Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
Comments 81251 to 81300:
-
mclamb6 at 06:30 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn @ 21: "This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy..." This is quite simply untrue. The implication is that John Cook (and others on this site) began with the premise "I want to see widespread use of alternative, renewable energy sources" and from there, worked backwards to develop justifications as to why alternative energy is preferable. The exact opposit is occurring--the realities of anthropogenic climate change require that we address CO2 emissions and energy infrastructure. Therefore, it is necessary to research and develop alternative energy sources to put the breaks on global warming. -
Camburn at 06:18 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
A confirmation of the above post concerning solar. What this shows us is that proxy reconstructions of past solar behavior based on the known at the time are prob flawed. Dr. Svalgaard had a paper recently, which I have posted on the solar link, that showed variation in TSI, even during the MM was neglible. When his results are incorporated into todays GCM's, the hindcast ability deteriorates. This is my point that there is a lot that we don't know, as it is obvious to all I would think. Dr. Svalgaard -
Norman at 06:14 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
KR, I totally agree with your one point concern. I would love to find a data source for the entire US to compare snow and temp to a larger region. The only information I can find on a larger scale is snow cover for North America. This will not help determine snow amount vs temperature debate as you can have large coverage but shallow depth. I need snow accumulation data. I could try different cities and build a region. The NOAA data does cover a larger area than Omaha. Lincoln and Norfolk are also part of the data set. Still a small region and like you point out, subject to local factors. -
Camburn at 06:08 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Glad to see good responses: 1. This site is using AGW as a tool to promote alternative energy. So to say no one is a bit deceptive? 2. I understand the physics very well concerning co2. IF co2 was the only greenhouse gas it would be a slam dunk. It isn't. 3. Sphaerica: Your 1st description of a driver is correct. 4. KR: I can only suggest that you do a 100 year mean....then look at temperature within that mean. 5. Mysterious unkown cycles. Ya betcha. There are hints of these that are being uncovered. That is why they are uknown, and mysterious. 6. Our understanding of the co2 effect on climate is not really that good. That is why there is such a variation in the outcomes of climate models. -
okatiniko at 05:46 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
les : "I've worked with a good veriety of models and data which include noise of various flavours " Obviously you didn't work with reconstruction of past data with a modern calibration period, since you don't seem to understand the debate. When I say "there is a controversy" , it's only factual: there is a controversy because different specialists disagree and argue in peer-reviewed papers. This is a fact. You can't use the "peer-reviewed" arguments when it goes in your direction and let it down when it goes elsewhere.Now obviously your decision about who is right and wrong is governed by your prejudices , and I'm sure you're totally unable to explain why exactly the lasso method is worse than another one - so please be modest and recognize that the subject is still unclear and discussed in the literature, as many others in science. Now I believe the hockey stick is real, since the Earth has warmed since the end of LIA, this is not discussed. But please give me ONE reference of any proxy reconstruction when the hockey "blade" starts in the 70's, after the anthropogenic component is supposed to become dominant, and not at the beginning of the century when obviously the CO2 warming was still insignificant. Show me only one. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:33 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
19, KR, Oh. I thought you were trying to talk about people who sling Mysterious Unfounded Denial (MUD). But that's something else entirely. -
KR at 05:30 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sorry, in my previous post the acronym for 'Mysterious Unknown Effects' should be 'MUE', not 'MUF'. 'MUF' is short for the related 'Mysterious Unknown Force'(s), which I sometimes suspect are implicated in the weed levels of my shrubbery... Both MUE's and MUF's have the same explanatory value - none. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:27 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
13, Camburn,Our understanding of the effects of solar on climate is only beginning to be understood.
You are grossly overstating an obvious truth. That we have more to learn about how the sun operates, or how the sun interacts with the earth's climate, does not in any way diminish the truth and strength of our understanding of the influence of CO2 on climate, or our ability to predict the rather dire consequences of ignoring that rather solid knowledge. -
KR at 05:23 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn "Using a short term anomoly of only 20 or 30 years does not prove anything is happening climatically. 20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change." I find your position fascinating, Camburn. This article by HFranzen could well be written about you. We know the physics of CO2 and IR absorption, and have excellent measures of it's increase. Not to mention innumerable sets of evidence for considerable warming over and above natural forcings. We have no evidence for century scale 'variations' (Tamino has a lovely post on this, entitled Mathtubation), negative evidence (as in, disproof) about correlations of magnetic and cosmic ray effects (not to mention no solid physical hypotheses about how they would affect climate). And we have the observed noise and variation in the climate to judge that ~30 years is sufficient to accurately identify trends. 45 might be better (as that's when the standard deviation of the temperature anomaly flattens out with increasing sample duration), but 30 years is pretty solid statistically. So you combine "Type C" issues of values of long term averages with skipping over "Type A" issues in physics that show global warming is occurring due to our actions, adding in completely unsupported hypotheses about 'natural variation' and 'Mysterious Unknown Effects' (MUF's) from the sun unrelated to observed insolation. All to claim either it's not happening or it's a natural cycle - it's sometimes hard to tell which from your posts. Camburn, I would have to call your position one of 'denial'. It's certainly not science. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:23 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
12, Camburn,20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change.
