Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 Next
Comments 78401 to 78450:
-
eperezjr at 10:24 AM on 30 July 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
It seems that Spencer is at it again. He has published another article with much of the same arguments as are critiqued on this web site. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf -
scaddenp at 10:01 AM on 30 July 2011Models are unreliable
Forecasters at it again. However, I see you asked over at Realclimate as well (good idea), so it's worth noting Gavin's response: "Actually it isn't that terrible. They clearly spent more time trying to understand the science than previous forecasting researchers and they do a reasonably constructive job of trying to see whether you can improve on climate model projections. They slip up a little in mixing up decadal intialized predictions with the wider climate model enterprise but it is a reasonable first effort." -
Rob Painting at 00:56 AM on 30 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR - the steric contribution does indeed appear to have slowed. Consider the differences (even allowing for the different time periods and lack of coverage) between Von Schuckmann 2009 and this study. Ice melt is contributing more and more to sea level rise, but that's a whole world away from BP's claims. Some very recent papers have looked at this issue - and they completely disagree with BP too. I'll post some graphs and links tomorrow. KL - Doc Trenberth may disagree, but there's a paper been submitted to the journal Nature: Heating of earth’s climate system continues despite lack of surface warming in past decade - Loeb (2011) They use new TOA (top of of the atmosphere) satellite radiation, and ARGO OHC data, measurements to show that the 'slow-down' in warming is consistent with radiative forcing - they find warming of 0.52 =/- 0.43W/m2, - i.e the 0.9 figure is wrong. I have no idea when it's likely to be published though. All-in-all supports what I wrote in the "Why wasn't the hottest decade hotter?" thread - there was a slow-down in the rate of global warming during the 'noughties'. Those pesky manmade aerosols are a prime suspect in my view. They would explain a lot of the observations. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:53 AM on 30 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Chris G @ 28 FYI - I do believe in doing those things that could help "all the starfish". Within reason, that is. And, that is probably a conversation for another time and place. Peace! -
muoncounter at 00:48 AM on 30 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR#35: "I just found it rather ironic ..." Ah, irony. Millions will suffer deprivation and disease. Tens of thousands will die each year. Is this your ironic definition of 'also get to pay for the adaption'? BTW, your short list of 'places which have contributed the most CO2' is grossly incorrect. And if you are trying to isolate SLR effects to specific locations, you are all wet. Example: as the Gulf of Mexico rises, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port and its terminal at Port Fourchon goes under. That's connected to 50% of US refining capacity. Maybe you were feeling good about not living on the drowning coastline, but this means you won't get to drive much. Or maybe we'll 'just adapt.' -
Ken Lambert at 00:22 AM on 30 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP - various posts BP - you might want to look at the Trenberth contribution to the debate here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=70&&n=865 The issue of OHC increase of decrease is a vital one to the whole AGW story. Your point that one can't have a high mass rise (2-3mm/yr) and high steric rise (or any steric rise at all) at the same time when the overall rise is 2.3mm/yr is obviously correct. In energy balance terms, a high mass rise from land ice melt worsens the 'missing heat' part of energy balance markedly; because of your point that 58 ntimes more heat energy is required to get a mm of steric rise compared with a mm of ice melt rise. Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m global imbalance is getting further away from 0.39W/sq.m which is the 0.55W/sq.m of **oceanic** rise expressed globally. What is needed here is a credible explanation of why the fast held 0.9W/sq.m is not being found as OHC measurement improves. -
Eric the Red at 00:17 AM on 30 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Muoncounter, Not really. I just found it rather ironic that those places had experienced the greatest SLR. Noticeably absent were areas in Europe, but they are evidently benefitting from the rebound effect.Moderator Response: (DB) This statement embodies the lack of understanding you demonstrate on SLR; some areas do rise due to GI Rebound while others may be experiencing SLR. -
