Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Next
Comments 97201 to 97250:
-
It's albedo
RW1 - The "gain" isn't the correct way to treat the issue, since the relative value is an output of the models, not a simplification you can use for input purposes. A 3.7 W/m^2 imbalance at the TOA results in about 1C of surface warming (5.9 or so W/m^2 higher IR at the surface, although backradiation also increases with atmospheric warming, so that's not a direct imbalance). And then feedbacks occur, changing levels of water vapor, long term albedo from ice melt, CO2 balance with the ocean, etc., each of which induce additional TOA imbalances and subsequent warming. Once feedbacks kick in their TOA imbalances are in addition to the original 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from doubling CO2. As I recall, we had a ~450 post discussion, primarily on these issues with you and George White (who apparently originated this "gain" idea) - I don't believe a single person on the thread agreed with you two, for a lot of very good reasons. You might want to take that into consideration... -
Chris3699 at 08:48 AM on 28 January 2011It's cooling
Someone asked me to name one of the scientists that my skeptic friend was citing to support his position and this morning he named a guy called Lubos Motl. Apparently Motl is a “Theoretical physicist, a graduate of Charles University in Prague, Rutgers University and has been a Harvard Junior Fellow and assistant professor. He’s worked on such common problems as the pp-wave limit of AdS/CFT correspondence, twistor theory and its application to gauge theory with supersymmetry, black hole thermodynamics and the conjectured relevance of quasinormal modes for loop quantum gravity, deconstruction, and other topics.” This is his latest comment on his blog where he seems rather upbeat about the UN and US moving away from tackling climate change: -
Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Rob Painting - Regarding Mörner, I would have to agree with other posters that bringing up the dowsing smacks of poisoning the well, a form of argumentum ad hominem, and as such is inappropriate. Mörner makes enough errors in his climate-related science to be a poor source, but I think it would be more valid to leave his other (even the rather curious ones) interests out of the discussion. -
RW1 at 08:36 AM on 28 January 2011It's albedo
A rise of about 1 C or 5.9 W/m^2 results in a new gain of only about 1.66 from 1.63 (396/239 = 1.66), which is a negligible increase. More importantly, it is still much less than the over 4x needed to get 16+ W/m^2 for a 3 C rise. More importantly If the effects of the 'feedbacks'(including specifically water vapor) are not embodied in the gain, then explain why it doesn't take over 975 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun? Then also explain why the response of 'feedbacks' on next 3.7 W/m^2 at the surface will all of the sudden be nearly 3 times greater than the response of 'feedbacks' acting on the original 98+%? -
citizenschallenge at 08:00 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
I’m embarrassed to bring this up but I was disappointed in the last section of the initial post. The explanation seemed to side step the given quote: "SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION - HISTORY REPEATS?" Monckton - "In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone." Sea levels have been rising 4feet/century... what? Even the implication that there has been steady significant rise occurring these past few thousand years seems questionable from my limited knowledge. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Quoting: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ . . . A fourth interval of rapid sea level rise 8200-7600 years ago was first identified by a hiatus in coral growth in the Caribbean about 7600 years ago {...} This spurt... apparently resulted from the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lakes Agassiz and Ojibway around 8400 yrs ago, releasing a volume of about 105 cubic kilometers within a few years or even less. But it only produced about 1 meter of global sea level rise, assuming an even spread of this volume spread across the world's oceans. Yet even this minor increase in sea level left an imprint in the stratigraphic record. By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. {...} Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year.{...} Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level. -
Anthony G. Warming at 07:57 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Thanks, BillyJoe, 21! "Poisoning the well" certainly seems to be the term to use, when Mörner is first presented as having "extensively dabbled in dowsing". This sets the scene, sort of, so that we will know that nothing he says is worth listening to, (quote from Wiki): "A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form: 1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.") 2. Any claims person A then makes will be regarded as false, or taken less seriously." My point is that this is only done to a person you disagree with, and whom you want to discredit, as in the top post. You would not spread any such irrelevant information concerning those you trust. -
Albatross at 07:50 AM on 28 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
Neat project, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I was vaguely aware of the ships' log project, but had no idea about the upper-air data. Something to do on a quiet day... -
RW1 at 07:41 AM on 28 January 2011It's albedo
