Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 Next
Comments 87551 to 87600:
-
michael sweet at 23:33 PM on 25 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Harry, When I checked the NCDC Climate Monitoring Page I do not see mention of extraordinary cold in Texas last winter. Muoncounter at 56 provided data to show your claim of extra rain from Hurricane Alex is false. This leaves the drought which has been long predicted by climate scientists for this area of the USA. The NCDC mentions the drought a lot. You have not linked any sources to support your claim that rain and cold contributed to the Texas wildfires. Can you provide links to support your assertion of a greater cause than the drought? Since scientists have predicted AGW caused drought for Texas and the primary cause of the wildfires is drought, it seems to me that AGW is the prime suspect in the cause of the fires. As you point out, area wise these fires are historic in size, and they are not out yet. We have to wait to see what the final toll is. Often evidence is not 100% linked to the cause. We need to look at the most likely explainations and not expect absolute proof. As the list of items becomes longer and longer that must be explained it becomes more and more certain that AGW is linked to these occurances. There is no proof that the last three years of flooding on the Red River in North Dakota is caused by AGW, but how likely is two consecutive 100 year floods after a 50 year flood? This has to be assessed with the 1:1000 year floods in Pakistan and 1:1000 year heat in Russia in mind. It has become too frequent for normal chance. There has not yet been enough time for scientists to peer review analysis showing last years (or this years) problems are linked to AGW, but that does not mean they are not linked. We will have to wait for the analysis to be published. -
Alexandre at 22:23 PM on 25 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
I understood this is just the first of a series. Does anyone know when's the next to come? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:58 PM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
Alexandre, thanks for the clarification. My view is also that 20th century warming cannot be attributed to GCR. GCR affects the weather in the short run which may result in cooling or warming locally (since cloud modulation effects depend on the location). I don't think it's a very strong effect relative to direct forcings like GHG, especially looking at it globally. -
jyyh at 21:54 PM on 25 April 2011Wakening the Kraken
I'm sorry hack Tennysons' poem, but this is supposed to be a science site: Below the thunders of the upper deep; :refers to the location of clathrates, usually a bit lower than the deeps of continental shelf, in Siberia however clathrates can form in shallower locations, but Tennyson doesn't know this Far far beneath in the abysmal sea, :again referring to the deepness of the layers, in 1830 there weren't to many deep sea explorations, maybe Tennyson was on a ship that did that? His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep :personifying the clathrates, there's been at least 55 million since the last global clathrate gun reaction. The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee :Maybe the ship Tennyson was in tried to measure the continental drop by dropping some light emitting stuff in the ocean. About his shadowy sides; above him swell Huge sponges of millennial growth and height; :probably refers to the algae present on these locations that can be quite large, though they're not millennial creatures. And far away into the sickly light, From many a wondrous grot and secret cell :this sounds more like some reef Unnumber'd and enormous polypi :that still has corals and stuff like Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green. :ocean fans, 'slumbering green' - ocean, Tennyson gets poetic ;-) There hath he lain for ages, and will lie :Back to 'Kraken' alias a singular methane clathratre deposit on the continental drop of Western Atlantic Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep, :maybe they found some hagfish on the location? Until the latter fire shall heat the deep; :the reaction in the local deposit when their flaring probe hit the bottom. Then once by man and angels to be seen, :it must be quite an experinece to see a methane blow-out nearby. In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die. :the local deposit wasn't a big one and was triggered by the flare, not a current. -
CBDunkerson at 21:51 PM on 25 April 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
RyanStarr, it should be self-evident that ice trends would only follow temperature trends between the time that the temperature was sufficient to cause ice melt and when it was sufficient to have melted ALL the ice. Thus, your insistence that the 'failure' of the Antarctic ice trend to follow the temperature trend over the past 100 years is significant would only be logical if Antarctic ice were melting that entire time... which it wasn't. As to: "the anomaly today sits where it started 12 years ago, yes mostly steady" By that reasoning we would be forced to conclude from a 55 degree day in February and a 55 degree day in May that the temperature had been "mostly steady" over the intervening three months. Any rational person should know better. -
CBDunkerson at 21:23 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
