Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
Comments 97301 to 97350:
-
michael sweet at 07:41 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: The pre human climate changes you have referenced are certainly true. They show that with the current forcings (not including BAU increases) we can expect all of southern Florida and most of Bangladesh to be under water in the future. I defined that as abnormal. You have not defined what is abnormal for you. How about if you add this question to your poll: Can the people from Bangladesh come and live in your city when theirs is underwater from CO2 pollution? Would you pay more for electricity if it kept the Bangladeshis in Bangladesh? You would get different responses. When millions of pepople become climate refugees (like has already happened in Pakistan) that is a recipe for disaster and war. That is abnormal weather for me. -
Albatross at 07:12 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Michael @27, Thanks Michael-- you are probably speaking from experience :) You are right, it did take a while to pull it all together, over an hour in fact. -
Albatross at 07:10 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP @28, "According to them, North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average," Oh come now, that is a demonstrably false statement BP. This is what the NHC had to say: "According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record. In contrast, the eastern North Pacific season had the fewest storms on record since the satellite era began. In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher. From Dr. Jeff Masters' blog: "This year's Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index was 163, putting it in 13th place for ACE since 1944. A "hyperactive" hurricane season is considered to have an ACE index of >175% of the median. According to Wikipedia, median ACE measured over the period 1951–2000 for the Atlantic basin was 87.5, so 2010 is a hyperactive year by that definition (183% of the median.)" Professor Maue at FSU obtained an ACE of 170 for the N. Atlantic in 2010, the 11th highest since 1950, and highest since 2005. Please retract your erroneous statement BP. -
michael sweet at 07:07 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
I hope people recognize that it takes a lot of time for Albatross to link all those studies. In addition to reading them he has to find them for this reference. It is clear that Trenberth is qualified to discuss the probability of recent floods being due to AGW and not natural variation. On the other hand, WUWT and Humanity Rules are speaking from a complete lack of knowledge. They have not even read the background but they are willing to speculate about things they have not thought about in depth. Choose who you believe. -
JMurphy at 06:56 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pre-human forest fires are what they are. They happened and there is no denying them. To some, that obviously means something... -
Albatross at 06:55 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Apirate @89, You seem to have elected to completely miss the point about DB's post....no? M&M 2010 has already been questioned widely by real climate scientists, and the analysis has been found to fall short. You can read all about it here at the journal. I suspect Dan provided that particular graphic to appease contrarians b/c it was generated by "skeptics". Regardless, it seems that you are seeing only what you want to see. Here is a much better reconstruction for the last 2000 years, not 1000 as M&M10 did, by Ljungqvist (2010):
And here is another Hockey Stick published only days ago:
There are enough Hockey Sticks out there to equip a couple of NHL teams.
-
muoncounter at 06:54 AM on 29 January 2011Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#28: "North Atlantic ACE was indeed somewhat above average, even if at the lower end of the forecast" Great! I'll alert the National Hurricane Center to stand down. Large-scale climate features strongly influenced this year’s hurricane activity, as they often do. This year, record warm Atlantic waters, combined with the favorable winds coming off Africa and weak wind shear aided by La Niña energized developing storms. The 2010 season continues the string of active hurricane seasons that began in 1995. But short-term weather patterns dictate where storms actually travel and in many cases this season, that was away from the United States. The jet stream’s position contributed to warm and dry conditions in the eastern U.S. and acted as a barrier that kept many storms over open water. Also, because many storms formed in the extreme eastern Atlantic, they re-curved back out to sea without threatening land. The alleged cherrypick of using just the Atlantic (a big cherry, that one) was initially your move. As we've said, this question isn't a settled one; no one even knows the proper metric to use. -
Ron Crouch at 06:44 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
The Ville When the presentation opens in Impress did you try the left mouse button to advance frames? -
