Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 Next
Comments 84951 to 85000:
-
Bern at 16:46 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
jarch: so you're saying that a complex, detailed climate model that predicts future climate trends that later observations closely match is not credible? I agree that we need a longer time period (30 years would be good, like the Hansen predictions I linked in my previous comment) to be really sure they're accurate, but if the best simulations of the climate agree closely with what actually happens over the following years, surely that's an indication that the simulations are at least a usefully good approximation of reality? In any event, did you actually look up the reference linked in that paragraph you quoted? It seems the agreement is pretty good, and the 'error' is much, much less than the range of natural year-to-year variability. The other point to consider, of course, is this: using our best understanding of all the factors that affect climate, scientists have constructed a model that closely matches what the earth's climate actually does. One of those factors (indeed, the dominant one lately) is the large & growing influence of human greenhouse gas emissions. Without greenhouse gases included, the model results are completely wrong. If you cannot demonstrate that the current understanding of natural climate forcings is completely wrong, then you have no valid argument. -
adelady at 16:44 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
RSVP "Plains Indians were nomadic..." because they followed the buffalo herds. But not all - others lived fairly settled lives with near-permanent villages and consistent agriculture. pkm - the News section is certainly weather rather than climate. But the Research roundup is a neat feature. -
pkm at 16:36 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Although admittedly well-presented, this "Monthly Climate" initiative is definitely a step in the wrong direction. None of these events can ever be directly related to climate change. The whole term "Monthly Climate" is a ridiculous contradictio in terminis. This forced attempt to relate a cold winter or a longer-than-normal tornado season to climate change ultimately undermines the credibility of climate scientists: the same scientists who, rightly so, warn against the denialist practice of computing climate trends shorter than 10 years. Let us climate scientists continue to focus and work hard on extending data series and do smart long-term analysis rather than be drawn into this hysterical propaganda. Skeptical Science, please stop re-posting this. -
jarch at 16:18 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
"Climate models have successfully forecast key climate features. For example, model projections of sea level rise and temperature produced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR - 2001) for 1990 – 2006 show good agreement with subsequent observations over that period." As far as I can see, the "good agreement" is only within a large natural variability , implying large error bars, meaning that they are only loosely constrained. What is the meaning thus of : "There is considerable confidence that AOGCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales" ? where does this "considerable confidence" come from ? what "credible quantitative estimates" can be done ? it seems that they are "credible" only because the large error bars make "credible" that reality will sure lie somewhere inside ! for me a "good" model must reduce very significantly the uncertainty with respect to very crude estimates, for instance simple extrapolations of the past (which don't need any "model" actually). Only this can allow "non trivial" predictions. I don't see yet where AOGCM have had better performances than these simple crude estimates. -
RSVP at 16:15 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
The fact that the Plains Indians were nomadic might suggest historic climate instability in this part of the world. -
scaddenp at 15:51 PM on 25 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Ross, this thread is about whether his model was correct. For discussion of oceans, look at Oceans are cooling, especially the recent discussion concerning Von Schuckmann & La Traon 0-2000 OHC over past 5 years, and then implications of this in Hansen 2011. Links to both on that thread. -
Ross Handsaker at 15:24 PM on 25 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
I would have thought the important issue about Spencer's article is not whether his computer model is correct but rather his observation of the vertical temperature profile of the ocean, the negligible warming at depth of 700 metres, and its implications for locating a missing heat sink in the oceans. -
scaddenp at 14:59 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Yeah, "models" that violate thermodynamics to start with. I do like the term "mathturbation". -
adelady at 14:48 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol@45 '...cyclical phenomena influence the climate...' You may save yourself a bit of work (and maybe a bit of later heartache) if you do a bit of checking on "cycles" first. I just did this search over at Open Mind for a list of articles on cycles. And you might also want to avoid the correlation-and-to-hell-with-causation principle trap. -
adelady at 14:39 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol "...to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument ..." If you want an overview of the radiative physics of CO2, a good place to start would be Science of Doom , this is part 3 of a 12 part series. Anything you need that's not here you can find in one of the other parts. -
scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