"To see why idea of fixed gain doesnt work" I don't claim the gain is fixed. I know it isn't. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:28 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#6 RickG, good point, I should not have implied there was dishonesty in other circumstances. Thanks for the link, I see the speculation is clearly labeled in that article. -
citizenschallenge at 07:25 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
@37 "We know the cure, it's the apathetic nature of politicians and the political process to implement change that is throwing a monkey wrench into the mix." Let us not forget who owns those 'apathetic' politicians and that the real impediment to facing humanities AGW situation is a well organized, strategic corporate funded propaganda attack campaign based not on understanding new things science has to offer, but on demolishing anything threatening their business as usual. -
cynicus at 07:25 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
@29 Tom Curtis, I'm watching Charlie Veron's presentation again and he really says the corals went extinct during the Permian event (skip to slide 22): Every coral on this planet went extinct. No coral alive today lived during the Permian or lived through that extinction event. He then continues: And so we have a new group of corals evolving out of Actinia and that's the start of modern corals. And they are fairly different from their predecessors. Actinia are sponges, btw. So, trusting the expert on his word, during only this Permian event (not so for the other events) every coral literaly went extinct. -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 28 January 2011It's albedo
RW1 - let me expand here a bit. To see why idea of fixed gain doesnt work, consider what happens if there is no CO2. If it gets cold enough from loss of DLR and increasing albedo, then all water vapour is condensed out of atmosphere and there is no GHG effect. There is then no "gain". Likewise increasing the GHG increases your "gain". It seems to be that you are trying to use some heuristics and the Trenberth diagram to predict what the Trenberth diagram would look like with 2xCO2 from pre-industrial. You have to use the models to do this. Assuming models are correct then the changes would be like this: No change to TOA inputs. The 3.7W/m2 for increased is CO2 is "effective" not a real change to TOA flux. You could get change in cloud and surface albedo from model results but for simplicity assume increases in one are cancelled by decrease in other. Evaporation etc also change but are minor players. Surface OLR changes to from 390 to 406 and DLR increases from 324 to 340. Your "gain" as you have defined it, increases from 1.63 to 1.69. What is your "gain" when you put two blankets on your bed at night instead of one? -
Rob Painting at 06:04 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
John Brookes - Hopefully with the La Nina this year will be milder. Well, that depends here you live. Here, Downunder, La Nina means warm conditions and lots of rain and cyclones. -
Rob Painting at 06:01 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Albatross @ 5 - And let us not forget the north island of New Zealand, which could be in the path of post tropical cyclone Yup, looks like we're going to take a direct hit!.
-
Ron Crouch at 05:53 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
I'm putting this here because it relates to snowfall. Just to show some contrast between the way the media reports scientific findings. In the Telegraph the headline reads "Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds, but yet in other media where there is a greater sense of responsibility to report the news accurately the headline would read like this one from IRIN, CLIMATE CHANGE: Not all Himalayan glaciers are melting. What is striking is the way the Telegraph (which supports the skeptic view) cherry-pick the data that suits their purpose and ignore reporting the rest. So a word to the wise, choose your sources of information carefully. -
Ron Crouch at 05:07 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
#25 Phil263 Yes there is more on that here on the ESA site. -
Albatross at 05:05 AM on 28 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Arkadiusz @75, Not so fast. From NOAA, "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years." Also, look at this (and that 2004 data point can be moved from +0.48 K to +0.63 K for 2010):
[Source: here]
Regarding the Arctic:
Miller et al. (2010, QSR):
"Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) 223c.gif ¨11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1–3 °C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present."
Jakobsson et al. (2010, QSR):
"The combined sea ice data suggest that the seasonal Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean."
Also from Polyak et al. (2010, QSR):
"The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."
So in the early Holocene, when temperatures were likely 1-3 K above 20th Century values, the Arctic may have been ice free during the summer. Now consider that The Arctic has already warmed by 1-2 K relative to temperatures in the early to mid 20th century, and recently has been warming at almost three times the global rate (about 0.5 K per decade since 1979). These data suggest that the Arctic is already very close to temperatures experienced there in the early Holocene, and will very likely exceed them around circa 2040. That is also when we will likely see the Arctic briefly ice free in the summer, although it is not impossible that the Arctic could be largely ice free before then.
