Recent Comments

Prev  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  Next

Comments 78651 to 78700:

78651. Dikran Marsupial at 23:15 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Ken wrote "Well - how can we??" (i) why not wait for the next article in the series (ii) the mass balance argument shows beyond doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and has been discussed many times on SkS this article also written by Doug Your comment on the style of Doug et al.'s contribution is rather churlish. A lot of effort has gone into these posts, and just becuase they are not tailored specifically to your requirements does not mean they are not suitable for the interested layman. Sadly it is a shame when eminent scientists like Dyson make such criticisms of science beyond their area of genuine expertise. It is generally an indication of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Do you agree with Dyson that GCMs do a good job of modelling the fluid motion of the atmosphere and oceans?
78652. Ken Lambert at 22:58 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Doug Mackie Original Post #9 "How can we be sure that ocean acidification is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? That is, how do we know that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is not coming from a natural warming of the ocean?" Well - how can we?? Forgive my ignorance of higher chemistry - but do we really need 9+ posts to get a result on the subject of ocean acidification? I have tried to follow through some of your earlier posts -and they seem to be a set of draft lecture notes for a graduate course. Now that is fine in itself - but some editing and a set of conclusions would be in order for the interested layman. As a separate point - oceanic biological processes are mentioned above. It has been a criticism of others - Freeman Dyson for example - that biological and plant processes are not part of any of Hansen's AGW modelling (and most if not all other GCM) and are probably very significant players.
78653. Bob Lacatena at 22:43 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1085, damorbel, Concerning gravity, work is only done when the pressure is changed. While it is true that the measured pressure is higher closer to the ground... it stays that way. The pressure is not changing. To increase the temperature, you must compress the gas further. This clearly is not happening. You say:

       According to thermodynamic laws this temperature gradient is sustained by the pressure gradient.

       What does this statement mean? That a gas under pressure cannot cool? Think about it. [Hint #1: There is no such statement or law in Thermodynamics, that a temperature gradient is sustained by a pressure gradient. This is an inference arrived at by misapplying the Laws of Thermodynamics.] [Hint #2: The Laws of Thermodynamics apply specifically to bodies that are in Thermodynamic Equilibrium. A non-homogeneous atmosphere with a temperature and pressure gradient is clearly not a single body in Thermodynamic Equilibrium, so the Laws simply cannot be applied in a simple, single-minded fashion.]
78654. Eric the Red at 22:33 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Tom, You seem to be arguing for a step-like shift, whereas I was claiming a more gradual change. Instead of a jump around 1977, the change would slowly increase to a maximum around the trasition year, and slowly subside. If you plot the 5-year moving average for ENSO, the value rises steeply from 1975-1983, crossing zero in 1979. Hence, I would expect the greatest change over that interval. Currently, the moving average is falling, and crossed zero in 2009. We have yet to see if a repeat of the 1940s will occur. Once again, long term, the effects will cancel. As I stated previously, the 130-year near-linear trend is 0.6C / century, with early 2011 CRU data falling slightly below the trend line. I see no reason to deviate from this trend. Remember, an exponential rise in CO2 leads to a linear increase in temperature. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not kept pace with the expponential rise recently, so I see no reason for an increase in the temperature trend. Using a shorter time frame to determine a long-term trend may not be the best. Therefore, I think you estimate of 1.56 C by the century is high.
78655. Jeff T at 22:30 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Doug, please read comment 8 (14:44 PM) carefully. I'm a different Jeff. I studied what you wrote; I'd like to understand it; but I don't. Generally, one needs four equations to solve for four coupled parameters. Sarah and I are the only non-authors to make substantive comments. Do you really conclude from such a small sample that everyone else understood the post? I don't know what CT and AT are. Sarah, if the species ratios are more important than concentrations (for the health of corals or clams, say), it would help a lot for the post to explain that. The equation for water at the end of comment 9 (15:02 PM) isn't sufficient; water plus CO2 doesn't produce pH=8.
78656. Bob Lacatena at 22:27 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       1085, damorbel, In answer to all of your questions about net heat flow, please refer to the following simplified diagram of radiation exchange between the surface of the earth, the atmosphere, and the sun. The atmosphere (blue) is transparent to visible light (yellow) from the sun. This warms the surface (+4). The surface emits (according to its temperature of 5) in wavelengths which pass through the atmosphere into space (-3), losing that heat, and in wavelengths which are absorbed by the atmosphere (2). The atmosphere emits (according to its temperature of 2) equally in all directions, which means some heads into space and some back down. Thus, the temperature of the surface is 5 (4 from the sun, plus 1 from the atmosphere). The temperature of the atmosphere is 2 (from the surface). The planet gains and loses 5 at all times. The atmosphere gains and loses 2 at all times. Space gains and loses 4 at all times. Everything nets to zero. There is no energy created or lost. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is never violated. Every net transfer (which is the only actual restriction) is warm to cold. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is never violated.
