Recent Comments

Prev  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  Next

Comments 81801 to 81850:

81801. Tom Curtis at 17:36 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn @37:

       "A recently uncovered Roman structure at Richborough , England, which has been estimated to be a dock dating back to the 14th century, has turned history on its head, by proving that at the height of medieval Sandwichs power and wealth as a port, boats were still mooring at Richborough. According to a report in The Guardian, this discovery is unique because according to the conventional history of the site, Richborough had been completely filled with silt 800 years earlier, the once magnificent Roman fort and large town left abandoned and desolate. The medieval dock was neatly constructed by joining up double-decker-bus-sized lumps of Roman walls which tumbled and slid down from the ramparts of the fort further up the slope. It is built on the shingled Roman shore, one of the key sites in the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, and can be securely dated to the 14th century, since the construction technique is identical to the medieval town walls of nearby Sandwich."

       (From here So, as I understand this, a Roman beach (hence above the low tide mark) sunk low enough that a medieval dock (hence with footings below the low tide mark), which in turn sunk low enough that it to was covered by silt (and hence lay below the water level) and this is taken by you as evidence the coast in that region was not sinking, but rising? I just want to be clear on this.
81802. stefaan at 16:45 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       @okatiniko. What do you mean? without any clear signal...? Can it be any clearer? Do you have some studies that prove your point about the illknown reconstruction methods?
81803. okatiniko at 16:21 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       yes, another "hockey stick" starting around 1900, and without any clear signal associated to a rising anthropogenic influence after 1960 !!! and another hockey stick relying of ill-known (and unverified independently) reconstruction methods, very likely smoothing the natural variance.
81804. Camburn at 16:11 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Thank you DB. I appreciate your help.
       Response:

       [DB] Anytime.

81805. Stevo at 15:48 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn @34 Silt has filled what was a shallow harbour 2000 years ago. Exactly where in this article is there anything to about changes of sea level?
81806. Camburn at 15:47 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       DB: Yes, over the years the channel silted up. But you have to look at the current level of the harbor. Google maps will show you that where the port was unearthed is above current sea level. As an aside, I looked for the comments thing as I was going to try to learn how to post url's with a link as some seem able to do. I can't seem to find that area on the site, maybe I am tired and blind right now.
       Response:

       [DB] See here.  I well understand the tired and blind thing.

81807. Patrick 027 at 15:08 PM on 23 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       re my 28 - Think of the effective emitting levels (EELS) forming a landscape... and a valley dropping down from space. That last part highlights the importance of recognizing that an 'EEL' is a representative concept for something more complex (an 'EWF' - emission weighting function). Because the stratosphere, or at least the upper stratosphere, on Earth, has temperature increasing with height, pulling the EEL out of space and down through the stratosphere would appear to suggest that the radiation goes from having a brightness temperature approximately at zero to having some higher value and gradually dropping down toward the tropopause temperature. But for a well-mixed gas, aside from line broadenning and line strength variations, the first little bit of emissivity added to an otherwise transparent atmosphere produces an EWF such that, for whatever portion is in the atmosphere, it is evenly distributed (over mass for constant optical thickness per unit mass path; otherwise more generally, over optical thickness) So if the inversion of the stratosphere is sufficiently thin relative to a lower isothermal part (and/or sufficiently weak), it may never come to dominate, and having the EEL come down from space may only gradually increase the brightness temperature (and for upward radiation, an inversion at the surface that is sufficiently thin wouldn't keep the brightness temperature of the upward flux at the tropopause from decreasing - unless the surface is colder than the troposphere's average temperature (or averaged in terms of the Planck function, and then weighted by EWF)); and even if the inversion runs all the way through the stratosphere and is sufficiently strong, etc, the downward LW radiation would gradually go from zero to a peak before coming down.
81808. Camburn at 15:05 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       And here is the clinker: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html Archelogical evidence recently discovered showing the sea level in Southern England approx 2,000 years ago. Being North Carolina is all of a sudden a proxy for worldwide sea level, the port 2 miles inland on a isostatic falling area indicates that the Romans had ships that sailed on land, or the beginning of the graph for North Carolina is wrong. Being there was a proxy switch at approx 1,000 AD, the earlier levels are probably wrong as I find it hard to concieve that the variation in sea level at that time could have been over 5.5 meters from Kent, England to North Carolina.
       Response:

       [DB] It is hard to conceive that you actually read articles in their entirety.  From your linked article:

       "Over the centuries, the channel silted up"

       It is patently obvious the narrative you seek to maintain.  If you can find peer-reviewed sources to cite that support that narrative, fine.  But I would suggest reading them in their entirety to ensure that they actually say what you think they say.

81809. Daniel Bailey at 14:40 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Anyone reading this far into this thread will easily see the selective interpretation of the study that forms the basis of this post on the part of some. You all have patiently, robustly and succinctly provided easy-to-follow feedback and guidance. When that endangers ones internal narrative and worldview than one can either bow to the inevitable and change...or one can maintain that the sky is green and lowflying bacon is a public endangerment. Not a choice most would agree with, but a choice nonetheless.
81810. scaddenp at 14:31 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Well, we did try to a/ explain that sea level was different from temperature. Is this fundamental physics not obvious? Similarly CO2 at Mauna Loa is a local measurement but its pretty good proxy for average global CO2 when suitably corrected. The temperature at Mauna Loa however it not a good proxy for global temperature. b/ point out that the paper was drawing its conclusion after comparison with other proxy records. (Just like you would check Mauna Loa Co2 levels against other stations).
81811. dhogaza at 14:14 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       "The next time I am confronted with someone telling me that regional weather is not global, I am going to refer them to this link." The ocean is not the atmosphere, and steric expansion of the ocean is unrelated to weather. So, go ahead and make that equality, and if you do, be assured you're playing the fool, again. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Please, everyone, dial the emotions down a notch.

81812. Camburn at 14:11 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       dhogaza: I don't have to play the fool, in this instance the comments trying to tie this to global from one location are doing a great job. The next time I am confronted with someone telling me that regional weather is not global, I am going to refer them to this link.
81813. dhogaza at 14:11 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       "I am not disputing the sea level rise/fall in North Carolina. What I am disputing is to use it as a global metric. This is a regional phenominum. Just as it is a regional phenominum that it is cold and wet where I live." Actually, your regional weather phenominum (sic: phenomenom is better known to me) tends to be driven by global stuff like, oh, ENSO. So it's not necessarily difficult to tie your regional weather experience to global phenomena...
81814. Michael Hauber at 14:09 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       There is nothing inherently unscientific about measuring sea level at one point and extrapolating to the entire globe. Or even for measuring temperature at one point and extrapolating to the entire globe. But when doing such an extrapolation two issues arise: 1) if you have other points, then why limit yourself to just one (perhaps the other points are poor quality). The article does discuss what sea level is doing at other points. 2) what is the typical variation from region to region. If the regional variation is typically less than 10cm, then a 40 cm rise at one point is highly likely to reflect a global sea level rise. For temperature regional variations for multi-decade trends are of the order of a couple degrees. Therefore you won't accurately measure global temperature increase of under 1 degree by just one point as the regional variation is bigger than the trend your are trying to measure. If the earth spiralled towards the sun in the next 100 years and temperatures went up by 50 degrees globally, then I am quite sure the temperature trend at just one point is highly likely to reflect this trend reasonably accurately (i.e. to within a degree or two).
81815. dhogaza at 14:07 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       "The paper is trying to stretch one location to global. It doesn't wash. It would be like saying because the sea level is falling on the coast of Alaska that overall sea level is falling. That doesn't wash either. Both are regional events." That might be a point if they hadn't bothered to check for correlation with other reconstructions, including your pet Southern Cook Islands (I'm sure your next gambit will be to scream that "data corrections to correct for known geological and oceanographic differences are evidence of fraud!!!!" I made similar points earlier, and you ignored them. Just as well. Play the fool, but you won't fool us.
81816. Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 23 June 2011
       McManufactured Controversy
       An interesting take on the McControversy is that provided by Teske, who concludes:

       "Finally, while it’s certainly flattering that Mr Lynas thinks that Greenpeace has the power to “dictate” IPCC conclusions, it is a great pity that he doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that the IPCC chose to include the findings of Greenpeace, the EREC and the German Space Agency in The Energy [R]evolution for one very good reason - because hundreds of energy experts from different backgrounds, considered it a good, realistic and useful piece of research. If Mr Lynas has a problem with these findings, he should clearly demonstrate his issue with them, rather than simply trying to claim that some crude conspiracy theory is at work."

       This, I think, goes to the heart of the issue. Let's assume that Teske did in fact argue the case for using the Teske et 2010 Advanced Energy Revolution scenario (as per Eric the Red 54). That only calls into question the choice of that scenario if we assume the other ten primary decision makers on chapter 10 (the two Coordinating Lead Authors, and the other eight Lead Authors) where ciphers, that the where sufficiently gullible, and incompetent in their field of expertise to be fooled into accepting an inferior scenario just because one of their number had a vested interest. Indeed, we have to assume this even though at least three of their number had a vested interest in number had a vested interest in not accepting that scenario. The three are Raymond Wright (economic interest in the fossil fuel industry), Makoto Akai (professional investment in carbon capture and storage which does not feature in the Advanced Energy Revolution Scenario), and Leon Clark (joint author of alternative scenarios). That is not a plausible assumption. The only plausible conclusion is that Teske's participation did not significantly influence the choice of the fourth scenario.
81817. scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       camburn- can you actually link us to what you are quoting? This seems at variance with the calculations by other researchers (eg Clark, Mitrovica) in the field.
81818. scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       re: Tornado data. Since this thread is about severe weather AND global warming, wouldnt it be more relevant to look at severe events that are actually predicted increase with global warming? Anyone got a paper saying tornadoes will increase as the planet warms?
81819. dmyerson at 13:16 PM on 23 June 2011
       McManufactured Controversy
       Lynas continues to post blog entries about this and hasn't backed off a bit. Somebody posted a link to this post there and he did not respond to it. The general commentary on his blog now is deniers asking why he didn't read and get the "message" from the hacked emails, that he's on the way to becoming one of them. I don't know if that will happen or not, but that is who is now posting to his blog.
81820. Norman at 13:15 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Tom Curtis @141 I was investigating and working to understand the concepts presented about catastrophe and Great Natural Catastrophe. My graph was of Great Natural Catastrophe. I am wondering how do you determine conclusively that the increase in catasptrophe is not the product of increased reporting? Like with tornadoes. F0 tornado number skyrocketed after the 1990's but the larger tornado number stayed relatively the same. Maybe a lot of catastrophe's in third world countries were not reported in a few decades ago but now more awareness is taking place leading to more reports generated but not meaning more actual events are taking place.
81821. Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn @various, the continent of North America is tilting up in the north and down in the south as shown by these local sea level rise plots: As you can see, the more southerly the location, the greater the fall in sea level, while Pointe-au Pere in Quebec is rising slightly, and Churchill on Hudson Bay is rising rapidly. The accepted reason for this is that land previously depressed by the weight of ice in the last glacial is rebounding to a more stable position. The same phenomenon can be seen in Britain, and in Europe more generally: Given that this is the cause of local changes of sea level in North Carolina, then the rate of the isostatic adjustment is highly unlikely to have suddenly changes in the last 100 years, or the last 500. Consequently, we should expect a reconstruction adjusted for Isostatic Rebound to show an approximately level sea level at the site over long intervals, as indeed can be seen in the reconstruction. Conversely, if the hockey stick shape of the reconstruction is an artifact, the Isostatic Rebound must have rapidly accelerated and de-accelerated at intervals over the last two thousand years to miraculously reproduce a sea level rise in the MWP, a fall in the LIA, and a very rapid rise over the industrial period. Indeed, if the "blade" of the graph is an artifact, as you are implying, the Isostatic Rebound must have accelerated to approximately double its current value around 200 years ago, and then suddenly de-accelerated to its current value just in time for the instillation of GPS monitoring. While possible, such suppositions are ad hoc and a clear attempt to evade evidence rather than be guided by it.