You would not say this if your understanding of the science were better. Please study more before commenting further. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:19 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
11, Camburn,When one looks at the long term mean, century scale means, one understands that the current temperature is not a dramatic one.
This statement is false and unsupportable in any objective frame of reference.Where I will disagree is that from paleo studies, co2 is not what one would consider to be a prime driver of climate.
This statement is at best misleading. First, if you understand the physics, then you know that very few mechanisms are pure "drivers" of climate, so the whole phrasing of the statement is inaccurate. Almost everything that affects climate is both a driver and a feedback. Separating the two can be difficult, but is not always that relevant (in that the trigger for climate change is important for one reason, but the major feedbacks that exacerbate that change are every bit as important, if not more so). If your definition of a driver is "something that initiated" a change in climate, then you are partially right (the jury is out in those instances, such as the PETM, where CO2 may or may not have initiated climate change), but then this statement bears no relevance to our current dilemma. The fact that an intelligent race of beings has never before existed on the planet to burn the carbon that took millions of years to sequester is in no way an argument that it cannot be of consequence today. If your definition of a driver is "something that is a major and critical factor in climate change, regardless of the initial forcing" then you are dead wrong. CO2 concentrations are very definitively and demonstrably related to climate change throughout the past, I believe completely without exception, and to claim otherwise is to live in convenient denial with a very poor understanding of past climate change on earth....the use of AGW to try and incorporate change is a poor choice.
This is where you run completely off the rails. No one is "choosing" to "use" AGW to try to and incorporate change. This particular conspiracy fantasy is both ridiculous and unsupportable. At what point did some group of people get together and decide to do this? Have you been at any of our monthly meetings where we discuss our strategies for how to trick the world into changing their energy infrastructure, for some other twisted and nefarious reason that has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change itself? Have you heard anyone say that they don't actually believe in climate change, but it's a convenient excuse to put the oil companies out of business a little early? Do you see how absurd that position is? Based on your responses, you do not understand or accept Dr. Franzen's Type A science... the simple prospect that climate change can and is happening, based on an indisputable understanding of the physics involved. Your denial is not in the degree of warming, but in the actual foundations of the proposition of climate change. Given this, as Dr. Franzen stated (somewhat differently) in his closing paragraph, discussion of any aspect beyond the basics of the science is fruitless with you, because you do not accept the foundations of the science. This is the wrong thread for you to visit. You should be trying to educate yourself on the more basic aspects of the science. Since you yourself have identified your acceptance of paleo studies as a blocking point, and yet you have seemingly misunderstood the relevance of those studies, I would suggest that you turn your attention away from that to other things. Develop a more firm understanding of the radiative physics behind greenhouse gas theory. Understand why it would be bizarre if the planet were not warming. From there, you can look in detail at each of the different periods in earth's history, and how CO2 played an important role in every climate change event in the past billion years. From there, you will be ready to move forward and begin to make value judgments such as whether or not the current rate of warming is alarming, or whether the dangers of anthropogenic climate change are an important and urgent factor in motivating people to more aggressively do what, as you have pointed out, really must be done anyway. Until you have thoroughly filled those to failings in your knowledge (the foundations of the science, and the facts behind all past climate change on the planet), you are not equipped to discuss any other issues. -
Kevin C at 05:18 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Hfranzen: I am very interested in your categorization of types of science. It seems to me that there is something important here which we should communicate better. In particular, there are theories which are proven through many different experiments and many other testable theories build on them. Some are the basis for everyday technology. Other theories are so specific as to have been untested beyond a single experiment. This must be useful in determining confidence in a particular result. (This of course relates to Popper's idea of a severe test, although quantifying confidence in a theory remains almost impossible owing to the challenge of identifying whether a test is severe and independent of other tests. Even in Bayesian hypothesis testing you are limited by the coverage of your alternate hypotheses.) Having sparked with your article my interest in this area, I want to look into it further. My questions are as follows: Is your classification rooted in any standard work in history or philosophy of science? Do you know of any previous efforts to classify types of science like this? -
John Hartz at 05:11 AM on 27 June 2011The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
The media is also taken to task by Al Gore in "Climate of Denial" published in Rolling Stone Magazine. -
Camburn at 04:52 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
One thing that is important to understand is what we do not know, and what is changing. Our understanding of the effects of solar on climate is only beginning to be understood. An example of recent changes is in this paper. A measurement that has been used has been found not to apply to the current state of the sun. Important reserach, the L&P effect, etc. magnetic effects, just a few items. F10 Flux -
Camburn at 04:47 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
KR: Using a short term anomoly of only 20 or 30 years does not prove anything is happening climatically. 20 or 30 years can easily be a cycle, rather than a change. The long term mean, century mean, is a valuable tool to detect discernable change. -