novandilcosid, I note again that you are not really arguing that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated... you are arguing that it does not exist at all. Yet you have refused to respond to the obvious questions that raises: 1: Why do Spencer, Christy, Pielke 1&2, and every other 'skeptic' scientist (not to mention all mainstream scientists and all physics texts on the subject) claim that CO2 DOES cause the planet to be significantly warmer than it would be without? 2: If CO2 and other atmospheric gases can only slightly decrease the amount of radiation reaching the surface and thus cause slight cooling as you claim, then why is the Earth more than 30 C warmer than could be explained by sunlight hitting an airless rock at this distance from the Sun? You stand at odds with nearly two centuries of scientific understanding. How do you explain that? You argue that energy in must equal energy out (though this isn't true when a system is not in balance), but ignore the fact that this says nothing about the actually relevant issue of energy within the system. Consider a house (or planet Earth) which is receiving a fairly constant influx of energy from a furnace (or the Sun). Once equilibrium is reached the energy leaving must be equal to the energy entering... but the amount of energy within the system can be very different depending on how much insulation (or greenhouse gases) it has. One constant energy source... constant energy emission from the system... but DIFFERENT amounts of energy within the system and therefor different temperatures. Ergo all your arguments about energy in and energy out are irrelevant. The question at hand is energy within the system. -
Alexandre at 21:04 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
novandilcosid at 15:19 PM on 25 April, 2011 David Archer (Univ. Chicago) made available online an older version of Modtran. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but you may find it a helpful tool to play around with that kind of hypothesis. -
Alexandre at 20:31 PM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
Eric #20 I also accept that GCR can have some effect on climate. Richard Alley himself seemed to accept that possibility in the lecture I mentioned above. But regarding the present warming, there are many lines of evidence today pointing to GHG, and scarce evidence (If any) pointing to GCR, whatever effect the latter proves to have in the future. I'm not saying you claim otherwise, I just wanted to state my bottomline clearly. -
Tom Curtis at 20:19 PM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Ken Lambert @119 says:"What you and Tom are missing all through this thread is that angles of incidence above 40 degrees (where you claim albedo drop off becomes significant) only occur at midday below a latitude of 73 deg N (ie; 23 +/-17) on one day of the year.
What you have been obtusely ignoring, Ken, is that the albedo effect on which you rely is far smaller than you seem to think. Specifically, the average albedo on smooth water over the full day of 21st May at 75 degrees North is only 0.328 compared to the 0.9 albedo of snow covered ice. That average is conservative in that it is calculated using the lowest angle above the horizon for each half hour period of the day. Further, on wavy water, as for example, the sea, the albedo is significantly less than that. This is because light striking a facing slope of the wave will strike at a much smaller effective angle of incidence (ie, closer to perpendicular to the water face) and hence have a much reduced reflectivity. Light striking the opposite slope will be reflected at a shallow angle, and have a high probability of striking the facing slope of the next wave, and hence being absorbed. Treating the ocean as a non-wavy surface probably overstates the albedo by 40%. What is more, the period of highest albedo is also the period of lowest incidence of light. That is a very substantial effect. If we take the average of the albedo using my conservative estimate only over the 15 hours in which the sun is highest in the sky, the mean albedo falls to 0.17, or 0.73 less than the case of snow covered ice. This is particularly significant in my model in that it is so conservative as to estimate no sunlight in the other nine hours of the day, even with the sun still being in the sky. What has been most striking about your behaviour in this discussion is that you regularly insist a particular effect is substantial while making no attempt to actually calculate it. And when it is calculated, and your point is shown thereby to be without substance, you quibble about minor points while accepting gross biases in the calculation in your favour without any qualm. For instance, you quibble about Sphaerica (and my) admitted error about the angle of incidence which results in a change in average albedo of just 0.3, and hence overestimates incoming energy flux by 50% at most. In the meantime you happily accept all the biases I introduced into my calculations in your favour without qualm, even though they probably underestimate the incoming energy flux by a factor of 3.85 or more. And in the meantime you pester after a statement of how my calculations where achieved (which has already been given in more than sufficient detail) because you cannot refute and find your position refuted by them. -
Ken Lambert at 18:24 PM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #118 OK, take me through the calculation showing all the terms you used to get the 1.51 x 10^21 Joules at #73. -
