Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 Next
Comments 80751 to 80800:
-
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. -
KR at 04:05 AM on 1 July 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Dikran - That's alright, I've had my posts deleted before. Although I hope it's the first time it's happened by accident! As to Pierrehumbert being hard going, that's OK. I read his recent Physics Today article, and don't have any illusions about him oversimplifying things. Time to take my neurons out for a few push-ups, anyway. -
dana1981 at 03:55 AM on 1 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Yes, any projection which completely neglects physics the way Easterbrook has done can accurately be described as 'junk science'. -
les at 02:56 AM on 1 July 2011Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo
To coin the old phrse Eppur si calefacit -
Albatross at 02:52 AM on 1 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Thanks Dana. I suspected as much, but 0.3 C?! Good grief. Now figure this. He claims climate sensitivity is low, well practically non-existent in fact. But then look at the huge decadal-scale perturbations in global temperatures in his graphs that he attributes to solar and, worse yet, internal climate modes. Said perturbations are greater in amplitude (> ~0.5 C) than anything observed in the global SAT record since 1850. Yet at the same time he would have us believe that the climate system is insensitive to selected external forcings such as CO2. This is junk science (by deniers of AGW) at its best. -
Tom Curtis at 02:47 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric the Red, if you want to actually run a correlation between the precipitation data and the PDO index, and also with Crutem, or hadCRUT3v by all means. As it stands, I do not think the correlation will be significantly better, if at all. Given that, there is a clear causal connection between high temperatures and high precipitation. In contrast, it is not even clear that the PDO is a genuine oscilation distinct from ENSO effects, and you have no explanatory path from PDO to higher precipitation. More importantly, the correlations you are trying to find certainly do not apply in the SH, so you are then left trying to find to distinct and non-compatible explanations, one for the NH and one for the SH. If you think there is something in it, do the leg work. If not, then there is nothing to discuss. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:45 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
I can't tell from the list of post titles, but I'd love to see an "Ocean Carbon Cycle" diagram, similar to the carbon cycle diagrams we've all seen, but focused on the forms (molecules) and mechanisms (weathering, atmospheric absorption, dissolution or recombination, etc.) that occur within the system. Obviously, the numbers may not exist to show how much each component contributes, but just a designation of what is there, if not how much, would be useful. -
Patrick 027 at 02:43 AM on 1 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
It is still incorrect to refere to the top of the troposphere and mesosphere as radiating layers; aside from net radiant heating or cooling or gross emission and absorption or net fluxes among layers, for Earth, much radiation escaping to space is emitted from within the troposphere, some comes from the stratosphere, very very little comes from above that; more comes from the warmer layer around the stratopause than from the mesopause region, and more would come from a warmer layer than a cooler layer of the same thickness except for variations in height, line broadenning and line strength (actually I think line strength may tend to increase with temperature but I'm not sure), and composition (ozone in particular in the upper atmosphere). -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:37 AM on 1 July 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR wrote: "Dikran - Well said, and thanks for the Pierrehumbert book reference; I've just ordered it." Sorry KR, hit the wrong button, mea maxima culpa! It is indeed an excellent book, but rather hard going. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to look a bit more deeply into the physics, although a recommendation from one of the physicists here would carry more weight! -
Eric the Red at 02:16 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, I think you are looking too much at each individual value. If you smooth the values over 5 years, then the scatter dissipates, and a good correlation is evident. I did not say it was perfect, but it does show possibilities. I agree that the period from 1960-1970 does not correlate as well. The PDO was negative for most of the decade, while the rainfall fluctuation, but was only low for three years; 1963,5, & 8. For most of the 80s, the PDO index was possitive, and the rainfall was low. Rainfall was only high for two years, which corresponded to a negative PDO around 1990. This was one of the better periods of agreement. Since 2000, the PDO has bounced from negative to positive, and back to negative. Rainfall started high, fell, and rose again, but you could argue that timing was not the best. Also, look at the periods of highest rainfall; mid 50s, mid 70s and ~2000. During these periods, the PDO was the most negative. During the periods of lowest rainfall; early 1930s, early 40s, mid 80s, and early 90s, the PDO was most positive. -
dana1981 at 02:01 AM on 1 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Albatross - from these projections it's unclear what Easterbrook thinks about climate sensitivity, since he completely neglects CO2. Of course, the fact that he neglects CO2 does suggest that he thinks climate sensitivity to it must be near zero. From dhogaza's link, if Easterbrook thinks an increase from 300 to 380 ppm should have caused 0.1°C warming, he thinks sensitivity to doubled CO2 is 0.3°C. This is indeed ludicrously low, even more extreme than Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy. -