muoncounter at 06:37 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#88: "Pre-human climate change is what it is. It happened and there is no denying it." No one denies that. However, there is no causal connection between climate change on the geologic (presumably what you call 'pre-human') time scale and the climate change here and now. That's what you're missing; or do you actually believe that unrelated events have exactly the same cause? See Climate's changed before or CO2s been higher in the past and take further 'pre-human' commentary there. -
Albatross at 05:32 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate @88, "The textbook actually supports your premise of AGW." You have got to be kidding..."premise"? AGW is a theory, or as the national academy of sciences is on the record saying, "fact". Sorry, but you are displaying your inability to objectively present the facts about climate science and AGW Pirate. -
Albatross at 05:24 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
HR @23, I'm sorry to hear that you read WUWT. That site is the very anti-thesis of science. I second Michael, you have provided nothing but some musings (probably reinforced by the propaganda at WUWT). Do you and Watts deny that precipitable water vapour (PWV) content has increased by about 5% in the last 30-40 years? Do you deny that PWV is a necessary condition for precipitation, and source of latent energy? Research has repeatedly shown the importance of moisture in modulating storm intensity and rainfall rates (e.g., Crook 2006, MWR; Lenderink and Meijgaard (2008, Nature). Trenberth has many observations and papers which support his statements concerning the frequency of droughts and extreme rainfall (some examples here and here), heat waves (e.g., here) and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (e.g., here). Trenberth has worked extensively in this area (see list here). I am in a rush so this is by no stretch of the imagination a comprehensive list. As much as Anthony Watts et al's disinformation machine would like to have you believe, Trenberth is not talking out of his hat HR. Tamino has also had a look at the data here and here. Now I do agree with you that these events need to be studied and I will bet my house that real scientists are already hard at work doing just that, while the likes of Watts do nothing but pontificate and talk out of their hats. And don't come back with "but blocking is natural". That is a red herring. the 2003 European heat wave was also caused by a naturally blocking event (surprise surprise) but this is what subsequent research by Stott et al.(2004, Nature)found: "...we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude." That is what happens when warming from an extreme blocking event is superimposed on an underlying warming trend. The European event was also a beautiful example of the impact of positive feedback cycle (here and here). Time to for you and Watts to finally accept that were are disrupting the climate system HR. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:20 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I wonder, if these repondents were polled on it ahead of time, if they would say that they will agree to pay to rectify a pathetic financial fiasco generated by careless banking practices? mmmmm... Well, that is off topic and I expect will be deleted but it would be as skillfull a survey question as the ones included in that little poll concocted by pirate. How about a question like this: 3 different oncologists tell you that you have cancer and it's likely to be malignant. Another oncologist, retired 10 years ago and holding a quirky reputation tells you yeah, you might have it, but it'll probably go away and if not it's a good thing anyway. Would you still seek treatment and be ready to pay for it? I wonder, has anyone estimated the price of fossil fuels if they were to completely loose all forms of susbidies? -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:46 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Sweet @ 84, Their survey, not mine, was again based on guidance from their textbook. The textbook actually supports your premise of AGW. Pre-human climate change is what it is. It happened and there is no denying it. Providing DB's second graph based on projections would surely bias the results. 60% of the respondees were willing to pay extra for renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions. Fossil fuel based energy is cheaper and more reliable currently and for some projected time. Other than nuclear, some work is still required to effectively use alternative energy on a large scale. (FWIW, I like alternative energy where applicable.) -
NickD at 04:30 AM on 29 January 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Has there been any comments (here or elsewhere) on the paper by Knox & Douglass from 2010 regarding their findings refuting, apparently, Trenberth's analysis? I know there was some discussion on Curry's blog, but I prefer to not dive into the comment section over there. Thanks. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:15 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Alb @85, They went all over the site, but mainly concentrated on the two threads concerning CO2 lagging temperatures, and the natural cycles that were posted here within the last few weeks. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:11 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
From the McShane and Wyner paper that DB pulled the graphs from @ 66. Abstract: We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago. This is the graph as it appears in the paper.