Ken Lambert at 18:11 PM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Sphaerica #102 This is bizarre. I must be in a parallel universe. You are claiming the exact opposite of what actually happened: Viz: "As far as yot opposite of your angle of incidence claims, anyone here can go back and read the thread. I already corrected you several times on that. You are focused on the exact spot of the north pole, when the area of interest is that entire area from about 50˚N and up." The area of interest is the Arctic. 66 degN and up. Tom's area of interest was the edge of the Arctic sea ice at 75 degN and up. I had to direct Tom to a calculator so he could correct his erroneous angle of incidence claims as well. The Earth still turns once every 24 hours - even up in the 'tropical' summer Arctic. At 75 degrees N the summer angle of incidence will be 23 +/-15 degrees on July 23. At 66 deg N it will be 23 +/-23 degrees on July 23. (The Arctic circle where it is 0 degrees at midnight on one day of the yesr) At 50 deg N it will be 23 +/- 40 degrees on July 23. When the angle goes negative Sphaerica - it is dark - nighttime. Lots of IR goes out to space at night. So it is simply wrong to claim that I am only focussing on the exact spot of the North Pole. What you and Tom are missing all through this thread is that angles of incidence above 40 degrees (where you claim albedo drop off becomes significant) only occur at midday below a latitude of 73 deg N (ie; 23 +/-17) on one day of the year. -
Tom Curtis at 18:01 PM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
KL @117, I again refer you to my posts 73 and 88. I showed how I obtained the figures in 54 in 54, but I see no point in reviewing figures for which I have obtained a more accurate result. -
Ken Lambert at 17:33 PM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #109 Show me how you got to 2.2E21 Joules in your original calculation at #54? -
les at 17:11 PM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
152 Ryan I did not respond directly to your question because it had nothing to do with the issue of whether graphs should be perfectly self interpreting. simple. Had you wanted to you could have inferred from my input, my answer; if the method section of a paper does not properly describe the techniques and data used, which may or may not be shown in a pretty picture, the paper is at fault. The reason I emphasise this - and fir my input on this subject a few times, is that a lot of people seem to think the work all about looking at graphs. This is because that is how a lot of scientists illustrate their story (which is fine); but the real story is in the words and equations nit the illustrations. -
novandilcosid at 15:19 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
In response to my question "Does anyone have a figure for the decrease in Surface Energy passing through the window due to a doubling of CO2 and assuming no temperature change at the surface?" DB wrote: " Your final assumption is flawed so your question is meaningless" The whole of this thread is about how much the window closes (note: not about the export to space but about the absorption of radiation). I'll ask the question a different way: "What is the percentage change in the proportion of surface radiation absorbed by CO2 for a doubling of CO2?"Response:[DB] As the OP shows, the whole of this thread is about:
"If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated."
-
Tom Curtis at 15:17 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
novandilcosid @110, your post to which I responded asked both about the change in transmittance (aborption of surface radiation), and the change in atmospheric emissions at the top of the atmosphere. This first was shown clearly in post 82. The combined effect was clearly shown in my first figure @108. You dismiss that because that highly relevant data was not in the exact format your required to impose your spin. You at the same time simply ignore the impirical data that refutes your thesis. Well, your game is now very clear, and it is not honest inquiry. If you ever want to try that, run a full Line By Line calculation of the emissions spectrum (as has been done by the people whose results you simply dismiss), and then if you come up with an interesting result, try again. In the mean time, I am not interested in pretending the partial calculation of a result on the back of an envelope can in any way refute the full calculation of the result with computers using a variety of methods, all coming up with essentially the same result. -
novandilcosid at 15:13 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
DB reponded to my post at #109 with "Except that the energy balance at the TOA is not balanced; thefore the planet is not in equilibria in its energy budget. Your argument therefore fails this initial test." He is sort of correct: on short timescales and at particular locations, the planet is not in equilibrium with Space. The energy balance changes from positive to negative all the time. But INTEGRATED on long timescales that balance has to be stable. Otherwise the planet will change to make it so. For example over the last 10 years the planetary average temperature has not changed. So the integration of energy input/output will be balanced or nearly so. That's what the Kiehl & Trenberth diagram used by the IPCC in 2007 says. (or are we saying that the IPCC was wrong to use that diagram?) I fail to see therefore why my innocous observation that there is no change in surface energy into the atmosphere is invalidated.Response:[DB]
"But INTEGRATED on long timescales that balance has to be stable. Otherwise the planet will change to make it so."
On very long timescales, it is in balance. Right now, due to the forcing from CO2, it is not. So the planet is seeking to regain that balance by raising the tropospheric temperatures as well as sequestering heat/energy into the oceans. This is very basic, PRATT stuff.
"For example over the last 10 years the planetary average temperature has not changed."
Incorrect. This fails on multiple levels:
- The global temperature record shows the most recent 10 year period as the hottest in the instrumental record.
- Selecting a short 10 year period is cherry-picking, as that period is typically too short to carry statistical significance. However, allowing for exogenous factors, the planet has shown statistically significant warming since 2000.
I fail to see, therefore, why you cannot see your position is invalidated from the initial premise.