Camburn at 04:33 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: My comment is an observation, not meant in an insulting way. 1. I agree 100%. Global warming is happening. The rate that it happening on a climatic scale is not actually alarming. When one looks at the long term mean, century scale means, one understands that the current temperature is not a dramatic one. 2. We all know that co2 is rising. 3. Where I will disagree is that from paleo studies, co2 is not what one would consider to be a prime driver of climate. 4. I am all for slowing the use of fossil fuels. They are a finite resource. The easy mining/drilling etc spots are becoming less and less. The economic shock of when, which in my opinion is happening now, of the increased costs of fossil fuels will continue the trend of economic uncertainty which is not good for mankind as a whole. 5. From a purely economic understanding, it is very easy to show that the cost of renewables, hydro, nuclear, geo thermal are practical and necessary in the long run. These are certainties. In my humble opinion, the use of AGW to try and incorporate change is a poor choice. The uncertainties of AGW allow and encourage resistance to change. A by product of the economic certainties in relation to the diminishing fossil fuel availability will drive emission of co2 down. That is a good thing, and an easy sell isn't it? Everyone is familiar with economic activity. Not everyone is familiar with climate. Go where the stregth of the data is, use that stregth. -
neilrieck at 03:48 AM on 27 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
People can engage in conspiracy theories -OR- just listen to the facts as expressed by the experts. Here is a 10-minute clip of NASA's James Hansen on the David Letterman show: James Hansen - Late Show With David Letterman but if you require more details then watch this 53-minute gem at TVO.org Dr. James Hansen on Human-Made Climate Change -
Humanracesurvival at 03:46 AM on 27 June 2011A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
You can vote this now @ reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/i9nl5/a_journey_into_the_weird_and_wacky_world_of/ -
Bob Lacatena at 03:34 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
7, Camburn, FYI, the insulting implication that I was not talking logically prior to this was duly noted, not appreciated, and unnecessary. -
KR at 03:32 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Camburn Just keep in mind - not being able to ascertain exact numbers for increasing energy in the climate system does not mean you can assert that we don't have increasing energy in the climate system. We have far, far too much evidence pointing to warming to conclude that. It (global warming) is happening, identifying tight bounds on the trends and rates takes 20-30 years of data to extract from the noise, internal variability, and measurement error - and likewise, 20-30 years of data would be required to establish that things had changed and that we were cooling. But given the physics (type A science, as discussed above), that's just not going to happen unless we decrease the levels of CO2 in the air. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:31 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
7, Camburn, Please read Dr. Franzen's post. It would do you good. Also, when you say "it is not all," this implies that you yourself do recognize that there are things that are clear, cut and dried (and in fact there are many). Would you care to itemize the aspects of climate science that you do not dispute? Could you list the elements of climate science that are beyond debate and point to a serious issue that cannot be ignored simply because some people like to find and harp on the rather meager areas of doubt and quantification that, in the larger scheme of things, do not really greatly affect our need to very soon take moderate but effective action, but which can unfortunately be exaggerated to give that appearance? -
Camburn at 03:25 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Sphaerica: You are finally talking logically. Thank you. It is not all clear, cut and dried. -
KR at 03:21 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman - "There have been several posts on the topic that warmer weather will increase snowfall amounts. I am doing a limited test of this conclusion to determine if it is a valid conclusion based upon available evidence. I am picking one location (Omaha, Nebraska) as the test spot." You're choosing a single location to identify a change in global frequency of occurrence? That is beyond bad science, Norman - it's completely unreasonable. Global data, such as the Munich Re data posted earlier, is indicative of changes. Single site reviews (given regional weather variability, which itself may be induced by global warming) is not. I could not accept that as useful data - regardless of the results. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:41 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
5, Badgersouth, Very simply, in reference to Ken's specific area of interest (system imbalance in W/m2), this is going to depend on a lot of factors, including the functioning of every mechanism involved in energy transfer (radiation, GHGs, latent heat, evaporation, albedo, clouds, insolation, etc.). It is going to be impacted by all sorts of periodic but variable and unpredictable events (ENSO, PDO, etc.). Basically, everything that makes global temperatures vary from day to day, week to week, and year to year is also going to make the energy imbalance vary. For example, my guess would be that in a year when the global mean temperature appears to be lower, the energy imbalance is liable to be greater (since a cooler body will radiate less). At the same time, measuring the imbalance is difficult, and so a variety of different methods and efforts are needed to do so. Actually, a fleet of satellites, had they been launched when needed a decade ago, might have helped to close that loop and accurately measure what we need to know, but that never happened. Not nearly enough was put into new satellites, many were lost at launch, and one (the Deep Space Climate Observatory) was in fact the only satellite in history ever to be built by NASA (at a cost of $100 million) and never launched. To this day it sits in a warehouse, even though arrangements were made to launch it for free (it's built, the launch would be free, but NASA said that it was too much of a danger to the satellite, so instead it sits uselessly in a warehouse). There are so many factors and variables, and it is so difficult to measure everything involved accurately, that to expect to balance the ledger and to so accurately measure the "known increasing energy input" is unrealistic. All we can say for certain is that it is unquestionably increasing, we can bound that increase, and we know that if it is increasing, as is expected by our understanding of the physics, then the planet must be warming. This is what I mean when I say that the system is too chaotic, and there is too much noise, to expect to arrive at a single, unchanging value for the energy imbalance in the system, or to measure even a changing value given the tools that we have deployed today. -