muoncounter at 00:10 AM on 30 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR#32: "those places experiencing the greatest SLR are also the same places which have contributed the most CO2. ... Ironically, those contributing the most CO2, also get to pay for the adaption." This is stunning in its sheer brilliance: 'If you pollute you must pay' sounds a lot like you're proposing a carbon tax. -
muoncounter at 23:59 PM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate#31: " ...since the last Ice Age" Irrelevant. - the rise of overpopulated cities with insufficient infrastructure in the vulnerable coastal zone occurred in the last 100 years. - the interconnection of world financial systems, largely in coastal cities, occurred in the last 20 years - the proliferation of dangerous weapons available to highly motivated (hungry, frightened, angry, displaced) people -- and a potent demonstration of their effectiveness against affluent, complacent populations -- occurred in the last 10 years The fact that you cannot offer more than 'we can adapt' indicates that you aren't prepared for serious discussion on this issue. How do you respond to student questions about the likelihood of climate change driving more frequent extreme events -- another Katrina, another Pakistan flood, a continued Sahel drought? Just say adapt? Grow gills? -
Camburn at 23:42 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob: You are falling into the short time frame trap. There has not been a long enough series of ARGO data to provide sufficient valid data to suggest that the oceans are warming or cooling. Skeptics use this all the time, the short term time frame. I do not believe that you are a skeptic.Moderator Response: (DB) Please read the OP. -
Eric the Red at 23:19 PM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp, During the past half century, those places experiencing the greatest SLR are also the same places which have contributed the most CO2. These include the Eastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico, the East coast of Japan, New Zealand, and the Phillipines (alright, the Phillipinos have not contributed as much). Ironically, those contributing the most CO2, also get to pay for the adaption. http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/MSL_global_trendtable1.html -
apiratelooksat50 at 22:34 PM on 29 July 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp @ 29 and muon @ 30 We've been adapting to sea level rise since the last Ice Age. According to what I've read on this website, even if we eliminated all FF use we are still in for long-term warming and therefor sea level rise. So, it does not matter who created the problem - we are going to have to adapt. And, scaddenp, we are all part of the problem. -
Rob Painting at 21:29 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP -"It is entirely possible Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are right and the 800 m thick layer between 700 & 1500 m depth is warming twice as fast as the layer above. This setup still lacks a credible physical mechanism, but that may come later." That's not what Von Schuckmann and Le Traon suggest at all - that's a strawman argument. They use a more complete dataset and different analysis (infilling missing profiles with 'averaged anomalies' as opposed to zero anomaly infilling employed by Lyman et al for instance) and measure deeper into the ocean. 10-1500 metres, you will note, includes 690 metres of the top 700 metres of ocean. "Of course I have not said that. What I have said is the ocean can't be warming if melt rate of land based ice is accelerating as claimed and satellite SLR is correct. I suppose you are familiar with conditional propositions" As above, the oceans are warming according to ARGO thermometers. Note the image posted @ 10 by Albatross - calculate 2009 (as you have for 2011) and show us what you come up with. -
Berényi Péter at 20:23 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#35 KR at 12:37 PM on 29 July, 2011 I would therefore question, however, your (and BP's) assertions that the oceans are not warming, despite the known physics of CO2 levels and radiative balance. Of course I have not said that. What I have said is the ocean can't be warming if melt rate of land based ice is accelerating as claimed and satellite SLR is correct. I suppose you are familiar with conditional propositions. It is entirely possible Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are right and the 800 m thick layer between 700 & 1500 m depth is warming twice as fast as the layer above. This setup still lacks a credible physical mechanism, but that may come later. 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. But if you still claim some dangerous warming is going on, you have to show 1. how can the surface be warming more than an order of magnitude faster than the oceans 2. where is the error in recent papers purporting large and increasing melt rate of land based ice OR 3. you may try to show us satellite SLR is flawed -
