Recent Comments

Prev  1938  1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  Next

Comments 97251 to 97300:

97251. Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Rob Painting @20, speed of change is definitely the kicker here. A similar change over 10 thousand years would be nothing much to worry about, ecologically speaking. But compressed into one or two centuries ... These are probably very interesting times to be a coral scientist. They are no doubt learning new things very fast at the moment, at the same time that they risk being left without a subject matter.
97252. BillyJoe at 21:47 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Anthony Warming post #18 "I also wonder in what way it is relevant, in respect to his authority on sea level matters, that he has dabbled in dowsing" Would you hire someone to a position of authority in a scientific field who believes in dowsing? Surely it says something about that person's scientific thinking - or lack of it - that he believes in dowsing. "Dowsing is certainly humbug, but would it also have been mentioned that Vermeer and Rahmsorf both are ardent astrologists, if that had been true?" Oops! "The purpose is solely to lessen his credibility. What is the term? Guilt by association?" Poisoning the well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
97253. adelady at 21:34 PM on 27 January 2011
       Rescue Climate Data
       Yeah I've done a few of these. It's not thrilling, but you can see why people are needed for this.
97254. Mila at 21:21 PM on 27 January 2011
       Rescue Climate Data
       should be: at the end of link addresses
97255. Mila at 21:20 PM on 27 January 2011
       Rescue Climate Data
       links to both projects as given in the article are unreachable, try these: Data Rescue and Old Weather - at least from Google Chrome in Linux; the extra space at the link addresses causes problems
97256. Rob Painting at 21:10 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Tom Curtis - I understand what you mean about the coral dispersal. It's why some have dubbed them the "cockroaches of the sea". And yes, earlier generations of coral became extinct. New species evolved to re-colonize the oceans millions of years later. See Mass extinctions and ocean acidification - Veron 2008 These "reef gaps" in the geological record indicate we may not be understanding the whole picture. Warming oceans are causing more frequent and severe bleaching events, but they also stratify the oceans, which will impact coral through the reduction in nutrient upwelling (very important in many lower latitude reefs where the elevated nutrient load helps to offset lower ocean pH). Coral do after all live in a "marine desert". Some recent work suggests that some coral are literally "swimming for their lives" to escape too warm waters Coral marches to the poles. But escaping to cooler waters is only a temporary respite because they will acidify more quickly. As far as where we're headed - it's the speed of change that is the killer, for acidification it means the natural calcium carbonate buffering process can't keep up (it operates on millenial timescales to lower pH) and the upper ocean will greatly acidify. Now I'm relying on recollection here, but I seem to remember reading a paper where they estimated ocean pH expected later this century has not occurred for 8 million years?. Might have that wrong, but certainly lower pH than existed during the Pliocene (2-5 million yrs ago). Conditions the current generation of coral have not experienced. Which is of course another matter, modern day coral are composed of aragonite, which is more soluble than the calcite skeletons of ancient coral. There should be a couple of more "coral" posts in the next couple of weeks. But the overall picture is that it's not a happy time to be a coral scientist, that's for sure.
97257. Rob Painting at 21:01 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Anthony - The purpose is solely to lessen his credibility If you actually read some of Axel-Morner's claims, you will find he has done far more damage to his own credibility than I possibly could.
97258. MarkR at 21:00 PM on 27 January 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
       #21: Ken, I think I got confused when you used different conventions to 'standard', and you switched definitions as well! I've added a note to the main body that derives the original ΔT = ΔF/Y equilibrium equation by considering the heat flow through time like you wanted to do. This includes both forcings and feedbacks and considers the net heat flow at any point in what I'm pretty sure is the correct manner. As you see, it's messier than just considering the fluxes at equilibrium and since both approaches are valid, they give the same answer! Hopefully this will be interesting. :)
97259. JMurphy at 20:58 PM on 27 January 2011
       IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
       From the Telegraph report : Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change. Glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting. Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. From the report itself : More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts. Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability,or global sea level. Interesting contribution which provides more detail. Hardly "they are not retreating because of climate-change" !