Michele at 01:55 AM on 27 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
It is worth to point up the cooling/heating places are large isothermal regions which show with extreme evidence the fact that the radiative exchange of energy between the atmosphere and the external space is not at all easy. The transformation heat->photons and vice versa requires the cohesive contribution of a very an very large amount of gas, so it cannot occur within a little rising particle or if there is present also the sole temperature gradient. The emitting/absorbing region has to be isothermal because the transformation above behaves as a phase transition in the same way than the ionization/deionization. -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 27 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric (skeptic) @98: 1) You where correct that I was ignoring the uptake of CO2 by the land surface/biosphere, which accounts for approximately half of annual draw down of CO2 from the atmosphere. For the reasons given in 97, it is likely that much of that process depends on a rapid establishment of equilibrium on a time scale of from one year to at most a decade. Most likely, in fact, it involves several rapid processes that, but probably also a few slow processes which account for only a small part of the annual effect. In that way, the land would behave similarly to the water in which one rapid, and three slow processes are involved. In that event, the rapid processes would be governed by annual emissions, but the slow processes would be governed by cumulative excess of CO2 (see 3 below). But I don't know enough about the processes involved to make more than these theoretical points. 2) Archer and Brovkin write:"A typical ocean surface mixed layer is 100 m deep, and it will equilibrate with the atmosphere (that is, take up as much CO2 as it will) in about a year. But most of the volume of the ocean is beneath the surface layer, and to get there, fossil fuel CO2 has to wait for the overturning circulation of the ocean, which takes centuries or a millennium. Of the 9 Gton C/year carbon release from fossil fuels and deforestation from the year 2000 to 2006, 5 Gton C/year is taken up naturally, half by the ocean and half into the terrestrial biosphere (Canadell et al. 2007). One might conclude from these numbers that the uptake time for CO2 must be only a few years, but this would be a misconception. The rate of natural CO2 uptake in any given year is not determined by the CO2 emissions in that particular year, but rather by the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere that has accumulated over the past century. The lifetime of the CO2 can be gauged by the amount of time that the CO2 has been waiting, which is longer than just a few years. The models find that CO2 peak will come and fade on a time scale of a few centuries to millennia."
(My emphasis) Clearly from the emphasised sentence, Archer and Brovkin agree with my claim that:"[W]hat the environment does is restore equilibrium between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the partial pressure of CO2 in the upper layer of the ocean. That is a rapid process, ..."
There remains the second quoted paragraph (ie, the paragraph you quoted) which could be interpreted to agree with you. Such an interpretation would be a misinterpretation, however, for by 'uptake' Archer and Brovkin mean the process whereby equilibrium is established between the deep ocean and the ocean surface/atmosphere. Because of the slow transfer of CO2 from surface to the deep ocean, the rate at which equilibrium is established with the deep ocean is indeed governed by the cumulative excess above equilibrium levels accumulated by the surface of the ocean, and the atmosphere. (Because the surface and atmosphere equilibriate over a very short time span, Archer and Brovkin, they mention only the atmosphere.) In contrast, establishing equilibrium between ocean surface and the atmosphere is governed annual emissions. On your interpretation of Archer and Brovkin, they flat out contradict themselves within two paragraphs by claiming that Now you may require something more than the fact that on your interpretation of Archer and Brovkin that the ocean surface and atmosphere will equilibrate within a year, but that 'uptake' will "come and fade on a time scale of a few centuries to millennia". That fact should be enough to see that my interpretation of Archer and Brovkin is correct. But to drive home the point, we see in an earlier passage that they definitely use 'uptake' to refer to the slow, centennial scale process of equilibrating between ocean surface/atmosphere and the deep ocean rather than the rapid process of equilibrating between ocean surface and atmosphere:
I will comment on the 7 year mean as a means of excluding the large amount of noise. Clearly both plots A and C have a number of small excursions from a constant value, no doubt attributable to fluctuations in global temperature and/or ENSO. Both also have a large excursion in the early 90's, no doubt attributable to the rapid cooling consequent on the major volcano at that time (Pinatubo?). But the plot of the draw down of CO2 against cumulative change in CO2 concentration shows two additional large excursions, one at the start, and one at the end, which are not present in the plot against a constant fraction of annual emissions.
Clearly then, the available evidence supports my (and Archer and Brovkin's) understanding over yours. While I doubt the evidence is conclusive, given the noisy nature of the data, none-the-less your position means you are arguing against both the evidence, against straightforward theoretical considerations, and against expert opinion. In that position, I would have very little confidence of the correctness of my position.
5) Finally, you quote the seasonal variation in CO2 concentrations as a disproof of my position. However, it is plain that the seasonal variations have a half cycle significantly less than the typical time to reach equilibrium with the surface. Therefore, while we would expect interactions with the ocean to dampen, we would not expect them to eliminate the cycle. Further, given that about a quarter of the annual emissions are absorbed by land, which violently fluctuates in temperature, moisture, and coverage over the course of the seasons, the land based processes may dampen, be neutral with, or amplify such a cycle. Given this, and given the lack of knowledge regarding the land based processes, and given that you cannot quantify the actual amount of CO2 emitted by decay of biota over Autumn and Winter so that we cannot predict the size of the cycle except by measuring it; we simply do not have enough information to run the argument you are trying to run.