Nicholas Berini at 01:51 AM on 1 July 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
Another element to taking personal action is that when society finally does catch up to the true costs of carbon you will be more prepared emotionally and economically - ie your life will not have to change drastically to move away from carbon-intensive activities/habits. -
Albatross at 01:34 AM on 1 July 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook
Dhogaza @45, Thanks for that link. Oh dear, that document does not do Easterbrook any credit at all. He even invokes the "in the past temperature lead CO2 so there is nothing to worry about" myth, the "it has cooled since 1998" myth, the "CO2 comprises a tiny fraction of the atmosphere so is not a big player" myth. Easterbrook also makes this claim: "The greenhouse effect of CO2 decreases exponentially, so the rise in atmospheric CO2 from about 0.030% in 1950 to .038% in 2008 could have caused warming of only about 0.1° C." Maybe Dana will chime in at this point. Dana? -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:30 AM on 1 July 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ken, the IPCC discuss the "instantaneous" forcings as that is the presentation that is most easily understood. Now if you want to see what happens when they are integrated, look at the output of a GCM, that is exactly what they are designed to do. I have pointed out that S-B outbound IR increases, and yes you have mentioned them, however what you have not done is demonstrate that the increase in outbound IR does not equilibriate fast enough that any uncertainty in absolute TSI from pre-industrial equilibrium would not by now be of negligible significance. Now if you don't like GCMs, then your remaining option would be to contruct a simple idealised model of the climate (such as those described in the first few chapters of Ray Pierrehumbert's book). If you could construct such a model, where the parameters were physically plausible and broadly consistent with observations, then we would have something we could work on. Until then, you are essentially just arm waving, you may have a point, but you need to do some science to back it up. Note the IPCC reports were written by leading experts on this stuff; I hope it has ocurred to you that there may be some physics that they understand rather better than you do, and that you might be very wrong. -
GreenCooling at 01:15 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
Fantastic to hear you are looking at the OA issue, very keen to gain a greater understanding of this truly alarming evidence of AGW. I work on reducing the contribution of refrigerant gases to climate change, and am extremely concerned about the new generation of low GWP "HFO's" such as R1234yf, that are being heavily promoted by fluorochemical companies to maintain their market share in the face of impending regulatory and market mechanisms to phase out high GWP HFC's and competition from genuinely climate friendly natural refrigerants (Hydrocarbons, CO2, NH3). The HFO's only have low GWP due to their extremely short atmospheric lifetimes, and degrade into TFA, trifluoroacetic acid, which has raised some concerns in the literature about acute ecotoxicity developing in inland waterways. My query is whether, if the fluorolobby get their way and succeed in achieving the massive sales volumes of these new gases they are planning, there is a risk that this new global experiment with putting fluorinated gases into the atmosphere may contribute significantly to ocean acidification from another source, at a time when introducing more acids into the water cycle might not be a very clever idea? I think there is a need for more research on this issue, and if it is to come in time to influence policymakers who currently believe HFO's are a solution to the HFC problem, the need is rather urgent, but any insights from experts in OA would be of great interest at this year's Montreal Protocol discussions. -
Tom Curtis at 00:52 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric the Red @170, you also ignore the negative PDO index from 1960 to 1970 but low rainfall, and the period from 1980 to 1990 with positive PDO index and high rainfall. Adding those two periods to the early twentieth century you have around 50 years in which there is no correlation, or the opposite correlation to that predicted. It doesn't correlate well in the 2000's either. Establishing a correlation over fifty years and then asking me to ignore the other sixty because it does not suite the hypothesis does not impress. -
Tom Curtis at 00:44 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @165, there where about 326 in North America including the Caribbean in 2010. Of those, about 60 occurred outside the US, and 4 where geophysical, leaving approximately 260 weather related disasters in the continental United States. But for the sake of argument, let's pin that as the US figure. According to your source, there are an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 supercells in the US annually. Taking the higher figure, that means that supercells have around an 8% chance of causing a disaster. From your source, there where around 2,100 category 5 plus Earthquakes would wide in 2010. Of the 960 natural disasters in 2010, 9% or 86 where geophysical. Assuming them all to be earthquakes, that means about 4% where damaging. The US figures are 80 5 plus earthquakes, and 2, possibly 3 reported as disasters; and hence a 2.5 to 3.75% chance of being reported. Therefore on these rough figures, a magnitude five plus quake is less likely to be identified as a natural disaster than is a supercell. Your logic was:"The logic (not sure it will satisfy you). Most large earthquakes are already counted as disasters (percentage wise) whereas the vast majority of supercell storms do not become disasters but each one has the potential to. So an increase in population and property value could still explain this situation. Munich Re also points this out in there report."