By 2100 warming of annual temperatures by +5 K predicted by the IPCC for the Arctic (range 3-8 K). Our current emissions path (SRES A2) suggests a warming of almost +6 K with respect to early 20th century temperatures, way above anything seen over the Arctic during the Holocene.
-
Riccardo at 05:02 AM on 28 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert the response time τ in a simple zero-dimensional model is given by τ=C/λ whre C is the heat capacity and λ-1 is the climate sensitivity. Howver, this model is a bit crude. Indeed, there are several response times relative to the various parts of the climate system. As a grossly aproximated single "effective" response time you can take something like 40-50 years. To have the time dependence of forcings and feedbacks you need to run a climate model, better if many runs of many models; something I have never seen either. -
michael sweet at 04:00 AM on 28 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I teach AP CHemistry in an American High School. The students will often respond to a teacher with what they think the teacher wants to hear. The students would know Pirate feels strongly that AGW is not correct so they will not argue with him in class. If their regular teaher was present they would likely support AGW. The split of students is generally the same as the general public. If all of them are against AGW you must have influenced them by your questioning. In order to find out what the students really feel you have to get to know them for a long time. Even then some will say what they think you want to hear. -
Tom Curtis at 03:58 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
mr duget @33, according to the IPCC Assesment Report 4, between 1993 and 2003 thermal expansion caused Mean Seal Level to rise by 1.6 mm per year, melting of glaciers and ice caps caused it to rise 0.77 mm/yr, and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets caused it to rise by 0.21 mm/yr each, for a total combined sea level rise due to the warming climate of 2.8 mm/yr of the 3.1 mm/yr observed. There is a small contribution to sea level rise from the drying lakes (such as the Aral Sea, and Lake Chad), depletion of ground water, which is partially compensated by the filling of artificial lakes. This may contribute to the 0.3 mm difference between prediction and observation; but that 0.3 mm is well within the margin of error, and so may not be significant. Durring that same period, net natural climate forcings were constant, or slightly declining. 1993 is sufficiently after any significant increase in natural forcings that we can ignore any lag effects. Therefore, 28 mm of the 31 mm rise in Mean Sea Level in that period is due to climate changes as a result of human activities, which is within margin of error of 100%. Prior to 1993 natural causes may have contributed some of the rise, and prior to 1950, it certainly contributed some of the rise. But is that really relevant given that our concern is about the future? -
mspelto at 02:56 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Another weird aspect was the record snowmelt in the Northern Hemisphere. We went from nearly the most extensive snowcover in February to the least extensive snowcover in May. -
RickG at 02:47 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
(1) Eric (skeptic): Thanks for being honest about that. That's a common trait of the vast majority of "actual" climate scientists, which conversely is quite questionable for the vast majority of climate changeskepticsdeniers. At least the ones I've encountered. Also note that the statement you quoted concerning speculation is also linked to a NASA news release which is here. The speculation is not without merit. -
Ron Crouch at 02:46 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Tom & Rob I agree that the speed at which change is taking place may be one defining factor in the survival of corals, and as we have discussed both temperature and pH also play important roles. It would appear though that some corals have the ability to produce a natural sunblock in the form of fluorescent pigments, and it is likely that these coral species stand a much better chance of survival than non-fluorescent species. We know the cure, it's the apathetic nature of politicians and the political process to implement change that is throwing a monkey wrench into the mix. -
Albatross at 02:43 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I too like that last Figure. And note too how well the model projections are tracking. Wild weather indeed, it certainly seems that we are shifting the probability distribution functions (and tails) for temperature and precipitation into new territory. It is shifts in the tails of the distributions that are going to hurt. I wonder whether or not the general public are finally getting the message that the planet is very likely experiencing more extreme weather events? The media in the USA is slowly picking up on all this weather weirdness. Just to make maters worse for Queensland, after a brief reprieve, ECMWF is indicating that a tropical storm could make landfall near 20 S (coastline near Townsville) on Sunday evening into Monday, with a much stronger tropical cyclone projected to make landfall in the the same region next Thursday. This one-two punch could be devastating, especially given the saturated soils and full dams. Also on Sunday, Perth could be affected by the much weakened remnants of tropical cyclone Bianca currently located near the northwestern tip of Oz. And let us not forget the north island of New Zealand, which could be in the path of post tropical cyclone (i.e., undergoing extra-tropical transition) Wilma late on Friday night into Saturday. Fingers crossed that ECMWF is wrong.... -