That does not mean I have refuted this argument. But it does mean you have not provided a reason to disagree with the balance of evidence which is strongly against your position.
-
John Hartz at 01:13 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"Sea Level Study Leads to Divisions" is an in-depth review of the Kemp et al paper posted on Spiegel Online International. A number of prominent scientists, including Mojib Latif, were interviewed and are quoted. -
John Hartz at 00:59 AM on 27 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
The International Climate Denial Spin Machine has now set-up shop in India... New Delhi/Bangalore, June 18: Several environmental groups, including Climate Revolution, have criticised the Delhi-based Liberty Institute, the Institution of Engineers, Karnataka state Centre (IEI-KSC) and the Karnataka Environment Research Foundation (KERF) for claiming that passive smoking isn't harmful. They have also questioned as to why these three institutions are now being employed by oil companies to question climate change. Source: "Climate change deniers spreading misinformation: Environmental groups", DailyIndia.com, June 18, 2011 -
Norman at 00:50 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Rob Painting @ 229 I have read this Jeff Masters post and am currently looking into it. He does use choice words however to give a boost to his conclusions. Here is an example: " The atmospheric circulation in the Arctic took on its most extreme configuration in 145 years of record keeping during the winter of 2009 - 2010. The Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a "Polar Vortex" of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009 - 2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward." Extreme configuration and unusal event? Looks like The AO is highly variable and that looking at a historical graph does not look so "extreme". Yes a record breaker but not highly unusual. Graph of the AO. -
John Hartz at 00:41 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
@Sphaerica#4: Your statement, "Everyone knows the system is chaotic, and includes substantial noise as well as impediments to direct measurement." may not be understandable to the average person reading this comment thread. Please elaborate. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:40 AM on 27 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
114, okatiniko, The references that I've found point to substantially more problems that you seem willing to recognize. The words "deeply flawed" are directly attributed to their paper, and in particular, the Lasso method they used appears to be unjustified and rather subjective. Their selection of data points was invalid, and proper selection yielded markedly different results. In fact, when applied properly, their own methods in comparison to MM08 yielded "considerably higher probabilities up to 99% that recent decadal warmth is unprecedented for at least the past millennium." [Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, two people who are competent -- I'd argue that Gavin is probably one of the most intelligent, well-educated, well-trained and skillful people I've encountered in my none-too-sheltered life.] From RealClimate:In this sense, the MW analysis, using the proper proxy data and proper methodological choices, yields inferences regarding the unusual nature of recent warmth that are even more confident than expressed in past work.
I would not say the book is closed on this, but this is substantially beyond your assessment of "a controversy about their conclusions," and given the great number of specific, negative points made by a variety of investigators about their methods and conclusions, I myself find no merit in holding up their work as a point in any debate. Indeed, this entire hockey stick controversy is rather ridiculous, and I believe it serves the "denial cause" poorly to keep trying to stand by it. Every graph I look at, from temperatures to ice melt to sea level rise to anything else, all without any sort of PCA, centered or otherwise, shows some sort of hockey stick. Honestly, at this point the "Hockey Team" is not some cabal of evil scientists, but rather every temperature related measurement that one can think of. There are enough hockey sticks not merely to field a hockey team, but also to provide the second and third lines needed to win a Stanley Cup (Go Bruins!). To argue about hockey sticks is to close one's eyes to the obvious evidence that the earth is warming at a dramatic and unheard of pace. Losing oneself in centered-PCA, he-said/she-said arguments is just one more way of ignoring the unpleasant facts. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:34 AM on 27 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Dikran, when you say "So it is very unlikely that the surface oceans were mopping up half of the excess forming the seasonal cycle, unless it were giving it back again in the oposite phase of the cycle." I assume you mean preindustrial? Then I am in violent agreement. Why would it be any different from today, except for the year over year increase from fossil fuels? The total fluxes are much larger than the net fluxes from seasonal vegetation (I routinely read 100 Pg of C). However, where I think we differ, is that there is no evidence that the oceans are mopping up any more than a very small portion (a few percent) of the seasonal excess. I noticed the weather noise in the papers and that does argue the opposite of my conclusion, that the top layer ocean is very actively sequestering and releasing CO2 essentially based on ENSO. The problem is that worldwide averages such as average SSTs are quite useless in this situation since the sequestration and release of CO2 from that top layer is very nonlinear. So like you say, we can't do it without a model and that model has to be girdded with some detail. -
Norman at 00:32 AM on 27 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Too cold to snow? Fairbanks, Alaska is located in the interior of Alaska. Here is the average climate for this location. You can see the average monthly temps (in F or C) and you can look down at the average snowfall. Fairbanks is a very cold place in winter yet seems to receive a lot of snow (69" annually) Fairbanks Alaska climate data. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:22 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