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] The graph I used came from here. -
Albatross at 04:04 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate, "I simply showed them the graphs and articles from this site (yes, SKS only!) and asked their opinions." Which graphics exactly (links please) and what did you say about them? Thanks. -
michael sweet at 04:02 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Pirate: Your survey on line provides data that shows historic prehuman climate change and then asks if humans are causing current climate change. That biases the result. If you provided DB's second graph you sould get a completely different result. The deniers current theme is that climate change is normal and we cannot do anything about it. They used to say climate change was not happening, but that has been proven wrong. Additionally you ask if people will pay to reduce CO2. People always say they do not want to pay for changes. It is not clear that renewable energy will be more expensive than fossil fuels once the fossil fuel subsidies are removed. Certainly in 100 years fossil fuels will be more expensive- they will be used up. Students know what your opinions are even if you do not state them. Their friends have your class. Your position was clear from your first post here on SS. The framing of the on line survey is an example of your position. I only needed to read one question to see the point of the survey. Many students are concerned about climate change. Whether or not enough are interested is still to be determined. Right now it looks grim in the USA. My skeptical student tell me that they will not change their position until their house is flooded. It is not enough if Australia (or Texas) is hit. -
Albatross at 03:58 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Rob @13, "If each of those indicators had a small notation referencing a peer reviewed paper or two." Good idea...I second that. This graphic could be a great teaching tool. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:56 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
The Ville... I got the file to work with Keynote 5.0. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
You know something that would make this a much more powerful presentation? If each of those indicators had a small notation referencing a peer reviewed paper or two. That would change this from an interesting graphic into a powerful graphic. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:40 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
DB @ 66, Where did you get the second graph in this comment? It is not the same one labeled Figure 16 in the original paper.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Pardon for the delay in responding; been a little preoccupied with life, the universe and everything. Inre the graph from #66, I intentionally used the "Skeptic's" darling, the McShane and Wyner graph, adapted by Wag here. See also here, here and here for supporting discussion and sources. -
michael sweet at 03:39 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Humanity Rules: If you want to claim that Trenberth is "exaggerating" you need to provide some data and or cite a reference to back up your claim . You saying "I doubt it" is not reasonable. If you want to convice anyone that what you say is worth listening to you need to start citing data. According to the NCDC, 2010 was the wettest year globaly on record (since 1900). Just eyeballing this graph
wet is increasing, although there is a lot of noise. AGW theory predicts that the rain will fall more in the wet places and the dry places will get drier. that is what is being observed.
Why do you keep harping on El Nino causing the heat during 2010? All the record years are El Nino years.
-
caerbannog at 03:32 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Ed Davies at 00:03 AM on 27 January, 2011 @caerbanog #7, are the extra readings the ones differentiated by the "duplicate" field or just the "modifier"? I have to admit that I couldn't understand the description of the duplicate field so my own version of this just ignores it and uses the last data value for each station, but it does take the modifier as part of the station identification. I think that the duplicate number refers to duplicated time-series -- i.e. data with id #'s that vary by only the duplicate number should be identical (or nearly so). Not really clear as to why it's there (but haven't really investigated it). My new procedure simply merges all temperature data associated with a given WMO # (sans modifier and duplicate number) into a single time-series. Since I'm just doing straightforward averages in the merging process, the presence of duplicates will have no impact on my results. After I compute merged temperature time-series (one per WMO id), I then proceed with the anomaly calculations. The new results aren't all that different from the old results, but there is a visibly smaller difference between the "raw" vs. "adjusted" results in the early 20th Century with the corrected approach. If you plot out NASA's "Northern Hemisphere" and "Northern Latitudes" temperature results (data available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt), you will find that the "dumb average" approach (with WMO stations merged first) produces a post-1970 warming rate that lands in-between NASA's NH and NL warming rates (which certainly makes sense, intuitively). -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:17 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
My purpose of posting the comment about the AP Physics students was not to imply any scientific basis to discredit AGW, but to show that public perception of AGW is very different than what you may think. If the AGW hypothesis does bear fruit, and there are true negative effects that might possibly be addressed by proactive reduction of CO2 emissions, then these are the people that must be convinced. They are our future leaders. As far as my influencing these students with my viewpoints, trust me it did not happen. This was the one and only time I've had any contact with them. I simply showed them the graphs and articles from this site (yes, SKS only!) and asked their opinions. It wasn't until the end of the period that I voiced my thoughts. Glenn @ 73 - You make some good points and if we can carve some time out of their curriculum, I will do just that. Here is a link to a survey my Environmental Science students are conducting as a project. They followed a guide in their textbook while developing this survey to minimize any bias. Other than supplying computer access, I was hands-off. Click here to take surveyModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You should learn a better differentiation between a hypothesis and a theory. It might also be a good idea to have your students read this as well. -