Berényi Péter at 19:35 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#33 KR at 12:02 PM on 29 July, 2011 BP's claims that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are wrong are simply handwaving. He has done zero sensitivity analysis, or significance analysis, used a value for SLR 30% off from the measured value Sorry for driving you desperate, but acceleration term calculated from satellite sea level data is significantly negative. It is −0.102 ± 0.028 mm/yr2, that is, more than three σ below zero, which is deceleration for all practical purposes. -snip-Moderator Response: Please tone down the inflammatory language and snark. Thank you. -
Eclipse at 18:05 PM on 29 July 2011It's the sun
Disregard the last comment about Wordpress... I just realised how much work you've already put into the ipad and iphone apps and would hate to put you through all that again. (Not sure if Wordpress has simple translation into these formats but there you go). I just love powerful forum software, because... well... I didn't even get an email last time someone replied? -
Eclipse at 18:01 PM on 29 July 2011It's the sun
Thanks Scaddenp. One query regarding the forum software: every thought of switching to Wordpress? Wordpress is great software and has BBpress forums as a plug-in now. Commenting could have all the power of BBpress (or SMF or Phpbb3 or whatever other open source forum software you want). -
Fitz1309 at 17:34 PM on 29 July 2011It's Urban Heat Island effect
Thanks for the replys! -
Rob Painting at 16:13 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP @ 9 - "Clearly much heat is finding it's way down into deeper waters" -That can't be the case. Consider Rignot 2011........." ARGO floats measure ocean temperature, salinity and ocean current velocity as they yo-yo up and down the water column.
Seems a tad more direct than relying on sea level budget estimations.
-
macoles at 16:11 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
I had to smile when Monckton did a hat tip to his sponsor Gina Rinehart (of Hancock Resources and Australia's richest person) by conflating the mineral resources rent tax with our proposed action on climate change. What a dead giveaway that Monckton was only here in Australia for political shenanigans by vested interests. -
Rob Painting at 16:00 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP - What is more, choosing 2005 as the starting year is kind of cherry picking This from my post: " The ARGO float network began rollout in 2000, but prior to 2005 there wasn't sufficent global coverage, and because of this Von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) start their analysis from 2005 onwards" The authors specifically identify the lack of coverage in the Southern Ocean. A point which is supported by your graphic posted @ 29. In fact your graphic indicates the exact opposite of what you claim. -
dana1981 at 14:48 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Chris G - yes, Monckton knows his audience and their lack of scientific comprehension well. Toward the end of the debate in the Q&A session, a reporter asked Monckton about the House of Lords controversy. He took great offense, of course, and changed the subject back to the climate. Fair enough, except he just babbled about how the IPCC climate sensitivity can't be right because the feedback loop gain would make the climate blow up (runaway warming, as discussed in the post above). It was total nonsense, but he knows his audience hasn't a clue what "feedback loop gain" is. After he made his wrong point, he sat back with a smug grin, like he had made some brilliant point, and the 'skeptics' in the audience applauded him even though they hadn't a clue what he had just said. It was quite the spectacle. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:59 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
KR, I don't have access to the full text, but Tyndall's 1861 paper is referenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph of this OP, and under the section on DTR, the very first sentence says:As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days.
