Recent Comments

Prev  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  Next

Comments 98051 to 98100:

98051. Ron Crouch at 04:32 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
       Nicely illustrates the point I keep trying to drive home with people. That being the fact that no one can state with any certainty just how far we can push the planet before the situation gets out of hand (not that it already isn't). I simply can't fathom why the human race is always so prepared to play Russian Roulette with the planet. The real danger is that should it get out of hand, decisions are likely to be made that could propel us into an even worse geo-engineering experiment than the one that was undertaken in the Industrial Revolution and has persisted until present day. The whole thing keeps reminding me of that old adage about "biting the hand that feeds you". Sooner or later it's going to bite back very hard.
98052. MarkR at 04:32 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR, there is an intercept because we didn't start at 1 ppm CO2 at the year 0 AD. I don't think you've followed what we're actually plotting here... please go through the maths to see. Assuming no acceleration above exponential (even though we know there is, you can tell from the residuals which you have simply ignored) you can use the linear fit for the whole period to estimate 2100 CO2 ppm. It's 580 ppm CO2. But that's wrong, because it's accelerating. If we use the fit to the log(CO2) as a function of time for the past 20 years, you get over 670 ppm CO2 by 2100. That clearly shows it's accelerating, anyone with a spreadsheet and a clue can check this for themselves. (and of course, as there is an acceleration, that means that 670 ppm is a minimum bound and the real value is higher). What do you estimate that CO2 will be by 2100?
98053. WHATDOWEKNOW at 04:27 AM on 21 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       #57 Exactly, why then bother doing all this fancy computer model predictions on what the temperature will be in 2020 and beyond? Again, it has NOTHING to do with how stocks compare to temperature, it has ALL to do in applying different analytical/mathematical/data tools in understanding what has, is and will happen. Isn't that what we are constantly trying to do. Isn't that the holy grail? Or are you telling me we've got it all figured out? If that be the case, we can all sit back, relax, and let it get nice and toasty.. or???
98054. muoncounter at 04:27 AM on 21 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       #58: "Most of the trend analyzes tools (I suggested) " As I said here, data are ready and waiting for you to get started. I'm sure we'd be interested in your results.
98055. Sasquatch at 04:25 AM on 21 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       I'm currently pursuing a M. Sci. in Environmental Systems Engineering at a major liberal arts university in the US. I'm completing a research paper on AGW and it's relationship to climate change. A google search eventually led me to this site. My personal beliefs on AGW and climate change are that the climate has historically changed due to various natural cycles. There are macro-cycles and micro-cycles due to many, many reasons. The latest influence is the increased CO2 due to anthropogenic sources. This increase in CO2 almost certainly has an effect. My extensive research has led me to formulate an opinion. My professor requires us to look at research from various institutions in order to have a complete and balanced input before we generate our output. This site is generally scientific and has been valuable to me. Climate change is a natural and cyclical phenomenon that has occurred over the history of this planet. The normal state of the planet is to be glaciated. We are currently in an interglacial period and according to the timescale are clos to the descent into another glacial period. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising beyond historical levels. This is almost certainly due to the contributions from humans. It is reasonable to expect these rises in CO2 to contribute to further warming, i.e. climate change. The severity of these changes cannot be accurately determined, though some modeling is predicting the possibility of dire consequences. I do not personally believe that increased levels of CO2 can initiate major changes in the climate. I do believe they can contribute a great deal to climate change. A classmate of mine is conducting research into increased CO2 levels in greenhouses. She has shown increased yield and more vigorous growth from corn, beans and roses. Qualitative and quantitative improvements have been noted. She has not detected any statistically valid difference in temperature. As a legitimate question, does anyone here know why this has not occurred or where she might find some previous research on the matter? Unfortunately, politics and profiteering have entered the scientific discussion. Battle lines have been drawn and the various "sides" are digging into the sand and very little, if any, constructive debate is going on. Legislated change is unlikely to occur. This is unfortunate, because it appears little will be done to prevent any changes and the world will have to switch from a mode of prevention to a mode of reaction. If necessary.