81822. Camburn at 13:02 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Rob: The sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere should be greater than what is observed in the Northern Hemisphere. Per Prof Steffan. I am not disputing the sea level rise/fall in North Carolina. What I am disputing is to use it as a global metric. This is a regional phenominum. Just as it is a regional phenominum that it is cold and wet where I live. The paper is trying to stretch one location to global. It doesn't wash. It would be like saying because the sea level is falling on the coast of Alaska that overall sea level is falling. That doesn't wash either. Both are regional events.
81823. Norman at 12:49 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Camburn, Thanks for the links.
81824. Norman at 12:36 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Tom Curtis and Albatross, I posted this graph of F3 and above tornadoes from NOAA on a post to JMurphy. Severe Tornadoes historical graph. You can see this unusual large peak in 1974. What this tells me is with extreme weather events you may get these spikes from time to time but does it mean anything? So why is the Russian heat wave any more unusual than the tornado spike, or the Pakistan flood. I still cannot see what evidence has been presented that would make you feel extreme weather events are increasing in number and intensity because of global warming.
81825. Norman at 12:30 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Tom Curtis @ 149 I did look at the one day precipitation but did you look at the extremes in maximum temperature. It is up then down and up but not as extreme today as in the past.
81826. Norman at 12:24 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       JMurphy @ 152 I will try to demonstrate what is actually the case with disasters. I will use data on tornadoes to demonstrate. I will link to two web sites that I am using for this demonstration. Graph of Strong to Violent Tornadoes. Source for tornado graph. Tornadoes that became disasters. Also need this information: Number of Strong to Violent tornadoes in 2011...it is 80 so far. If you look at the first NOAA graph you will see that in 1974 there were >120 F3 or Above tornadoes. Now look at the link "tornadoes that became disasters". In 1974 there were 3 tornado disasters. In 2011 with 80 F3 or above tornadoes you have 6 tornadoes of this magnitude that caused disaters and a total of 9 tornadoes that struck cities. This is an example of where the number of hazards does not relfect the actual number of disasters. Look at 1964. This would be a close year to 2011 for F3 or above tornado activity. There were no disasters from tornadoes that year. Not sure it this little exercise is what you requested but I hope it clears up what I am getting at.
81827. Daniel Bailey at 12:24 PM on 23 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Tamino has now weighed-in on the ongoing Death Spiral in the Arctic: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/ Sayonara, white lumpy rain.
81828. Eric the Red at 12:03 PM on 23 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       I was not aware that anyone was predicting an ice age. At this point it is just speculation, although it has been postulated for almost five years now, and the data is leaning closer to such an event. Others have predicted a Dalton-like minimum, similar to the 19th century. From a scientific standpoint, it would be fascinating to observe and measure, if it were to occur.
81829. Rob Painting at 12:02 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn - IF the North Carolina data were anything but a local phenominum.....the sea level SHOULD be rising quit fast in the Southern Cook Islands. It isn't Why? Sea level rise isn't globally uniform, (for a myriad of reasons) so why do you expect a higher rate there?
81830. fatir.b at 12:01 PM on 23 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       I agree that "Of course it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Meeting the $5.1 trillion global renewable energy investment from 2011 to 2020 will require a five-fold increase from current investment levels. And of course there is the political challenge involved in implementing the necessary policies to allow this renewable energy investment increase to happen". Also support this report with a few hints. What about natural disasters e.g.: volcanic emissions, the impact of the earthquake, wind, etc.. Of course scenario is attainable, but in the report is only mentioned mitigation and therefore I 'think' based on the examples that I mentioned about report are need 'small corrections and additions' to the report, and should turn attention mechanisms of the adaptation. Guided by the idea that we have to adapt to the nature and not vice versa. I apologize if someone understood this comment as a malicious. Thanks.
81831. Tom Curtis at 12:00 PM on 23 June 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       rgriffin42 @59, the same thing concerns climate scientists and interested observers like me. That is what all the discussion of tipping points is about. It is very possible that at a certain rise in temperature, some natural feedback will kick in that is strong enough that will rapidly accelerate the rate of warming. Potential candidates are the the release of methane from clathrates, the release methane from formerly frozen tundra, and the deforestation of the amazon, two of which can individually release more CO2 equivalent of methane than has been released by humans since the industrial revolution. Another suggested tipping point is the possible shut down of the North Atlantic conveyor, with a consequent significant reduction in temperatures in Europe. However, as best understood at the moment, that is not likely for several centuries, at which time it may bring relief to Europe, but will not trigger an ice age. In fact, from geological studies, we know the possibility of a cooling tipping point is remote. If there was such a cooling mechanism, it would place a hard ceiling on global temperatures - but we know global temperatures have been significantly higher than they currently are. Hence the instability you mention may make things get a lot worse a lot faster than we are expecting, it is very likely that they will be our salvation.