The Arrhenius note is a good addition, but I think the Tyndall reference is more than adequate, and more than clear enough. -
KR at 13:47 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
John Cook - some mention of Arrhenius 1896 should be linked here. Arrhenius, in his seminal paper, described almost half the fingerprints over a century ago. I for one find that solid backing for well established science regarding the greenhouse effect.Response: [JC] In Arrhenius' 1896 paper, the opening paragraph refers to the diurnal range shrinking (eg - nights warming faster than days) - he is actually referencing Tyndall. So I thought why not take it straight from the horses' mouth as Tyndall precedes Arrhenius by a few decades. -
Chris G at 13:45 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monckton continues to have audiences because he tells people what they want to hear. I would also be very happy to believe he is right that climate change is not a serious problem, but I can't reconcile what he says with what I learned in college courses on physics, chemistry, and statistics, and logic, for that matter. But, I don't think I represent his audience. He survives debates by talking about science that is beyond the skill level of the audience, and laying down a series of half-truths which lead to incorrect inferences, or outright fabrications. He does not engage climate scientists in the battlefield of published research; he would loose even if he did manage to get something published. The average audience does not appreciate that peer-reviewed journals are an open battlefield. They often think it is some kind of private club. Peer-review is just a first-pass filter to keep people from bringing knives to a gunfight. He wins audiences by convincing them that he is on their side, which has an unspoken implication that his opponent must not be. You will not win an audience who doesn't know Stefan-Boltzman from the ideal gas law with more facts. Even if you provide correct information where he has not, as has been said, it will be a he-said/he(she)-said situation, and if you are telling people what they don't want to believe, you loose. I tend to agree with Rob that it is a not a good idea to give him a microphony. Monckton is far better at rhetoric than science. To beat him in front of a science-challenged audience, it is not enough be better at the science, you have to be better at the rhetoric as well. But, then the debate becomes one that only has a pretense of being about the science. Oh...I see. As far as Monckton is concerned, this has always been the case. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:40 PM on 29 July 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Pirate @25 etc I agree with many of your sentiments about the ultimate capacity of humanity to survive what is likely to be coming - probably. Consider a few things. Survival does not necesarily mean survival of civilisation. Early hunter/gather type societies might well survive in the world that is coming but possibly literate, knowledge rich civilisations. Will that future world be perhaps harsher than the world of our ancestors. Sure, Icy wastes may have been uninhabitable then while in the future it will be scorching deserts. But what will the still 'habitable' zones look like. What will the density of possible prey species for our descendent be for example. As the world crashes from a peak of 10 billion to way way lower due to a cornucopia of pressures, with hunger at the top of the list, James Lovelock's words may prove chillingly prophetic - "Forget Lions & Tigers. If it moved we ate it". And what state will the oceans be in as a food resource - acidification events and all that. Could our descendents face a much harder future than our primitive ancestors. And what of civilisation ever recovering? If we are driven down that far because of environmental circumstances essentially all our moder knowledge will be lost. Past civilisations grew and expanded their knowledge because they flourished in some key regions of biological bounty. If there are no such regions in the future, could our ancestors ever rise back up again. Look at the Aboriginal population here in Australia. They occupied the entire continent and lived successfully and innovatively here, even developing some very primitive agriculture, fish farming etc, as far as the local conditions permitted. But the climate never allowed them to rise to the level of the great Middle-Eastern civilisations - conditions restricted them to essentially hunter-gather societies over 60,000 years. Could that be our descendents fate, but with nothing bigger than small rodents to live on? Even if our descendent do eventually manage to start climbing back up, what resources will they have available? We have mined and or burned so much already, including virtiually all the easily accessable resources. They won't find surface coal, oil, etc like our ancestors did. Without these will they be able to make the leap back to electricity, nuclear physics etc. Could the atronauts on the space station be the last humans in space, ever? And what of the transition to this harsh future world. What will the lives of our descendents be like as they live through the 'crash'? How far off is it? Of those 182 children you spoke of; how many of them will dy terrible deaths during this decline. The harsh future world of 'just biology' will happen to anonymous future generations. The horros of the journey to that destination are likely to happen to those we know and love today. So every tiny thing we can do now to diminish this will be some measure of horror averted for our loved ones. -
Composer99 at 13:32 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Monkcton has suggested (threatened?) that he will bring suit against several people on several occasions (Dr John Abraham comes to mind); to my knowledge he has not carried out any such suits. Perhaps for the same reason why he has declined to participate in a fact-check debate. Anyone know otherwise? Has Monckton pressed ahead with one or more of his lawsuit threats? -
DSL at 13:30 PM on 29 July 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Spencer's Spins? -
ptbrown31 at 13:27 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