78657. Bob Lacatena at 22:05 PM on 23 July 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Looks like we just lost North Pole Cam 2 to a melt pond as well:
78658. Dikran Marsupial at 22:03 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel I am astonished that this point is still being debated here, given that the questions you raise have already been answered repeatedly. The law of heat transfer says that the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold. It does not say that no energy is transfered from the colder object to the warmer, just that the flow of energy in the other direction will be larger. Thus the questions are not valid as they are based on at least one fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics. BTW the GHE is accepted already. The fact that you are at odds with the vast majority of scientists on this one ought to suggest to you that perhaps the problem is with your understanding of the physics rather than with the physics itself.
78659. damorbel at 21:42 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1084 Tom Curtis you write:- "The surface temperature at the normal CO2 level is set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the effective altitude of radiation at the equilibrium temperature for that altitude." You argue here that the surface temperature is governed by the TOA temperature, the '2nd Law' argument says that the thin, cold upper atmosphere that is losing lots of radiation to deep space is quite incapable of transferring any significant quantity of thermal energy to the warm, dense surface. The simple questions are 1/ 'Where does this energy come from'? 2/ How can a cold layer with a density about a tenth of the surface value possibly raise the surface temperature by even a small amount. The laws of heat transfer say that heat energy goes only from the hot surface to the tropopause where it is further radiated into deep space. These are valid questions; if the GHE is to be accepted valid answers to theses questions are needed also. Further you write:- "In exactly the same manner, gravity currently holds the pressure of the atmosphere, but does not increase it. Therefore it does no work and cannot replace the energy that escapes to space by radiation." This isn't the whole story because the pressure increases with depth, contrary to your claim that it doesn't change. It is gravity that causes the pressure gradient. According to thermodynamic laws this temperature gradient is sustained by the pressure gradient. Your example of a bicycle tire is not valid because there is no pressure gradient in a tire. The temperature change in the tire you note dies away because the pressure gradient is supported by the tire walls and not the gas in the tire.
78660. Tom Curtis at 20:45 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red @130, you will note that I said, and that you have now agreed that:

       " if you have a period of predominantly La Ninas and follow with a period of predominantly El Ninos, in a period of no underlying trend, in the immediate period of the transition that will introduce a spurious trend to global mean temperatures. But outside of any interval that ranges across the point of transition, that change will introduce no trend to the series."

       (Emphasis added) The interval from 1977 (chosen because it was a high value for the period) to 2001 (chosen because Trenberth claims 25 years is the minimal period for a significant effect) follows after the end of the period of frequent La Ninas that occurred during the 60's and early 70's. It includes no transition from frequent La Ninas to frequent El Ninos, and included no transition from negative to positive PDO phase. Therefore on the principle quoted above, neither ENSO nor PDO have introduced a trend to that period. Never-the-less the trend over that interval (HadCRUT3) is 0.156 degrees C per decade. Further, the period 1951-1975 does not include a transition from frequent El Ninos to frequent La Ninas, and has a Negative PDO phase throughout. Therefore on the quoted principle, these ocean fluctuations have introduced no trends to that period, and hence the negative trend over that interval (see graph in 131) is not explained by ENSO states or the PDO. Finally, even if we are undergoing a transition between frequent El Ninos to frequent La Ninas, and/or from positive to negative phase PDO, on the quoted principle that would at most introduce a spurious reduction of the trend in the immediate decade of the transition. Over the following decades, and until the next transition (which would introduce a temporary spurious increase to the trend), they cannot be expected to effect the trend at all. Consequently we would predict a resumption of the preceding trend, and hence have no reason to expect ENSO or the PDO to result in a reduce trend for a sustained period into the future. I think these three points follow straight forwardly from the quoted principle, which as I have said follows straight forwardly from the discussion in 109, and to which you have agreed. Given that, why would we not be predicting an increase in temperature by at least 1.56 degrees by the end of this century, and far probably more because of the increasing GHG forcing?