1, Ken, My apologies. In re-reading things, you were obviously trying to (humorously) emphasize exactly the point that Dr. Franzen was trying to make with a rather subtle Poe (so subtle, that I missed it). Well done. Thank you. Just to answer your question, however, the 0.85 W/m2 figure from Hansen 2005 was derived from GISS climate model runs from 1880 to 2003, while the 0.59 W/m2 figure from Hansen et al 2011 was for the period from 2005 to 2011. Hansen et al 2011 also contains an estimate of 0.80 W/m2 for the period from 1993-2008, and 0.70 W/m2 for 2003-2008. Error bars are included with all estimates, and all use a variety of papers and techniques as sources for the computations. Different techniques, over different time periods, would of course yield different results. Everyone knows the system is chaotic, and includes substantial noise as well as impediments to direct measurement. As I've already said, this is in fact a main point of Dr. Franzen's post, and that you have highlighted this with your question (one a little more nuanced than a simple "hockey-stick" reference) does in fact help to clarify his main point, which is that once one accepts the science, then arguing about the measured details is worthwhile and necessary. But the answer to your question is easily determined simply by looking at the actual content of the two papers you sited. From Hansen 2005, Table 1:Effective climate forcings (W/m2) used to drive the 1880 to 2003 simulated climate change in the GISS climate model
From Hansen et al 2011:Our estimated planetary energy imbalance is 0.80 ± 0.20 W/m2 for 1993-2008 and 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 for 2005-2010, with estimated 1-σ standard error. Our estimate for 1993-2008 uses the Lyman et al. (2010) ocean heat gain rather than Levitus et al. (2009) for the reason discussed in section 10. The estimated error in 2005-2010 is almost as large as that in 1993-2008 because of the brevity of the period. Sampling error in the Argo era will decline as the Argo record lengthens (von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011), but systematic biases may remain.
There is much more in both papers. I'm sure that if you read them in their entirety, you'll find the answers to any questions you may have. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:21 AM on 27 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
Type A = AGW. Type C = CAGW. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:47 PM on 26 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
1, Ken, If you have a point, make it. Posting nothing but questions just demonstrates a continued need to sew doubt without even attempting to look for or wanting to find the answers. -
Ken Lambert at 23:28 PM on 26 June 2011Uncertainty in Global Warming Science
"On the other hand if they accept the basic science but deny the hockey stick then it can be worthwhile exploring their concerns and pointing out that the hockey stick result follows straightforwardly, if not rigorously, from the known increasing energy input into the earth." Quite right. So what is the value of the "known increasing energy input into the Earth".? It it 0.9W/sq.m from Hansen 2005 or 0.59W/sq.m from Hansen 2011? -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:18 PM on 26 June 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Eric@98 I do not think the conclusion in the third paragraph of your post is supportable. Just because the oceans do not rapidly take up half of the seasonal variation (which is mainly due to changes in the terrestrial biosphere) does not mean that the ocean is not absorbing half of anthropogenic emissions on an annual to decadal scale. The pre-industrial approximate equilibrium means that fluxes between the terrestrial biosphere and oceans must be in approximate balance (otherwise one or the other would be depleted). So it is very unlikely that the surface oceans were mopping up half of the excess forming the seasonal cycle, unless it were giving it back again in the oposite phase of the cycle. If you look at the annual ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic emissions for that year, you will find it is very noisy and only averages out to about 45% over the course of a number of years. Weather noise is so great that you can't get a reasonable estimate of where the carbon goes on a year-to-year time-scale, without the use of physical models. -
Rob Painting at 21:00 PM on 26 June 2011Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
J87 - No. We are referring to 'natural' carbon cycling. Fossil fuels were removed from the surface carbon reservoirs a long time ago, and played no part in the carbon cycle. Humans then came along, extracted, refined and burnt those fossil fuels, releasing all that 'additional' carbon back into the atmosphere. Hence we have a problem of humungous proportions. -
Robert Murphy at 20:54 PM on 26 June 2011Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
j87, #13 "For example, CO2 emmissions from burning coal or oil are also part of this cycle." That carbon had been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. What we are doing is reintroducing it to the carbon cycle, at a very great speed, far faster than natural carbon sinks can absorb it. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising. "The plants that absorb the CO2 grow, die, fall to the ground, are pressurised for millions of years and then turn into Coal or Oil." Almost all of the plants that die now decay and ultimately release CO2 back into the cycle. They do not become coal or oil. -
les at 20:35 PM on 26 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
12 - "I am not competent enough to say who is right" That is clear given your posts here and on other blogs. However it is clear to those who are that the random inputs do not give rise to hockysticks without assistance. ", and you aren't probably either." I'll thank you to make no such presumption! I've worked with a good veriety of models and data which include noise of various flavours and gave never generated any structure - let alone a hockystick - from the noise. Your remarks sum to no more that "there are uncertainties so maybe I'm right and I'm not prepared to listen to anyone's opinion. " Unless you can provede analysis to substantiate your claim, independently of the corrupted material to which we have both referred you should withdraw your accusation. You can not fall back on "well you and I don't understand it" to support your argument... ... that kind of argument should be left to the leprechauns. -
j87 at 20:16 PM on 26 June 2011Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
This article doesn't quite hit the nail on the head. For example, CO2 emmissions from burning coal or oil are also part of this cycle.. The plants that absorb the CO2 grow, die, fall to the ground, are pressurised for millions of years and then turn into Coal or Oil. So isn't burning fossil fuels just an extension of this carbon cycle? -