97260. Paul D at 20:51 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       I would really like to know what school pirate is at. But in any case, I wouldn't trust the opinions of a few (American) teenagers! In fact I wouldn't trust my own beliefs as a teenager. I believed Eric Von Danikens extraterrestrial ideas when I was a teenager. There are a lot of things I believed then or which drove my imagination, that were in retrospect complete garbage. I think Marcus has made the definitive comment regarding pirate and his students. Science isn't a democracy, whether students believe something different, eg. creationism, it doesn't have any relevance to scientific truth and reality. I guess some of the problem is political correctness, all beliefs are accepted, even if the subject has nothing to do with 'belief'.
97261. Anthony G. Warming at 20:22 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Just a comment to the Mörner-paragraph: Niklas is a perfectly valid first name in Sweden, but his real name is Nils-Axel Mörner. I also wonder in what way it is relevant, in respect to his authority on sea level matters, that he has "dabbled in dowsing". 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?
       Response: [John Cook] Apologies to Rob Painting but I have removed the reference to dowsing in the article. The reference is ad hominem which is not appropriate at Skeptical Science, nor is it required. All that's needed is to examine the scientific veracity of Axel-Morner. His claim that "it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate" clearly contradicts many lines of evidence.
97262. Matthew at 20:18 PM on 27 January 2011
       IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
       This says they are not retreating because of climate-change. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
97263. scaddenp at 20:02 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       RW1 - I am very concerned about this use of "gain" and "amplification". It suggests you are thinking about this via a very inappropriate electronic analogy. There is no "fixed gain" controlling how incoming flux translates to surface heat flux. That depends on GHG gas composition and surface temperature and a host of other elements. Your translation of 3.7 to 5.9 is plain wrong. Science of Doom has a series of lengthy articles with a lot of discussion on the actual mechanisms. I can only suggest a detailed study and throw out the "gain" concept. As to model output. The real physics, not simplistic analogy, including the role of water vapour as a feedback are calculated in the models. The output from the model is surface temperature through time given the actual forcings of solar, GHG concentration, volcanoes etc. From the output, you work backwards from temperature to determine the value of sensitivity - which comes to about 3. The validity of the model is tested by comparing forecast surface temperature actual observed surface temperature. If the sensitivity - which involves all those feedbacks is wrong- then temperature prediction would be too. I thought this was plain in the article.
97264. Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Addendum to @16, corals have definitely survived through oceans at least as acid as those expected as a result of BAU by the end of this century, ie, with CO2 contents as high as is expected by then. That does not mean current living species of coral can do so without stress, for they will have adapted to the low CO2 levels over the last 50 million years. Ocean acidification will be another stress on corals.
97265. Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Rob Painting @14, very interesting. I knew it had happened at the Permian extinction event, but not in so many extinction events. By disappear, you of course mean disappear from the fossil record, and artifact of a limited number of survivors in remote refuges. I would be surprised by the complete extinction of all corals. This is not because I do not think the stresses are sufficient. With global warming causing coral bleaching, ocean acidification, increased sedimentation due to greater river run offs, and increased storm damage - not to mention dynamiting of reefs as a fishing technique (as is done in Indonesia) and the stresses of ecosystem collapse; there are certainly likely to be enough stresses to cause it. However, the manner of coral dispersal implicit in their reproductive cycle suggests that if there are any suitable refuges for corals in the world (almost inevitable given the worlds size and complexity), some corals will find their way to those refuges. Of course, even so, it will be many thousands of years before corals would again be able to become major reef builders in BAU scenarios.
97266. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:11 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       apiratelooksat50 #68 Then here is a proposition. Conduct some in depth polling with this class to find out 'why' they don't accept AGW and bring the results back here. Is it a lack of knowledge that they have based an opinion on? Detailed knowledge that they have based an opinion on? Are the views based on an evaluation of the data or their opinions about who is saying it? Are their opinions influenced by their outlook on life. What are the demographics of this group? Religious orientations, economic background etc. Get something more than anecdotal and then we can discuss it.
97267. Tom Curtis at 19:02 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Everett Rowdy @13, that is an even rise of all tide levels, but first not all tide levels will be the same on a local basis because the effects of change in barometric pressures and onshore of of shore breezes. A high pressure system, for example will lower tide levesls, while a low pressure system will raise them. Consequently a 2mm or even a 2 cm rise in SL will probably not be detectable as a straightforward rise, but rather as an average effect. More importantly, many parts of the world are either rising or sinking due to the motion of the continental plates. Much of south east asia is rising, for example, because of the slow northerly advance of the Australian continental plate. Further, some parts of the world are still rebounding from the loss of mass resulting from the melting of ice sheets at the end of the last glacial. That is true of scandinavian countries, for example. These motions are generally significantly larger than current changes in sea level. The effect of Mean Sea Level rise in those areas will be to make the areas that are sinking to have a more rapid sea level rise; and the areas that are rising to have a slower sea level fall. So absent more information, I cannot tell you whether the relative sea level on your section of the coast is rising or falling.