KR, 44, 47 I think that can be satisfied by looking at Arrhenius 1896, pg. 265, where he states "An increase in carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night. Thankyou!!! That is what I have been asking for and I appreciate you pointing it out to me. The original post should reference the Arrhenius paper. I have to say, however, that this greenhouse/DTR claim does not seem to be backed up by more contemporary science on the subject (references mentioned above). It is not too hard to imagine that the thinking on this issue has evolved since 1896. Also, as I said in my original post (#6), the IPCC AR4 points out that there was no change in DTR from 1979-2004 (a time period when greenhouse forcing was as very strong) I suspect that it's been part of the known literature for so very long that current authors just don't bother to emphasize it. That is extremely unlikely, especially since current authors actually attempt to explain the change in DTR and they don't mention that it might be a simple result of an enhanced greenhouse. 45, Sphaerica, I am frustrated because I really don't think that you have understood what I have been saying. Also your tone continues to be condescending. It seems that you continue to think that I am arguing that DTR changes are not an anthropogenic signature. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the decrease in DTR is probably due to increasing anthropogenic aerosols (which suppress Tmax warming relative to Tmin). This is what the papers that you listed have said. -
KR at 13:20 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - Again, you are making assertions that are not statistically supported, such as "...is flat. No warming nor cooling.". The rise in sea levels has been 3.2 mm/y +/-; there is not yet enough information to establish a trend (up, or in particular down) from that. The Von Schuckmann and other papers indicate that there is evidence not contrary to continuing SLR; you on the other hand seem driven by a need to state that the oceans are not warming, or even cooling. I have to view this as a continued campaign to claim it's not happening. The evidence does not, unfortunately, support your claim. -
Chemware at 13:18 PM on 29 July 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
What would possibly work, but be very risky, is for someone to debate Monckton, and publicly call him a liar and a scientific fraud. Monckton would then sue, with the best lawyers the Koch brothers could buy. That would provide the opportunity to discredit Monckton in a court of law, with great publicity. Any volunteers ? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:46 PM on 29 July 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Hey guys, how about a Spencer icon? Something about a satellite lost in clouds perhaps. -
scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
"That is the main reason I put little value in Von Schuckmann's paper." And yet you seems to regard the earlier result for 0-700m as more reliable? Why is that? -
KR at 12:37 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - "After the data splice, there is no effective way of knowing whether the oceans are cooling or warming as the time period is too short." That is a reasonable position to hold. I can respect that. I would therefore question, however, your (and BP's) assertions that the oceans are not warming, despite the known physics of CO2 levels and radiative balance. You, by your own statements, do not have sufficient data to establish a trend, yet you have repeatedly done so. Perhaps the recent aerosol loads and solar minima are causing a short term downswing (with the concomitant warming upswing later). Perhaps the ARGO data needs more corrections. Perhaps the XBT data requires more corrections. Perhaps transport to the benthic depths is faster than we thought. But we certainly know the physics of radiative balance, and such short term variations only add noise to the larger picture of GHG physics and global warming. My opinions on assertions (such as yours) of non-warming oceans via indirect evidence would violate the Comments Policy - suffice it to say that I am impressed only by the audacity of such statements, and not by the scientific value. -
Camburn at 12:25 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KR: Yes and no. Physics demands that if OHC has increased as Von Schuckmann indicates, thermosteric sea level should be value A. We have in evidence another published paper showing the addition of glacial melt, etc to sea level rise. When you do the math, even on a short time period, the basic physics indicates a different result than Von Schuckmann has found. The early ARGO data has substantial error bars, which are readily admited to in the Von paper. The main thing is, 2-6 years of data does not prove much of anything. We will need at least another 10 years, and even then it will be subject to question. That is the main reason I put little value in Von Schuckmann's paper. After the data splice, there is no effective way of knowing whether the oceans are cooling or warming as the time period is too short. -
KR at 12:25 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
Sphaerica - Hang in, this too shall pass. -
KR at 12:24 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I will point out that this 1896 (!!!) paper by Arrhenius notes multiple fingerprints of AGH (polar amplification, winters warming faster than summers, greater for N. hemisphere than S. due to land mass, faster over land than water, albedo feedback from ice melt) based upon simple radiative physics. Stratospheric cooling is not mentioned; but since the stratosphere was discovered quite some time later, that's not surprising. Arrhenius was quite frankly concerned about an ice age, but discovered to his surprise that warming was more of an issue. His work on the subject was excellent, and has held up quite well over the last century. I suspect that it's been part of the known literature for so very long that current authors just don't bother to emphasize it. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:15 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
KR, thanks. I kept meaning to go back to that, and lost track. Sheesh. I can't wait to get rid of this illness. It's crippling my brain. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:14 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
42, ptbrown31,I was saying that the claim that DTR should decrease with an enhanced greenhouse effect is not a part of literature and established theory.