78661. Tom Curtis at 20:13 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @1083, the diagram in 1080 shows three horizontal lines, H, H + delta H, and the Tropopause. It shows two diagonal lines, CO2 and 2*CO2. The line H represents the effective altitude of radiation with the initial CO2 concentration. The equilibrium temperature at that altitude is set by the energy balance such that the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) equals the Incoming solar radiation times the planetary albedo. The surface temperature at the normal CO2 level is set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the effective altitude of radiation at the equilibrium temperature for that altitude. If you double CO2, the effective altitude of radiation is increased. In the diagram the new effective altitude of radiation is represented by H + delta H. The equilibrium temperature at this new altitude is approximately the same as the original equilibrium temperature because incoming solar radiation and albedo have not changed (but see below). Therefore the surface temperature is still set by the intersect of the lapse rate with the new altitude of effective radiation at the equilibrium temperature. As the diagram shows, this requires that the intersect of the lapse rate with the surface shift to the right, ie, that the surface temperature increase. Of course, in real life there will be feed back effects that may change albedo, and may change the lapse rate, as well as introducing increased GHG concentrations (water vapour) to the atmosphere. These complexities do effect the final result. Indeed, in the most likely case given the evidence, they increase the change in surface temperature by a factor of 2.5. But they do not change the fundamental principles involved. Regarding the compression effect, it was once fundamental to the Earth's climate, but is no longer. To illustrate this, consider the example of pumping up a bicycle tire. As we well know, doing so raised the temperature of the air in the tire. But once we stop pumping, the extra heat dissipates even though the air remains compressed. Indeed, if we leave the bike for a few hours, the air temperature inside the tire will be the same as the ambient air temperature. The reason for this is that so long as the wall of the tire is merely holding the pressure instead of increasing it, it does no work. And because it does no work, it introduces no new energy into the air to replace any that escapes to the environment by conduction or radiation. In exactly the same manner, gravity currently holds the pressure of the atmosphere, but does not increase it. Therefore it does no work and cannot replace the energy that escapes to space by radiation. In the very distant past the Earth's gravitational field created the compression in the first place in a process astronomers call "accretion". The amount of energy released by this compression left the Earth completely molten, but as William Thompson, Lord Kelvin showed over a hundred years ago, it only takes from a hundred thousand to ten million years for all that energy to dissipate. Consequently, from long before any life evolved on Earth, almost all energy on Earth has come from the sun, and the Earth has remained molten only because of the radioactive elements in its core.
78662. Dikran Marsupial at 19:35 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red So after all this, it seems your position is that ENSO causes short terms fluctuations in surface temperatures and we need to consider this in attributing climate changes to the various forcings? That has been known for a very long time and news to nobody. It is the "skeptics" you need to be telling that to, as it is them that use the fluctuations of ENSO to cherry pick arguments such as "did global warming stop in 1998". The effects of ENSO are fairly straightforward to remove via regression, giving results like this It seems to me you have just been backing away from your original point about PDO as people have refuted your argument and ended up arguing for a completely bland position that we all argee with anyway, and which has virtually nothing to do with PDO!
78663. damorbel at 19:15 PM on 23 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1080 Tom Curtis you write:- "2) Transfer of energy by convection is essential to understanding the modern theory of the green house effect. In this case it is not essential to the effect itself, in that in principle you could have a green house effect without it." Which is what I interpret as 'the adiabatic compression effect of gravity on the atmosphere' This is modest (55K) on Earth but severe (400K) on Venus with its x90 atmospheric mass. Are you able to distinguish between this compressive heating of the surface and the GH effect?. For me this is critical to the understanding of atmospheric physics and not often discussed. For example, in your post #1080 you have a diagram of atmospheric temperature profile with two T vs H gradients, one for 'CO2' and another for '2xCo2'. From your diagram both gradients appear to be the same i.e. the amount of CO2 does not change the gradient, only the surface temperature. From this diagram I cannot derive a clear understanding of how changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 influence the surface temperature.
78664. Rob Painting at 18:25 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       David, note this bit from the Solomon (2011) paper "Near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period of about –0.1 W/m2, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred." Ties in with the title of my post very well methinks. Of course, they're referring to volcanic stratospheric aerosols, a separate issue. Certainly interesting stuff.
78665. Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       scaddenp @23, Crowded House was an Australian band, formed in Melbourne, no less. Granted the genius behind it was a Kiwi.
