Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
Comments 96051 to 96100:
-
muoncounter at 01:27 AM on 13 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#131: "look only at data for the past 15 years, there is no statistically significant trend ..." Ah, the fine art of the cherrypick. Something about the statement "When I look at data only for this statistically insignificant period, I find no statistical significance," should give you pause. See Global warming stopped in ... and any of several threads about statistical significance. And here's a most excellent graph by Tamino, which should change your outlook:
That's about 0.17 degrees C/decade.
-
adelady at 01:18 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
kl Did anyone check whether the indigenous reports of flood high levels were associated with cyclones? afaik, none of the highest water events recorded before 2011 occurred in the absence of a cyclone. -
Kevin C at 01:14 AM on 13 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
How about adding predicted sunspot numbers for the next cycle? Data here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict.txt Given that the next maximum is currently looking to be very weak indeed (ssn of 58 vs 118 in 2000) this is very relevent to climate over the next 5-10 years. -
muoncounter at 01:14 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
#10: "Why has this rise in solar levels ... not played a part in the rise of temperatures over the last 200 years? " It did play a part. See It warmed before 1940 and Human fingerprint in the seasons, among other threads dealing with solar warming. As always, a little reading and research shows that climate scientists aren't ignoring these obvious questions. -
mozart at 00:34 AM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
I'm simply referring to the total solar irradiation number, which is still well above 1900 levels. Because of the breakdown in correlation between this number and temperature in the second half of the century, "something else" had to be causing the warming. That something else is CO2, and the argument is made here that we have more to come from the existing CO2 increase. But in calculcating the base temperature increase for the 20th century,which creates the parameter for CO2 response, is it really reasonable to assume the solar effect is zero? Put another way, is it more likely that the solar effect is being amplified and/or supressed....or is it more likely changes in solar irradiation are simply irrelevant. -
Ken Lambert at 23:36 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Johnd #16 and albatros#18 Good points Johnd. Albatros has gone right over the top in his piece at #18. I have read a fair bit of Karoly's stuff over the last 18 months and would put it in the 'advocacy science' part of the library catalogue. Back to 1911 is too short a period to establish any robust background noise level for climate variation, I would humbly suggest. -
Ken Lambert at 23:28 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Bern #17 Brisbane 2011 surely was a major event - the question is whether it has happened before and with what frequency. I would have thought 100-200 years is too short a period to define the range of flood events - and if no-one is prepared to discount the report of John Oxley's 12m as unreliable Aboriginal folklore - then 12m in the last 200 years is the best estimate of the range of natural flood height in the Brisbane river. Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were not around in 1893 - so this remains the worst measured 'natural' flood height at about 8.2m - although the overall 1893 rainfall event might have been smaller than 2011. 1974 had different aspects - there being much higher creek flows in greater Brisbane itself, and less from upstream. The point remains that all these events are unique, chaotic and periodic manifestations of the climate system (particularly La Nina) and very difficult to prove are driven outside the range of natural variation by GW or AGW. -
rhjames at 23:24 PM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Bibliovermis - to be fair, I must admit that when I check Hadcrut and RSS, and look only at data for the past 15 years, there is no statistically significant trend up or down that I can find. That's not to say that global warming has stopped - we need another 15 years of no trend before such a claim could be made. However, we can't just draw a straight line through curved data, in the hope that extrapolation will follow that line. Basically, we really don't know what it's doing - the hottest year based on most data sets was 1998, and there's the chance that it may have peaked - only time will tell. 2011 is certainly off to a colder start. -
John Bruno at 23:13 PM on 12 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
Thanks MattJ and isn't it Rob! Kind of like looking for warming by starting in 1998. -
Bibliovermis at 22:51 PM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
"It's cooling" is currently the #4 argument because enough self-proclaimed skeptic are still asserting that the warming stopped at some point; e.g. 1998. -
protestant at 22:51 PM on 12 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
