Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 Next
Comments 80601 to 80650:
-
michael sweet at 10:14 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn, You have not summarized the data at all. I have provided you the data and summarized it for you. You link to a paper that does not even talk about the last 100 years when AGW has started its influence (since Bowhead whales were hunted out in 1910). You have not even said what you think is important in the paper you linked or how it applies to our discussion. What should I look for when I read it? Where is their graph showing "harmonic cycles" that apply on a yearly scale? You have brought nothing but gibberish to the table. We all know the indigeneous people will be severly affected. You are the one minimizing those effects. Your paper supports my position that the change is unprecedented. Try to find a paper that actually supports your position and not mine, it will be difficult. -
Camburn at 10:12 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Bowhead Whale Study: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic49-3-235.pdf Michael: Here is the website where you can order the book. Funny how a voyage done in 1944 through the northern northwest passage, logged and completed isn't evidence. Vancouver Maritime Museum -
michael sweet at 10:07 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, It is incredible to see how you can find optomism in this data! You should write a post for WUWT. Neven has done a much more through analysis than your unsupported eyecrometer and he thinks the sea temperature is warmer in the Kara Sea than 2007, and comparable elsewhere. We will have to wait a week for the NSIDC report to come out, they will have the true word. Why are you skeptical of the Cryopshere Today data, you rarely provide data of any type yourself. -
michael sweet at 10:00 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, The Cryosphere Today graph has no attribution on their page. They are often referred to as the experts on this data by other experts like the NSIDC. I presume the graph is their own summary of their data. They carefully take all the records that are available and compile them into their graph. Places like Pond Inlet, Barrow and many other locations have long records. Data from explorers like Scott and whalers are also inlcuded. Ice in any local area will of course be more variable than ice in the entire Arctic Basin. (Iceland is not even in the Arctic Basin). It is common for there to be a lot of ice in Alaska when there is less ice in Svalbard and visa versa. -
Fred M at 09:50 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
To RobP - I believe, Rob, that my discussion of ocean alkalinity was something every reader here would benefit from. I didn't see Camburn's misconception as a "provocation", because very possibly many readers believe that CO2-mediated ocean acidification reduces alkalinity (you could take a poll). The fact that it doesn't deserves attention. (I suppose I should ask whether you think CO2 reduces alkalinity - do you?). You're welcome to delete anything you want, but when you delete on-topic material of general interest from individuals reasonably well informed on the topic, you diminish the quality of what remains. I'll leave the rest up to you. For reasons known only to the gods of the Internet, I haven't been able to register here in my full name. Readers interested in ocean acidification can probably find my comments elsewhere via Google, or visit Judy Curry's blog for some of them. Fred MooltenResponse:[DB] Fred, there is a Fred Moolton ID already in the system with a comcast email address coming from the same geographic area as you. If that is you, try logging in under that name with the password you used for that. I just resent that info back to that email address in case you forgot.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:49 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @ 178... Your comment here contains a common theme that I see in those who wish to dismiss climate change as man made and a serious issue. We hold a train schedule in our hands that says that a train runs on these tracks on a regular schedule. We can hear a whistle blowing. We can see a light starting to emerge from the tunnel behind us. We can even feel the vibration of the track we're standing on. We can come up with lots of explanations for the signs we see. Could the schedule be a misprint? Maybe that's a factory whistle. Maybe it's a train on a different track. But the best research available says we are going to be hit by a train unless we find a way to get off the track we're on. But we have not been hit by the train yet. The argument you seem to be putting forth is that we shouldn't move until the train is about to hit us. Prudence suggests that one should move well before being absolutely positive so as to make sure you CAN move off the track. History tells us that "common sense" often fails us. This is why science has served humanity so well. It has told us the truth in spite of our common sense. Data is data. Physics is physics. Even if it looks wrong or if your "eyecrometer" can't detect it, proper analysis will properly inform us. Cows and deer don't move off the track until it's too late because they do not have the capacity we have to analyze a situation. Let's not willfully be a cow. -
Eric the Red at 09:41 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Phillipe, Sorry for the rant. Yes, 2007 saw an accelerated decline in June which has not occurred this year. Remember, the North Atlantic is particularly cold this year, and will not provide warm waters to increase melt. Michael, How did Cryosphere Today obtain its sea ice values? The sea ice off Iceland appears to be much more variable. http://www.arctichost.net/ICASS_VI/images/01.11.09.pdf -
michael sweet at 09:34 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Your anecdotal evidence is included in my graph. You will need to find data that supports your position. I cannot be responsible for your inability to support your position. In any case, anecdotal evidence is unscientific compared to the summary graph I have provided. -
michael sweet at 09:32 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
My computer will not open your link. Please copy the relevant data (as I did) and post it here. Please point out what you think is important, a link without description is against the comments policy. I will not think cycles that are more than 1,000 years old are important without substantial evidence. I have provided strong evidence of a change in the Arctic Sea ice over the past centuary, please provide similar evidence to support your wild claims. -
Camburn at 09:27 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael: I have given you the source of Capt Larsons logs. He made the voyage..his anecdotal is pretty good as it is observation. The RCMP is a very professional organization. You may purchase the log book from the Museum in Vancouver, British Columbia. They have an online area that allows one to have the book shipped. -
michael sweet at 09:23 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
My graph was from Cryosphere Today (linked in the main post). -
michael sweet at 09:22 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn:
includes observations from Capt. Larson's passage. You will have to provide actual data and not a reference to anecdotal evidence that you cannot show ("pay no attention to the man behind the curtain Dorothy"). If you cannot provide evidence to support your position you should go over to WUWT where you will be welcome. Here we want to see data.