78666. Doug Mackie at 16:27 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Are you referring to this "Australian" band? What kind of dirty creature would stoop to that sort of cultural appropriation? It makes me see red 8-)
78667. David Lewis at 16:20 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       The Solomon paper is suggesting that stratospheric aerosols are persistently variable, and assessments such as UNEP, something Solomon was one of ten lead authors of, affirm that: "there is no long term systematic global monitoring system to document long term future changes in stratospheric aerosols that could affect ozone and climate" so they are basically saying this is a factor models will have to take into account if they want to increase the possibility they might get accurate one day, based on impressions of the data they could get their hands on. But with data assessed to be like this, what would they suggest a modeller do? Toss a coin? Maybe that's why Hansen just asked his grandchildren.... I thought if the volcano people didn't think there was an increase in global volcanism it might mean they don't think there has been an increase in tropical volcanism. The Vernier paper abstract suggests an increase in volcanism but doesn't say increased compared to anything in particular. They mention the Brewer-Dobson circulation which might mean they feel they've observed something new there - The UNEP assessment discusses this circulation: "the Brewer Dobson circulation is not a measureable quantity and hence trends... are inferred...." "climate model simulations consistently predict an acceleration of the Brewer-Dobson circulation in response to increasing greenhouse gases..." although not predicted to be detectable yet "Certainly any change in the strength of the Brewer-Dobson circulation would alter the thermal structure of the stratosphere." It might be that volcanoes of a size that weren't thought to be powerful enough to be injecting material directly into the stratosphere, because of a misunderstanding of how Brewer-Dobson circulation works, or because it has changed, are suggested to be injecting material by Vernier. The Brewer-Dobson circulation is the way air circulates from the troposphere to the stratosphere and back....
78668. scaddenp at 15:41 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Would anyone who not a NZer spot the referencing in the title of this part? (I assume its a take on "always take the weather"?)
78669. Rob Painting at 15:38 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       David Lewis - your link doesn't enlighten us as to the degree of tropical volcanism. This is important because nearer to the equator and the plumes can reach high up into the stratosphere. That's not the case for volcanoes at high latitudes. Furthermore the studies mentioned actually go into a lot more detail, such as satellite observations.
78670. David Lewis at 15:16 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       The Global Volcanism Program has a page "Has volcanic activity been increasing?" They say "we don't think so". A dramatic increase in volcanoes per year has been reported for centuries apparently, but they say this is due to more reporters rather than more volcanoes.
78671. Sarah at 15:02 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff, Figure 3 could be made with the Y-axis in terms of concentration instead of fraction and it would look the same. For example, instead of 1.0 it the value could be 2100 x10^-6 mol kg^-6. Adding more carbon to the system would make all three lines increase together. So, if the new concentration is 10% higher (it isn't in the real world!) all three lines would be 10% higher on that scale but their proportions would stay the same. Another way to think about this is to consider the CO₃^-2 line at around pH 8.1. If you add a significant amount of CO₂ then all three lines go up when the Y-axis is in concentration units. But, by eqn 12, adding CO₂ causes some of the CO₃^-2 to convert to HCO₃^- and the new distribution defines a new more acidic pH. Actually, the 2% increase in ocean carbon would only shift the concentration lines up (together) by a tiny amount (2%). But because the system at pH 8.1-8.2 is far down on the slippery slope of low carbonate, it makes a big change in percent CO₃^-2. Your suggestion that the ratio is more important than the concentration for defining the pH is correct. The complication is that in this system carbon is both the main thing controlling the pH (by the ratio of bicarbonate/carbonate) and the thing making the pH shift (because CO₂) in water make carbonic acid, which reacts with carbonate to change the ratio, eqn 12). Neither the figure nor the post are "using only three equations to define four parameters". They are using the equations to understand the behavior of the system as a function of pH (H₃O⁺). If you want to calculate the pH for a system containing these carbon species, then the equation you need is: 2H₂O --> H₃O⁺ + OH^-. pKa=14.
78672. Doug Mackie at 14:44 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff, Are you the Jeff T who supports Piers Corbyn? If so, it would explain a lot. If not then consider what you have said again about the number of components and equations. What happens if you have 4 doors to open with 4 keys but the keys are mixed up? Once you have correctly identified 3 of the keys do you need to test the 4th key to identify its door? The figure shows that the components are not independent. The equations link them. All aspects of the CO₂ system can be described by any two of the composition parameters. e.g. CT and pH are sufficient to determine AT, pH and CO₂. Your inability to understand the figure does not appear to be widely shared. By all means prepare a figure yourself and post it here.
78673. Eric the Red at 14:11 PM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Tom, In essence we agree. There are no long term consequences from an ENSO fluctuation, but the effects are evident in the short term. The fluctuations do not produce a "step change," but rather a relatively smooth transition.
78674. Doug Mackie at 13:44 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Lazy teenager @2: Degree of disequilibrium depends on the set of K values - see previous post. Ocean as a source: see next post.
78675. Keith Hunter at 13:35 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       LT @1: they amount to the same thing. Henry's Law describes the equilibrium solubility of a gas for a given atmospheric concentration. A fizzy drink is made by pressurizing the bottle with a high pressure of pure CO2. hence it has a high solubility. When the bottle is opened to the air, Henry's Law dictates that the concentration of CO2 is now too high too be in equilibrium with the new air space, so CO2 must escape from solution, hence bubbles. A related factor is that fizzy drinks are pressurized when cold to give a higher solubility. This is because the Henry's Law constant changes with temperature (as do all equilibrium constants).