"2005 was the hottest year globally, and 2009 the second hottest." According to majority 1998 was warmest on record (Hadley, RSS, UAH) and 2005 not even close. 2010 was the second warmest and tied only in UAH. GISS record years are just artifacts due to homogenization and unjustified interpolation. Again, "Skeptical" Science does cherry picking and pickes the only dataset which shows any warming on this ENSO-neutral interval which is 1998-2010.Moderator Response: [DB] Incorrect. According to the WMO, which uses data from NASA,NOAA/NCDC and MET/UEA, the year 2010 was jointly ranked with 2005 and 1998 as the warmest year on record. Hansen 2011 indicate we have reached the levels of the Holocene Maximum/Altithermal. Removing ENSO and other exogenous factors from the records yields (using monthly averages) this, from Tamino:
And now this, using annual averages:
-
Bibliovermis at 22:39 PM on 12 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Are you claiming that what we cannot observe trumps what we can observe? -
Ken Lambert at 22:28 PM on 12 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Gentlemen The essential point to this discussion is whether or not there is energy added to the whole Earth system (oceans, atmosphere, land, ice melt, evaporation). This is then an 'external' energy imbalance. Exchanges between oceans and atmosphere etc within the system are 'internal'. Thermal inertia is only relevant to the Temperatures showing in various parts of the system. The overal energy added or subtracted from the system is the time integral of the forcing imbalance 'prior' to the point in time we are considering - which in this discussion is NOW. There might be temperature rise in some part of the system from heat energy already absorbed there or transported there by circulations from elsewhere. However future rise in temperature of the whole system can only come from future energy gain from a forcing imbalance. The heat energy 'in the pipeline' is in fact in the 'time tunnel' looking forward, assuming there is an ongoing imbalance (currently claimed as about +0.9W/sq.m). But if this heat keeps eluding researchers in the measurement of ocean heat content for too much longer, we might conclude that the imbalance is small or non-existent. -
MattJ at 21:26 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
The failure to deal with climate change is THE massive failure of democracy. Why? Because though China is denying it too, it is the 'democratic' nations of the world, the US, UK and others, who are leading the charge into denialism, and giving free reign to denialists under the -cover- of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of commerce" -- even though this is destroying those freedoms along with more basic freedoms for all those who have to grow up in that ruined world full of war, famine and pestilence. -
RSVP at 20:16 PM on 12 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Marcus #40 "That's not word-play or contradiction-that's scientific FACT." I find it very unfair to qualify a spirit of open mindedness as word play, especially only as applied to ideas that might appear contrary to the status quo, or using the more popular, "peer consensus". And there may actually be some level of "greenhouse" warming associated with elevated CO2 levels, in other words, this may also be having some effect. What I find going on here, as also seemed to bother Crichton, an attempt to establish scientism as opposed to science. Wordsmithing is not word play. Words are the means to convey ideas, and sometimes it is necessary to invent new words to better understand what is going on. It might be very true that CO2 is affecting climate to some degree, but to stop short there, entrenched in only one idea seems very limiting indeed, especially in times as complex and dynamic as the one we are living in. -
Marcus at 19:18 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Also, Mozart, sunspot data shows that the highest average sunspot numbers were actually around the 1930's to 1950's. Every decade since has seen lower average sunspots than at this earlier time. -
Marcus at 19:15 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
@ Mozart-all I can suggest is that you look at a comparison of 20th century sunspot numbers vs 20th century temperatures. You'll see that sunspots & temperatures match extremely closely for at least the 1st half of the century, then get increasingly separate as you proceed into the 2nd half of the century. Fact is, if we were going to see any thermal inertia from the sun, we would have seen it around the 1950's & 1960's-after sunspots peaked-yet warming during this period was relatively slow. The rate only picked up *after* the period where we'd expect that thermal inertia to no longer be in effect (about 10 years). If I've got this wrong, then I hope someone will correct me. -
Rob Painting at 19:06 PM on 12 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
Fancy that, GBR coral cover was in it's pristine state when the AIMS survey began. What a lucky coincidence!. -
Marcus at 18:58 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
@ farrowed. Wow, that's *really* scary. Given WA has also seen a significant drop in their aquifers as well, it makes you wonder how much longer WA will be able to sustain its current population-let alone expand. South Australia is eventually going to run into problems too-though maybe later than Western Australia. Though we definitely got some excellent rain in late 2010, it doesn't really compensate for the more than 30% decline in Autumn rainfall that we've seen since the 1970's. -
MattJ at 18:39 PM on 12 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
'Palontological'? Looks like a type to me. -
farrowed at 18:36 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
In addition to the extreme weather on the Eastern seaboard, this graph of stream flows in the west is worth a look. -