JMurphy at 01:53 AM on 28 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPopsBear, as well as the other suggestions given, why don't you look at this RealClimate page for further information. -
MarkR at 01:49 AM on 28 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
ΔF is not your imbalance, ΔQ is. ΔF is radiative forcing; heat flow that doesn't react to the climate state on the timescales we're considering. Changes in CO2, volcanism and solar activity are examples. YΔT is the feedback sum that responds to the state of the climate. We have estimates of sensitivity (and therefore net Y in the past) from palaeoclimate. We have direct measurements of Y from the past few decades and climate models implicitly calculate it So far climate models have generally been in agreement, or underestimated observational values. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:31 AM on 28 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@Daniel Bailey “Looking at all the data we have, we are now at a temperature point equivalent to that in the Holocene Optimum ...” There are no regional data (not combining "apples with oranges"), indicating that current temperatures are in any way for the Holocene a record. Quite the opposite. Also in the Arctic. (Marsz 2009, page 62 - figure - ryc.1.) “Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present.” “Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3C warmer than present.” Wiki: “Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could signicantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats).[...]” Previous attempts to create global Holocene temperature reconstructions are inconsistent with the fundamental principles applicable to the statistics (excessive variance and too large range of standard deviation). -
JMurphy at 01:27 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
mr.duget, the last IPCC Report is always a good place to start for such questions. The link I give (via the red 'IPCC Report' text) is to 'Sea Level Variations Over the Last Glacial-Interglacial Cycle'. -
Neven at 01:27 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
Albatross, Yooper, thanks. :-) Global sea ice area has dropped to 14.412 million square km and is just 20K above the 2006 minimum record. -
Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Ah - reading through a couple more posts and recent comments, "BAU" is the "Business As Usual" scenario. I have seen that term before (but not the acronym); I just was not connecting it directly to coral discussion. -
Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Tom Curtis - Pardon the question, but what is the origin of the "BAU" you have referred to? Is this an organization, a particular warming scenario, or what? Do you have links for it? Note to everyone - please expand the first use of your acronyms. Terms like "AO" and "TOA" may be perfectly comprehensible to someone used to such discussions, but if it's not explained somewhere we may prevent new-comers from understanding the threads. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:58 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
A Mohenjo-Daro sighting! One of the world's oldest settlements in an SkS post! Sorry, geeked on that a bit. Nice summary, James. The Yooper -
John Brookes at 00:55 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Hopefully with the La Nina this year will be milder. The cost, both economic and in human lives, of extreme weather events is too high. -
MartinS at 00:49 AM on 28 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
@Mila: Yes you are right, thanks for that. The project sites are now reachable. -
Paul D at 00:42 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I like the last graph. That sort of graphic has impact. -
mr.duget at 00:39 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Thanks Tom. Interesting. Are you aware of any data that isolates the sea level rise/accelerations purely due to anthropogenic causes vs. natural causes? That would make the case clearer (for me at least). It is not really possible to interpret (anthropomorphically speaking) the graph of Global Mean Sea Level or Acceleration data without the natural contributions removed. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:37 AM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
It's been speculated that this unusual weather pattern might be connected to Arctic sea ice melt. Thanks for being honest about that. There are natural precedents for the blocking and negative AO patterns (e.g. the 70's). It could be that the effects of the pattern could be exacerbated by sea ice loss, but we are in new territory and it will take time to see if the pattern holds and if the effects are worse. -
Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