Rhis graph does not show the minimum, but it is clear what the trend is. Where do you see "harmonic trends" with your eyecormeter? I see flat before 1955 and unrelenting, exponentially increasing decline since then.
-
Camburn at 09:17 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
This paper is one that examines long term Arctic Ice via the use of bowhead whale fossils. Dyke, Hooper, Savelle -
Norman at 09:08 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
DB @ 166 I do respect your intelligence and appreciate your thoughtful comments in my posts. On this issue I have to respectfully disagree with your point. If one is looking for a small signal in noise your point would be most valid. But in this case I do believe the Eyecrometer and common sense are all that are needed to determine if climate (rainfall, drought, temperature extremes) is drastically changing for the worse. Case of point. When you look at any of the global temperature graphs you can clearly use the "eyecrometer" to determine that the globe has warmed since the 1970's. You can roughly get a slope of that change by looking at the number of years and seeing the increase and looking at the type of line that is on the graph. People do have good skills at pattern recognition and for obvious changes one would not need a detailed statistical analysis to see any trends. That is my primary point of the links I post. If the weather and climate are changing so drastically because of the recent increase in global temperatures then the "eyecrometer" would certainly be able to see such changes without having to fine tune the statistcal mechanics to find these extremes. I posted various graphs of droughts over a very long period of time. The "eyecrometer" is sensitive enough to see if there are changes in intensity, frequency or duration of a drought cycle. If such changes are not so apparent by visual examination then how can the claim be made by Jeff Masters: "The pace of extreme weather events has remained remarkably high during 2011, giving rise to the question--is the "Global Weirding" of 2010 and 2011 the new normal? Has human-caused climate change destabilized the climate, bringing these extreme, unprecedented weather events? Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force." If 2010 extemes are so outside the normal they should stick out in the long term history of regional events as obvious exceptional events. I have done some regional droughts. The next attempt would be long term regional precipitation events (hundreds of years long if possible, then one can see if the nature of such events is cyclic...as Tom Curtis pointed out in a post, you need at least a couple cycles to determine if they are present) if such events are determined in the literature. Hopefully I am making a valid point on claiming the "eyecrometer" should suffice to determine extremes in a long term trends. I guess one more example would be Tom Curtis post about the modeled ENSO future predictions. The trend is upwards and I would not need Tom Curtis to generate Standard deviations from normal to see an upward trend. Maybe to get an exact slope you would but that is not the determination of this article. The claim made is that weather related events are more extreme and it would require a powerful climate-altering force. -
Camburn at 09:06 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael: I would suggest that you get a copy of Capt Henry Larson's log on his voyage traversing the NW passage in 1944. I cannot post a link to his log as it is not available on the web and the museum, the owner of said log, has not given me permission to scan and post it. -
Camburn at 09:01 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Philippe: I won't go into harmonics or cycles as most folks want to dismiss them. With that said, that is what I am using to base my low ice extent on. The area, volume etc. Cryosat, along with the Gatlin team has found ice thicker than previously thought unless one examines polar 5 data. The trend is as expected based on other criteria to me. The big elephant in the room is the amount of black carbon that China continues to spew. That has lowered ice albedo, and is ingrained in the ice itself. This has added to the degree of melt in a substantial way. BC is anthro in nature, so must be added to effect and cause. ShindellResponse:[DB] I would caution you on hanging one's hat on the initial rollout of Crosat-2 data. In software terminology, it is only a "beta". As a test, consider that the design vertical resolution is in the millimeter range, while the product delivered to date has a horizontal granularity (it has very large pixels) in the kilometer+ range.