rhjames at 17:23 PM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I agree - more data showing much the same thing (though GISS is a bit out from the others) is better, rather than trying to average it all. But, as I said, warming isn't really in question anyway - it's the cause of the warming. -
nigelj at 17:13 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
It certainly is a remarkable year or so in Australia and globally, I tend to think too many events to dismiss as purely natural variability. Scientific scepticism in every area of science seems to go thru several phases: Robust and often compelling. Necessarry but difficult to quite maintain Missleading, tedious, whining, and desperate Stupid and despicable. What stage are we at with cimate change I wonder? -
mozart at 16:49 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Could one not make the same delayed response argument for solar activity that still remains above the levels seen at any time in the first 50 years of the 20th century. Why has this rise in solar levels ( even though they are lower now than they were 20 years ago) not played a part in the rise of temperatures over the last 200 years? -
Albatross at 15:39 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
JohnD @16, So you are suggesting that they are cherry picking? Do you realise that means that you are essentially accusing them of scientific misconduct? I though the house rules did not permit that. I understand the findings are inconvenient and troublesome for you, but you trying to hand wave away a paper published in a leading climate journal is pretty ridiculous. Do your own analysis, and demonstrate that shifting the start date renders the trends statistically insignificant. You would also have to argue why you selected your particular start date. you can conclude nothing, because all you have done here is present some musings, some hypotheticals, no data analysis. Had you made the effort to read the paper, you would have found the reasons for them selecting the 1911 and 1957 start dates. Why am I do all the work, you are the one making accusations of nefarious goings...read their sections 3 and 4 which describe the data and methods they used, respectively. In fact, please read the entire paper. Also note that this paper does not stand on its own, it forms part of a coherent and much larger body of evidence. From their introduction: "Changes in the frequency and severity of some extreme events during the twentieth and early twenty-first cen- tury have been recorded globally (Frich et al. 2002; Alexander et al. 2006) and throughout Europe (Klein Tank and Ko ̈ nnen 2003), North America (Karl et al. 1996; Vincent and Mekis 2006), South America (Vincent et al. 2005; Haylock et al. 2006), Asia (Manton et al. 2001; Zhai et al. 2005; You et al. 2008), and Oceania (Plummer et al. 1999; Alexander et al. 2007). These changes have in- cluded increases in the occurrence of hot extremes and decreases in the occurrence of cold extremes of mini- mum and maximum temperature during the second-half of the twentieth century for the majority of global land area (Frich et al. 2002; Alexander et al. 2006). Reported changes in extreme precipitation are regionally depen- dent. However, there has been a global trend toward increases in extreme daily precipitation during the second-half of the twentieth century and into the twenty- first century (Alexander et al. 2006)." Yes, La Nina's are typically associated with heavier rainfall events over Queensland and NSW, nothing new there. ENSO is, as the name suggests, an oscillation-- it cannot cause a trend unless there is a systematic increase in the intensity and/or frequency. Also, the BOM has also said that the record high ssts around Australia probably played a role. and Trenberth (and others) has shown that the precipitable water vapour content has risen by about 5% since the 70s over the global oceans-- providing more latent energy for storms (and which will also incidentally increase the liquid water content of the convective clouds). there are several papers on that which I can refer you to if you like. You are entitled to your own opinions johnd, but not your own facts. Feel free to deceive yourself, but ignoring the huge and overwhelming body of evidence won't make the reality go away. -
Bern at 15:37 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Ken Lambert - there may have been 12m floods in the city reach way back when. But don't underestimate the mitigation effect that Somerset & Wivenhoe dams had. Peak flow was estimated at a bit over 7,000 m3/s past the city gauge. There were reports that inflows to Wivenhoe alone topped 1 million megalitres per day, or close to 12,000 m3/s. And that was at the same time that Somerset was rapidly filling as well, in addition to the floods coming down the Lockyer & Bremer catchments. If all that had come down the river at the same time, then a peak around 6 or 7 metres (i.e. 1.5-2.5 metres higher than we got) would have been out of the question. And while, yes, there has been additional development over recent decades, that's not where the water was coming from - the land where the rain fell is largely agricultural or, indeed, native forest. So I regard this as a fairly extreme rainfall event. Sure, it may not be the most extreme Brisbane has ever had, but it wasn't associated with a cyclone or tropical low, which *does* make it somewhat extraordinary. @Agnostic: IMHO, the one step that will *really* make a difference to Australia's emissions is to announce that no more coal-fired power stations will be permitted to be built. That will get the power companies thinking seriously about alternatives to replace the plants that are approaching retirement. Maybe just start with a ban on brown-coal, with a phase-out of black coal power. Now, its possible that the only practical option to replace that much generation in the next 10-20 years is nuclear, but with enough incentive, I'm sure we'd see enormous effort put into developing alternatives (like solar thermal or geothermal). -
