. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:35 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
20 - 22 Please don't misunderstand me. I think as stewards of the earth, humans should be doing everything possible (within reason) to make the world a better place. That includes preserving nature, conserving natural resources, developing alternative forms of energy, etc... I teach my students that humans (animals) have 3 basic requirements: food, shelter and water. With the advent of the agricultural revolution human populations exploded. Every year we find better ways to coax even more food out of the same areas of land. Better living conditions are becoming more available around the world including shelter. Clean water resources have also become more available. That improved quality of life requires one important factor: energy. Right now we can't supply most of that energy without FF resources. Hopefully, one day we can. Still, human populations will one day outpace the ability of the earth to provide those 3 basic needs. At that point, there is only one result. It's simple biology. And, since humans have survived climate change before, we will survive whatever is in the pipeline. Populations do shrink and grow naturally. -
John Hartz at 02:35 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
@pirate #17: You state, "That doesn't mean times won't necessarily be difficult, but we (the human race) will adapt and survive." What if you are wrong? The Earth is littered with the fossils of life forms that have gone extinct. For the human race, there is no Planet B! -
KR at 02:17 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "Note that melting ice requires almost two orders of magnitude less heat than thermostreic expansion of water, so talk about recent heat storage in the climate system is inconsistent with claims of accelerating melt of ice sheets and glaciers." My pardon, but I cannot find the logic in this statement. Increasing heat storage in the climate system should both raise sea levels and accelerate ice melt. There is no mutual exclusion there. Can you explain what you mean? Secondly, as Albatross (and your own link!) point out, sea level rise is currently 3.2+/- 0.4 mm/year, not 2.3 mm/year. Where did you get the 2.3 value? -
Dave123 at 02:09 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
The Gish Gallop can be used in reverse.... In a verbal debate you present a list of statements, from being a member of the house of lords, to misquoting and interpreting the scientific literature and hammer on one point: Monckton makes things up and has no credibility, either personally or scientifically. He has no right to be on the podium because he's a serial liar. You stick to message- and if he stumbles and brings up a case where he's been damned by the authors of the paper he quotes, you pounce....and if he doesn't you keep repeating. You take it from he said/he said- because you're citing sources. Better go in with a handout with the references and a press packet. It can be done. Oh..don't use the word liar. I'm sure he'd love to sue. And you rehearse. You have someone play Monckton. and practice, practice, practice. -
shoyemore at 02:08 AM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Debunking Lord Monckton is becoming a Whack-a-Moley enterprise. Boring and repetitive it is at its worst, as he has not come up with new arguments for years. However, I think the key to progress is not to back down but to persistently maintain one's ground. Many thanks to Skeptical Science for doing that, for for being such a valuable repository of information. -
muoncounter at 01:58 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
pirate#19: "Too much or not enough food." See this comment and use It's not bad for replies. "That may sound callous, but that is life. Always been like that and always will. " Yes, it's a jungle out there. But for those who are top-of-the-food-chain, it's all good? -
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
Sphaerica, very sorry to hear about your ill health. I hope you are better soon. -
jabba at 01:49 AM on 29 July 2011It's the sun
I am not sure if any of you notice this or not, but the PMOD link goes to a data set that is a little too small of deviation for solar data collected in Earth orbit with daily entries. That is to say, the Earth's orbit is elliptical. For part of the year we are closer and the other half farther away. This results in a difference of about 90 W/m^2 between minimum and maximum. The data on PMOD at most varies by a few W/m^2 in a year. If you are measuring values on 22DEC2009 that are within 1 W/m^2 of values on 22JUN2010, then you have some issues with your data. That difference should be pushing 90 W/m^2. The difference in r value for the intensity calculations is about 5 million km. So, maybe the sources for this article should be revised. -
Tom Curtis at 01:47 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter @9: From the abstract of Rignot et al, 2011:"In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise."