Adding to the calibration issues is a highly mobile, fractured and friable ice pack that is continuously shifting, adding to the issues in stitching together data from the separate flight paths.
A layman interpretation is that the current realization of Cryosat-2 data is that it is nearsighted, needing visual corrections to come. Future iterations will likely have improved discrimination capability as the stitching algorhythms evolve (it's eyesight will sharpen).
-
michael sweet at 08:54 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn, are you suggesting that "a long term sine wave shows hamronics" indicates that the sea ice low this summer will be less than 50% of the lowest level recorded before 1940 (see Cryosphere Today) and you think that is normal? Please explain how a sine wave harmonic could result in 50% of the ice melting when the trend was flat for decades prior to that time. Please refer to scientific sources for your data. Please support your reasoning with more analysis than your eyecrometer. Please stop poisoning the scientific discussion on this site with your wild, unsupported speculations.Response:[DB] "wild, unsupported speculations"
The technical term, I believe, is "gibberish".
-
Doug Mackie at 08:50 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
Links fixed -
Norman at 08:45 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 171 I would humbly disagree with your calculation. You are using a 5 magnitude (and stronger) earthquake as a disaster causing one to get the calculation of 4% of 2100 earthquakes led to disasters (86 disaster geophysical events in 2010). Yet in your post you show a 5.4 will produce little damage and not lead to a disaster (Borrego Springs Quake). I am not sure at what level in the 5's an earthquake will become a disaster if it strikes a populated area nor do I have the number broken down but it could be a safe speculation that as the magnitude goes up there are a lot fewer so most of the 5's may be lower non damaging earthquakes. For the US you state maybe 2 or 3 were disasters. In the US only 9 had a magnitude of 6 or more. If you go with the higher figure of a 6 magnitude or above earthquake as being reported as a disaster (some will hit in non populated areas) you get 173 for 2010. If the 86 listed geophysical events are earthquakes (a few could be volcanoes) then your number of earthquakes being reported as disasters is now very close to 50% which is the point I was making. Most disaster causing earthquakes are counted already and an increasing population, with higher propery values (disaster reporting is based upon number of people killed and a certain level of property damage) will not have much effect on the number reported. Whereas if only 8% of supercell storms lead to disasters but the potential is for a higher number, a higher number of wealthy individuals will increase the odds of a supercell being counted as a disaster. -
mb at 08:44 AM on 1 July 2011OA not OK part 1
Something seems fishy here... I think the chemistry prior to Eq. 1 (ie, the formation of aqueous carbonic acid from dissolved CO2) could be written like: 2(H2O) + 2(CO2)_g <-> 2(H2CO3)_{aq} <-> 2(H+) + 2(HCO3)^{-}_{aq} Then 2 bicarbonates react with Ca ions to produce shells and returning only 1 CO2 to the atmosphere (the gas phase). Hence, if two CO2s go in, it seems like shell formation is a net carbon sink. Am I missing something? -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:42 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
There is no "slowdown." 2007 saw a sharp acceleration of melt in late june, which is not happening this year. There is plenty of weather yet to come that will determine what the minimum extent of September will be. Whereas the next few years might indeed be telling, I'm hard pressed to see how the past few weren't quite telling as well. "I know you modelers do not like to look at real data becasue it upsets your thinking." Gratuitous, baseless and insulting. You should refrain from such, the usual tone of your posts is much better. -
Eric the Red at 08:22 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn, Based on the slowdown in Arctic melt compared to 2007 and 2010, and the cold North Atlantic, I so not share your sentiments. I do agree with your harmonics however. The next few years should be telling (not necessarily 26 Sphaerica). -
Tom Curtis at 08:17 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric, the eyechrometre is not leg work. Unless you at least do a side by side graphic comparison, or better yet run the data through a spread-sheet there is really nothing to discuss. I will note however that your response effectively concedes the connection between temperature and precipitation. Specifically, it makes not claim for explanatory power in the SH, where the larger increase in precipitation must be explained by global warming. And it attempts to explain variation, but not the trend in NH precipitation by warmer NH oceans. Finally, it leaves the trend in NH precipitation to be explained by the trend in temperatures. Given that, even if you do the legwork (which may be interesting), it would probably be more appropriate to another topic. -