78676. Jeff T at 13:32 PM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Christina, I guess my difficulty with the post arises from the fact that it includes only three equations (8, 9 and total carbon content = sum of carbon species) to determine four parameters (concentrations of H3O+, CO2, HCO3- and CO3--). Since Eq. 12 is the difference between Eq. 8 and 9, it doesn't provide a fourth independent relation. I suppose that you don't give a fourth equation because there are really many relations and species concentrations required. As I said, I appreciate the effort, but I don't think you've solved the problem of presenting the issue clearly. Sarah, the example computation following Figure 3 assumes that total carbon content is constant. That's why it shows a decrease in concentration of CO3--. Wouldn't an example that decreases pH by adding total carbon show an increase in CO3-- concentration, even though the ratio of CO3-- concentration to other carbon species would decrease. It may be that the ratio is more important than the concentration, but the post doesn't say so. It would be informative to remake Figure 3 to show the fractions (or concentrations, whichever is more important) of the three carbon species as a function of the total CO2 added to pre-industrial seawater.
78677. Tom Curtis at 13:04 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman @373, now that I understand that your analysis is explicitly related to the formation of supercells in the United States, I will modify my criticism from 262 and 268 above. Specifically, for that question, your sample points are sparse but can make a reasonable claim to be representative. However bundling data without regard to season and ENSO index still means your analysis is ineffective. If you really want to do citizen science on this, I have to commend you but don't imagine for a second that it is easy. In science you don't get to skip corners, and a proper study will involve multiple thousands of pieces of data, and very careful analysis. If you are not prepared to put that sort of work in, your analysis will inevitably be both shallow and flawed. What is more, it will be irrelevant because genuine climatologists and meteorologists have put in the real work, collecting tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of pieces of data, and analyzing it carefully in peer reviewed literature where any obvious and, most likely, any subtle flaw has been pounced upon by somebody with a passion for truth or to make a name for themselves. So in order to accept your conclusions from your analysis, we would have to turn our back on a great deal more data, subject to a far more rigorous analysis. Not that I am trying to discourage you from your three city analysis. I am a great fan of such analyses so long as their role is understood. That role is to learn, not to discover. By undertaking such an analysis you can more quickly gain an appreciation of the issues involved than by any other method (other than a good lecture). But you will only do so if you understand the true nature of expertise, which is knowledge of the obvious errors in a field, and how to avoid them. Think about it. You and I are not expert in meteorology. Ergo we are likely to make obvious blunders and not realize it. In contrast, genuine experts (like Albatross) will probably also make errors, but they will be subtle and interesting errors. That is, errors that are hard to avoid, and which you learn a great deal by uncovering. So the obvious attitude you and I should take is that when we disagree with the experts, we should first check rigorously why we are wrong. Not the experts, but we ourselves. Only after checking rigorously enough to become competent in the field ourselves, and after floating the idea with a few experts, a significant proportion of whom then agree with us, should we even begin to suspect that we are right. Even at that stage history shows that we are probably still making an error, but at least it will be an interesting and subtle error. Frankly, that has not been your attitude on this or any other thread on Skeptical Science. That is why Albatross is so frustrated. It is not that you keep on asking questions, a behavior which delights most experts. Its that you don't accept answers.
78678. Norman at 13:00 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR @ 365 Can't leave without this one. From your link to the peer-reviewed material on climate change. "There are no indications in this study of more intense storms in the future climate, either in the Tropics or extratropics, but rather a minor reduction in the number of weaker storms." There is significant changes to storm tracks. The thesis of this thread is "2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?" The peer reviewed article does not see an increase in the intenstity of storms, only a change in location of storms. No change in intensity of storms.
78679. Norman at 12:53 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 368 Side note: To Albatross, you stated this thread has run its course. So unless someone else wishes to discuss more I will end here and go to read the Ocean acidification series (more in my field). Just wanted to respond to you Tom. You say: "Norman @363, I am not interested in debating the issue with you. Anyone who has followed this thread knows you are only interested in coming to the conclusion you started with. This is made perfectly plain in your 359 (among many other places). When looking for signs of recent increases in extreme weather you come across an extraordinary example, and immediately interpret it as proof that extraordinary examples of recent extreme weather are not evidence of increasing extreme weather. It certainly, to your mind, had nothing to do with the 2-4 degree anomaly in the US at that time. It turns out that through out the course of this debate, for you , nothing can be." I would think if would have nothing to do with the 2-4 degree anomaly in the US in January 1999. Here is why. January 1999 anomaly map. (Sorry I am not posting the graphs directly, I attempted it once but found my skill at this lacking.) February 1999 greater heat anomaly than January. January 1999: 212 tornadoes February 1999: 22 tornadoes More: January 1998 had 47 documented tornadoes. January 2000 had 21 documented tornadoes. If you do check out each of the linked maps to tornado number you can see all these years had strong temperature anomalies in January. But January 1999 soars far above the others. You would really have to stretch something to prove a causal link between January temps and tornado count in the US. Final link Does this sound sort of simialr to the topic of this thread, just switch 2010 to 1999 and there could be a match. History repeats.