-
novandilcosid at 15:04 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis posted at #108: "The result in zero net change in the OLR." Working again on the model of a planet where energy flows are integrated over the surface for a year, then averaged, and assuming the planet is in energy equilibrium with Space, we can write: Sunlight hittng the planet = reflections + sunlight absorbed then reradiated. or, put another way, Sunlight hitting the planet = Outgoing Shortwave Radiation (=reflections) + Outgoing Long Wave Radiation (sunlight absorbed and reradiated) It is clear from this that OLR varies only if the Earth's albedo changes. It is sometimes claimed that the warming effect of GHGs must mean OLR is increasing or perhaps decreasing. But not in an equilibrium planet with no change in cloud or ice cover. -
Tom Curtis at 14:53 PM on 25 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Harry Seaward @61, I gather that the terms "environmental refugees" and "climate refugees" are not differentiated in the literature, which I believe is bad practice. Of the 36 million environmentally displaced persons due to sudden onset catastrophes in 2008, 20 million where displaced by climatological effects, and of course the unknown number displaced by slow onset catastrophes (droughts, soil salinity) are primarily are all displaced by climatological effects. That suggests at least 5 million more displaced because of climatological effects than would have been displaced without climate change. As an upper limit, as many as 14 million more people may have been displaced as a result of climate change in 2008 than would other wise been displaced. However those figures are just guesses based on approximate ratios only. Nobody, SFAIK, has published anything like a secure estimate. The number displaced that would not have been displaced without climate change is likely to have been much larger in 2010. I do not have even the insecure figures for 2010 that I have for 2008, but the total number effected by natural disasters is comparable (208 million in 2010 compared to 214 million in 2008), and the largest disaster in terms of number effected was a flood in 2010 (134 million effected) while the largest disaster in 2008 was an earthquake, also in China (15 million displaced). Therefore a much higher proportion of those displaced in 2010 were displaced by climatological effects, and consequently more of those displaced are likely to have been impacted by global warming. (The additional data for 2010 is from the Brookings Institution/ London School of Economics report on environmental displacement in 2010, which give figures for those effected, but unfortunately, not for those displaced.) To summarize, the information we have strongly suggests that people are being displaced in large number by the effects of climate change already; but they are not secure enough to quantify how large an effect that is with any sort of accuracy. -
novandilcosid at 14:53 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis posted at #108: "novandilcosid @99 asks, ""[H]ow much additional surface energy is absorbed outside the saturated 625-725 band, ie by how much does the window close, in W/m^2?" The following chart from SOD shows the change in net forcing from a doubling of CO2... I note in passing that increased Radiative Forcing (=energy inbalance at the Tropopause) is entirely different to increased absorption of Surface Energy, so that Tom's entire post is a confusing non-response to the question. Does anyone have a figure for the decrease in Surface Energy passing through the window due to a doubling of CO2 and assuming no temperature change at the surface?Moderator Response: (DB) Your final assumption is flawed so your question is meaningless. -
novandilcosid at 14:47 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis responded at 107 to my very clear post at #104 in which I said: "Solar_Radiation_Absorbed_into_the_Surface = Surface_Energy_Absorbed _into_the_Atmosphere + Surface _Energy_Radiated_through_the_Window_to_Space The LHS of this equation is only affected by the solar constant, atmospheric absorption of sunlight, and planetary albedo. [It does not contain Back_Radiation, that is within the first term of the RHS.] The LHS is nearly constant. If CO2 is doubled we expect a REDUCTION of about 1W/m^2 due to increased atmospheric absorption of sunlight. On the RHS, if CO2 is doubled, there will be a decrease of Surface Energy escaping to space through the window. How much is unknown by me (it is the subject of this thread, but there does not seem to be a number being cited) but I would expect it is of similar magnitude to the change in the LHS - a DECREASE of about 1W/m^2. IF that is the case then the third term, Surface_Energy_Absorbed _into_the_Atmosphere is a constant. This term contains evaporation, conduction and net radiation, all of which are the varying quantities which Tom has identified. I make no comment on the veracity of his claims at this point, merely restating that this term must be nearly constant." Tom said: "unless you can provide a clear and succinct statement of your thesis and it relevance, I will consider it of topic and not worth the energy." I am somewhat at a loss as to how to proceed. My post is very clear, and no error has as yet been demonstrated, Tom's previous efforts having been irrelevant to the discussion as they did not address the clear statements made. For the record: 1. All the solar energy absorbed into the surface must be exported from the surface. 2. There are only two places that energy can go, either into the atmosphere or out into space. 3. The solar input is nearly constant (there is a small reduction if CO2 is increased) and we expect a small reduction in the export to space (the window slightly tightens). 4. That means that the export of energy from the surface into the atmosphere is nearly constant regardless of temperatures and CO2 concentrations There are a couple of things to note: 5. The above assumes integration over the whole surface for one year then averaging. It also assumes a planet in equilibrium with Space. 6. A constant energy flow from the surface into the atmosphere means a constant lapse rate. The lapse rate does not change with more evaporation, because any increase in evaporation is offset by decreases in energy flows from net radiation/conduction. 7. It is untrue to say that increasing CO2 increases the amount of surface energy trapped by the atmosphere. That energy entrapment is essentially constant.Moderator Response: (DB) Except that the energy balance at the TOA is not balanced; thefore the planet is not in equilibria in its energy budget. Your argument therefore fails this initial test. -