       Moderator Response: See "It’s not bad," "CO2 is not a pollutant," and "CO2 effect is weak." And "Models are unreliable." Usually the comments have additional, excellent information; for example, you'll find links to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's report on CO2 and temperature's effects on crops. You also should skim the list of Arguments you can get to by clicking the "Arguments" link in the horizontal blue bar at the top of the page. And don't hesitate to use the Search field at the top left of the page.
98056. Albatross at 04:24 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Aargh, hit enter too soon. ...so I am surprised your post @69 was even permitted.
98057. Albatross at 04:22 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       BP, You continue to focus on ridiculously short periods, as you state in your post @69, to obfuscate and confuse people. And what makes it even more shameful on your part is that I know that you know deductions made about trends in these data over such short periods are meaningless, both scientifically and statistically. Besides, your post if off topic, so
98058. Bill Peddie at 04:22 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #5: Dangerous Warming
       I get quite uncomfortable when I see sentences and paragraphs lifted from popular articles and argued against at a different level. Most of the atmospheric scientists I am familiar with say that water is the main greenhouse gas and that carbon dioxide is mainly coming from the sea in response to slightly warmer temperatures. Prof Lindzen who with respect knows far more about the atmosphere than I suspect you or I will ever do points out that it is what happens at a local level rather than a global level that really matters. His comments on carbon credits are worth a read if only to see what has been going on behind the scenes. Read his paper on my site http://billpeddie.wordpress.com and make up your own mind.
       Moderator Response: See "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas," and "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions."
98059. WHATDOWEKNOW at 04:18 AM on 21 January 2011
       Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
       #56. I really don't know what you are babbling about. My suggestion to use so stock trend analyzes tools is not based at all "on the premise that climate variables are so numerous, complex and intricate that we can never understand them, as is the case with the thousands and thousands of stocks." It's just about using different tools to help us understand better (or are you suggesting that we've figured it all out already?). Honestly, we understand the stock market well; in part because there are many great data analyzes tools for that available. There is a lot of knowledge to consider in stocks, or do you think it's all random? If that be the case, nobody would ever buy a stock; way to risky. Most of the trend analyzes tools (I suggested) are good for increasing markets (on average stocks need to go up, or there is no reason to own them), and therefore these tools could be applicable to temperature data too since that's been going up since 70s'-80s as well. I appreciate the open-mind set to possible new ways... but why would you... you've got it all figured out.
98060. Albatross at 04:18 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Dikran, Interestingly Lindzen used the same "trick" of global SATs that you showed @75 in his debate with Andy Dessler.
98061. Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Actually NETDR is right, I've just plotted the HADCRUT surface temperature dataset, in degrees Kelvin (starting at zero), and it definitely looks like an "horizontal asymptote" to me. I don't know about you chaps, but I'm off to buy a V8! ;o)
98062. Dikran Marsupial at 03:53 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETDR@73 Funnily enough, starting a graph at an unreasonably low level is a common practice for trying to make something look trivial when it isn't, so much so that the practice was lampooned by DenialDepot here. Starting at 0 is clearly absurd as it equates to a concentration of 1ppmv, which is essentially physically impossible. Whether a 3% rise in log(CO2) depends on climate sensitivity, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly. If the climate is sensitive to a change in radiative forcing, then even modest increases can be significant. As you are not connecting radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, you are in no position to know whether it is trivial or not, which is why your arguments are not getting a better reception. At least we have established that you *are* using your own personal definition of the word "asymptote"! For most of us it means a function that is converging to, rather than diverging from a constant value.