78680. Rob Painting at 12:52 PM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       Papy - ta, already have that Solomon (2011) paper. Seems that a clutch of papers on aerosols have been published very recently. Myself and a couple of other authors are discussing them at the moment. Should have some posts on them shortly. What specifically interests me is what effect (if any) the Asian (& volcanic) aerosols may have had on ENSO, and the uptake of heat into the oceans.
78681. Norman at 12:28 PM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR @ 365 "On the other hand, I have to seriously criticize you for continuing to choose single or several site data sets to discuss global averages." In the series of posts above, I was not attempting to discuss global averages. Tom Curtis made the statement: "As Norman correctly points out, humidity alone is not enough for a thunderstorm; but heat and humidity are both definite factors in the strength of thunderstorms. If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms. As it happens, increased warming is also expected to increase Convective Available Potential Energy, another key factor (see maps in my 246." I was attempting to demonstrate his point "If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms." was not the case. In my series of posts the point was to show Tom that only a threshold humidity and heat are needed to initiate severe thunderstorms. The rest of the equation is unstable air (cold heavy air mass on top of less dense warm air). The more unstable the air, higher temp gradient between surface warm air and cold air aloft, the greater is the chance for severe weather. If you get a strong wind shear you also increase the chance for tornadoes. I did agree with Tom that if, in the United States, you would be able to send the higher energy July or August air into the unstable air of May, you would indeed create more severe storms than what are currently taking place. Your claim: "You've accounted for a significant percentage of the posts on this thread, and you have been consistently wrong. Worse, you don't seem to understand the criticisms raised. I would strongly suggest you step back and review what you know, and what you don't know, before posting here again." It is easy to say I am consistently wrong. Can you show how any of my links are not correct? Can you demonstrate that the month of May does not produces the most severe storms in the US? From your link: "How does one counter the Dunning-Kruger effect, in others or in themselves? Dunning and Kruger propose that improving a person's skills helps them recognise the limitations of their abilities. If there's a question about an aspect of climate science, the first step should be to investigate and improve understanding of the science. Odds are climate scientists have investigated the same question in the peer-reviewed scientific literature." KR, I do believe I have been doing this. Thanks to the intelligent and knowledgable Tom Curtis, Albatross, Daniel Bailey, Dikran Marsupial and many others I have recognized many flaws in my understanding and holes in my knowledge base. I have been attempting to investigate and improve my understanding of the science. I try to find peer-reviewed material for my posts, avoid blogs. One of my main reasons for posting on a scientific web site like this one. I am seeking more than one person's opinion on the issue. I want good science. From your link: "If there's no direct answer, find the closest topic and post a comment asking for answers. There are many well informed regulars who would be happy to point you towards any relevant peer-reviewed papers." My question is this: Why would weather events get more extreme when Global warming is pushing the Earth towards and equilibrium state (poles warming about twice as fast as tropics). I have been linked to articles where a computer model predicts more severe weather much later in this century. There is no way for me to validate the model. All I can determine for sure is maybe it will happen. But it does not answer my question above. I have found many sources that explain severe weather is caused by unstable air mass. You need cold air to develop this condition. If the poles are warming twice as fast as the source of the warm, moist fuel, then why wouldn't the instability of the atmosphere decrease as the Globe warms? It would have less cold air available to create the unstable air that generates severe weather. You also said: "But, please, stop selecting one to three spots in the USA only, and claiming that they mean anything compared to the global data. It's incorrect, statistically meaningless, and rather sad to watch" I think you are not understanding what I am attempting. In order to demonstrate a physical mechanism you do not have to go to every spot on earth to prove the condition is global. I am demonstrating that a reserve of cold air is necessary for the formation of most severe thunderstorms (there are always exceptions). If the reserve of cold air is reduced then the number and intensity of thunderstorms will be reduced. I choose points in Oklahoma and Texas because these are the areas that produce the most severe thunderstorms not just locally but globally. I demonstrate that May has the most severe storms in those states (tornadoes, rain, hail). I demonstrate that without the cold air aloft the highly energetic and moist air of July and August do not produce near the number of severe storms or rain events. If you drop a ball in your house and have supporting documentation of gravity, do you need to come to my house and drop a ball to test the idea? If I can demonstrate that warming of air in Texas and Oklahoma will not lead to more severe storms (over a 100 year period for precipitation and at least 50 years for tornadoes), why would I need to extend the area? I am demonstrating a mechanism that is supported by the literature (I have linked to multiple sources which confirm the mechanisms needed to produce severe storms). If the mechanism is a valid one, it will work anywhere on the globe.