81832. Eric the Red at 11:58 AM on 23 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       To what denial are you referring? That is exactly the trend to which I am referring. 2007 was anomalously low, just like 1996 was anomalously high. Other than that, the trend looks robust. I do not know why so many people are getting exciting about breaking the 2007 low this year. I have always understood.
81833. Rob Painting at 11:53 AM on 23 June 2011
       It's the sun
       The way I read 1 & 2 of rdmtask's comment, is that he/she thinks the heat driving global warming is from the heat given off by burning of fossil fuels, rather than the CO2 given off increasing the Greenhouse Effect. This confusion continues here: "All energy enters the earth via solar radiation, all energy leaves the earth via solar radiation" Where he/she appears to claim that the Earth is a star.
81834. scaddenp at 10:54 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Sorry, I should be clearer. The tectonic effect is regional GIA adjustment. Rather different to say my local area where Malrborough Sounds on one side a fault are dropping 4mm/year while 50km away, on another fault, the range goes up at close 5mm/year. Relating coastal sealevel predictions to globalin that setting is tough. Estimating GIA?, not so much. (Actually I am not so sure about their GIA adjustment.The basis for it depends on an estimate of crustal rheological parameters that I am not so sure about, but that's another story - more data coming. It wont effect the shape of their curve.)
81835. Camburn at 10:37 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       scaddenp: North Carolina is an area that is sinking so to make the statement that tetonics is not an issue with North Carolina is false.
81836. Bibliovermis at 10:34 AM on 23 June 2011
       It's the sun
       As for #4: The incoming energy from the sun primarily is shortwave radiation. This is absorbed by the planet and emitted as longwave radiation. The greenhouse gases absorb and reflect this longwave radiation. The "greenhouse effect" You are arguing against over a century of accumulated scientific knowledge based on your lack of understanding.
81837. scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 23 June 2011
       It's the sun
       And further note, that we have enough coal to change the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere back to pre-pliocene levels.
81838. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       You will note however, that Prof Steffen was quite capable of relating global level to local levels. Really big differences over short distances are difficult but they are due to tectonic effects not present in North Carolina. You will also note that the paper did compare their results to other sealevel proxies.
81839. quokka at 10:21 AM on 23 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       #41 Stephen Leahy I call Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power dumb not smart. There is absolutely no way that it will not result in emissions higher than they would have been if nuclear was retained and operated in parallel with new renewables build. It cannot be otherwise. The UK now has a "legally binding" commitment to 50% emissions reductions by 2027, so it would be well to study it's plans too. Of course for all nations, one does not have have to question the sincerity of commitments, to observe that what is being said may well not be what is achieved. It's all still words at the moment and does not constitute "proof" in any sense that any particular path is anything like optimal. There is an unfortunate habit of lumping all renewables together and make implications about future growth of renewables based on their share of current electricity generation. This obscures rather than informs. It it overwhelmingly solar/wind that must be grown to do the heavy lifting, if renewables alone are to deliver the goods. Today, the situation is that in OECD countries nuclear supplies 22% of electricity, solar/wind/geothermal 4%. In Germany solar/wind/geo supplies 7.7%. (Source IEA Monthly Electricity Stats). If all the OECD shut down nuclear over the next decade, it would require the current solar/wind group to be expanded by a factor of six or more just to maintain the current level of emissions in electricity generation. What hope for emissions reductions then? This is how important nuclear is. I believe that the UK now has the highest commitment to emissions reductions over the next two decades. Their anticipated pathway including nuclear deserves study, recognizing that for each nation there are specific factors that must influence their choices. The The Renewable Energy Review and supporting documents are important contributions.