97268. Rob Painting at 18:51 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Tom Curtis & Ron Crouch - 4 of the 5 major extinction events lead to the complete disappearance of coral, for many millions of years at a time. The current rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented, outside of an asteroid impact. I wouldn't bet against them being eliminated altogether, but I certainly hope not!. Everett - click on the link provided with figure 1. Whole lot of information there from an authority on the topic. The 3mm SLR is a global average. It can vary from place to place for a number of reasons (see CMAR CSIRO link), but no, it's not simply a matter of adding 3mm to each phase of the tide.
97269. Kevin Hood at 17:34 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       As someone who lives on the coast, I have a question regarding sea level rise: If sea level is rising, say 2mm per year, is that a uniform rise throughout the tide cycle or is it nonuniform? For instance, would I simply add 2mm to the lowest tide level, the mid-tide level and the highest tide of the day or would it be nonuniform with the average equaling 2mm? If it is the latter, would that mean that I should add something more than 2mm to the high tide level? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment!
97270. adelady at 17:02 PM on 27 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       John, don't know about calculating costs in government policy, but cost will certainly figure in your next premium on your insurance policy.
97271. John Brookes at 16:44 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Hmm, apiratelooksat50@68: Reminds me of when my niece was little. You could ask her if she wanted vegemite or peanut butter (but you had to say, "mite or butter?"). If you asked "mite or butter?", she would answer "butter", but if you asked "butter or mite?", she would answer "mite". Anyway, if you have that class again, why not get them to read this website for a while, and then go and read WUWT, then have a discussion led by someone who understands climate science. After that their opinion might mean a bit more.
97272. RW1 at 16:31 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       scaddenp, "Its not clear to me where you get your 1.6 from? Geometric correction? Why do you assume the solar number includes water vapour feedback when the CO2 value explicitly does not." How could the roughly 239 W/m^2 of post albedo power from the Sun (amplified to about 390 W/m^2 at the surface) not include the effects of water vapor 'feedback'? In other words, how could the effects of water vapor not have fully manifested over decades or even centuries? Even over a hundred years ago, the gain was still about 1.6. For what physical or logical reason would the water vapor response be radically different from each W/m^2 of power from the Sun? "There is little value in talking about TOA forcings if there is a feedback value included. The extent of feedback for a given forcing is the key to calculating climate sensitivity. (how many degrees of temp rise for a doubling of CO2)." I'm not referencing just "TOA forcings" - but the intrinsic forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 plus gain, which is about 5.9 W/m^2. "There is no back of the envelope way to do this - its an output from full GCM - and, yes the greatest uncertainty in the system. However, if you look at Realclimate's latest model/data comparison , you will see that AR4 values of about 3 fit well with data." I know what the models are outputting, but fit well with what data, specifically? I don't see anything in that link about water vapor, which you claim is a big 'feedback' I'm not accounting for.
97273. caerbannog at 16:28 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       A Pirate said... Of the 30 students in this room, 28 of them are already accepted to college and half of them are going on scholarships. Not one single student supports the AGW theory. They think human activities have effect on the climate and contribute to temperature changes, but they do not think CO2 is the driver. Let's see.... those here who accept AGW can cite the world's leading scientists (including Nobel Laureates and National Academy members), *all* of the world's leading research laboratories and universities (ranging from Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory, to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, to the Max Planck Institute, to CalTech, the University of California, MIT, Harvard U., Oxford, etc., etc., as well as every single professional scientific association of any stature on this planet. And who does a vocal skeptic here have to cite? High-school students??? HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS???? (sorry for the caps-lock action here.) apiratelooksat50, is that all you've got???
97274. pbjamm at 16:24 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       @65 apiratelooksat50 Why should the opinions of some HS students (no matter how smart) matter? I certainly would not be interested in their opinions on subjects in my field of expertise. Not until they showed them to be more than opinion anyway.