citizenschallenge at 03:02 AM on 29 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION 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." Monckton - "It (satellite altimetry data) is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges." ~ ~ ~ ~ Sounds to me like the man is saying sea levels have been rising by 8 inches per century, (coming down from 48" per). That this rate of sea level rise ended about 6,7 thousand years ago and that sea levels have remain remarkably stable since then. . . seems not an unimportant distinction to make clear to folks and lurkers. -
Byron Smith at 02:37 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Another minor suggestion: snow cover --> summer snow cover. -
Joel3937 at 02:08 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
@The Ville, NeoOffice is a build of OpenOffice specifically for Macs. I am running NeoOffice 3.1.2 and the slide show works. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:33 AM on 29 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
Here is a related paper describing the project. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/20CRv2_Compoetal2010.pdf -
Chris G at 01:30 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Oops, not a particularly good example. That article does not really support the point I was testing. -
Chris G at 01:25 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Nice work John. Regarding the earlier Spring, I would hazard a guess that there is also a later Fall. In which case, it might be more accurate to say 'Longer warm seasons', 'Longer summers', or I suppose, 'Shorter winters' . It is a minor difference, but it would more accurately describe the situation. For instance, there is this, Late leaf fall. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:16 AM on 29 January 2011Rescue Climate Data
If you want to know what can be done with these data. I suggest this powerpoint presentation,. www.usclivar.org/Meeting_Files/Reanalysis2010/Monday/Compo.ppt Results are amazing at the end of 19th century. In the future, it is expected that reconstruction could be decent up to 1900. -
muoncounter at 00:46 AM on 29 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#68: "bright, educated, college scholarship worthy students" As there is no content in either HS Chemistry or Physics that deals with climate change (even the thermo taught in Physics stops with Carnot cycles), this is neither an issue of 'bright students' having an educated opinion nor one of 'misteaching'. My bet is on parental viewpoint - I recall pirate mentioned the southeastern US - that is politically biased or otherwise non-scientific. Of course, if the same group of students also believes that there is no gravity in space, that would shout 'misteaching'. The experiment that Glenn proposes in #73 would include giving such bright students, who have the pressure of college admits behind them, the opportunity to research the AGW question. Two weeks with groups tackling different pieces of the subject and presenting their results to the class could produce some interesting results. -
Paul D at 00:23 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
I have Open Office 3.2.1 on a Mac. -
Riccardo at 00:15 AM on 29 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Open Office 3.1.1 running on WinXP does it too. -
Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 29 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
HumanityRules @22, it is undoubtedly true that other factors has an impact on the extreme weather events of 2010. It is also clear that their frequency and intensity would not have been as great without global warming. As this is a blog, not a scholarly analysis, the presumption thta we should list every additional factor is without warrant. With regard to the 2011 floods in Brisbane, several factors are relevant. First, in 2011 there was significantly more rainfall in the Brisbane River catchment than in 1893 (the worst prior floods with a rainfall record. Second, more water flowed down the river in the 2011 floods than in the 1974 floods (despite the lower level), even though more water was held back by Wivenhoe then flowed down the river in 1974. In other words, the total amount of water involved was around twice as much as that which caused the 1974 floods. Third, based on hydrological evidence, the 2011 floods would have been around a meter higher than the highest flood since European settlement in Brisbane (1841) where it not for the effect of Wivenhoe and Somerset dams. On top of this, Wivenhoe was upgraded in 2005 from its ability to hold back a 1 in 400 year flood as a result of predictons of increased flood intensity as a result of global warming. As part of the upgrade, an auxilliary spillway was installed, whose first fuse plug was designed to only be overtopped by a 1 in 3,000 year flood. On the week of the flood, water levels came within 100 mm of overtopping that fuse plug. On this basis, the 2011 flood was at least a 1 in 200 year flood, but probably significantly greater. It was probably not a 1 in 2,000 year flood. Any figure in between at this stage involves significant guess work. But as Wivenhoe's capacity exceded that of the pre-expansion (ie, 1 in 400 year flood level) capacity by around 330 thousand megaliters (or 2/3rds of the size of Sydney Harbour) it seems very probable it was at least a 1 in 400 year event. All these odds assume no global warming. Given Global Warming, I would expect floods of similar or greater intensity at least four or five times over the remainder of the century. -
Ed Davies at 23:50 PM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Stefan's surname is spelled Rahmstorf. -