Marcus at 13:20 PM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
@ #8-that was a very interesting article. It seems that the Denialist Cult's "Broad Church" approach to membership is beginning to come back & haunt them. After all, how else can we explain Monckton being attacked-by his own camp-for going "too far" & simultaneously "not going far enough". Oh, the Schaudenfraude of this moment is too great to pass up :)! -
Marcus at 13:05 PM on 12 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP, I do apologize for the error in my post, but it should have been obvious-even to you-that as the stratosphere is the UPPER atmosphere, & that it is cooling, that the warming I previously mentioned must have referred to the troposphere & near-surface layers. The fact that the troposphere is WARMING, whilst the Stratosphere is COOLING is one of the clearest indicators that heat is increasingly being trapped in the lower atmosphere. That's not word-play or contradiction-that's scientific FACT. Now, unless you & your fellow denialists can come up with a SOLID explanation of some natural phenomenon that can simultaneously warm the troposphere whilst cooling the stratosphere, I'd be *really* interested in hearing it. Instead, I'm sure we'll just hear the usual pseudo-scientific bunkum coupled with the old "grand scientific conspiracy" delusion that you usually provide. -
StElias at 12:26 PM on 12 February 2011Articgate: perpetuating the myth that Arctic sea ice has recovered
I’m new here, I do appreciate this S.S. site and the climate discussion. Does wonders for my blood pressure, nice to read and listen to folk with brains, for a change. I’m not a scientist, lifelong Alaskan though, 71 years. We travel lots. Last February we were in Antarctica. Sent this note home when there: “Three biologists (naturalists) on board, all Brits. one guy spent most of his life here, since shortly after War ll. They’re really concerned over lack of sea ice impact on marine life. We have an "Ice Captain" on board too. He is retired US Coast Guard and had captained our nation’s largest ice breaker, the Polar Star, on scientific expeditions in the Antarctic for years. He spoke to us a couple of times. Right after we left and headed into Drake's Passage he said something interesting "I don't get into these "Global Warming" arguments because I am not a scientist. However, I will tell you this, my first summer here was in 1984, no way we could have taken a ship this size, back then, into the areas where we have just been. There was so much ice then that even a consideration of doing so would have been ridiculous." -
scaddenp at 12:24 PM on 12 February 2011We're heading into an ice age
stephenwv - a couple of other points for you to ponder when you compare what is going on now, to what happened in ice ages. Rate of temperature change is around 10 degrees in 20,000 years or 0.05C/century. Rate of warming now is around 0.8C/century (more than 10 times faster). And from an earlier post. "The milankovitch forcing that drives ice age is due to change in forcing that is about 0.25W/m2 per hundred years at 65N. Globally, its maybe a tenth of that. By comparison, anthropogenic GHG is about 2.5-3W/m2 over last 100 years globally, not just at 65N." Do you think natural factors are going to trump that? -
MattJ at 12:22 PM on 12 February 2011The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
BTW: every time I see the statement, true though it is, that "Scientific skepticism is healthy", I want to follow it immediately with "unscientific skepticism is unhealthy, even poisonous." That way, the point of your first paragraph could almost fit on a Prius bumper sticker;) -
muoncounter at 12:19 PM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Here's a reference that shows meltwater from ice takes up atmospheric CO2 -- and that an ice-free Arctic will lose that ability, making things even worse. Talk about feedbacks! “The total loss of summer sea ice from the Arctic, predicted to occur within the next few decades, may have dramatic effects on the ability of the Arctic Ocean to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. “We could see further increases in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, if reductions in this “the sea-ice pump” are not compensated for elsewhere.” -
johnd at 12:17 PM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Albatross at 04:02 AM on 12 February, 2011, regarding the Gallant and Karoly paper you recommended, whenever I see such analysis I always consider how or why the beginning and ending points have been selected as often it becomes apparent that such points often sets a stage that puts a bias on the outcome, especially when considering trends. The year 1911 was at the end of 3 consecutive La-Nina years with the IPO (Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation) in the midst of a relative short negative (wetter) phase, with SOI reaching a value of 16. Three longer phases of the IPO subsequently occurred during the 20th century, a positive (dryer) phase (1922-1944), a negative (wetter) phase (1946-1977) and another positive (dryer) phase (1978-1998) with another change of phase in the process of forming since then. The year 1957 in the midst of long negative (wetter) phase happened to be an El-Nino year preceded by again 2 consecutive La Nina years during which the SOI value again peaked at about 16. Therefore before one can conclude that something very different is going on, other than some short term aberrations, one needs to consider if the beginning and ending points of the study were firstly moved back, say a nominal one decade, and then secondly moved forward one decade, would the same conclusions be reached. A matter of further interest regarding the recent floods is that PROFESSOR Stewart Franks, a hydrologist at NSW's University of Newcastle, warned in a peer-reviewed scientific article published in 2006 that the risk of serious flooding in southern Queensland and NSW increases significantly when a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation corresponds with a La Nina event. -