mr duget @30 First, most of the initial rise in sea levels is associated with the end of the Little Ice Age in the period from 1800 to 1850. There were natural causes for most of that, as also a significant part of the further warming in the early twentieth century. Of course,the identified natural causes for both those warmings have not been trending in favour of further warmth since about 1950, so that is no solace to any reasonable sceptic of global warming. Second, only most of that warming was natural. A significant portion of it was anthropogenic, a fact often forgotten. People often operate under the illusion that significant anthropogenic emmissions only began when coal started being burnt in steam engines (or boilers) in large amounts. But in fact, CO2 concentrations have been climbing for the last 8,000 years in large part due to deforestation, the expansion of rice paddies, and the expansion of cattle due to human farming techniques. From about 1600, anthropogenic emissions significantly accelerated due to the need for timber to build ships, and the use of coal for domestic heating. London was black from coal soot by about 1600 AD, and England denuded of forests (except the King's hunting forests) within a century of that from the demand for timber for ships. The emmissions of that period pale into insignificance compared to modern emmissions, but were still large enough to already be influencing climate. The difference in modern times is that anthropogenic emissions have changed from an influence, to the main driver of long term trends. -
Ken Lambert at 00:09 AM on 28 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #23 and Riccardo #22 So how large does time 't' become in order for equilibrium to be reached given the non-linear multi-factored components of Delta F (presumably equal to my F.imbalance), and your assumed value (or function) for Y? Given that my current F.imbalance = F.CO2GHG + F.otherGHG - F.cloud albedo - F.direct albedo + F.solar - F.radiative feedbackSB + F.WVIA feedback..........= 0.9W/sq.m Ref; Trenberth Fig 4 "Tracking the Earth's Global Energy" Aug09. (WVIA - water vapour + ice albedo feedbacks). To know where the above sum will go into the future; one would need a function for each - something I have never seen for F.cloud albedo or F.WVIA feedback). -
Tom Curtis at 00:08 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
LandyJim @27, it is fairly easy to make an approximate attribution for sea level rise. The vast majority of sea level rise is due to expansion of sea water due to increased water temperatures, and to glacial melt. As both of these correlate reasonably well with increase in Global Mean Temperature, the attribution of those factors can simply follow that of changes in GMT. That means humans are responsible for between 20 and 50% of sea level rise in the first part of the 20th century, and nearly all of it in the second half. Further, simply comparing land gained due to melting permafrost with land lost to sea level rise is simplistic. Any such comparison must also include land lost to basic cereals and other crops due to increased warmth. You should also include the marginal loss in the utility of land which has reduced frequency of harvests due to droughts, floods and other GW induced disasters. Considering all factors, for low temperature rises (up to 2 degrees C) there may (or may not) be a net gain; but for large temperature rises as projected for BAU at the end of the century, there is a significant net loss. For very large temperature rises such as may arise with BAU in 2 to 3 centuries, or in one if climate sensitivity is in the high end of the rain, as much as half of the Earth's surface will be seasonally uninhabitable for large mammals. Of course, none of that adresses questions of equity. Bangladesh can take no solace in the prospect of wealthy Siberian farmers. -
mr.duget at 00:08 AM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
It pains me to write anything which agrees with Lord M, but doesn't the section of the article "...another study (Jevrejeva 2008) shows that the acceleration began as far back as the 18th century" raise some questions? What is the correlation between accelerating rises in sea level in the 18th century and anthropogenic warming? 'None' seems the only answer. Given that the data shows acceleration well before human activity could be having any impact, surely the scientific case needs to be made that the current acceleration rate is greater (or less) than it would otherwise be without human activity? What am I missing here? -
Tom Curtis at 23:45 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Cynicus @24, it is important to remember that "new" here just means new to the fossil record. The "new" species may just be former niche players that have taken advantage of relatively empty seas to expand to dominance. They may also be species evolved from previously dominant ancestors in refuges. In terms of human life spans, the difference is largely irrelevant. There will be no sudden recovery if the worlds major reefs are destroyed. In that event, we will face thousands, and maybe tens of thousands of years with out major living reefs, and hence with relatively barren tropical seas. -
Berényi Péter at 23:20 PM on 27 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#26 muoncounter at 13:48 PM on 21 January, 2011 But here's how the folks who gather the Accumulated Cyclone Energy data forecast the 2010 storm season I don't think it does much good to your cause to cherry pick an old North Atlantic ACE forecast for 2010 when we are already well into 2011, so we have got facts. According to them, North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average, even if at the lower end of the forecast you have cited. More importantly, we are talking about global warming here, not about some North Atlantic Warming. And global ACE for 2010 was way below average, close to an all time low. -