97275. John Brookes at 16:22 PM on 27 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       It is of course difficult to say just how much worse this particular flood was than it would have been without global warming. But it does raise an important point. When calculating the cost of climate change, is this sort of event factored in?
97276. Marcus at 16:05 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Ahhh, Pirate, you still haven't clued into the fact that Science is *not* a Democracy. Either your opinions are backed by the Scientific Evidence, or they're *not*. How many people agree with you-even if they are bright, college bound types-is really besides the point if those same people can't provide *proof* for why they agree with you! Of course, the "oh, but look at all these people who agree with me" anecdotal "evidence" is a fairly typical ploy on the part of the Skeptics. In the absence of *scientific evidence*, just run around saying that all of these bright, collage bound types agree with your opinion-so that must make you *right*. Newsflash, it *doesn't*!!!
97277. apiratelooksat50 at 15:45 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Sphaerica at 47 Did you not read my post? Their teacher buys in to the AGW hypothesis. And, he is the most titled educator in the department. Today was the first time I've ever had contact with any of them in 4 years of their schooling. I teach different Jr. and Sr. level courses. These are bright, educated, college scholarship worthy students. How dare you accuse anyone of "misteaching or misleading" just because they don't agree with you? Their primary teacher over their high school career is in your camp!
97278. Ron Crouch at 15:26 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Thanks for elaborating Tom. I'm not going to say that some coral species might not go extinct, some might, but in the long term I don't see all coral species disappearing either. Even since the end of the Permian coral species have managed to weather many storms (glacials/interglacials, Chicxalub, etc). I agree that 10oC more may be stretching the limits that corals can tolerate, and then there's also the question of pH tolerance. As far as the role that corals might play in the future, I would prefer not to speculate. If we compare the temperature record here with the extinction intensity here it would tend to indicate that we're not currently to badly off (yet) in comparison to Earth's historical past, but then the Earth's population wasn't pushing 7 billion either, and that presents a whole new wrinkle. The bottom line being that it's not too late to avoid dangerous climate change, but it will take a massive commitment on the part of all this planets inhabitants to avoid it.
97279. scaddenp at 15:18 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       Its not clear to me where you get your 1.6 from? Geometric correction? Why do you assume the solar number includes water vapour feedback when the CO2 value explicitly does not. There is little value in talking about TOA forcings if there is a feedback value included. The extent of feedback for a given forcing is the key to calculating climate sensitivity. (how many degrees of temp rise for a doubling of CO2). There is no back of the envelope way to do this - its an output from full GCM - and, yes the greatest uncertainty in the system. However, if you look at Realclimate's latest model/data comparison , you will see that AR4 values of about 3 fit well with data.
97280. muoncounter at 14:15 PM on 27 January 2011
       There is no consensus
       Interesting news, identifying how some of those non-consensus scientists get their funding. Waxman Asks Upton to Examine Dr. Patrick Michaels’s Testimony Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute testified that widely accepted scientific data had “overestimated” global warming and that regulation enacted in response to that data could have “a very counterproductive effect.” ... In its “Morning Energy” column, Politico described a CNN appearance by Dr. Michaels in which he gave “40%” as his estimate of how much of his funding comes from the petroleum industry. But that would never compromise their opinions.
97281. scaddenp at 14:05 PM on 27 January 2011
       CO2 is not a pollutant
       The variation in CO2 that reinforces the ice-age cycle is biogenic - Ocean effects, swamp methane, vegetation change. The CO2 that is causing current warming comes from burning fossil fuels. The biogenic feedbacks that come with increased temperatures are slow and make hardly any contribution yet. How do we know where the CO2 comes from (both in atmosphere today and in the past)? Isotopes of carbon. Fossil and biogenic have different signature.
97282. RW1 at 14:00 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       scaddenp, "First, 3.7W/m2 is "effective top of troposphere forcing", so this is effectively the same as 3.7W/m2 of downward. Talking "even if all directed at surface" is misunderstanding how the forcing is calculated." For the purposes of my question, I'm willing to accept this. "Second, sensitivity would be much lower as you suggest if there were no feedbacks. Albedo plays big role when ice sheets large, now, not so much. The other big feedback is GHG effect of water vapour." Why is the water vapor 'feedback' not embodied in the gain of about 1.6?