But as we have just seen, the probability of reporting as a natural disaster are the reverse of what you claim. So if we accept your logic, which I do not, we would expect an increase in population to result in more reports of geophysical disasters relative to weather related disasters, rather than the reverse. With regard to your initial comment, geophysical disasters are almost flat (no increase) over the period that weather related disasters increase threefold. Major geophysical disasters increase by about 50%, but major weather related disasters increase by about 100%, leaving a 33% increase unexplained by reporting issues. -
Eric the Red at 00:32 AM on 1 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom, With the exception of the early 20th century, I think the precipitation does correlate rather well with PDO. The more negative the PDO, the higher the rainfall. http://i44.tinypic.com/2eyb1xs.png -
Pete Dunkelberg at 00:27 AM on 1 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
I'm sure the home team cam fix the links in the top post. Even nicer, they can add links to the titles as posts are added. Of course "decreasing pH = becoming more acidic = acidification." New people may bring up the question as time goes on. Instead of deleting, how about adding "Moderator Response: decreasing pH = becoming more acidic = acidification" when needed, and deleting or editing any excessive replies? -
KR at 00:04 AM on 1 July 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Ken Lambert - "Because TSI has no equilibrium baseline - the area under its forcing curve is uncertain so its contribution to the energy sum is unknown." You are correct in that no matter when we start considering forcing anomalies, it's going to be difficult to find a point where the climate was at equilibrium. However, we have the track record of global temperatures, and a decent record of forcing changes both natural and human. We can see when the climate is gaining or losing energy over the last few hundred years. Global temperatures have gone both down and up over that period, which immediately tells us that we've seen forcings both above and below equilibrium - that the area under the forcing curve has gone both positive and negative. Given that simple piece of information, and looking at changes in forcings, we actually have a pretty good idea of the relative magnitude of the various forcing changes that are currently affecting climate. They are currently positive, we know when they were negative, and we've measured the changes. The big uncertainties at this point are indirect aerosol effects and cloud feedback - certainly not solar input. You seem to repeatedly call for 'more information', to state 'we cannot know' - this all sounds like a call for inaction in the face of what is actually pretty solid evidence. -
KR at 23:43 PM on 30 June 2011It's the sun
JoeRG I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are several issues with your comment. First is that natural variability means that on a short time scale (5-10 years) 'climate' models can only give an approximation of the 'weather', where on 20-30 years they do an excellent job of looking at trends. It's not a miss unless the observations go outside the envelope of model predictions, the orange and blue bands representing the multiple-run envelope.. Therefore the fit with anthropogenic forcings is quite good. Second, given recent higher grade measurements of forcings, the post 1950's fit is accordingly better in the models. Third, 'global dimming' shows up in both model and measurement data as change to a downward trend around 1940. I think your statement regarding that is unfounded. Finally, as to models - they are an important tool for teasing out the contributions and effects of different forcings, as well as a good check on our understanding of the physics involved. Based on our understanding of the physics of forcings, the measured changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, etc., natural forcings should have cooled the climate considerably since mid-century. That did not happen - anthropogenic forcings made the difference, hence current warming. So again, the statistically significant (obvious to the point of a boot to the head) break between natural forcings and climate response became visible mid-20th century. I suggest you read the Models are unreliable thread if you have such concerns about the use of models as tools. -
Ken Lambert at 23:33 PM on 30 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR #79 "That said, your repeated claim that 'integral of TSI explains all' (paraphrasing) is indeed a PRATT" I have not claimed that 'integral of TSI explains all'. What I have said is that integral of ALL the AR4 forcings over time (they all should have a time history and a projection forward) added to the same integral of the climate responses over time will give the total energy added to the earth system. Volcanic negative forcing also adds to this sum (the area under the spikes). In other words we are summing the net forcing imbalance over time to get the total energy added to the system. Because TSI has no equilibrium baseline - the area under its forcing curve is uncertain so its contribution to the energy sum is unknown. Temperature and phase change of the masses engaged will respond to this energy total somewhere in the system. -