Bart Verheggen at 23:18 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Some more relevant graphs and info in this blog post: Past, current and future sea level rise I.e. also compared to the past thousands of years, it is blatantly obvious that sea level rise has accalerated in the past decades/century. -
LandyJim at 23:16 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Clearly, regardless of ones position on AGW, there is evidence of average mean sea level rises going back a long way. Clearly some is directly related to natural processes and clearly some is directly related to the reduction in ice cover of the Northern Ocean, and glacial melt. As has been pointed out, there is a combination of factors at play that alter the localised picture due to forces that are clearly beyond human control, and likely always will be. It is a very difficult matter I think to truly attribute a given percentage to melt at this time because, sadly, the accuracy and the data sets are not there as all the articles do not differentiate between natural and perceived AGW causes of the rises, and this is important if the "human" factor is to be proven to the point of silencing any doubt. One thing I am curious about, and sorry if this sounds really harsh, but has anyone actually looked at the amount of land lost against the amount of land gained? If global air and sea temps rise as much as is predicted by 2100, then about 8 times as much land will be available for human use as will be lost to the sea. Clearly some of this land will be useless for sometime, but a lot, such as the vast wildernesses of Siberia and northern Canada will be usable. Now before I get seriously flamed for that comment, I would like to simply point out that regardless of what action man takes, if nature does not respond or we are wrong and many aspects are natural or simply under-estimated, then we still have a problem to deal with, one that is not going away and so we must face it head on. Putting sticking plasters on the broken leg may stop dirt getting into the wound, but it doesn't heal the broken leg..we must also look at long term solutions outside the box too. -
Riccardo at 23:02 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Phil263 the last sentence of the Dailymail article reads: "Despite their findings, however, the researchers were keen to emphasise that the ice sheet is 'not safe from climate change'" Anyway, Daniel Bailey did a much better job than the Dailymail. -
Phil263 at 22:29 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Talking about rise in sea level, I don't know if any of you has come across this paper about the Greenland ice sheet which was recently published in "Nature". The gist of it is that contrary to expectations, hot summer temperatures may actually slow down the flow of glaciers towards the sea, as the melting causes the internal drainage system to adapt to the warmer temperatures. I don't know whether the slowing down effect has been modelised or quantified, but apparently, the same thing had been previously noticed about mountain glaciers. The "news" was broken on ABC radio at 5 pm with the message that we should not be worried too much about climate change since the Greenland ice cap is not really melting then sea levels will not rise ! -
cynicus at 22:06 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
@16 It's possible that few corals species survive an extinction event in isolated places. But iirc Charlie Veron noted in his Royal Society presentation that the species found after an extinction are completely different/new. @17 Different evolutions of coral during different environments are therefore more or less susceptible of ocean acidification. The species that have evolved since the last extinction never experienced acidification levels expected this century. (Again, iirc re Veron's presentation. It's been a while since I watched it.) -
JMurphy at 22:01 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Anthony G. Warming wrote : "Dowsing is certainly humbug, but would it also have been mentioned that Vermeer and Rahmsorf both are ardent astrologists, if that had been true? I doubt it. The purpose is solely to lessen his credibility. What is the term? Guilt by association?" If Vermeer and Rahmsorf were ardent astrologists I would certainly want to know about it and would certainly view them in a different light. Who wouldn't ? Who wouldn't also have doubts about scientists who believe that Creationism is a better explanation than Evolution ? And Morner's credibility is adequately lessened by his blind faith in his own abilities over and above the vast majority of scientists currently working in the field he is retired from. -
Mila at 21:51 PM on 27 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
I have put an advert for the projects at Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org and Zvon.org.guide to Skeptic Arguments from SkepticalScience.com. I hope it helps to find a few people.
Prev 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 Next