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Ryan Star @147 both fails to interpret the graph @146 and presents a graph he declares to be self interpreting. To start with, the graph does not tell us which "Mornington" it provides figures for. It is produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, so I shall restrict myself to Australian Morningtons. So is it from Western Australia, Tasmania, Mount Isa, Queensland, Victoria (and if so, is it figures for the Peninsular or the town?), or is it in fact for the Island. As a Queenslander (and indeed originally a north west queenslander, the Island came first to mind, with the peninsular as a close second. But I did not know while I wrote the preceding paragraph which was referred to. Checking the station number, however, I find out that it is Mornington, the town in Victoria that is referred to. Note that this checking of additional data is exactly equivalent to what is required to properly interpret the WMO graph, and which Ryan insists should not be needed. Proceeding on, the graph shows mean rainfall for given months. But is that mean daily rainfall in each month for a given year? Or is it the mean total rainfall in each month over a number of years? Well, I know a little about Victoria's weather, so I'll guess the second - but to do that I need to call on extraneous information to do so. The graph does not self interpret. Shown a similar graph for Alice Springs (for example) but without the location data, I would not be able make the judgement as to whether it was arid monthly totals, or temperate daily means for a given month. Checking the http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086079.shtml I can determine that my hunch was right. It was the mean monthly totals over a number of years. But that is not a given from the graph. It is only additional information that allows me to make that interpretation. Finally, over what period is it the mean? Is it over the most recent 30 years? From the establishment of the station? And if so, when was that? As it happens, I now know that it was from 1868 to 2011. But I only know that with certainty because the BOM site from which the graph was obtained draws the graph differently for other options:There are still other issues left uninterpreted here. Was the weather station always at the same location? If not, where the data adjusted to compensate for the change in station location, and if so how? Where there any issues with the station site such as overhanging branches or eaves which might have distorted the data? How frequently was the data recorded (daily, every few days, weekly), and was that consistently done? All these are relevant issues to interpreting the graph which the graph does not inform us of. So, and very clearly, the graph does not self interpret. It isn't a graph on a controversial issue so Ryan does not notice that, but it remains true. Indeed to properly interpret the graph I needed to do the same amount of sleuthing as I needed to do to interpret the WMO graph. Despite that equivalence, Ryan accuses Jones of wrongdoing, and considers the BOM graph self interpreting.
-
Harry Seaward at 13:32 PM on 25 April 2011A Convention for Persons Displaced by Climate Change
Thanks for your reply, Tom Curtis. That is an impressive bit of data analysis and compilation there! Can someone differentiate between climate refugees and environmental refugees? Also, assuming the numbers Tom C. has graciously provided are correct, what percentage of those can be attributed to AGW? -
Tom Curtis at 12:54 PM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
novandilcosid @99 asks, ""[H]ow much additional surface energy is absorbed outside the saturated 625-725 band, ie by how much does the window close, in W/m^2? The following chart from SOD shows the change in net forcing from a doubling of CO2:
The total forcing for such a doubling is, of course, 3.7 W/m^2, with the vast majority of that being in the wings. You will notice that this is the forcing at 200mb, ie the tropopause (as also for the graphs of transmitance and change in transmitance at @86 and 82 respectively.
novan will of course point to the influence of the stratosphere, but that is greatly exaggerated by him, and for two reasons. First, to a reasonable approximation the energy in the stratosphere comes from UV radiation absorbed by ozone. Increasing the CO2 concentration does not increase that energy. Rather, it cools the stratosphere by radiating away that energy more efficiently. The result is a slight increase of radiation in the primary band of CO2 emissivity, but a reduction in the IR radiation by ozone (the other main gas that radiates energy away from the stratosphere). The result in zero net change in the OLR.
The second effect relates to the exchange of IR energy between the top of the troposphere and the stratosphere. Increased CO2 concentration reduces IR radiation from the troposphere to the stratosphere, further cooling the stratosphere (although how strong this effect is a matter of debate). But the increased proportion of stratospheric energy radiated by CO2 means there is an increase in energy radiated from the stratosphere to the troposphere by CO2. This, however is again balanced by a reduction in the IR radiation emitted by ozone to the surface.
In Line by Line and energy balance models, these effects are taken into account in determining the forcing at the tropopause. Radiative forcing is, after all, "The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values."
Consequently the above graph of change in radiative forcing at 200 mb includes the effects of the changes in the stratosphere.