See post in suggested tread, but you ask what is basis used for actual climate science? SoD recommends these text books: Engineering Calculations in Radiative Heat Transfer, by Gray and Müller (1974) Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, by Robert Siegel and John R. Howell. Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung The theoretical work in core of radiative models is based as far as I know on Ramanathan and Coakley. -
Bern at 14:16 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
scaddenp: I don't know, I think I can make a fairly good prediction for the next few months. Right around here, it's going to get steadily cooler for about two months, then it's going to gradually stop cooling, and start warming up again. I rather suspect those living in the northern hemisphere (like our friend GC) will see the weather get a bit warmer over the next few months, then gradually start to cool. How do I know this? Because I have a model in my head about how the seasons work, based on a lot of personal experience, along with education about historical records that go back a very long time, and an understanding of the very large natural forcing factors that influence (regional) temperature on month-to-year timescales. Is that an accurate model? To some extent. Is it useful? Certainly! Even more so if you combine it with similar regional models of precipitation & sunshine. Farmers rely on such models every year when they plant their crops. Folks very much closer to the poles than I or GC might use it to tell them when to stock up on firewood, or check the furnace works, or similar such actions. I can't tell you what the temperature is going to be next Monday, though - you need a very different, far more sophisticated model for that. The weather bureau just happens to have one, though, and they're telling me it's going to be about the same max temperature as today, but with some showers around. Again, a useful model, with pretty good accuracy in the short term, and increasing uncertainty the further out you go. Kind of like the climate models, although on a different scale both temporally and spatially. gallopingcamel, have you read this post about Hansen's 1981 predictions? Looking at the 30 years of global temperature data prior to 1980, would you have made the same predictions that Hansen did back in 1980? I know I wouldn't have, without a lot of persuasion. Turns out his climate model was pretty much on the money, though. It's been more-or-less right for 30 years now, despite being orders of magnitude simpler than current climate models, and despite there being so much more discovered about how the climate works. So it's a useful model, certainly. (And the natural variability evident in the measured temperatures in that graph should educate you as to why asking for accurate predictions over any period less than 10-15 years is a fool's game) -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 25 May 2011CO2 effect is saturated
jonicol - instead making a post with your theories, perhaps you are better to put up your paper on arXiv.org in publication format so world can look at it. Post link here. Frankly any amount of non-physical rubbish has been published about influence of cycles etc. Let see the radiative physics first so we can see if there is a real physical basis first. -
scaddenp at 13:45 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
GC - he is predicting temperature trends - which in climate is 30 year basis. You might have noticed that models do that job well. -
jonicol at 13:44 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Tom Curtis. Thank you for pointing out to me this alternative thread which I will use in future, and soon. My last comment here would be to ask if you could let me have a list of the articles on the interactions of atmospheric carbon dioxide which you or others consider most important in leading the argument for considering the existence of a serious imbalance in an earlier state of thermal equilibrium and thus lead to climate change. If the bodies I referred to earlier are simply fobbing me off as you suggest may be the case, I would be grateful if you could help me in getting my request through to them for a sensible use in comparing their analysis with my own and those of other scientists who are questioning the role of carbon dioxide as indicated by the IPCC. -
jonicol at 13:34 PM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Scaddenp at 8:04 25/4. Thank you for your invitation to show you the "workings". I had earlier indicated here a much longer contribution with some scientific arguments, but it was, probably correctly, snipped fro being off topic. I am in the process of preparing both a general statement to explain the broad range of evidence which shows how other cyclical phenomena influence the climate from the regularly occuring ice ages to extremely warm holocenes in the past, the present and the future. I am also completing a paper for submission for publication. I will value your criticisms and perhaps we could establish an exchange forum where such in depth scientific debate could be used to exchange worthwhile ideas from both sides with criticisms focussed solely on the scientific arguments. If you are interested, pleasse let me know. I will also be putting material, very soon I hope, onto the thread suggested by Tom Curtis "the saturation of the Green house effect". In any case, I would value your help in trying to understand the fundamental case of carbon dioxides action in the atmosphere in terms of the modern physical analysis which must be available somewhere but which I have been unable to find or to be provided by people from the several Climate Science Units I have contacted over the last four or five years. I will look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. -
Mike Palin at 13:33 PM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