81840. Patrick 027 at 10:19 AM on 23 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       re my 26, first big paragraph: The energy is absorbed above when and where kinetic energy is dissipated mechanically (mechanical damping of the waves) and otherwise converted to APE in thermally indirection motion with the resulting APE being dissipated radiatively (thermal damping of the waves). Sometimes conditions favoring absorption are what cause energy and momentum of the wave to be absorbed where they are. Sometimes nonlinear wave breaking from sufficient increases in amplitude cause the wave energy to be absorbed when and where it is.
81841. dhogaza at 10:07 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn: Southern Cook Islands is one of the reconstructions they calibrated against. Please read the post and study the diagrams.
81842. Camburn at 09:59 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       "Getting a regional resolution is of course much more complex and that is why I usually avoid discussing regional sea level in public, as we do not have good answers yet. There will be regions where sea level is going down even though just a few hundred kilometres away the water will be rising." Prof Steffen This paper is a regional paper. A good paper for the region. As far as globally, nope.
81843. Camburn at 09:52 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Ok.....the correlation to world wide global sea level was bothering me. Here is what Prof. Konrad Steffen says about sea level rise "In addition, as a result of the gravitational pull from the spinning Earth, if you add the equivalent of one metre of sea level rise to the oceans in the Northern Hemisphere, it will translate to about 1.6 metres sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere, and only about 40 cm in the Northern Hemisphere. He is the director of CIRES and should be an authority on sea level rise etc. IF the North Carolina data were anything but a local phenominum.....the sea level SHOULD be rising quit fast in the Southern Cook Islands. It isn't. This paper has to do with sea level and hydrology, an area that I have studied intently for 20 years. No I am not a Prof as Prof Steffen is, but this paper still shows nothing at all globally.
81844. Rob Honeycutt at 09:42 AM on 23 June 2011
       It's the sun
       rdmtask... In addition to the moderator's comments you need to be aware that you are coming to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the vast majority of the published literature on this topic. If you're genuinely interested in learning about the science of climate change you should spend time reading the articles here on SkS. And you don't even need to take the word of the authors of these articles. Almost every one of them fully cite the relevant research. You can follow those links and read the actual research for yourself.
81845. Camburn at 09:35 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Can anyone elaborate on the correlation between the rate from the Southern Cook Islands and North Caronlina? Being it seems North Carolina can all of a sudden become global....yet....sea level rise is negative in the Southern Cooks and positive in North Carolina. Tell me again how this paper is global in nature?
81846. rdmtask at 09:05 AM on 23 June 2011
       It's the sun
       I find myself skeptical that the current trend of increasing global warming is currently sustainable reasons. 1) The current increase in global temperatures is a result of burning fossil fuels, releasing energy into the atmosphere. While the global may increase over a period of time, the heat emitted from burning fossil fuels is contained within the bounds of the earth. Eventually (and discounting any changes in solar output), the heat emitted will be reabsorbed back into the surface of the earth, reducing the atmospheric temperature back to near the original temperature of the pre-combusted fuel (the mass of gas surrounding the earth does not hold a candle to the amount of mass contained within the crust). 2) Fossil fuel supplies are limited, as is the amount of heat we can eject into the atmosphere is finite. At some point we MUST stop putting energy into the atmosphere. 3) While the heat island effect exists, it is a two way street. Energy is just as easily emitted into space as it is absorbed into the earth. Granted, there will be larger temperature fluctuations within the city than outside of it due to an increased surface area (sq mile to sq mile). The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is nowhere near significant enough to significant detract from that. 4) The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, while significant, are unlikely to have anything to do with global warming for the same reason as item 3 above. If it can contain heat well, it rejects it just as well. Energy from the surface of the earth is reflected with the same percentage as energy from the sun. This is not to say it cannot wreck hell on the earth’s ecosystems, just that it a political issue versus an actual energy issue. Essentially we are looking at an energy balance problem. All energy enters the earth via solar radiation, all energy leaves the earth via solar radiation. Unless there is a statistically significant solar change, the current temperature fluctuations are due to the energy revolution of the 1900’s. Recent increases in the global temperature can probably (not going do the work) be correlated relatively accurately to the number of cars in use around the earth (or number of people on the earth). So from where I stand, blaming temperature increases on CO2 is a fallacious argument, as it is a neutral player.
       Response:

       [DB] I'm not even sure where to begin...first-off, please read Newcomers, start here.  Then take a gander at The Big Picture.

       1. The current global rise in temperatures is a result of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, due to rising levels of CO2.  As long as we keep emitting more CO2, the imbalance will continue and so will the rise in temperatures.
       2. The energy being accumulated is not due to energy being released by us, but by the CO2 we release.
       3. UHI is immaterial as scientists measure anomalies, not absolute temperatures.  See also CO2 effect is weak.
       4. How to put this kindly...this makes little sense as written.

       Energy does not leave the system as solar radiation but as thermal emission from the Earth.  CO2 lengthens the exit path by that radiant thermal emission, so the lower levels of the atmosphere heat up due to the increase in back radiation.  See The Greenhouse Effect has been Falsified.

81847. Tom Smerling at 08:48 AM on 23 June 2011
       Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
       You may have already seen all of Christy's talking points, but just in case you missed this one, here is a link to a presentation he made to a group that generally opposes government regulation, the American Chemical Society ("Chemistry for Life") http://www.softconference.com/ACSchem/player.asp?PVQ=GLHF&fVQ=FFJJJL&hVQ= You can download his .ppt at http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=215&content_id=CNBP_025739&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=497c1eaa-f868-403a-9c4a-9642bafea89e
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-linked URL's.

81848. Eric the Red at 07:55 AM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       can you elaborate on how the site shows the MWP and LIA.
       Response:

       [DB] Please read the OP above, paying particular attention to Figure 2.

81849. Albatross at 07:54 AM on 23 June 2011
       How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
       Can I suggest that John Cook adds the following update from the National Solar Association to the post: "Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement: "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age." There you have it. I'm sure WUWT, FauxNews and those in denial about AGW who have been propagating the misinformation surrounding this story will promptly correct the public record ;) Notice how Dr. Hill is reluctant to comment outside his field of expertise. In contrast, notice how "skeptics" routinely talk through their hats and pontificate on subjects way,way outside their level of understanding or expertise.
81850. Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 23 June 2011
       Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
       rgriffin42... With regards to chaos theory Tamino has a very good recent post on this explaining that this issue is basically the difference between weather and climate. And on the issue of glacial-interglacial cycles... yes, there are very good and clear explanations on how this happens. Several articles are located here on Skeptical Science. And you can just try googling Milankovitch cycles.

Prev  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  1644  Next