Michele at 20:00 PM on 26 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
@ Patrick Venus and Earth have the same behavior at the bottom of the thermosphere where starts a large cooling layer which, thermally, can solely radiate to space. Of course, this is due to the fact that the molecular CO2 appears just at that altitude, not above because the EUV, and it is the easiest vibrationally excitable molecule by means of the thermal molecular collisions. The temperature shifts leftward simply because the CO2 is able to heat-radiate. At the equilibrium the sum of the thermospheric downward flux (by diffusion) and the mesospheric/tropospheric upward flux (by convection) must balance the outgoing radiative flux. Why the altitudes and the temperatures of the two planets are about equal? I don’t know. For Venus the underlying convective layer starts from the surface and thus an air particle (which reaches the radiating layer as a sounding balloon), has to fill up its enthalpic tank at least with an amount equivalent to the geo-potential energy that it must acquire to carry aloft whatever little thermal pay load that will be elaborate within the radiating layer. That’s, the particle, at least, needs a temperature T0 = T + gH/Cp, where T is the temperature at the altitude H of the radiating layer. This means that Earth and Venus would have temperatures about equal at the surface, if Earth had also a sole convective layer below the radiative one. Fortunately Earth’s atmosphere contains oxygen that absorbs the UV creating an heating middle layer (stratopause) which breaks the convection and produces the constitution of the stratosphere that transfers downwards part of the absorbed heat. The temperature shifts again leftward simply because the strato pause and the surface aren’t able yield the heat that the CO2 heat-radiates between them. At the equilibrium the sum of the stratospheric downward flux (by diffusion) and the tropospheric upward flux (by convection) must balance the outgoing radiative flux. That’s, the lower atmosphere repeats the same behavior of the higher one. The convective layer starting at the surface with a negative lapse rate (troposphere) and the stratosphere produce the constitution of the middle cooling layer (tropopause) where the CO2 once again radiates . In this way the oxygen avoid to Earth a lethal overheating of about 450°C. -
Rob Painting at 19:28 PM on 26 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman - "I have a question about what appears to be a drastic rise in flooding events. Could this be explained as greater awareness because of better global media coverage? Not saying it is the case but is this a possibiltiy? Not likely, considering the vast scale of the flood events. Jeff Masters has summed up the last year or so in his post 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816? -
Norman at 19:10 PM on 26 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
I have a question about what appears to be a drastic rise in flooding events. Could this be explained as greater awareness because of better global media coverage? Not saying it is the case but is this a possibiltiy? As reference. The News media has extensive coverage of most flooding these days. It makes it appear flooding events are much more likely and worse today. Increasing in frequency. Here is a record of Mississipi floods. Flooding events do not seem that unusual for this large river. Mississipi river flood events. Maybe it is caused by selective perception. We hear about a river flooding and a communities that are devestated (like Minot, North Dakota or Hamburg, Iowa) so it appears that such disasters are greatly increasing in number and severity. Could if be a minuse of information gathering? Like in the case of identical twins that are separated while young. Psychologists showed amazing similarities in likes and dislikes even though they were raised in different environments. Is this selective perception. You have an extremely large sample size to choose from and if you only select some matches from a huge set of possibilites you can make it appear an amazing link. Likewise with flooding. People here make the link that Global warming is causing many more floods with greater intensity flooding. But here is where the selective perception may come in. Every year a few rivers will flood and be reported upon. What of all the numerous rivers that did not flood in that year? Examples... Rivers in Nebraska that could flood and cause a disaster. Note the large number of rivers in just this one state, each with the potential to devestate some community that might lie near one of them. Look at the number of major rivers in Europe. There are several more minor rivers anyone of which could cause a disaster if a very heavy localized rain would occur in that river's basin. List of major rivers in Europe, note even this is a good number. A better study than media reporting to influence our perception would be to create a large data pool of rivers (maybe a few thousand global rivers). Monitor yearly flooding for a period of time and note if there seems to be a steady and consistent increase in flooding events and their severity. -
Norman at 18:44 PM on 26 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
The next thing to study is to plot all the winter snowfall accumulations for Omaha Nebraska vs Global warming to see if there is a correlation between higher snowfall and Global warming as some have speculated should occur. I am not sure how the connection is made that a 4% increase in Global humidity (still want to know how someone determines this as Global humidity is very far from constant, evaporation rates are not constant nor is rainfall) will result in much heavier snows or rainfall amounts that lead to much greater flooding. I do not see how the math adds up. A 4% increase in Omaha's snowfall accumulation would average out at an inch more of snow per season. Something hard to see in a record that can very by several inches from one year to the next. -
Norman at 18:38 PM on 26 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