Tom Curtis at 23:11 PM on 30 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @167, the SH data does not have the same dry period wet period pattern you are commenting on, but it has an even stronger trend (3.31 mm/decade) than does the NH (1.53 mm/decade). Interestingly, the SH lacks both the mid century temperature peak and the (slightly out of phase) mid century precipitation peak which are both so prominent features of the NH and global data. Further, you are inventing an unexplained cycle from the whole cloth as the pattern does not correlate well with any of the great oceanic oscillators (including such dubious ones as the AMO, which I just checked. Further, even if it was a cycle, you would not be able to check phase only trends without at least two positive and two full negative phases to check. Finally, as noted above, the SH trend is much stronger than the NH trend. The NH trend dominates the global trend, never-the-less because this is a land only index, and there is so much more land in the NH. This suggests that if it was a land/ocean index (unfortunately not possible due to lack of data) it would show a much stronger trend dominated by the SH, and hence lacking the features you are trying to build a case on. -
Tom Curtis at 22:54 PM on 30 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric the Red @164, I had noticed that, and even checked out a number of possible causes including: Insolation (which peaked in 1950) ENSO PDO NAO Sulfates (global dimming) Correlation between SST and Land Temp In each case there was either no obvious connection, or in some such as insolation there was good reasons to rule it out as a cause. The most important feature to note is that the NH and SH peaks do not correlate. In particular, there are many high precipitation years around 1920 in the SH as in the NH, but they are not the same years, and there is no equivalent to the 1950's peak in the NH in the SH (which rules out insolation as a cause). The best correlation with an oceanic oscillator is with the PDO (1950's peak), but the rise in precipitation in the 1980s starts far to early and far to strong for the PDO to be the cause. Consequently I would say the precipitation is tracking temperature, but imperfectly because of the noisy nature of the data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:28 PM on 30 June 2011Throwing Down The Gauntlet
When my old electric water heater blew, I replaced it with another because it was my most energy efficient option. After I installed it I turned it down to the lowest possible setting (meaning the shower is just hot enough in winter when turned all the way to hot). But I also added 100 feet of PEX on the cold input so I can add some sort of preheater. Right now my preheating comes from a south facing outside wall painted black, but I can do better (for one thing PEX doesn't transfer heat well). I have more black-painted wall for passive solar heating (covered in plastic with a PV-powered fan to draw warm air in). I have enough PV electric and batteries for 100% solar computing and some emergency refrigeration. Bottom line is my electric bill is $30/month but up to $50 last summer when it was so blazing hot (60 days at 90F or above). In winter about $35 since I use a bit more hot water. My propane use for heating and cooking is minimal since I used wood for most heat and winter cooking. The electric bill includes all water (lots of new trees to water) and pumped septic. What's next? I would love to experiment with hydro electric, but 30 foot floods make that challenging (no trend since 1930 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=01631000&por_01631000_2=188914,00060,2,1930-09,2010-11&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM-DD). I would gladly give up land to dammed waters (I would get better kayaking and fishing) and a right-of-way. Other ideas: passive solar greenhouse, more passive solar heating and cooling. -
Norman at 22:22 PM on 30 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 160 My post at 158 was a poor one and I should not have made it. I just want to comment on the trend line in your second graph. I might have a different view here. I see a dry period followed by a wet period which may be linked to global warming or it could be some longer term cycle that produces dryer and wetter periods. A trend line from the dry cycle to the wet cycle indeed shows an increase. What if the trend line is drawn just in the wet cycle and just for the dry cycle considering the possibility that these are some cycles of unknown mechanism but cycles never-the-less. I would doubt you could show an upward trend of the wet cycle in graph two of your post. That was my observation. -
