Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 Next
Comments 97451 to 97500:
-
MarkR at 21:00 PM on 27 January 2011A 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. :) -
JMurphy at 20:58 PM on 27 January 2011IPCC 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" ! -
Paul D at 20:51 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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'. -
Anthony G. Warming at 20:22 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Matthew at 20:18 PM on 27 January 2011IPCC 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 -
scaddenp at 20:02 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:11 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
Tom Curtis at 19:02 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Rob Painting at 18:51 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Kevin Hood at 17:34 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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! -
adelady at 17:02 PM on 27 January 2011The 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. -
John Brookes at 16:44 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
RW1 at 16:31 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
caerbannog at 16:28 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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??? -
pbjamm at 16:24 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
John Brookes at 16:22 PM on 27 January 2011The 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? -
Marcus at 16:05 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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*!!! -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:45 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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! -
Ron Crouch at 15:26 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
scaddenp at 15:18 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
muoncounter at 14:15 PM on 27 January 2011There 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. -
scaddenp at 14:05 PM on 27 January 2011CO2 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. -
RW1 at 14:00 PM on 27 January 2011It'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? -
scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
Albatross at 13:03 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Tom Curtis at 13:00 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Ron Crouch at 12:57 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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? -
MichaelM at 12:57 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:54 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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 -
Tom Curtis at 12:47 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Ron Crouch @6, perhaps you had in mind a sporting event? -
Daniel Bailey at 12:39 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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
-
RW1 at 12:37 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
Ron Crouch at 12:12 PM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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. -
Matthew at 12:09 PM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 27 January 2011It'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. -
Ron Crouch at 11:58 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
I'll bet you'll like the interactive graph here Huggy. -
Riduna at 11:47 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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? -
HuggyPopsBear at 11:40 AM on 27 January 2011Ten 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. -
notcynical at 11:27 AM on 27 January 2011Hotties 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". -
RW1 at 11:17 AM on 27 January 2011It'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? -
Ron Crouch at 11:10 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton 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.. -
HuggyPopsBear at 10:58 AM on 27 January 2011CO2 is not a pollutant
Isn't the thousands of words spent on explanation missing one fundamental point? Whilst everyone is saying higher CO2 is causing higher temperatures, they are missing the point that CO2 cannot be generated without heat and increases in composting. Charts show CO2 peaks after temperatures start dropping so in a sense is not CO2 a stabilizer of temperature. Talking with a highly respected agronomist the other day about this very thing, explained how much Carbon capture is being forced through agriculture these days. When considering the millions of acres that are agriculture and being given over to this form of farming, then we should be looking in other areas to lay the blame at mans feet. Such as ozone, the affects of this still have not left us and are on going. http://www.climate.org/topics/ozone-depletion.htmlModerator Response: "CO2 cannot be generated without heat and composting"? Say what?
Regarding lag, see "CO2 lags temperature."
Regarding carbon sequestration by agriculture--yes, it has some unrealized potential and most definitely is being considered; see "It’s too hard."
Also, see "It’s ozone." -
rhjames at 10:48 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
We need to be careful here. Sea levels have been generally rising for the past 20,000 years. It's not unusual. It changes with ocean temperature, but also shifts in the Earth's plates. Then there's the thousands of underwater volcanos. It's rising in some areas, and lowering in others (eg Scandanavia). It seems there's bigger forces involved than temperature effects.Response: We can use observations to calculate the various causes of sea level change. Tectonic movements are tracked by GPS and satellite altimetry. Ocean heat data is used to calculate the contribution of thermal expansion. Changes in the gravity field as measured by satellites tell us how much mass is being added to the oceans. All these factors indicate thermal expansion and melting ice sheets contribute almost all of sea level rise. -
Albatross at 10:31 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Robert @34, Good point. Yes, the RATPAC-A sites don't provide comprehensive coverage (only 85 sites). The sounding data do avoid problems associated with the UHI if one uses those data measured above the planetary boundary layer (say 700 mb and up). Here is a map of the coverage:
[sourced here; more information here].
One would have to choose a level or layer. It seems that NCDC uses the 850-300 mb layer.
-
Chris G at 10:23 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#56 Marcus, :-) You know, in certain circles, the majority of the people believe that an object twirled in an arc and then released will continue to travel in an arc, just a bigger one, rather than a straight line. It would be a funny world to live in if the laws of physics changed with whatever the majority happened to believe at the time. -
Albatross at 10:21 AM on 27 January 2011Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels
Nicely done Rob. Err, how does Monckton's argument (promoted thanks to Anthony Watts) that the oceans are allegedly cooling tally with his concession that sea levels are rising? Oh right, the contradictory nature of arguments made by many "skeptics" is to be expected. Identifying Monckton as a "skeptics" might be too generous though. "coral atolls simply grow to meet the light as the sea rises" Does this claim not totally ignore the negative impacts of bleaching and ocean acidification on the corals' ability to reproduce and grow? -
JMurphy at 10:17 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPopsBear, why do you imagine that we should abandon incredibly accurate instrumental/satellite temperature readings and, instead, rely on proxy records that cannot, by definition, be as accurate ? -
scaddenp at 10:16 AM on 27 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
apiratelooksat50 - if your best science students are that clueless as to evaluating scientific evidence then your country, wherever it is, has some really serious problems facing the future beside AGW.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The latest NAEP Science test results help explain the problem: One percent of fourth-graders, 2 percent of eighth-graders, and 1 percent of twelfth-graders performed at the Advanced level. Those 8th graders in 2009 are today's HS students. And this is still off-topic. John, perhaps a thread on science education might be of interest?
Prev 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 Next