VOA @ 23- Hmm, you sure about funding of primary and secondary education from the state level? Might want to check those numbers again. It varies from state to state, but on average state governments put in 46%, local school districts another 37% and the difference comes from federal and private sources (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html). As a result, the resources available to local school districts can vary substantially even within a given city or county. -
Rob Painting at 13:26 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Phil Scadden - I'm drafting up a post on tornadoes & severe thunderstorms. The gist I get from many climate blogs, is that very few commenters have actually looked at the peer-reviewed literature. Modelling definitely indicates an increase in severe thunderstorm frequency. But as for tornadoes, which are spawned from severe thunderstorms, that's still very much up in the air (pun intentional). -
gallopingcamel at 13:23 PM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Kevin C, I used to hang out here frequently but the discussions are becoming less and less realistic. In your comment (#1 on this thread) you imply that future temperature trends can be predicted. If you can do this, please share your predictions. Can you predict temperature trends for the next few months? How about the next few years or the next few decades? Please submit your response in a graphical or spreadsheet format. -
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Also, I rather feel that there is a tendency to rush in and attribute these events to global warming because these are attention-grabbing, especially compared to the real effects where are slow and insidious, because there is a hope that maybe this will jolt people out of complacency and into action. However, there is also a large risk of losing credibility when going in ahead of the real science. Leave the exaggerations to the anti-science bunch. Activists of all persuasions somehow cant resist hyperbole and in doing so lose their credibility. -
scaddenp at 13:04 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
I would cautious about attributing any of this to global warming yet. Certain types of extreme weather are predicted by global warming but I thought the jury was still well and truly out on tornados and even tropical storms. What I dont see on that chart is much of a trend and its trends that would make me think that global warming is a factor. -
VOA at 12:39 PM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
ROBH @ 8 I don't even know where to start with your post. You "heard on Australian Public radio" about the status of the poor in America and now you are an expert!?!? Public education is funded on the state level, not by local authorities. Deficiencies in education typically result from rural areas where a majority of families do not place a value on education. And, are you implying that religion a bad thing? America's education system is not poor. My wife teaches in a rural community and I can assure you that everyone has heard of global warming and certainly know what CO2 is. Now if you want an essay on how many CARE about global warming, then you might have a story. -
Rob Painting at 12:35 PM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
Now I know that the tornado outbreaks are the consequence of natural influences and global warming, but they sure are off the charts!.
Be interesting to see how they measure up in the May 2011 round-up, given they are still hammering the US as I write.
-
Camburn at 10:56 AM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
And the PNW and the Upper Central Great Plains continue to be colddddddddddddddd. When that cold air hits warmer air.....watch out! WE need to get that pesky Greenland high to move. The AMO is making a switch it seems....and holding that high shoveling cold air south.Response:[DB] "The AMO is making a switch it seems"
Perhaps you mean the AO? The AMO is a 20-40 year oscillation; we have been in a warm phase since the mid-90s:
[Source]
The AO has been positive for several months now:
[Source]
It would reflect better on you to cite a source when venturing opinions on a science blog.
-
David Horton at 10:41 AM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
I have had a go at how we talk about extreme weather here http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/05/25/dont-mention-the-weather/. The statistics in the report above are staggering - "The 30-year-average for April tornadoes nationwide is 135. The monthly record was 542. The preliminary number of tornadoes reported in April 2011 is 875."Response:[DB] Hot-linked URL.
-
RW1 at 09:29 AM on 25 May 2011UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
John, Can I come to rebut what you say? :)Response: [JC] Yes, but you have to wait patiently till the question part of the talk (and if I see you in the audience with a notebook of tricky questions, I'll make sure my talk goes overtime :-) -
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike Palin may have a point, not because Journalists no longer have a valuable role to play, but because they are no longer willing to play their role. So long as the primary role of a journalist is seen as selling copy, rather than informing, they are an impediment to public understanding of any issue, not just global warming. -
John Hartz at 08:51 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
How the new online media landscape is changing the way the public gets its news is also another dimension about how climate science is communicated. This issue is thoroughly explored in the in-depth article, "Online media is replacing newspapers and TV. Is that a bad thing?" posted (May 13) on the Christian Science Monitor website. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0513/Online-media-is-replacing-newspapers-and-TV.-Is-that-a-bad-thingResponse:[DB] Hot-linked URL.