Eric the Red at 22:22 PM on 30 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Sphaerica, I said give me time, that is not a cop out by any stretch of the imagination. Here is my response: Using CRU data, the 10-yr centered moving average increased 0.59C from a low in 1967 to a high in 2002. Therefore, if temperatures decreased by a similar magnitude over a similar time period, then I would say it was all natural, -0.6C by 2037. Using the same data, the calculated climate sensitivity over the 35 years is 2.8. Therefore, based on an expected CO2 increase of 17.5% by 2037, the temperature should rise another 0.65C. Then I would say it is all CO2. Obviously any changes of similar magnitude in shorter timeframes would yield a similar result. The other number to watch is a temperature decrease of 0.2C by 2028. That is the average of the last two cooling periods, and would indicate that both natural and CO2 forces are impacting temperatures. The resulting climate sensitivity would be ~1. I think that I have set some fairly solid bounds for you. Your middle analogy is woefully inaccurate, as you imply it results from indecision and apathy, rather than scientific inquiry. In reality, there is only one answer, and it lies somewhere between the left and right shoulder of the road. -
Norman at 22:13 PM on 30 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
DB @ 163 The writers of the article do believe it is a valid proxy for determining wet and dry cycles for the larger region of the Northern Great Plains. "Devils Lake is of glacial origins, and the fact that it is a closed lake has allowed meaningful paleoclimatological studies using proxy information to estimate elevation changes several thousand years before the present time. These reconstructions (Bluemle, 1991; Murphy et al., 1997).reveal numerous cycles between high and low water levels that have been interpreted to indicate wet and dry cycles over the northern Great Plains (Fig. 1)" There is no global climate there are regional climates. To determine if these regions are changing you can only examine one region at a time to look for a signal of increasing extremes. I did post a local point on snowfall for Omaha Nebraska earlier and was rebuked for this. After this I am trying to find historical information on various regions and it seems Devil's lake is considered a regional proxy.Response:[DB] The author's of that study use statistical analysis tools to arrive at their conclusions (which apply to the Devil's Lake area only). In your prosecution of your narrative you do not use any statistical analysis of your own, relying instead on the sturdy Eyecrometer and "common sense". On a science-based forum such as this, you are not living up to the standards of believability.
-
Norman at 22:02 PM on 30 June 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Tom Curtis @ 154 If you go back to your post on 55 with the two types of disaster graphs (disasters and major disasters). If you look at the number difference between geophysical and weather related at the start of each graph. The number of weather related disasters is so many times higher. I have not worked it out yet but I am wondering if the starting higher number would increase the probability of a disaster from weather over geophysical when the population rate goes up at about the same rate as the disaster chart. Wheras the increasing population is not changing the lower number as much, the geophysical disaster frequency is going up on both graphs, just more slowly. Also with large geophysical disasters, being a much smaller yearly number have less probablility of disaster. But with severe storms just in the US there are about 2000 to 3000 supercell thunderstorms a year. Link to number of annual supercell stroms in US. Of those 2000 storms, anyone which could become a disaster, only a few of these become listed as disasters. With Earthquakes you have a much smaller number that cause disasters (need to be close to the 6 magnitude to cause one in areas with better construction). Your short list does show this. You can also see by matching the numbers on your post at 55 with the earthquake numbers that most large earthquakes do cause a disaster somewhere. Earthquake number and magnitude. The logic (not sure it will satisfy you). Most large earthquakes are already counted as disasters (percentage wise) whereas the vast majority of supercell storms do not become disasters but each one has the potential to. So an increase in population and property value could still explain this situation. Munich Re also points this out in there report. -
Bern at 21:41 PM on 30 June 2011Climate half-truths turn out to be whole lies
Kevin C, that's a fantastic piece of information. It will make it much easier to rebut assertions of global temp records being wrong due to incomplete global coverage.
Prev 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 Next