MattJ at 12:14 PM on 12 February 2011Portuguese translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
The article says in its title, that it has already been translated, but the penultimate paragraph says Portuguese is "currently in the works".Response: Oops, thanks. German version coming very soon too... -
Newcomers, Start Here
Daniel Bailey - Interestingly enough (thanks to the wonders of Google) it turns out that WUWT posted a retraction on Goddard's statement. The partial pressure of CO2 is a primary factor in the triple-point (solid-liquid-gas) relationship for CO2. And the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is far far too low - sublimation occurs much faster than deposition, and dry ice will not form with Earth atmospheric mixes and temperatures. It's nice to see that sometimes, on occasion, WUWT does post a correction. Perhaps that group isn't a total loss...Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for the update (converted to link). Hadn't gone there since that original CO2post. -
Riduna at 11:49 AM on 12 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
A good article which reinforces predictions made by climate science to the effect that global warming will result in greater rainfall in the north of Australia and less in the south where drought conditions may become more prolonged. The global prediction is that extreme weather events will become more extreme and more numerous and, to use the vernacular, You Aint Seen Nothing Yet! This prognosis may well have led Sen. Milne and others to express their dismay at government axing of programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to fund repair of flood-damaged infrastructure. At the time PM Gillard offered the justification that the sacrificed programs, although highly visible, were an inefficient means of reducing emissions. A more efficient and effective method of curbing would be pursued. Julia Gillard is correct. Introduction of cap and trade system or ETS would be far more efficient and far more effective in reducing CO2-e emissions than any of the programs axed by her government. Whether she will introduce an ETS with appropriate safeguards preventing circumvention of its purpose and whether appropriate CO2 reduction targets will be adopted are matters which must be pursued. A further matter which must be pursued is the abject failure of government and property owners to learn from the past. In light of the above prognosis, will they yet again rebuild assets on sites prone to destructive flooding and winds without adequately protecting against those elements? -
JohnR at 11:24 AM on 12 February 2011It's Urban Heat Island effect
Thanks #42, far less than geothermal (~0.08W/m^2) -
Same Ordinary Fool at 11:17 AM on 12 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Monckton's personal climate science is also being challenged by skeptics. -
Newcomers, Start Here
The only reference I have found to CO2 ice in polar icecaps is from Mars, where the CO2 ice component of the polar caps is melting, revealing that the majority of the Martian icecaps are actually water ice. Hardly relevant to Earth, however, as surface temperatures here don't go low enough to freeze CO2 (Brrrr...). -
Trueofvoice at 11:03 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
KR, I've searched for the argument that melting ice liberates CO2 but can't find a single reference for it. Stephen, where did you get this idea from? Do you have a link?Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Closest I've heard is Goddard's post on CO2 snow in Antartica. -
Newcomers, Start Here
Trueofvoice, I have to say, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that melting ice releases CO2. Unless it was dry ice - and since the poles aren't warming from below -57°C, that's definitely not the issue... -
Trueofvoice at 10:47 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
KR, Your post is the third time the "warming oceans absorb more CO2" falsehood has been explained to him. -
It's Urban Heat Island effect
JohnR - Or for a bit more wasted heat, the extremely long discussion (>350 comments, unfortunately mostly circular in topic) at Waste heat vs greenhouse warming. And, as muoncounter pointed out, about 1% of greenhouse gas warming, a forcing of ~0.028 W/m^2 waste heat compared to 2.9 W/m^2 greenhouse effect forcing. -
JohnR at 10:38 AM on 12 February 2011It's Urban Heat Island effect
Would be interesting to find out what the total daily anthropogenic heat addition to the planet from power generation (incl nuclear), cars etc looks like in W/m2. Can anyone direct me to such a study - could not find one from a cursory look.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the Waste heat thread. Short answer: 1% of greenhouse warming. -