-
Mike Palin at 08:36 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Chris G @ 17- Perhaps, but is a science journalist going to solve this problem? Among other things, my colleagues and I teach geology to first year university students. Earth science is not taught in high schools, yet we do just fine. pbjamm @ 19- I have studied & worked at 8 colleges and universities and can assure you that they are home to many excellent communicators (as well as many not so gifted). I have also been interviewed by journalists - none have impressed me with their communication skills either during the interview or in the final product. I am confident there are many more excellent communicator scientists than there are science journalists. My basic point is that journalism in the traditional sense is dying as access to and distribution of information is changing. The time is right for scientists (and their professional associations) to take the opportunities this affords. Not all their efforts will succeed, but the best will make the old ways look lame. -
pbjamm at 08:06 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike Palin@16 Having worked at a university I can assure you that good communication skills are not a requirement for faculty positions. Someone with a good grasp of the science and the skill to make complex topics understandable and engaging is an invaluable asset. The world needs more Don Herberts. Prof Farnsworth: "Please, Fry! I don't know how to teach. I'm a professor!" -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol - if you wish us to accept that you have a better answer than the textbooks, with experimental evidence to back it, then I think it is time to show us your workings and your data. Such a landmark result, if true, should surely be published. -
Chris G at 07:59 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Mike, In a world where everyone understood basic physics, chemistry, statistics, etc., that would work. But, there is such a huge gulf between what the average person can understand and what seems trivial to someone who has spent a life as a researcher, that your suggestion simply won't work. Take the "AGW violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" meme; the average person has no idea what the 2nd law is, and some that do know what it is misunderstand it in a way that is almost beyond comprehension for someone at the researcher level of understanding. You can't expect researchers to cover the material from Stefan-Boltzmann to PV=nRT, etc., in every article they write. The information is out there and available, but you can only lead a horse to water, and sometimes they are unwilling to go that far. -
Marcus at 07:34 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Actually, I have to disagree with the "Wind is more expensive than coal" argument. Looking at figures from 2007, generation costs of On-shore wind were 5-8 cents/kw-h, whereas coal is around 6c/kw-h. Doesn't seem like a *huge* difference to me-at least not big enough to show up clearly on someone's electricity bill. -
Mike Palin at 07:31 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Who needs journalists anyway? They are redundant - remnants of a former age when the sources of information were scarce and the distribution networks centralised. If "science" journalism ever existed, which I doubt, it is rapidly dying. This provides the opportunity for scientists to clearly present the essence of their work directly to the public via the new decentralised distribution networks. Academic scientists are well suited for this because they deal with students on a day to day basis. -
Paul D at 06:31 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Yeah Dana, but that was the point I was making in previous comments, the jobs issue is a political one that satisfies the established political ideologies (right and left). The fact is, politicians are afraid of discussing anything outside the political ideologies that have established themselves during the industrial (fossil fueled) revolution. Bizarrely there is a crazy notion that without these ideologies, we will go backwards in thinking rather than develop something new. Yet before the industrial revolution, modern capitalism and communism didn't exist, you had other modes of governance and living. What the die hards need to understand (both left and right) is that a green revolution, will invoke political changes as well. The technology and the needs of communities will mould new ideologies or transform existing ones. That is already happening, it is inevitable IMO as climate change and environmental destruction continue. -
MattJ at 06:21 AM on 25 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
I am glad this issue points out the danger of 'fracking'. It has, after all, been far too easy for the industry to sweep the problems under the rug, taking advantage of the political climate to make a quick buck -- at great expense to our descendants. The fallacy they use to promote this folly is familiar, too. Of course, the industry response fits the pattern of dishonesty some of us have learned to expect from them, the dishonesty Darrell Huff described so brilliantly in "How to Lie with Statistics". What pattern is that? Why, exactly what industry spokesman Ingraffea did, casting doubt on the conclusion NOT because there is real room for doubt, but because it is inconvenient/embarrassing for the industry. And yes, this is the pattern: emphasize/repeat doubt when the conclusion is not favorable to you, explain it away, distract from the doubt when the conclusion IS favorablle to you. Duff provided a memorable example, the cashier who always claims an innocent mistake, but always makes the mistakes in his own favor. -
Paul D at 06:08 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
BTW Mr Cadbury@6, the article is about climate models, so I suggest that before the moderator starts deleting comments, you get back on subject.Response:[DB] Agreed. Jay is making an extrapolatory leap from 2+2=4 to calculus. Do not pass go, doesn't parse, that dog doesn't hunt, etc.