Of course, novan may well dispute this, so the best thing to do is to got to empirical data. Novan's thesis is that the net effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is to increase radiation to space from CO2, thus cooling the Earth. (See 81 and 89 above). The following are graphs of the change in IR radiation (measured as brightness temperatures) between 1970 and 1997. Figure b top shows the change in the tropical Pacific (between 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south); while figure b bottom shows the "near global" changes (between 60 north and 60 south). The middle shows the tropical case as predicted by a model.
The first think to notice is that in the CO2 emission wavelengths, the emissions are either reduced or barely increased in the tropical observations; and that for the "near global" observations and the simulation they are reduced. The second thing to notice is that the net radiation to space has increased in the tropical case (and possibly also, but slightly, in the "near global" case. This indicates an overall increase in temperature of the Earth/atmosphere system in 1997 relative to 1970 which is anomalously large compared to that expected by the GHE alone. The obvious reason for this is the 1997/1998 El Nino which commenced in April of 1997 (the data is for the April-June period).
The obvious thing to do is to remove the temperature effects from the record. Doing so reveals graph C in the figure (and figure 1 in the article above) which shows a clear reduction radiation in the CO2 band. Thus novan's thesis is clearly refuted by the observational data.
-
RyanStarr at 12:38 PM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Les what is the non sequitur nil point? John Cook writes that Mr Jones "has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph." I ask, do you agree? Why is it so hard getting straight answers (or any answer) to straight questions around here?Moderator Response: [DB] The specific text from the original post does NOT say that Jones was being criticized, but rather: "This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph." (emphasis added) Perhaps the lack of clarity and the holiday weekend have a lot to do with the lack of response. -
RyanStarr at 12:22 PM on 25 April 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
No that isn't the entire basis of the argument DSL, far from it. The point is the article attempts to draw climatic trends from periods of under 10 years. Do you think this is an adequate length of time DSL? If we take the claims of the article as truth and extrapolate back over the past century of warming do we obtain a result which is backed up by real world observation for that period? ("mostly steady", the anomaly today sits where it started 12 years ago, yes mostly steady) -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:52 AM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
I don't have a scientific paper showing why that particular upward excursion did not cause "even more cooling" during an ice age, but more low clouds in an ice age may not be as cooling as more low clouds in temperate period. For one thing with less moisture in the ice age, there is less of an increase in the water cycle and thus less cooling effect than in interglacials. But I also know that GCR are not always a well correlated factor with climate despite the papers I previously linked. Their effect is highly nonlinear and can be coincident with other solar effects that may be the cause that GCR might get credit for. The geomagnetic excursions that you point out are often terrestrial and thus remove the other solar factors from consideration. That would support more climate effect from solar factors other than the solar modulation of GCR. But that doesn't mean that GCR have no effect, just not a monotonic effect like a solar or GHG forcing. -
Tom Curtis at 11:42 AM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
novandilcosid @104, I am dropping the debate about the relation between evaporative energy transfers and net radiation. It is too time consuming, and so far as I can tell almost irrelevant to this topic. Indeed the only relevance I can see to global warming is that if your theory were true, the Green House Effect would be stronger than it is currently predicted to be. That is because if the energy flow to the atmosphere were constant with temperature, the energy flow from the atmosphere to space must also be constant with constant insolation regardless of surface temperature. Therefore any adjustment to reduced outgoing radiation due to green house gases must be entirely compensated for by changes in surface temperature, rather than partly compensated for by increased atmospheric temperatures as currently believed. So, unless you can provide a clear and succinct statement of your thesis and it relevance, I will consider it of topic and not worth the energy.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed closing bold tag. -
Tom Curtis at 10:57 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
More usefully, the average annual temperature anomaly between the 80's and the 2000's for the area from 67 degrees north to the pole is 1.2832875654 degrees C. The formula the (sum of temperature times area for each latitude band) divided by the area of the entire spherical cap, with areas for latitude bands and spherical cap determined by the formula given by Sphaerica @115, using a radius for the Earth of 6371 km. As the Earth is an oblate spheroid, that will have introduced some error, but inconsequential for our purposes.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed equation result. -
muoncounter at 10:55 AM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
Eric#18: "a cloud modulation factor in the middle of a cold dry ice age." Ice ages aren't quite that monolithic. For ice sheets to grow, it must snow and thus there must be clouds. The figure Alexandre posts in #17 shows a large GCR change, on the scale of 1000 years during a geomagnetic excursion. There is no corresponding climate change in the oxygen isotope graph. -
novandilcosid at 10:47 AM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis also wrote @#103: " it also make debate with you pointless and uninteresting. I will merely note that keeping your discussion factual seems a low priority to you." I expect that Tom would like to withdraw this remark. I hope that my two previous posts have in fact answered his criticisms in detail. If not, perhaps he would be so kind as to point out where not. -