muoncounter at 10:32 AM on 12 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#127: "rather do this than use a plot that's wide open to criticism on to methodology." Many people question the validity of one temperature measure or another. Others fail to realize that there are different baselines in the different measures. It is extremely valuable to show that they are consistent, as Robert has done here. See also Assessing surface temperature reconstructions, which tells the same story. Most people feel that more data are preferable. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 12 February 2011CO2 lags temperature
The key reference for length of current interglacial is Berger and Loutre 2002. In a nutshell, it the result of the particular orbital configuration at present. -
muoncounter at 10:24 AM on 12 February 2011It's cooling
#130: "Whatever mechanism is involved is not important with respect to the question, 'Is global warming still happening?'" The question to ask is not 'is global warming still happening?' -- that's been answered numerous times on SkS with a resounding yes. The mechanism is extremely important, if you want to understand what's going on -- which may lead to an understanding of what to do about it. But it appears that you've already got your mind made up, 'notsure'. "it has not been shown convincingly to me that anything that has occured climate wise is outside the normal range ... ." Have you looked at the relevant posts? Considering you seem to be in a position to learn a lot, it's very sad that you aren't willing to try. #133: "alarmists have the same aim, simply to alarm." That's just nonsense. If you want to have any credibility: substantiate, don't declare. -
Newcomers, Start Here
stephenwv - I'm certain that I won't be the only person responding, but there seems to be little that is correct in your statements. - Melting ice doesn't release or absorb CO2. I have no idea why you would think that. It's relevant for ocean level and Earth albedo (water is darker than snow, less snow -> more warming). - Warmer water holds less CO2, not more: warming oceans will reduce the amounts absorbed (as a sink) by the ocean. Past glacial cycles show the oceans releasing CO2 as they warmed, which we're not seeing currently only because the CO2 atmospheric level is so much higher from our emissions than the temperature related ocean equilibrium solubility point. Our atmospheric CO2 is increasing at ~2ppm/year, while we put out emissions that would show as ~4ppm/year of rise. That means the oceans are absorbing CO2, not pumping it out! - Currently our 29GT/year (not 40GT total, by any means - that's less than three years!) is being about half absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them. Some of that is currently on it's way to the benthic ocean, which is by no means a source of CO2. It's a sink. So: Your questions do not appear to be addressed here because I've never seen them presented as arguments - they're simply not true. Melting ice doesn't release CO2, ocean circulation won't magically suck up extra CO2, thermohaline circulation is not pumping gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere. I suggest reading some of the links I've put into this post, this "Newcomers" page we're on, and from the Big Picture thread. -
stephenwv at 09:30 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
"a simplistic sceptic question." should of course be a simplistic skeptic question. -
stephenwv at 09:22 AM on 12 February 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Hopefully someone can point me in the direction as to where on this sight I can get an answer, or create and respond to my question as I have been unable to find it addressed. As the elimination of the northern ice cap continues, which happened 120,000 years ago, the naturally resulting CO2 release that has been going on for 11,500, is decreasing, and will stop when the ice cap disappears. The resulting slowing of the thermohaline circulation will reduce the well up of massive amounts of CO2 from the ocean floor. The warming of the oceans will, however, increase the ability of ocean CO2 absorption. This reduction of CO2 emissions, coupled with increased CO2 absorption, will dwarf the 40 billion tons of man caused CO2 emissions. The ratio of natural emission to natural absorption as well as the rate of increase of absorption due to ocean warming and the rate of decrease in CO2 emissions due to reduction of ice to be melted, and a slowing of the thermohaline circulation and the resulting slowing of CO2 release needs to be considered. This has huge implications as to the temperature rise limitations and time frame to reach the turning point of what some might describe as the man caused extenuation of the Inter-glacial, glacial turning point. Because I am unable to find this addressed anywhere, I am having difficulty in formulating what you like to address: a simplistic sceptic question. Perhaps this is not a question that is skeptical of global warming but rather why these effects of global warming appear not to be address by those that would have us believe that they know the likely end result. I suppose no one will address this and this post will be deleted as it is "off topic" of being skeptical of global warming and is only skeptical of the results of global warming. But hopefully it has been effectively addressed and someone can show me where.Moderator Response: You are repeating the claim that warming oceans will increase CO2 absorption, after you were corrected. If you're going to post questions on this site, you need to read the answers.
Prev 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 Next