Ed Davies at 23:43 PM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Anthony G. Warming #42: "You would not spread any such irrelevant information concerning those you trust." This makes my head hurt. Either you think such information is irrelevant in which case you would, indeed, have no reason to spread it or you think the information is relevant in which case you wouldn't trust them. -
Rob Painting at 23:15 PM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Dikran, puncturing a "skeptic" fallacy here and there can't hurt. I disagree with both yourself and KR. Let's leave it at that. -
HumanityRules at 23:13 PM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
James includes a quote from Trenberth about extreme weather events and global warming. It's worth considering just how much further he has now gone six months down the line. I know this has got a lot of coverage on WUWT but his planned speech at AMS is laid out here. I'll give you the relevant quote. "It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia. It likely also applies to the flooding in Queensland, Australia In January 2011." He seems to be making rather exaggerated claims about events that happened 2 weeks ago, we probably don't even yet have all the relevant data collated never mind any serious analysis made. Maybe things have progressed so much that the normal course of science is no longer necessary? This is opportunism not science. -
HumanityRules at 22:56 PM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
15 Tom Curtis We could argue about the absolute impact of El Nino on the 2010 temperature but that wasn't really my point. In my opinion James has choosen to ignore the impact of El Nino on 2010's temperature record in order to tell a simple story about a warmer world and climate disasters. As highlighted in #21 there are other physical explanations for many of these events which have also been neglected by James. This has the overall effect of telling an unmuddied story about global warming and extreme climate events. I'm sure that soon after the Moscow heatwave the 'frozen' jet stream was also implicated in this event. Did a warming globe contribute 1oC or all 10oC to the Moscow anomoly? It seems unnecessary to contemplate these other physical causes to focus on a consistent story about global warming. Which is what we have here from James. Just on the Brisbane flood. A 1 in 400 year event? Are you sure? -
HumanityRules at 22:30 PM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
17 Marcus The unusual nature of the Pakistan floods was indeed the place where the rain fell. From memory the whole process began in the mountainous regions rather than the plains. This lead to fast run off into the river systems and devastating surges as the water made it's way downstream. The explanation for these more northern rains was monsoon rains strengthened in a La Nina region begin allowed to move northward by a 'frozen' jet stream. While it's worth considering how much this may have been exasperated by a warming world it doesn't seem to require that warming world for a plausible explanation of the event. -
Riccardo at 21:48 PM on 28 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
The Ville my Open Office 2.1 on linux does it. Anyways, a cross-platform format would be preferrable. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:24 PM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
#11 villabolo, no irony at all. The 1970's had some strongly negative AO, but lots of sea ice. So lack of sea ice did not cause negative AO in that case. Now we have negative AO again most likely a natural cycle, plus lack of sea ice (unnatural), but both of those are recent. We simply don't know how lack of sea ice affects the patterns like AO or NAO yet, that's the new territory. "Weird" weather (however one might define it) is not new territory. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:45 PM on 28 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Rob Painting@49 FWIW I agree with KR, even if Monckton's use of Morner was an appeal to authority, that doesn't justify the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific discussion. Better to keep the high ground. -
Paul D at 20:27 PM on 28 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
hmmm, tried it in Open Office and none of the labels appeared when it was run as a slide show. -
Paul D at 20:04 PM on 28 January 20112010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
Norman had a look at the link you provided and it has a list of years with floods in Pakistan. I calculated the intervals in years between each flood. I notice that the average interval for the first 6 floods in the list (1928-1976) was 8 years, the average interval for the last 6 floods (1976-2010) is 5.7 years. -
Bart Verheggen at 19:38 PM on 28 January 2011Animated powerpoint of the Indicators of Warming
Cool, just in time for my climate presentation today! I had already featured the 'still' figure, but I'll change it now to the animated version. -
scaddenp at 19:38 PM on 28 January 2011It's albedo
"so is the gain of about 1.6, which represents the amplification at the surface for each 1 W/m^2 of energy from the Sun." Again, this is bogus way to do it. You need a certain amount of energy to get past the threshold of having any water vapour at all. With zero CO2, you would still have same sun, but snowball earth and no water vapour. Above a certain point, the solar minus albedo is strong enough to give water vapour and get that feedback. Note also that albedo feedback becomes more important at lower temperatures too. The 3.7W/m2 is calculation by the way too, but you can the verify the RTEs used to calculate it empirically. I repeat, you have to calculate feedback with a model, not some half-baked "gain" idea. And the actual response of surface temperature to increasing CO2 gives a way to empirically estimate sensitivity (or test the sensitivity of model). 3 looks pretty good, but see the IPCC WG1 for variety of other empirical estimates. -
scaddenp at 19:25 PM on 28 January 2011It's albedo
They do. Water vapour amplifies any surface temperature increase (and vice versa). However, your "Gain" analogy is inadequate to quantify those feedbacks.
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