78682. Norman at 11:43 AM on 23 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis # 370 "Norman @367, I do not believe that I have ever said that warm moist air is the major ingredient in the formation of severe weather." What you had said "From an earlier post by Tom Curtis at 258 "As Norman correctly points out, humidity alone is not enough for a thunderstorm; but heat and humidity are both definite factors in the strength of thunderstorms. If you increase both, ceterus paribus you will increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms. As it happens, increased warming is also expected to increase Convective Available Potential Energy, another key factor (see maps in my 246" That is where I misquoted you, sorry. You used the words "definate factors" and I switched that to "major ingredients" also you said "thunderstorms" and I changed that to "severe weather". My flaw. I stand corrected.
78683. Doug Mackie at 11:05 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Thank you Sarah. We did think about a more complex figure with multiple axes that included changing total carbon but we felt it would not have been easily understood.
78684. Papy at 10:49 AM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       If so and to complete, there seems to be a complementary study in my french source of the "Institut Pierre Simon Laplace" : "The persistently variable « background » stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change" (Solomon et al, 2011).
78685. Sarah at 10:25 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 8: 170 to 1
       Jeff T: Figure three shows the distribution of carbon in the three forms when the pH is at different levels no matter what makes the pH change. If you put carbonate and/or bicarbonate in a beaker and then add nitric acid the proportions of each form of carbonate will change. The proportions will also change if you add any other acid, hydrochloric acid, acetic acid (vinegar), or carbonic acid. If you use CO₂ to lower the pH then the fractions behave just like the figure shows, even as the total amount of carbon increases. You can also increase the pH by adding any kind of base, for example sodium hydroxide. And you can increase the pH by adding carbonate (CO3₃^2-). In that case the total amount of carbon also increases while the fractional distribution shifts to the right on the graph. Removing CO₂ decreases the pH (by eq 8 it removes H₃O⁺) and so the fractional distribution again shift right, even though this time the total amount of carbon decreases.. Figure 3 is very powerful precisely because it separates the total amount of carbon from the fraction in each form.
78686. LazyTeenager at 10:01 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       So the next thing to find out is whether seawater is above or below the equilibrium amount in CO2. A nice global map would be nice. Seems to me that some in climate sceptic land have seized on the idea that the ocean is emitting CO2, but I suspect this idea is a matter of faith for them and not based on evidence.
78687. LazyTeenager at 09:49 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)
       Correct me if I am wrong but I would have thought that the fizzing of carbonated water relates to the solubility (maximum dissolvable amount) of CO2 in water and not to the Henry's law equilibrium. The temperature dependence would be in the same direction but the actual relationship would be different.
78688. Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric the Red @114, again to just make sure we are on the same page, unless the climate system is very close to a tipping point (within 0.2 degrees c), ENSO fluctuations cannot result in a "step change" in global mean temperatures. Another way to look at it is this, if you have a period of predominantly La Ninas and follow with a period of predominantly El Ninos, in a period of no underlying trend, in the immediate period of the transition that will introduce a spurious trend to global mean temperatures. But outside of any interval that ranges across the point of transition, that change will introduce no trend to the series. Do you agree? I believe that this is a straightforward conclusion from the fact that there are no long term consequences from an ENSO fluctuation. I am seeking this clarification because you qualify your response by mentioning La Ninas, whereas the lack of long term effect of an El Nino is independent of any follow on La Ninas.
78689. Rob Painting at 08:46 AM on 23 July 2011
       Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?
       Papy - thanks for the Vernier (2011) abstract link. I'll see if I can track down a copy of the paper - it might be worth a post.
78690. Doug Mackie at 08:02 AM on 23 July 2011
       OA not OK part 6: Always take the weathering
       Hi Paul, I see that Doug (comment 20) suggested you calculate the pH of rainwater in order to answer your question about the change in rainwater pH (comment 19). How did you go with this? You are correct - biochar soil remediation may help reduce atmospheric CO₂. However, it is unlikely that the carbon sequestration would be any faster than the 150 years it has taken to put the CO₂ into the atmosphere. This is unlikely to reverse ocean acidification (the topic of these posts) in any remotely useful time frame.