Fred M at 07:48 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
Camburn (#3,#8) suggests that increasing CO2 reduces ocean alkalinity. Yesterday, I tried to explain why that is wrong, but for reasons I don't understand, the comment was deleted. I'll try again. [ -snip-]Moderator Response: (Rob P) See my earlier warning. Try not to respond to provocation - Camburns comments are designed to distract readers from the content of the ocean acidification (OA) posts. This 18 part series will make the details of OA very clear to readers. -
Camburn at 07:38 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric: A long term sine wave shows hamronics in the temperature of the planet. As solar research is getting going, there are not only hints, but the beginning of a credible data base that TSI is constant, but magnetic fields, solar winds, GCR, and it even seems events such as the Carrington, while not pointed at earth still play some type of roll in climate. But that is off topic. I still predict sea ice decline to 3.5 this year. From old Canadian Ice data it would seem that this year "should" be the lowest for quit some time. IF the trend continues as it has, then cycles, as we know them, have been over ridden. -
Camburn at 07:34 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
KR: A bit off topic again, but I talked to the NSIDC center today in realation to Aqua data on earth brightness. They seem very confident that the product they are presenting concerning is credible. They are fairly confident on the ice area as that is actually quit hard to measure even with a satillite. They look forward to sharing data from Cryosat. We live in exciting times. Prob in 100 years someone will look back and think we were in the dark ages, but the tech advances even in the last 10 years are quit marvelous and provide for a contining reliable data set. Another thing I learned that I was not aware off is that the NSIDC has a solar arm to it. The fellow I talked to, his grandfather was one of the designers of SOHO. Thank you for pricking my interest again moreso in earth brightness. It produced a very interesting and worthwhile telephone conversation. -
Papy at 07:29 AM on 1 July 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Text from the intermediate level seems broken. -
KR at 07:08 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn - The difficulties in measuring aerosols are part of the reason aerosol uncertainties (how much negative feedback) are so high. There have been some proposed satellites that could more directly measure aerosols, but they just haven't been launched. However, aerosols do appear to be directly implicated in the mid-century cooling that ended ~1975. -
Camburn at 06:48 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Dikran: Thank you for the response. I personally don't think it is responsable for >50%. One of the main reasons for this is the sine components within the measured and proxy temp record. But i am getting off topic. KR: I know the theory, but there was no practicle way of measureing the Aerosols during that time frame. I wasn't sure if you had found something new to verify them. Thank you for your response. -
John Hartz at 06:43 AM on 1 July 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
@ClimateWatcher #42 Humans Dwarf Volcanoes for CO2 Emissionsis an excellent article on this topic. The gist of the article is: 1. Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year. 2. Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production. 3. Climate change skeptics have claimed the opposite -
Eric the Red at 06:42 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Sky, These are not numbers "out of the air," but hard data.I know you modelers do not like to look at real data becasue it upsets your thinking, but sometimes you have to face the facts.It is also much more scientific that mathematical models, as it includes real scientific measurements. The ocean temperatures have been following the land temperatures for the past decade, no heat accumulation. Ice would discontinue melting under such a scenario. Waiting for two decades are your words, not mine.Response:[DB] First off, cease with your baiting. That is simply trolling and you know it.
"The ocean temperatures have been following the land temperatures for the past decade, no heat accumulation."
Factually incorrect. See the Oceans are cooling thread.
Backing up your handwaving assertions with citations to peer-reviewed published sources would bring your credibility out of the negative range. That would be the scientific thing to do.