So how does the sum go if you do not totally misunderstand the paper you are quoting: 2011 Sea Rise 2.3 mm (est) less Ice melt 1.3 mm leaves 1.0 mm. 1.0 mm less the steric sear rise for the upper 700 m of 0.3 mm equals 0.7 mm. 0.7 mm plus the loss of 0.2 mm due to water storage leaves 0.9 mm to be accounted for by steric sea level rise due to warming below 700 m. How quickly do you think Berényi Péter will now find this method so fraught with assumptions as to be worthless, and therefore to be totally ignored? -
Bob Lacatena at 01:42 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
7, ptbrown31, Apologies if I came off harshly, but your post hit a few of my buttons. I also have not read the long trail of posts that have followed... I am in my second week of the sore-throat-cold-from-hell right now, and sort of faded for a day there. First, for the record, I myself have gotten flack here at SkS for disagreeing with both the DTR and Winter Temperature Range arguments. The bottom line is that any warming or cooling involves strong GHG feedbacks (including H2O and eventually CO2), while even CO2 warming involves strong albedo feedbacks and others. The net result is that any such distinction is going to be very small. The first item of your post that set me off was any requirement that DTR not merely be expected and detected, but that some level of attribution be made. To me, the latter is a ridiculous and unattainable requirement at this point in time, or in the near future. As it is, anthropogenic warming to date is only 0.6C at best (and there are arguments, good and bad, that at least some of that warming may be from other causes). 0.6C of 288.6K is only 0.2%. I don't know what the change in DTR is as a result of that, but it's obviously going to be small. Given all of the spacial, temporal and observational complexities involved, I can't imagine how anyone could ever perform a proper attribution until warming has reached seriously dangerous proportions. As such... your contention, to me, is very similar to that of other posters, by setting an unnecessary requirement (not merely detection, but attribution of a secondary component of warming) that can never be fulfilled. In particular, I was bothered when you said "Not to mention, if it really was a signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect wouldn't that have made it into the report?" AR4 wasn't released until 2007. The three papers merely confirming some observation of the expected DTR change were Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006 (March), Zhou 2009. At best two, and possibly only one, of those three studies were available in time for inclusion in a 3,000 page report that was released in 2007. Any extensive statement in AR4 about DTR would probably have been ripped apart by skeptics. As far as your actual grasp of the factors involved, I was bothered by the "simple model" approach of your logic. This very, very often fails. It fails to include all of the variables, as well as to properly quantify those variables. The latter is very often a problem. Specifically: You state that the earth "should radiate more heat to space during the day," and then conclude that "it does not seem obvious why an enhanced greenhouse effect should cause more warming at night." I see absolutely no tie between these two points, or why they should appear together in an argument. They seem to completely miss the actual reason why a GHE would expand the DTR... the simple fact that during the day, solar radiation dominates temperatures, while at night, only the GHE has an influence. I'm also unsure myself if your initial premise is even correct. When the sun is up, certainly the earth receives more radiation. I've never seen a study that compares sun-side to night-side TOA radiation. But reflected radiation doesn't count, and since outbound radiation (due to GHGs) comes from the TOA, not from the surface or lower troposphere, then the fact that those areas have warmed substantially in the day time, due to solar radiation, does not translate directly to the idea that the earth as a closed system (or, more specifically, the sun-side) will radiate more during that time. One might actually guess (again, using what is probably too simplistic an approach) that the most radiation comes from the evening-night-side quarter of the earth, versus the sun-side half or morning-night-side quarter. Also, I am unsure that your simple tie between TMin and TMax applies. TMax may not depend so much on the starting point (TMin), as it will on the overall level of solar insolation (which in turn is affected by TSI, ground albedo, clouds, aerosols, etc.) and GHG effect. The end result is not that your premise is wrong, but rather that the system is clearly more complex than this, so it is a dangerous premise to make without considering far more factors, and actually running the numbers or doing observations. To me, making this your "main issue" put an exclamation point on the sort of incomplete and shoddy "thought modeling" that I think gets a lot of people into trouble (myself included). -
Albatross at 01:41 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Welcome back BP, Maybe you are being unclear, but you are not accurately reporting the satellite estimates of GSL rise. The link you provided shows the trend in GSL is 3.2 mm/yr, not 2.3 mm/yr in 2011 as you cited @9. So that error kinda makes your calculations and attendant hypotheses moot. Is this another case of a 'skeptic' showing confirmation bias?
[Source]
Additionally, I'm not sure what you believe qualifies you to question or refute the findings of Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011), especially if you cannot get the basics correct.