-
Paul D at 06:07 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
Mr Cadbury@6 Is conducting a massive global experiment to alter climate on top of an existing global climate experiment (AGW) wise? Considering that humanity usually gets things badly wrong with any experiment with nature, I don't think adding another one is appropriate. -
Chris G at 05:44 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Thanks, all. Sadly, it would seem that there is little money to be made in saving the planet. (Reading that bit about fossil fuel interests cowing CNN was disheartening. DSL, yeah, I guess Mel sells more copy than a town in the US Midwest, which happens to be near me. Who really cares about Mel's, or Tiger's escapades or how many kids Kate has. CNN let go all of it's science staff some time ago; I've lost interest in watching it since then.) Scientists get paid to do research, and reporters get paid to sell stories. IMHO, the reporters and the scientists are not at fault any more than industrial society at large. Poor education is a problem, but it always has been. That doesn't really matter; in the end, humans are not thinking creatures that feel, we are feeling creatures that think. Denial is a powerful psychological tool for dealing with difficult situations; it enables a soldier to charge into battle and in general, enables us to carry on with life when bad things happen around us. Collectively though, it is preventing action when action is needed. There is a minority of people with vision that can see the climate change catastrophe coming and do something about it, but my guess is that the majority just want to carry on with their lives. They won't buy news stories telling them things they don't want to hear until something bad happens to them personally. Unfortunately, by then, we will all be committed to worse. I don't know what can be done except to continue to talk to those that will listen, and try to relate the change to something that they care about. Honestly, I don't know that most people in industrialised nations care about polar bears or the millions in Bangladesh. Food supply and national security issues sometimes strike a cord. Something in our ancestry must predispose us to worry about food and security. :-/ -
dana1981 at 05:44 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
I disagree about jobs being a non-issue, because you have to get public support to make renewable energy investments happen on large scales. If the public thinks investments in these projects kills jobs, they will get much less support. If people realize it will modestly increase employment, they'll be much more likely to support it. If it were a non-issue, then guys like Carter wouldn't make this (wrong) argument to begin with. -
Eric the Red at 04:39 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
Badgersouth, I do not think the environmental movement has dropped anything with regards to global warming issues. Personally, I think the past two cold, snowy winters have made an impression. People are fickle, have short memories, and react instinctively. During the next major heat wave the issue will be front and center. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:57 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
This business about the aerosols, if what Hansen is saying is true and the cooling effect of aerosols is being underestimated, doesn't this prove that we can simply geo engineer our way out of the problem?Response:[DB] "...doesn't this prove that we can simply geo engineer our way out of the problem?"
Umm, nottasomucha. There is a logical disconnect in your thinking. Discussing hypotheticals and theoreticals based on not-yet-published works is pretty off topic for this thread "Can We Trust Climate Models?"