98063. WHATDOWEKNOW at 03:53 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       #61. I agree, except with the "wipe out part". Anyway, back to PDO and ENSO and how they relate. Among other aspects of the ENSO and PDO cycle, I wrote this in one of my earlier comments (#13): "Adding PDO events (warm to cold reversals, vice versa, phase shifts, etc) to the NOI data we instantly see the following: The 2008 la nina coincides exactly with the PDO GPTC The 1998 el nino coincides exactly with the PDO phase shift from warm to cold The 1988 la nina coincides exactly with the highest PDO (LPTC) since 1934 The 1977/78 el nino coincides exactly with PDO phase shift cold to warm The 68/69 la nina coincides exactly with PDO's phase reversal The 55/56 la nina coincides exactly with the lowest PDO value since 1900 In addition, between 1950 and 1977 there were 126 la nina seasons (months) and 75 el nino seasons: PDO was cold Between 1977 and 1998 there were 53 el nino seasons and 27 la nina seasons: PDO was warm." Do we really need much more proof too see that ENSO and PDO are related?
98064. NETDR at 03:29 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Dikhran Re: My statement that the plot of the log of CO2 looks looks like a horizontal asymptote. Notice that your graph starts at 5.75 and ends at 5.95. If you start the plot at zero it does look like an asymptote with very slight slope. This is a common practice of trying to make a trivial amount of increase appear large. (5.95 - 5.75)/ 5.75 = 3 % in 52 years ! That is if you will excuse the expression "trivial"! In another 90 years it [the effect] will have increased 6 %. That is pretty close to an asymptote.
       Moderator Response: You're still dodging the crucial issue that several people have put to you: Do you claim that the effect of that CO2 increase on temperature will be trivial?
98065. MarkR at 03:02 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       RE: #22 Ken, thanks to Eric @ #24 who effectively answered it for me. :) The atmosphere isn't a single isothermal 'block' and nor are the oceans. What Eric says seems correct: heat can be transferred between the oceans and atmosphere. That explains why ocean heat content increased in a year when atmospheric temperatures fell, for example. But ENSO also affects the total radiative forcing through changing clouds. A good metric for global warming is total heat, including the oceans, ice etc. Thermodynamics should stop long term divergence in trend signs, but total heat content (being radiative alone) should be less noisy than atmospheric heat content (which is also coupled through latent & sensible heat transfers from the surface).
98066. Anthony G. Warming at 02:56 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       25 Sphaerica, I totally agree with your description of the interplay of heat and temperatures. If you read the rest of my comment (other than what you quoted), you will see that I described a long term change towards another equilibrium in the future, other than the one we have today, whereas you describe the day/night cycle with its flows back and forth. I still object to the top post's: "... it takes time for the ocean to release its heat into the atmosphere." In the long term perspective, the ocean will gradually adapt its temperatures to the climate. We don't have to fear a future shock when the ocean will "release its heat". It's just a creeping change of balance that we are facing, and it changes year by year, slowly and continuously. I think 22-Ken Lambert has similar objections: "What is all this about the oceans 'releasing' and 'dumping' heat to warm the atmosphere?"
98067. Chris G at 02:54 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       There are a lot of good comments above, even the ones that disagree with each other. My take on the discussion so far: The ocean provides enormous thermal buffering. This works in both directions, all the time. You can conceptualise this as the ocean acting as a heat sink at this point, and less of a heat sink as an approximate equilibrium is reached, or as an increased outflow of energy as it gains heat content. It makes little difference since both are true. Couple of points, that may be more or less obvious, apologies for stating the obvious: There will be no equilibrium until some time after the GHGs are stabilized. They won't stop increasing just because they have doubled. So, to talk of an equilibrium at any given level doesn't apply to the reality in which we live, until and unless that reality includes a stabilization of GHGs. Some people treat ENSO and other sloshing around of oceanic water as causes or forcings in and of themselves. They aren't; they are just instabilities in the system attempting to reach an internal thermal equilibrium. The cold water upwellings are driven by salinity and temperature differences, and wind (which is just the same process of entropy acting in the atmosphere). They are ultimately determined by relative energy distributions within the earth system; they don't add or remove energy from the system.