97283. scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       First, 3.7W/m2 is "effective top of troposphere forcing", so this is effectively the same as 3.7W/m2 of downward. Talking "even if all directed at surface" is misunderstanding how the forcing is calculated. Second, sensitivity would be much lower as you suggest if there were no feedbacks. Albedo plays big role when ice sheets large, now, not so much. The other big feedback is GHG effect of water vapour.
97284. Albatross at 13:03 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Daniel, I just love that skit. I saw it a while ago, except on that occasion it was making fun of the GCR argument.
97285. Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Ron Crouch @4, Corals will almost certainly not die of as a result of Global Warming. They are a diverse and reasonably robust class of animal, and it would be astonishing if all examples were driven to extinction. On the other hand, most or all of currently existing reefs are likely to be destroyed, or significantly altered by Global Warming, with surviving corals likely to form new reefs at higher latitudes than currently exist. Although smaller corals are coping better with warming, and multiplying in number, I do not think they good at building reefs, ie, with coping with sea level rise. Further, on BAU scenarios, it is likely that a large number of coral species will go extinct. That is an inevitable consequence of stressed conditions with limitted number of refuges. It should be born in mind that the currently dominant corals supplanted to previously dominant types at the time of the Permian extinction, and that corals have not always been the dominant reef building organisms on Earth. If GMT rises towards the 10 degree mark in the space of a couple of hundred years, there is no guarantee that corals will continue being the dominant reef builders in the future.
97286. Ron Crouch at 12:57 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Living proof that even here at SkS there is room for a little comic relief, but wasn't that the GOP Caucus Tom?
97287. MichaelM at 12:57 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       @65 Matthew Are these ice core, bore hole and tree ring techniques not based and calibrated on the past 150 years of accurate data? So by definition they will match. As a scientific endeavour it would be meaningless.
97288. Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Every time I see the usual zombie posting by "skeptics" who haven't done their homework I'm reminded of this MP bit: Not a fair fight, as they don't even realize they've lost the debate before they started... (apologies for being O/T...and yes, I should know better) The Yooper
97289. Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Ron Crouch @6, perhaps you had in mind a sporting event?
97290. Daniel Bailey at 12:39 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Re: HuggyPopsBear (63) Color me confused, HPB, but I still don't understand your question. Obviously, if we could magically extend the reach of modern instrumentation backwards in time to bring into fine focus various periods in history and keep their context relative to modern times, we would do so. The various proxy reconstructions are what we have. If you are unsure as to the reliabilities of the reconstruction techniques, try the IPCC AR4 for summaries of the various methodologies used. Or try the Search function in the upper left corner of every Skeptical Science page to see what posts are here on whatever topic interests you. Or you can go through the SkS arguments by taxonomy. Your choice. You seem to imply something funky is going on with modern "techniques". I'm a little slow today (unlike yesterday when I was slow-er), so please spell it out for me: What exactly do you mean? Looking at all the data we have, we are now at a temperature point equivalent to that in the Holocene Optimum: With yet more warming in the Business-As-Usual (BAU) pipeline: The Yooper
97291. RW1 at 12:37 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       scaddenp, "Read further down articles - it may be shrinking though CERES says stable. However, Flaner discussed elsewhere here indicates albedo decreasing faster than expected." Do you have a free link to the paper? I'm not paying $18 to read it, and the summary is too vague. "However, to the primary point of your question. Albedo (unless otherwise stated) refers to energy reflected back in visible spectrum. Obviously, this is an important feedback but the source of the energy for warming by GHG is the increase in DLR. The reduction in OLR due to increased GHG is not captured by measurement of albedo." I understand, but it takes over 16 W/m^2 of additional power at the surface for a 3 C rise in temperature. The intrinsic absorption of 2xCO2 is only 3.7 W/m^2, so even assuming all of this is directed toward the surface, it needs to be amplified greater than 4 times over. The average gain of each W/m^2 from the Sun at the surface is about 1.6 - only about one third of that required for a 16 W/m^2 rise. 3.7 W/m^2 x 1.6 = 5.9 W/m^2 - leaving a deficit of over 10 W/m^2. The amount of the albedo from the surface is only about 23 W/m^2 according to Trenberth's diagram. That means the surface albedo would need to decrease by nearly half to get 16+ W/m^2 for a 3 C rise. That doesn't seem possible from just a 1 C global average intrinsic rise from 2xCO2 given we seem to be relatively close to minimum ice.