-
KR at 06:41 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric the Red - I have to agree with Sphaerica. In order for your apparently random numbers to work out, two things would have to be true. (1) Another cause for current warming, that fits the various fingerprints, would have to be found. So far, nothing. Not the sun, not GCR's, not reptoids... (2) CO2 would have to not behave as physics predicts, because it's doing just what we expect based on spectroscopy and other measurements. You appear, for some reason, to be hunting for alternatives. I don't know why, and quite frankly it doesn't matter. If they don't have physics and measurements behind them, they are just wishful thinking, and you're wasting folks time. -
adelady at 06:33 AM on 1 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Heraclitus - they didn't think it, they said it. My suspicion is that it's just like a car - if it's red, it's the real deal. The reason this one's called a bicycle is that you don't need a license to ride it. It's nowhere nearly as powerful as yours. Not been used for a couple of years now - trying to decide between getting a new battery pack for this one or replacing it altogether. (And on country roads, the car will do 100 clicks going up a hill, the bike can't. With more work around the city, the bike might get the nod again.) -
Bob Lacatena at 06:26 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
132, Eric the Red, As far as your comment on the "committed warming," it is clear that the thermal inertia of the oceans is a factor, as well as the fact that many feedbacks are slow acting, such as changes in albedo due to ice melt, and natural carbon sources that result from ecosystem changes (Amazon to savanna, prairie/grassland to desert, shrinking forests), not to mention potential methane release and other sources. So there is no reason to think for one moment that stopping at 1.3C is going to mean stopping at 1.3C. Indeed, a change to 1.3C in a period of a mere 75 years may have frightening implications, because I'm not sure the temperature of the planet has ever changed at that rate -- ever. As far as your "scientific" label for yourself -- hard numbers, pulled at random from your gut aren't scientific just because they're numbers. I appreciate you thinking that you answered the question, but you really dodged it by setting a time frame that is so distant that your answer is effectively meaningless. As far as what it would take to convince me that warming is not attributable to CO2, the answer is a something amazing, because that would mean that our understanding of the physics is completely wrong, and that there is some element of the physics that we've completely failed to identify. Really, the fact is that the evidence is currently so strong that there is no chance that warming is not caused by CO2. The only viable argument, as you know, is related to overall climate sensitivity, and if thoughtful, well-founded studies were produced that put climate sensitivity at or below 1.5˚C per doubling, and if further studies lent support to and buttressed that conclusion, then I would start to relax. To be more direct about your question about attribution to CO2, I would need to see studies on some utterly silly nonsense like GCRs that actually bear fruit, providing both a viable mechanism and a correlation between temperatures and some measurable values to demonstrate that there is another factor at work in place of CO2. Even if the globe started to cool, that would not be evidence to me that CO2 does not operate as science believes. It would be evidence that there are in fact mysterious and unexpected forces at work that need to be identified and unraveled (and which therefore might then, once understood and quantified, be hoped to mitigate the impact of CO2). This is very unlikely to happen, since by this point in time we seem to have most of the factors pretty well nailed down, everything adds up and the ledger balances. But without an understanding and firm theory of atmospheric physics to support any change in temperature, observations that contradict expected warming point to a puzzle, not to a reason to out of hand dismiss existing theory. -
Tom Smerling at 06:18 AM on 1 July 2011The Climate Show 15: Michael Ashley and the ineducable Carter
Nice piece. I think your even, good-natured tone is very effective -- like you're not trying to "sell" something, and not panicked -- just relating the facts. -
adelady at 06:17 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
"...under such a scenario, the Arctic sea ice would increase." But that's just the atmospheric temperature! Have a look at accumulated ocean heat shown in that graphic. Do you really think that ice would not continue melting from beneath while that amount of heat is still circulating? -
MattJ at 06:15 AM on 1 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
I understand that there is no longer any room for reasonable doubt, but I also understand that it does NOT help to say, "please read the other 4,372 posts on Skeptical Science." This is especially silly when one of the star strong points of Skeptical Science (SS) is that it IS so well organized that a rational person need not read all 4372 posts to remove all reasonable doubt: such a rational skeptic can find the specific rebuttal he needs to read and focus on that. Let's give SS credit for its achievement: this is a wonderful organization of the data. -
skywatcher at 06:14 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, you love to set goals far into the future, don't you? Just like in the comments for this thread, you want us to sit back and wait over two decades before you'll decide the evidence is sufficient. You're picking numbers out of thin air and calling them 'hard'. That's not too scientific. I agree with Dikran - the second para is particularly woeful - every climate projection includes contributions from all major forcings, not just CO2. The continuing CO2 trend is clearly visible in every temperature dataset when the other forcings are removed, and is right in line with what the physics tells us. It's not about to start, it's already here and continuing. Pretending that there is some kind of middle ground is just another form of denial, and not in agreement with physics. -
Eric the Red at 05:56 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
( -Snip-). Just to keep this on topic, under such a scenario, the Arctic sea ice would increase.Response:[DB] Off-topic portion snipped.