98068. Phila at 02:50 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       #70 You argument is a clear example of unintentional cherry picking, Having seen BP cherrypick periods like this more than once, and get called on it each time, "unintentional" is not the first word that springs to mind.
98069. apiratelooksat50 at 02:40 AM on 21 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Muon, What websites do you find acceptable for research that you would direct me toward? Pirate
98070. Bob Lacatena at 02:09 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       23, Anthony,

       The coffee-cup has a higher temperature than the air, and has already a lot of heat to release, thus lowering its temperature. This is not the case with the ocean.

       This is not true. It may seem this way to people who go to the ocean for a swim, where the water seems cold and it is hot on the beach under the sun, but that limited, specific (and anecdotal) environment is very, very different (hot, sunny day, coastal water, etc.) from the global picture. The interplay of land/air/ocean temperatures is complex, but in general... sunlight passes straight through the air and does not heat it much at all. It strikes the ground and some is reflected, while the rest heats the very surface. It strikes the ocean, penetrates and heats it to some small but not inconsequential depth, reflecting very little. At night, the land cools quickly, the oceans not as fast (because of the properties of shallowly heated solid objects versus a great depth of H₂O). The upshot of all of this is that the oceans absorb a lot more energy from the sun during the day (since very little is reflected), and also take much longer to transfer that heat ("release it") to the atmosphere. That's how the air gets heated, through heating from both the land and the ocean, day and night -- not from the sun itself, directly. But the ocean's contribution to that heating is dramatically more pronounced than that of the land, and that's the only way that the atmosphere gains heat (which it ultimately loses through radiation out into space). The air is not, on average, day and night, around the globe, warmer than the ocean.
98071. JMurphy at 01:49 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       thepoodlebites wrote : "I’m expecting to see the UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature anomaly for Jan. 2011 to be near or below zero, similar to the beginning of 2009. That would effectively wipe out 30+ years of warming in the satellite record. And the Sun is still unusually quiet." So, you're saying that the anomaly you are predicting for Jan 2011 ("near or below zero") will be similar to the "beginning of 2009" (is that Jan 2009 or some/a few/several months ?) - the year before 2010, which UAH list as the 2nd warmest in their records, i.e. warmer than 2009 - and that this will subsequently "wipe out" the UAH positive trend of roughly 0.4C seen over the last 30 years ?
98072. Eric (skeptic) at 01:42 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       thepoodlebites, my prediction is that if "30+ years of warming in the satellite record" is wiped out, then we will also see a significant rise in OHC.
98073. Eric (skeptic) at 01:09 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       #22, KL, the oceans will release heat when the SSTs are warmer than the atmosphere. There is no second law argument here since the local SST's in El Nino conditions are much higher than the local atmospheric temperatures. Those large local imbalances are what drives the global net ocean heat release. In ENSO neutral and La Nina, the net balance is for the ocean to absorb more heat. In 1998 there was no "cooling forcings overtaking warming forcings", there was simply a net release of ocean heat and corresponding spike in GAT.
98074. Anthony G. Warming at 00:58 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       I agree with 17 Ed Davies. I find the answer (18), and also the original statement in the top post misleading: "Just as it takes time for a cup of coffee to release heat into the air, so to it takes time for the ocean to release its heat into the atmosphere." The coffee-cup has a higher temperature than the air, and has already a lot of heat to release, thus lowering its temperature. This is not the case with the ocean. Even after reading the article at the underlying link in the above quote, I don't think the situation is correctly described. Before humans started adding CO2 en masse to the atmosphere, the oceans were (roughly) in equilibrium with the rest of the Earth (i.e. air, land).--Then AGW started. More (and more) heat stays within the system due to the greenhouse effect. Temperatures are rising. The oceans absorb most of the increasing heat content. As the process goes on, ocean temperatures will rise, they will absorb gradually less heat, and will release gradually more heat, until another equilibrium is reached (provided that there is an upper limit to the new CO2 content). The article gives the impression of an ocean that is currently building up enormous heat content that will later (suddenly?) be released to the atmosphere. That's not how it works. The ocean is both absorbing and releasing heat, all the time. Right now it's lagging behind a bit in temperature, because it takes time to raise the temperature of a billion cubic kilometers of water. Gradually it will catch up, and asymptotically a new equilibrium will be reached, with higher temperatures, and higher levels of heat transfer--both to and from the oceans.