78691. Eric the Red at 06:40 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Sphaerica, You still have a time frame when the ENSO index is essentially zero. The goal posts have not moved. As I stated previously, the period starting in 2007 may suffice, if it persists. Something similar to 1950 - 1977.
78692. Byron Smith at 06:08 AM on 23 July 2011
       China, From the Inside Out
       @Paul Magnus: Regarding not flying and people listening, I have had precisely the same experience.
78693. Bob Lacatena at 04:55 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       123, Eric the Red, Gee, how very nefarious of me. Okay, lets start at 1995, which was during an El Nino, and includes the world temperature record 1998 El Nino at the start of the period. We'll end in 2009 (during a La Nina). or, if you prefer, we can end in 2010, again in the midst of a moderate La Nina. Any other cherries you'd like unpicked?
       Response:

       [DB] Perhaps this is relevant?

78694. Albatross at 04:39 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Sorry, please replace "Tom" with "Sphaerica" in #124 above. Sorry Sphaerica!
78695. Bob Lacatena at 04:38 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       118, Eric the Red, So the goal post moves from "in the face of repeated La Ninas" to "a period of predominately La Nina." Which means what? We have to wait until the roll of the dice generates a period with 8 out of 10 years being in a La Nina phase in order to prove to you what all of the evidence, logic, numbers and statistics already show? This is equivalent to my recent question to you about what it would take for you to accept AGW, and your answer was a temperature increase over the next 26 years equal to that of the past 26 years (meaning you will admit to nothing until 2037).
78696. Albatross at 04:38 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric, Thanks for dragging this discussion down. I can assure you that Tom is not in the habit of cherry-picking. You asked for a period satisfying certain conditions, and he found one (starting in 1999) and then presented the UAH data for that period. I then checked the MEI data for Tom's window and the mean MEI was in fact negative, so was the ONI. So you are making ridiculous accusation-- the very nature of your request made it necessary to identify a time window when the ENSO was predominantly negative (La Nina) but during which the planet warmed. So instead of accepting the evidence as a true skeptic would do, you start making fallacious accusations. IMHO you owe Tom a sincere apology.
78697. Eric the Red at 04:31 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Albatross, I was using Sphaerica's orange box which appears to encompass the timeframe 1998-2011. He conveniently changes to 1999 for his temperature plot, thereby removing the highest values from 1998, and arriving at his cherry-picked trend. This is one of the fallacies of using short-term data. Had he chosen a similar start date for his temperature plot, he would have a negative trend.
78698. Rob Honeycutt at 04:21 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric @ 121... Well, I wonder if you removed changes in solar forcing if you'd start to see that accelerating trend. You'd also have to remove Asian aerosol effects as well. I think there are probably a lot of reasons to think the underlying CO2 induced warming trend is, indeed, accelerating.
78699. Eric the Red at 04:11 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Dikran, Yes! When the PDO or ENSO signal is removed from the temperature records, the oscillation disappears, and a fairly linear increase results. There has been no acceleration nor deceleration, and no reason to expect any.
78700. Albatross at 04:09 AM on 23 July 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Eric claims "The composite ENSO index for your entire boxed area is just slightly below 0 (in fact it was positive until March, 2011)" It is not clear exactly which period we are referring to, Tom seems to have plotted those UAH data from January 1999 onwards. The mean MEI for 1999 (Jan/Feb)- present (May/June) 2011 is -0.085. The mean MEI until Feb/March was -0.24. The ONI also give negative mean values between January 1999 and March 2011, and until June 2011. Yet, the planet has warmed. Eric, you are arguing/debating in circles, and it would really help if you backed up your assertions with data and citations-- like the extreme thread, you are again talking though your hat here. Note how the global temperatures associated with the 2007-2008 La Nina were warmer than those in 1999-2000, and how global temperatures during and shortly after the 2010-2011 La Nina were warmer than both previous events. It will happen relatively soon (within a decade or so) that even a year with a moderate of strong La Nina will be warmer [Global temperature anomaly, GTA] than 1998, a year with a the second-strongest El Nino on record. In fact, the planet was warmer in 2008 (La Nina, GTA = +0.44 C), 1999 (La Nina, GTA = +0.32 c) and 2000 (La, Nina GTA = +0.33 C)were all warmer than 1983 (El Nino, GTA = +0.25 C), and 1983 was the year of the strongest El Nino on record. ENSO etc. are oscillations superimposed on a long-term underlying warming trend because of the radiative forcing from anthro GHGs. They can modulate the trend, and that is it.

Prev  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  1572  1573  1574  1575  1576  1577  1578  1579  1580  1581  Next