-
KR at 05:53 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Camburn - Read the link in my post, look at Figure 1. Aerosols increase cloudiness, reduce sunlight reaching the ground, and are a major reason for the 1940-1975 cooling period mid-century, with the temperature anomaly slope reversing around the time of the Clean Air act and similar measures enacted in Europe. In other words, read the references. It's becoming even more clear that you have not. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:47 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
camburn You are missing the point, the question as phrased was a straw man, it is widely known that CO2 is not the only driver of climate; I don't think anybody is claiming that all of the warming is unambiguously attributable to CO2 radiative forcing. The direct answer to Eric's question as posed is "very little, as I didn't think it was in the first place". Now Eric can make it an interesting question by specifying a ratio, but that is his job not mine. Personally, I am a mainstream science kind of guy, and to find an answer to your question I would probably get my copy of the IPCC WG1 report down from my bookshelf and look it up. However, I should have gone home hours ago. As a conservative estimate, I'd say that CO2 radiative forcing has been the dominant driver of climate since, say 1970, so that would be > 50%. BTW, not all natural variability is cyclical. -
Camburn at 05:35 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
KR: How can you say the aerosol level is negative? What are you basing that assumption on? Dikran Marsupial: What percentage of the warming is from natural cycles if not from co2? -
KR at 05:21 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric the Red - This is discussed in some detail on Has Earth warmed as much as expected. This committed warming is primarily driven by the time for the oceans to warm given the current imbalance. Long story short, we're right about we we should expect for a sensitivity of 3C/doubling of CO2, with an inertial deficit of about 0.6 W/m^2 ocean energy absorption, or roughly another 0.4-0.5 C that we're committed to with the current radiative imbalance (once the oceans catch up). If we were to stop GHG's today, and somehow maintained the current aerosol level, mind you - that's negative 1.2-1.3 W/m^2, and if we suddenly stopped emitting aerosols we would have another >1C warming over 2-10 years. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:05 AM on 1 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Eric's post is interesting. There are so many ways to conserve and make the entire system more efficient it's not even funny. These low hanging fruits can really go a long way and should be the first thing to be addressed. It has the advantage to be empowering and satisfying for individuals and applicable regardless one recognizes AGW or not. Next, it would be nice if the kind of creative ingenuity displayed for instance by the Enron traders to screw their customers could be instead applied to optimize the grid. That will not happen without some sort of incentive. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:57 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric the Red. Look at the projections of climate models. The committed warming is already happening, it is gradual and doesn't "kick in". The second paragraph is specious, without specifying a minimum proportion that is not attributable to CO2, the question is meaningless. Has anyone said that 100% of the warming is due to CO2? -
John Hartz at 04:52 AM on 1 July 2011OA not OK part 1
Best to expand the title to either: "OA (Ocean Acidification) is not OK". or "Ocean Aciditfication (OA)is not OK" -
Eric the Red at 04:47 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Spaerica, When is this committed warming expected to kick in? You keep mentioning that it will occur sometime in the future, but without giving a time table (sounds like your abovementioned cop out). At least I am presenting hard numbers. My presentation was totally scientific, and without denial. Let me turn the tables. What would it take to convince you that the observed warming is not all attributable to CO2? -
Eric the Red at 04:36 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, Yes, I did some leg work, that is why I presented the last post. A casual connection does exist between precipitation and either temperature or PDO. Neither is a good correlation statistically, however, the correlation is better with PDO. The only explanatory path for the PDO would be similar as for temperature; increase in pacific ocean temperature wouls enhance NH rainfall. -
Tor B at 04:13 AM on 1 July 2011OA not OK part 1
"Reverse the arrow and Equation 3 becomes Equation 2." Do you mean #2 becomes #3? -
Bob Lacatena at 04:13 AM on 1 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
130, Eric the Red, You're kidding, right? You need to wait for 26 years before you'll see enough evidence to support climate change theory? Except by then the cumulative change that you need to see to convince you is 1.3C, with more warming in the pipeline, and presumably more CO2 to be added to the atmosphere after that because our infrastructure will still be unchanged. So you are basically saying that we have to be committed to a very dangerous 2˚C of warming before you'll even admit that climate scientists have it right. How can you not label that as complete and total denial? As far as the middle of the road goes, I see no evidence of scientific inquiry on your part. I see clear evidence of you reading every single piece of evidence presented as just not enough in your opinion, so you have to wait until what might as well be the end of time until you're sure that anything is true. Sorry, Eric, but your position is completely unsupportable and irrational. You try to speak rationally and act like you are in the middle of the road, except outside of the window dressing of the calm, reasonable words themselves, your position is far, far, far from scientific.
Prev 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 Next