And this was proven to be false. It is in fact a part of the literature and theory. The way you keep changing and rewording your stance makes you ineligible for further discussion. It's not worth the effort. Suggestion... go read more of the literature before deciding what it does or does not say. Here's one that get's pretty close to what you're demanding, but I'm not wasting any more time correcting you after this: Daily maximum and minimum temperature trends in a climate model – Stone & Weaver (2003)“The recent observed global warming trend over land has been characterised by a faster warming at night, leading to a considerable decrease in the diurnal temperature range (DTR). Analysis of simulations of a climate model including observed increases in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols reveals a similar trend in the DTR of −0.2°C per century, albeit of smaller magnitude than the observed −0.8°C per century. This trend in the model simulations is related to changes in cloud cover and soil moisture. These results indicate that the observed decrease in the DTR could be a signal of anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”
Emphasis mine. FYI... an increase in night time cloudiness, that in turn raises night time warming, is probably also a signature of GHE (I haven't studied the modeled cloud changes in the simulations enough to say, and even if I had, clouds are an area of inaccuracy in past and current models). The fact that the mechanism is or isn't from cloudiness is a mere detail, and as I've already said, I think it is related to all warming. But the expectation that already exists in the literature is what it is, your personal interpretation not withstanding. -
KR at 12:13 PM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
Arrhenius 1896, pg. 265, states "An increase in carbonic acid will of course diminish the difference in temperature between day and night." Nothing like the classics... -
KR at 12:02 PM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Camburn - What I am noting is that BP has proved nothing - he chose a short period of SLR, fit a trend to it, and made indirectly based claims that there was therefore no OHC increase occurring. Von Schuckmann & Le Traon demonstrated that the last 3-4 years of ARGO data match up with satellite altimeter data (which has considerably longer data sets), validating the ARGO data, and that the ARGO temperature records indicate sequestering of heat in the deeper ocean. They fully acknowledge that there is a significant seasonal variation, but indicate (based on a statistical analysis) that the data is statistically significant over the ARGO data period. BP's claims that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon are wrong are simply handwaving. He has done zero sensitivity analysis, or significance analysis, used a value for SLR 30% off from the measured value, and then claims that he has somehow invalidated the thermometers on the ARGO floats. There is certainly room for more data from the ARGO floats, particularly since they are now providing a more complete sampling. But BP's invalidation is a bad joke. -
ptbrown31 at 11:57 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
41, Sphaerica All I did was to point out the very, very frequent references to the concept in the literature. The logic behind it and the nature of it are not fabrications of SkS. That is clear. You seem to think that I was arguing that the general concept of DTR change was invented by SkS. That is not what I have been saying. What I do think is that SkS has used DTR change as fingerprint of an enhanced greenhouse effect when the evidence seems to show that the DTR change is actually attributable to the growth of anthropogentric aerosols (and or clouds) suppressing the rate of warmth of Tmax relative to Tmin. But your initial claim was not that it was unproven, but rather that what changes were observed could not be attributed to the GHE, and my answer to that is that you are demanding that someone show you the far side of the moon to prove to you that it exists, because you can't see it from here. Is it so much to ask for a single sentence in a paper to actually corroborate the original claim* being made? *by claim I specifically mean "an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm Tmin more than Tmax and thus DTR should decrease" -
KR at 11:46 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "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." If you are not willing to make testable predictions, Berényi, you are simply not doing science, end of story. Predictions with bounds of uncertainty - those are testable assertions. "No, you're wrong" statements are not, they are just rhetoric. -