98075. Ken Lambert at 00:46 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       Original Post and MarkR #16 What is all this about the oceans 'releasing' and 'dumping' heat to warm the atmosphere? Global warming is supposed to be about a positive imbalance in the energy flux at TOA, causing a net energy gain to the biosphere over time. Although there is a small amount of geothermal energy flowing from the ocean bottom upward, surely the predominant flow is from the top down ie. direct radiation and convection from a warmer atmosphere into the oceans where over 90% (93.4% according to above)is absorbed by way of increased temperature via complex circulations. The oceans could only 'release or dump' heat to the atmosphere on a global scale if the positive warming imbalance turned negative which means that cooling forcings overtake warming forcings - which can't happen if CO2GHG forcing and feedbacks do act as claimed by the proponents of AGW.
98076. thepoodlebites at 00:41 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       #54 Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality. If you find strong correlation you should investigate to establish a possible relationship. WhatDoWeKnow is correct, the Sun can not respond to changes in the Earth’s oceans or atmosphere, that would be silly. But there is evidence that the oceans respond to changes in the Sun and the atmosphere responds to changes in the ocean. I see the PDO and other cyclical ocean processes (AO, NAO, AMO, ENSO) as heat redistribution systems. Upwelling brings colder water to the surface. And we know that deep water is very cold. El Nino begins when the trade winds weaken, allowing warm water to flow from the western pacific to the eastern pacific. Kelvin waves develop that reflect and propagate both North and South along the North/South American coasts. Even longer term Rossby waves can propagate westward at higher latitudes back towards Japan. I know that there is debate about the relationship between ENSO and PDO but I think they are connected. I see ENSO and the PDO as a transfer of heat from the tropics to higher latitudes. It’s like two steam generators that are connected through a secondary system. The relationship is dynamic, nonlinear and inherently oscillatory. Currently, with the cool phase of the PDO and La Nina working together, we are seeing a cooling response in the atmosphere. I’m expecting to see the UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature anomaly for Jan. 2011 to be near or below zero, similar to the beginning of 2009. That would effectively wipe out 30+ years of warming in the satellite record. And the Sun is still unusually quiet. That’s my take, have fun tearing it apart.
98077. archiesteel at 00:38 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       @Dikran Marsupial: I think you are being overly generous when you say this is "unintentional" cherry-picking on BP's part. BP, you know very well that you can't derive a trend from such a short period of time - so why do it, if not to present a false impression of reality? Please stop your politics interfere with your view of science. Thanks.
98078. JMurphy at 00:37 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's cooling
       MJ Liberto, to satisfy your curiosity, and in addition to what has already been posted for you, why not also have a look at this page, where you can find the 'It's the Sun' argument and others that are linked to it. And to see how all possible factors are taken into consideration, why not look at Newcomers Start Here, The Big Picture and Skeptic Arguments and what the Science says.
98079. Dikran Marsupial at 00:32 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's cooling
       MJ LIberto@108 The effects of the sun *are* taken into account in modelling global climate. However we have measurements that show that changes in solar activity are too small and in the wrong direction to explan the warming of the last 40 years or so. The IPCC WG1 scientific basis report though attributes much of the warming of the first half of the 20th century to solar activity. Note the number 1 skeptic argument is "It's the sun".