-
DSL at 01:34 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate, your attitude is a front. You wouldn't be here at SkS discussing anything with anyone if you didn't share a human concern. You have claimed to be a teacher. Is that attitude proper to your students? Note that the species went through two world wars in the span of thirty years. Are you saying that you could take-or-leave-whatever-shrug another world war? If your attitude is not a front, then you certainly don't have children nor are you a teacher (or, if you are, you must be desperately looking for another occupation, away from bleeding hearts and artists -- maternal and paternal instincts--pshaw!). Take this to the "it's not bad" thread. -
Berényi Péter at 01:15 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
"Clearly much heat is finding it's way down into deeper waters". That can't be the case. Consider Rignot 2011. "Using techniques other than GRACE and MBM, the mass loss of mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC), including 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]". I translate it for you. According to Rignot at al. rate of land based ice melt is 877+48.1(t-2006) in gigatons (where t is time in years AD). As it takes about 360 gigatons to raise sea level by 1 mm, in 2011 this rate is 3.1 mm/year. We also have data for rate of sea level rise as measured by satellites. Effect of increasing ocean basin volume due to GIA (Glacial Isostatic Rebound) is already taken into account in these figures (which is about 100 km3/year). We can see there is a slight deceleration (-0.1 mm/yr2) during the satellite era (since the end of 1992). Because of this, rate of sea level rise in 2011 is 2.3 mm/year. That is, sea level rise due to all other factors except melting of land based ice is -0.8 mm/year. Then we can have a look at the NOAA NODC Global Ocean Heat Content site. There we can see current rate of sea level rise due to thermosteric expansion of the upper 700 m of oceans is about 0.3 mm/year. That leaves us with -1.1 mm/year for the rest. There is one more major source contributing to sea level (except abyssal heat storage). It is fluid (not frozen) water storage over land. It can be divided into surface and subsurface waters. On the surface much water is being stored in dams while there is a huge ongoing groundwater depletion. The former process decreases sea level while the latter one increases it. The net result for recent times, according to Llovel 2010 is slightly negative, around -0.2 mm/year. That is, volume of ocean below 700 m is not increasing, but decreasing, by about 0.9 mm/year (320 km3/annum). It means no heat is sequestered there, quite the contrary. The deep ocean is cooling and contracting, it is probably losing more heat than the upper 700 m is gaining. Note that melting ice requires almost two orders of magnitude less heat than thermostreic expansion of water, so talk about recent heat storage in the climate system is inconsistent with claims of accelerating melt of ice sheets and glaciers. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:15 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
apiratelooksat50.... You know, that is a very dangerous attitude to take. I hesitate to compare the points throughout history where dismissive comments like this have paved the way for tremendous human misery. When we have the data in front of us that tells us that a humanitarian crisis is looming and we choose to dismiss it... that makes us clearly responsible for the outcome. We stand at a similar precipice in human history now. How we respond today, the level of responsibility we take for future events, will determine the level of misery inflicted upon later generations. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:52 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Muon @ 18 Don't forget about the tens of thousands who die from hypothermia. Whether hypo- or hyperthermia, weather extremes will kill living organisms. And, yes, some will die. Just as some will die from too much or not enough water. Too much or not enough food. That may sound callous, but that is life. Always been like that and always will. -
Rob Painting at 00:28 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL - The latest analysis covers 60N to 60S, and is equivalent to 0.38 +/- 0.07 W/m2 globally. Be a lot easier if they all used the same terms of reference - see comment @ 1. So still plenty of missing energy if Dr Trenberth is right, but not so much if Dr Hansen is correct. -
muoncounter at 00:01 AM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate#17: "our direct ancestors survived an Ice Age by technologically adapting. ... That doesn't mean times won't necessarily be difficult" That's starting to sound like discussions on the It's not bad thread, which may be a better spot for continued commentary. Sure, we can adapt, as long as the rate of environmental change is not too fast for our sluggish political, economic and public health systems. What's the downside of this form of forced adaptation? Some parts of the population (those who can't or don't adapt so easily) must fall by the wayside. So the tens of thousands who die each year of heatwave-related causes (chiefly the elderly, infirm, poverty-stricken, etc) are the new Neanderthals. Is this your version of natural selection? Difficult times, indeed.
Prev 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 Next