To anyone interested, There have been several posts on the topic that warmer weather will increase snowfall amounts. I am doing a limited test of this conclusion to determine if it is a valid conclusion based upon availabel evidence. I am picking one location (Omaha, Nebraska) as the test spot. Based upon the theory it should not matter where the test spot is located as this principle should apply to all regions. The concept is that warmer temperatures will lead to greater winter snowfall because warm air can hold more moisture. My understanding of weather systems is of a different nature. It could be caused by Global Warming but at this time I have not been able to make such a connection. I have learned that heavy snow or rain (at least for the plains of the USA) are caused by very strong low pressure systems that move across the Nation from West to East motion. In the US, a low pressure spins counter-clockwise. On the east side the air will pull warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico (still warm water even in winter) and at the same time pull frigid Canadian air down from the north on the west side of the pressure system. The stronger the low pressure system, the more moist air it will pull up and the colder air it will pull down. This action causes rain and snow as the cold air moves under the warm moist air lifting it to condensation levels...the heat of condensation causes further lifting of the air pulling in even more moist gulf air. Heavy rain and snow are the combination of two events. The stronger the low pressure the greater is the intensity of the rain or snow. But intensity alone are not the only variable in determination of heavy rain or snow. The speed at which a low moves across the country is very important. Case of point. In Omaha Nebraska on Saturday morning there was a heavy rain of over 2". The local meterologist described the cause of the heavy rain as the product of the storm system stalling over an area before moving again, dumping a large amount of rain in a particular area. Back to the snowfall research. Omaha, NE snowfall in 2009-2010 winter season was 47.6". Normal snow amounts for an Omaha winter are 27.1". That winter season had 20" above normal snowfall (is that an extreme event...it did cause many accidents and cost a lot of money to the city for plowing). Source for Omaha snow accumulations used for this study. Going to the GISS temp anomaly map for this winter period, this season was shown to be below normal for Omaha which received well above normal snowfall amounts. Note to Tom Curtis. I do realize this is a very limited research test and may not satisfy all scientific rigor. I am doing it primarily to test the idea which so many believe is a rigid truth. GISS temp anomaly for winter of 2009-2010. (If anyone is interested in this project, Omaha Nebraska is located around the center of the United Sates) Snow for the 2003-2004 winter season had 47.8 inches and the temp anomaly for Omaha was above normal. GISS temp anomaly for winter 2003-2004 Now to try a low snowfall amount much below normal. The winter of 1980-1981 was 9.1" of snow accumulation, much below normal. Temp anomaly for this year was above average. GISS temp anomaly for winter 1980-1981. The two heaviest snowfall accumulations on the NOAA data page. 1961-1962 51.6" of snow accumulation neutral temp anomaly 1959-1960 56.7" of snow accumulation little colder than normal but not much. GISS temp anomaly for winter 1961-1962. GISS temp anomaly for winter 1959-1960. -
Steve Brown at 18:10 PM on 26 June 2011The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?
The basis for my saying that the climatic changes during the Eemian happened over a few 1000 years was in regards to the orbital and GHG forcing that led to the warming out of the penultimate glaciation through to the Eemian climatic optimum. WRT the various Hearty et al. papers that Sentient mentions, the authors themselves acknowledge that the evidence for a rapid highstand may also be explained by tsunami or severe hurricane storm surge activity that just affected the Bahamas. I'll be covering this in a future post in the series. -
Marcus at 17:57 PM on 26 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@ okatiniko. I also have to point out that you appear ignorant as to what stable energy supply means. Its not a factor of what percentage of the total is provided by renewable energy-its whether the renewable energy component is capable of providing their energy to the grid almost 24/7-without the need for a back-up. In this regard, several Countries already have stable renewable energy in place, & several other Countries are moving to have this in place too. Of course even Coal & Nuclear aren't always available 24/7, & nor can their output be properly adjusted to fit with demand-which is the complete opposite of most renewable energy systems. Also, as I've pointed out above, what happens if the coal or nuclear power station breaks down for some reason? What if part of the T&D system fails? You could be blacking out an entire Town or City, whereas the loss of a single wind turbine or solar panel isn't going to be as disastrous. The fact is that in spite of your desperate attempts to disparage renewable energy, they're going to be a much better fit within a more efficient & distributed energy grid than Coal or Nuclear will ever be! -
Marcus at 17:51 PM on 26 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"Since nations having a lot of hydro potential have achieved a 100% or almost 100 % renewable power for years, there is obviously inordinate difficulty in doing that without it" Wow, more dodgy logic from the "We Hate Renewable Energy Crowd". The only reason it worked so easily for hydro-power is because Hydro-power provides its own storage, & always has done. Be warned though that even Hydro can run into problems if you have an extended drought. Of course Hydroelectricity has started moving into an age where the need for large storage capacity dams will become a thing of the past. Run-of-the-river & other Small Scale Hydro project means any nation with at least one river could provide renewable energy from Hydro without the need for large Dams. Geothermal power & bio-electricity also provide base-load capacity, & always have done-its now just a matter of expanding the size of these 2 sectors where they're available. As for other forms of renewable energy, they've really only been around since the mid to late 1980's, & base-load storage for them has only become available in the last 10-15 years. So its no surprise that most of them still lack base-load capacity. As I said above though, with various nations expanding their renewable sector beyond peaking capacity, they are increasingly starting to move towards the inclusion of base-load storage in most renewable energy systems. The fact that some Countries are starting to make the move *proves* that its feasible to do so.
Prev 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 Next