98080. archiesteel at 00:32 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's cooling
       @MJ: In a nutshell, we know it's not the sun because we can measure Total Solar Irradiance, and it's actually decreasing a little right now. The effects of the sun are, in fact, calculated in the Global Climate Models. May I suggest you read a bit more about the subject on this site before commenting?
98081. Eric (skeptic) at 00:31 AM on 21 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       #26 MarkR, more generally than clouds, sensitivity will be determined by the water vapor distribution http://wacmos.itc.nl/?q=node/22 WV will determine clouds which will have a large impact on sensitivity, but WV independent of clouds is just as important for determining the net radiative balance.
98082. Bob Lacatena at 00:31 AM on 21 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       1, muoncounter,

       Less than 2% going into ice (Greenland, Arctic, ice caps) gives us the melt rates we've observed??? I'm stunned.

       Realize, I think, that the graphic says that this is the energy that has gone into actual melting, i.e. un-reversed transition of solid ice to liquid water. While the ice melt is dramatic and scary from a human point of view, it doesn't really represent the use of all that much energy to get there. What is more important is that a sizable chunk of the heat from the 93% of heat in the ocean, 2.3% in the atmosphere and 2.1% on the continents is geographically located at the north pole, and is how the heat gets "into position" to eventually melt frightening amounts of ice. I'd love to see this graphic modified to further split the ocean, atmosphere and continent numbers into three for five bands (SH, EQ, NH or else SP, SML, EQ, NML, NP), to show that geographic distribution.
98083. MJ Liberto at 00:14 AM on 21 January 2011
       It's cooling
       I am very curious to understand why the effects of the sun are not calculated into the global warming scenario. Our sun is already middle aged and will eventually fry the earth if science does not find a way to distance them. Shouldn't all factors be taken into consideration when looking for an accurate analysis and figures on what is causing the earth and its oceans to warm?
       Moderator Response: In the Search field at the top left of the page, type "It's the sun" without the quote marks.
98084. MarkR at 23:48 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       I believe LC09 accepted they made a mistake in the simple climate sensitivity equation, so their actual estimate was 0.82 K. But still most likely wrong, because they used an open domain and seemingly randomly selected time periods (they happened ot randomly select time periods that gave lower sensitivities). As for clouds, I think the article is right. There are many observational estimates. Dessler & Lauer have observations along with their model (they just looked at more complex models than the traditional sensitivity equation LC09 used). That's looking at cloud feedbacks, like LC09 did. The Knutti & Hegerl paper shows many estimates of sensitivity from the reaction of tempereature to forcing, which is an observational estimate of the ENTIRE sensitivity, and not just individual feedback factors. Also, the only way we know of that could make a low sensitivity is clouds. And we've looked hard for a negative cloud feedback for decades and not found one.
98085. Eric (skeptic) at 23:44 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       I think the storage and releasing of heat by the ocean has two components, the long term one is OHC increases to reach equilibrium. However, that rise is smaller than OHC fluctuations due to irregular cycles like ENSO. When ENSO causes large areas of high SSTs, OHC goes down (the ocean is releasing heat) and vice versa. However that idea may be too simplistic. Figure 2 in http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/abstracts/2002GL015924.pdf shows the SST but also the discharge and recharge measurement which should also affect OHC.
98086. mspelto at 23:39 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       #1 Do not be amazed that the GIS melt is just 0.2%. Recall that the acceleration of the Greenland glaciers is from changes at the terminus due to thinning. The thinning results in reduced friction and increased calving. The most likely candidate for thinning at the terminus is bottom melting from warmer ocean waters. As noted for Petermann and West Greenland, which brings us back to the largest blue ball that is the one to keep your eye at present even for the ice sheets.