97292. Ron Crouch at 12:12 PM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       I don't know why, but every time I see a picture of the dear Lord, the first thing that comes to mind is -- Monty Python. And then when he opens his mouth and begins to speak, it reminds me of that movie that starred Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels.
97293. Matthew at 12:09 PM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       Would using the same ice cores, bore holes, tree rings match the current temperature record going back 130 years? If it did then there is no question it would be right. I feel it would put to sleep alot of skepticism holded by the skeptics.
97294. scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       Read further down articles - it may be shrinking though CERES says stable. However, Flaner discussed elsewhere here indicates albedo decreasing faster than expected. However, to the primary point of your question. Albedo (unless otherwise stated) refers to energy reflected back in visible spectrum. Obviously, this is an important feedback but the source of the energy for warming by GHG is the increase in DLR. The reduction in OLR due to increased GHG is not captured by measurement of albedo.
97295. Ron Crouch at 11:58 AM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       I'll bet you'll like the interactive graph here Huggy.
97296. Riduna at 11:47 AM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       In an article entitled Tuvalu - the touchstone of global warming and rising sea level, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11282 Professor Cliff Ollier (UWA) makes claims almost identical to those made by Monckton but goes a step further by claiming that sea levels are actually declining. Both ignore the effects of melting polar ice sheets and glaciers. Ollier even asserts that in the case of the Greenland ice sheet, melting is so slow as to have little or no effect on sea level. Rob Painting shows in this article shows that both are wrong. Melting of the Greenland and West Anatarctic ice sheet (WAIS) have the capacity to raise sea levels by 13-18m. Greenland is expected to reach a tipping point within the next 30 years, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927942.200-last-chance-to-hold-greenland-back-from-tipping-point.html and WAIS, a marine ice sheet, under attack from a warming southern ocean has potential to break-up causing more rapid rise in sea level. That sea level has been rising and continues to rise at an accelerating rate is yet another empirical measure which Monckton and Ollier ignore. But hey! Why let facts stand in the way of a reassuring story which falsely tells us we have nothing to worry about?
97297. HuggyPopsBear at 11:40 AM on 27 January 2011
       Ten temperature records in a single graphic
       JMurphy #60 I know I am not the all knowing one here scientifically, but the comment is a little ignorant to say the least. Read the question I posed again and see if you come up with a different conclusion. I am not advocating that one should abandon the instruments of the day and the last 150 years, out of interest I am asking what would the graph look like if the same techniques were applied to the last 400,000 years to the last 150. If similar patterns arose as prior to instruments, then surely that data run alongside modern calculation would change the chart for the whole 400,000 years and probably give surprising reading.
97298. notcynical at 11:27 AM on 27 January 2011
       Hotties vs Frosties?
       If the ballot box is still open, I belatedly agree with Omnologos @#10 that this is the best climate blog of 2010. Unfortunately, I did not discern a change in the tenor of the posts. I also agree that there is room for the "lukewarmies," and as Shawnhet says, the "warmies." That is, it would helpful in the discussion to recognize that there is a spectrum of opinion, not just "them" and "us".
97299. RW1 at 11:17 AM on 27 January 2011
       It's albedo
       Here's my question: If the albedo doesn't appear to be shrinking, where is all the energy coming from that is supposed to be causing the warming - specifically the 3 C rise in temperature from 2xCO2?
97300. Ron Crouch at 11:10 AM on 27 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
       Don't be too quick to make an assumption that corals will die off. Connolly, Sean R., and Andrew H. Baird. 2010 try to demonstrate that corals might have the ability to migrate to cooler waters. This makes perfect sense if we consider that at the end of the last ice age that global sea levels rose by some 300-400 ft. Some of the inputs at the termination of the last ice age consisted of rather huge amounts of fresh water, such as the draining of Lake Agassiz. If these events were that huge then one must consider that corals (shallow and deep water) might have the ability to adapt. #3 The reason there is a perception that sea levels around Scandinavia are lowering is due to crustal uplift, a result of GIA (glacial isostatic adjustment), which is a process that is still ongoing as a result of the end of the previous glaciation..

Prev  1938  1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945  1946  1947  1948  1949  1950  1951  1952  1953  Next