novandilcosid at 10:36 AM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis wrote @#103 above: "Further, you indicate that both constant RHS with a 2.5% increase in evaporation per degree C and a decreasing RHS with a 5% increase in evaporation per degree C are reasonable suppositions. However, both suggest decreases in the value of the non evaporative terms on the RHS, and the second suggests a much larger decrease." Tom is correct. The terms within the term "Surface_Energy_Absorbed _into_the_Atmosphere" are Net_Radiation, Evaporation and Conduction. It is known that evaporation INCREASES with temperature. All authorities agree on that. What is not known is by how much. Is it 2.5% (models), 5% (measurement), or 6.5% (Clausius-Clapeyron, assuming constant RH ) per DegC? It is also known that Net_Radiation INCREASES with temperature. But it DECREASES with increased CO2 concentration (back radiation increases slightly as the average altitude from which CO2 earth-bound photons are emitted drops. This level is lower therefore warmer, so there is aqn increase in intensity.) -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:35 AM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
#17, I would not expect much of an effect from a cloud modulation factor in the middle of a cold dry ice age. We would not expect the climate to get colder from an increase in cosmic rays since the hypothesized cooling mechanism relies on water vapor. OTOH, there is a bit of cosmic ray to climate correlation over the MWP to LIA http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/Usoskin_etal_JGR_2005.pdf but more on a 100's of millions of years timescale: http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf -
novandilcosid at 10:24 AM on 25 April 2011CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Curtis wrote @103 above: "in 97 I identified several factors on the RHS of the equation that result in changes in value on the LHS, specifically, in changes to the back radiation." I think Tom is referring to a different equation to the one I have been using to establish that the Surface Energy absorbed by the atmosphere is nearly a constant, regardless of CO2 concentration or temperature. Naturally this would cause differences of opinion to arise! I have ignored Tom's interesting observations simply because they are not relevant to the case - they amount to identifying variations in terms on the RHS of the equation, and these variations do not affect the hypothesis. The equation I have been using is: Solar_Radiation_Absorbed_into_the_Surface = Surface_Energy_Absorbed _into_the_Atmosphere + Surface _Energy_Radiated_through_the_Window_to_Space The LHS of this equation is only affected by the solar constant, atmospheric absorption of sunlight, and planetary albedo. [It does not contain Back_Radiation, that is within the first term of the RHS.] The LHS is nearly constant. If CO2 is doubled we expect a REDUCTION of about 1W/m^2 due to increased atmospheric absorption of sunlight. On the RHS, if CO2 is doubled, there will be a decrease of Surface Energy escaping to space through the window. How much is unknown by me (it is the subject of this thread, but there does not seem to be a number being cited) but I would expect it is of similar magnitude to the change in the LHS - a DECREASE of about 1W/m^2. IF that is the case then the third term, Surface_Energy_Absorbed _into_the_Atmosphere is a constant. This term contains evaporation, conduction and net radiation, all of which are the varying quantities which Tom has identified. I make no comment on the veracity of his claims at this point, merely restating that this term must be nearly constant. Tom writes: "You chose to ignore that facts I have raised, and simply re-assert your position." I agree. I have ignored his points (this is not to say I don't find them interesting), as I believe them to be irrelevant to the point I have been making. The Surface Energy absorbed by the atmosphere is nearly constant, regardless of surface temperature or atmospheric CO2 content. The degree of saturation is central to this assertion. -
Alexandre at 09:04 AM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
There's this graph Richard Alley uses in his "Biggest Knob" lecture showing a great excursion of cosmic rays during the Laschamp Event, and no visible corresponding variation of temperature. From Muscheler et al. 2005 "Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be and 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C"
I think it's quite a striking image, and it illustrates the amplitude limitations of this possible cosmic ray influence.
-
Andy Skuce at 08:18 AM on 25 April 2011Wakening the Kraken
There's a useful article on the global warming potential (GWP) of methane relative to the same mass of CO2 here. Below is a figure from that article showing the decline in GWP plotted against the time since emission.
-
DSL at 06:58 AM on 25 April 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Doesn't work, Ryan. You need to look at ocean temps as well when discussing polar changes. The entire basis of your argument is wrong, so this is addressing your main point. That's a pretty big jump from the Spencer-interpreted UAH LT "mostly steady" (not really) to "the climate isn't changing." There is overwhelming (as in too many studies to keep track of) evidence that the climate is changing rapidly, whatever the cause. The Arctic sea ice anomaly is nose-diving, and the global glacier mass balance is diving even more sharply. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:40 AM on 25 April 2011Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
The CR hypothesis is so tenuous as to be irrelevant. There is no known physical process that can lead the ionized particles to the size necessary to act as condensation nuclei. The CERN experiment has yet to deliver anything useful. The so-called correlation with Forbush events seen by Svensmark over the Pacific included several days of delay, during which air masses move and all sorts of other things can happen. The CR thing literally amounts to grasping at straws. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
114, RW1,...how do we get the surface area weighted averages?