KR at 11:42 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter - "Therefore dismissing 2004 altogether is not justified. It should be taken into account, with somewhat larger error bars perhaps." I strongly suggest you read the paper, in particular looking at Fig. 4, Method validation using gridded altimeter SSH measurements, where Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) demonstrate why they feel that Nov. 2007 is the earliest point where the ARGO data is fully trustworthy. You have not, as far as I can tell, pointed out any serious issues, or contradictory references, that indicate problems with this paper. Direct measurements of temperature and OHC really are more convincing than indirect arguments, particularly with your short term (cherry-picked?) sea level trend. -
Berényi Péter at 11:35 AM on 29 July 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
It also worth noting that pushing heat into the upper 2000 m of oceans at a rate of 0.55 W/m2 means it would warm at a rate of 0.2°C/century. Compare it to the ~3°C/century IPCC projections for surface warming. In other words, the surface is supposed to warm at a rate 15 times faster than the oceans do. -
ptbrown31 at 11:28 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
39, Sphaerica I was not saying that the concept of DTR change was not a part of both literature and established theory. I was saying that the claim that DTR should decrease with an enhanced greenhouse effect is not a part of literature and established theory. Do you accept that the predicted reduction in DTR is, in fact, a long established and well recognized aspect of GHG theory? Again, I have never seen, and you have not shown me any scientific article that says something to the effect of "an enhanced greenhouse effect should decrease DTR and in fact this is what has been observed" So I accept that a reduction in DTR has been observed over a certain time period but I do not accept that this is a fingerprint indicating that the warming that we have seen is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. However, the rest of the original post makes many other valid arguments for recent warming being due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (i.e. I am not an AGW skeptic) -
Bob Lacatena at 11:24 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
36, ptbrown31,But as you can see, none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
You're standing everything on it's head, because no one has written a paper titled "Hey, PTBROWN31, We Think Explicitly That Anthropogenic Climate Change From Greenhouse Gases Will Cause a Noted and Observable Drop in Diurnal Temperature Ranges", I. B. Buttscratch, 1983, Geophysical Research Letters. All I did was to point out the very, very frequent references to the concept in the literature. The logic behind it and the nature of it are not fabrications of SkS. That is clear. Whether it is proven or not is another issue, and one that I have already said I don't think is possible until temperatures increase considerably, and even then, possibly not. But your initial claim was not that it was unproven, but rather that what changes were observed could not be attributed to the GHE, and my answer to that is that you are demanding that someone show you the far side of the moon to prove to you that it exists, because you can't see it from here. It's a fools errand, and not one that anyone is going to bother to undertake. -
ptbrown31 at 11:19 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
37, Composer99 This is from my 1st post (#6): 1) I have looked quite a bit and I have never found a peer reviewed article that attributes the observed change in DTR to an enhanced greenhouse effect alone. All of the references above either do not attempt to attribute the change in DTR to anything or they attribute it to cloud/aerosol suppression of daytime warming (while both tmin and tmax are presumed to be warming do to an enhanced greenhouse effect). This makes a change in DTR an anthropogenic fingerprint but that is very different than an enhanced greenhouse effect fingerprint. And that is why I was clear to say in #37: none of the above papers say that the change in DTR is an outcome of an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. An anthropogenic signature is not the same thing as an enhanced greenhouse effect signature (which is the claim that the OP makes) -
Bob Lacatena at 11:18 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
36, ptbrown31, You are arguing two different things. I'm not arguing about whether or not the case is proven. I'm arguing that you said:1) They make the same claim in many posts 2) It is NOT a part of both literature and established theory.
I have categorically proven your second claim to be false, and so the first claim to be moot. Do you accept that the predicted reduction in DTR is, in fact, a long established and well recognized aspect of GHG theory? -
Composer99 at 11:14 AM on 29 July 2011How we know we're causing global warming in a single graphic
I should clarify my final paragraph by noting that Braganza et al indicate that maximum temperatures increased faster in the model runs than in the empirical observations.
Prev 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 Next