-
Paul D at 03:42 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
"A Climate Modelling Primer" by McGuffie and Henderson-Sellers is quite a good book on the subject. Goes through the historical development of climate models and covers some detail. Having said that, it is a bit over the top if you only want a basic understanding. -
Eric the Red at 03:36 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
I agree with Paul. Employment may rise as construction commences (per CB above), but is really a non-issue in the green scheme of things. -
John Hartz at 03:30 AM on 25 May 2011Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
There's another dimension to the issue -- the role of envornmental organizations in communicating the "urgency of now." This dimension is addressed head-on in "Americans Tuning Out Climate Change", a well-written and informative article by D.R. Tucker posted on FrumForum (May 22). "According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are less concerned about climate change than in the past. Has the environmental movement dropped the ball on keeping the issue in the public eye?" http://www.frumforum.com/americans-tuning-out-climate-change -
Paul D at 02:13 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Creating jobs is always going to be a short term vote winning issue and I don't know of any period in history where there has been stability in jobs for longer than a decade or a few decades. That is really short termism in the grand scale of things but is a plus point in votes if you can claim jobs are going to go up for a few years. Really jobs shouldn't be an issue, we all have to work and do our thing for the community in order to deserve a roof, heat and food. Whether renewables or fossil fuels are involved isn't important regarding basic duties and work. People are generally resourceful over long time scales, so despite short term losses in employment, always find other work to occupy themselves given the right positive attitude and more importantly education. Hence the real issue is climate and the environment, what impact renewables or fossil fuels have on that. Clearly renewables are designed to environmentally sustainable as much as is possible and are being improved continuously. -
dana1981 at 02:05 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
That model evolution figure is very cool. I hadn't seen that before. -
michael sweet at 01:58 AM on 25 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
It is also important to remember that models can underestimate problems as well as overstate the case. In the reverence you cited they state in the abstract that sea level rise has been faster than estimated in 2000. The sea ice in the Arctic is also melting much faster than expected. Does anyone have similar examples where change is happening slower than expected? -
Tom Curtis at 01:45 AM on 25 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
jonicol @42, I am not going to wander of topic so far as to debunk kinninmonth's various presentations, nor your argument here. I will, however, suggest that you present your argument on the thread about the saturation of the Green house effect where it is probably on topic. Take care to read the advanced version of the article and relate your discussion to that article. I suspect that if you just post a screed again without relating it to the appropriate article it will once again (and rightly) be considered off topic. When you relate your argument to the article, please take care to explain why your result is so different from that obtained by Line by Line models using exactly the same physical laws that you appeal to. Also explain why we should accept your approximate calculation based on energy transfers at just two levels of the atmosphere over detailed calculations over multiple levels of the atmosphere that ensure conservation of energy between each level, and account for all energy transfers between levels. I find your claims about Australian climatologists frankly incredible (ie, unable to be believed). I believe you have either misunderstood their communication with you, misrepresented it, or have simply been fobbed of. -
Berényi Péter at 01:37 AM on 25 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
#131 Ken Lambert at 23:41 PM on 24 May, 2011 Squirting heat from vents driectly into bottom water and conduction from a warm immersed bottom would be much more efficent heat transfer mechanisms than radiant heating of the surface. Yes, its role is discribed by the following paper in some detail. Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, 2001, 106, (C12), 31141-31154. doi:10.1029/2000JC000532 Geothermal Heating and its Influence on the Meridional Overturning Circulation Jeffery R. Scott, Jochem Marotzke & Alistair Adcroft Anyway, the upshot is that in order to keep MOC moving, heat has to get into the abyss by whatever means, including geothermal flux at the bottom and deep turbulent mixing at boundaries driven either by wind stress or tidal forces. However, the net heat storage resulting from this flow is very small, because there is a feedback loop that readily removes (or resupplies) most of this heat again by feeding in just the necessary amount of very cold polar water. Journal of Climate, 2011 ISSN 0894-8755. On the linkage between Antarctic surface-water stratification and global deepwater temperature Ralph F. Keeling & Martin Visbeck This loop is not controlled by average surface temperature, but by the coldest surface water temperatures available, which in turn are fully determined by physical properties of water/ice (at least as long as there is sea ice anywhere on the globe). The bulk of oceans is a polar thing, even in the tropics, warmth is only a thin top layer. Average temperature of seawater is close to 3°C while about 57% of it is below 2°C. This is how we know we are still in an ice age. In the good old days when there was no sea ice, deep water temperatures exceeded 20°C (as it is the case with present day Red Sea).
Prev 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 Next