I believe the equation for the surface area between two latitudes is2πr2 [ (1 - sin(L1) - (1 - sin(L2) ]
wherer = radius of the Earth L1 = the lower latitude (closer to the equator) L2 = the higher latitude (further from the equator)
-
JMurphy at 04:34 AM on 25 April 2011Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming
rhjames, to provide your evidence of how the IPCC "deliberately misrepresented scientific evidence", please choose one of the IPCC-related threads here, here, here, or here. Don't forget to read the headline post and all comments, just in case you repeat something which has already been discussed. After having done that, if you still feel confident that you have something new to add (especially with regard to 'deliberate misrepresentation'), please do so. Otherwise, you have the opportunity to withdraw your accusation. -
RW1 at 04:16 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis (RE: 113), 1980 compared to 2010: 67.00000000 1.433453083 69.00000000 1.605143428 71.00000000 1.782773018 73.00000000 1.956291556 75.00000000 2.163378954 77.00000000 2.532876968 79.00000000 2.804517508 81.00000000 2.930059433 83.00000000 3.353630066 85.00000000 3.353630066 87.00000000 3.353630066 89.00000000 3.353630066 or 1980-1990 compared to 2000-2010: 67.00000000 1.022729039 69.00000000 1.085630417 71.00000000 1.143316746 73.00000000 1.204136610 75.00000000 1.295737386 77.00000000 1.443844914 79.00000000 1.538919687 81.00000000 1.585246086 83.00000000 1.786555529 85.00000000 1.786555529 87.00000000 1.786555529 89.00000000 1.786555529 Assuming these figures are accurate, how do we get the surface area weighted averages? -
les at 03:54 AM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Damn! My french witticisms don't work, given the mods (snips) Editors, hu? Can't publish without them, Can't publish with them. -
les at 03:37 AM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
149 No one is saying that a graph shouldn't be clear, that's just silly; but they do have to be read in context to convey scientific content - as your example shows. Your second point is a non sequitur nil point. -
RyanStarr at 03:30 AM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Les, you're right graphs are not data, they display data. That's obvious right? And they should be labeled such that the reader knows what is displayed. You guys might need to read the article above again, it isn't a total whitewash of what was done and does contain the following quote, "This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph." Or do you two disagree with John Cook that the criticism in that case was rightful? -
les at 03:30 AM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
147 - to easy. The answer is < fake French accent ON > "ze mean? over what time period ees dis mean calculated?" < fake French accent OFF > What do I win? Joking aside, it really is very very clear that graphs go with analysis. There really is no argument about that. -
RyanStarr at 03:09 AM on 25 April 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Logic isn't your strong suit is it Tom?Graphs can be self-interpreting, hence this one must be. { -snip - } You said "no chart is self interpreting." Really? { - snip -}
Note that this contains less information than Jones had on his WMO chart.
Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Less attitude, more science. Read the Comments Policy. -
Tom Curtis at 02:51 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
RW1@113:
[Source]
The zonal means from 59 degrees north are:
59.00000000 0.9049376845
61.00000000 0.9578167200
63.00000000 1.027678609
65.00000000 1.094777465
67.00000000 1.213630080
69.00000000 1.325709581
71.00000000 1.454651952
73.00000000 1.595859289
75.00000000 1.811631322
77.00000000 2.137880087
79.00000000 2.348255634
81.00000000 2.444648981
83.00000000 2.764386654
85.00000000 2.764386654
87.00000000 2.764386654
89.00000000 2.764386654
Your can work out the actual mean for from 65 degrees (or 67 degrees) north by weighting each latitude band for area; or you can work on the obvious fact that mean increase in temperature within the arctic circle is obviously greater than 1 degree over this period.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed images. -
RyanStarr at 02:31 AM on 25 April 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
OK lets substitute lower atmoshphere for surface temperature, that's what the satellite measures http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Mar_2011.gif Is that an acceptable source DSL? Can we address the main points made which this isn't? -
RW1 at 02:28 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
muoncounter (RE: 110), "Why not start on the observation side, rather than an with an 'if'?" Cause and effect. The graph seems to show about 0.75 C of warming from 1980 to 2003 from 60-75˚, but what about 66.6˚ to the North pole from 1979 to 2010? -
Tom Curtis at 01:58 AM on 25 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Ken Lambert @109, from spreadsheet described in my 73, as modified to include actual arctic sea ice extents as described in my 88.
Prev 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 Next