98087. ProfMandia at 23:35 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       Ed, The oceans are huge so the total heat content is quite impressive. Heat fluxes are just not able to move this heat out very quickly. All three heat transfers are involved but it appears that latent heat released by condensing water vapor is what provides the air with most of the heat that originated in the ocean. Globally averaged values: Conduction adds 24 watts per square meter to the air Net back radiation warms the air by 66 watts per square meter Heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter
98088. Dikran Marsupial at 23:17 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       BP@69 If you look at the data you plot in post 53, you will find there are several such short periods (e.g. 1980-1990) where there is little or no rise (or even a decrease) in OHC, even though this happens in the context of a long term increase in OHC. You argument is a clear example of unintentional cherry picking, focusing on short periods where the natural variability masks the long term warming. It is essentially the same argument as global warming stopped in 1998 etc.
98089. Berényi Péter at 22:55 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       #54 Marcus at 13:22 PM on 20 January, 2011 Since mid-2007, when all 3,000 buoys were deployed, through to mid-2010 we saw consistent warming. Unfortunately that's either untrue or false. In fact there's no heat accumulation in the system even from mid-2007 to mid-2010. Nothing Nada Nicht Nichego. Semmi. It is the pre-2003 era where people have to look for Trenberth's missing heat when it could easily escape the rather sparse & error prone MBT/XBT measurement network. With ARGO in full swing it is no longer the case.
98090. jhudsy at 22:39 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       angusmac@65 You've got better eyes than I do if you can see that from Figure 2. However, a least squares fit from 2000 is showing a trend of between 0.12 and 0.17 per decade (depending on the data set used, and ignoring exogenous factors), which is very different to the "constant CO2 concentrations at year 2000" values that I've been able to find.
98091. Marcus at 22:34 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       Also, Angusmac, methane concentrations in the atmosphere actually leveled out for the first part of the 2000-2010 period, so that also probably had some impact on total warming trends. Unfortunately, all the evidence says that methane levels have begun to rise again (we'd also better pray those clathrates don't melt, or else its "all over, red rover"!)
98092. Marcus at 22:32 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       angusmac, I've got 3 little words for you-deep solar minimum. For the record, warming was only slightly less for 2000-2010 than it was for 1990-2000, so imagine what it will be like when total solar irradiance starts to trend upwards again. Also, you are aware that the period of 2000-2010 on that graph would be the *tiniest* little blip-where currently all 4 scenarios still overlap?
98093. angusmac at 22:23 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       A reasonable argument is posted in this article. However, if you add up-to-date actual measured tempratures to Figure 2, it is evident that they are tracking closer to the orange line (constant CO2 concentrations at year 2000 values)than the other scenarios. It seems that we are not warming as fast as the models predict we should.
98094. Berényi Péter at 22:06 PM on 20 January 2011
       Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
       I've taken UAH satellite measured lower troposphere temperatures anomalies and annual global accumulated cyclone energy for the satellite era (1979-2010) and have made a scatter plot. If anything, there's a weak negative correlation between temperature anomaly and ACE. That is, there's no need to be scared about would-be supercanes. Named storms is crap. Before the satellite era tropical storms not making landfall were seldom named because they could easily go unnoticed. This is why hurricanes making landfall in the US of A are important for century scale histories. They are extremely well documented. If not by scientists, then by insurance companies for sure.
98095. Ed Davies at 22:02 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       ...so to it takes time for the ocean to release its heat into the atmosphere. Why would the ocean release heat? I think it's that as equilibrium is reached the ocean stops absorbing heat resulting in it no-longer cooling the surface.
98096. MarkR at 21:31 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       #4 Adrian: UAH only measures the atmosphere, you're particularly looking at the lower troposphere. Part of this cooling is probably related to heat being dumped into the Pacific during a La Nina. Although ENSO does have a radiative forcing associated with it (as a positive feedback related to atmospheric temperatures as well as circulation etc). This happened at the last La Nina and the WUWT crowd did the same thing then: claiming that global warming was being 'wiped out' (they changed focus when we warmed up by more than we'd cooled down again though). Global warming is a sum of all the heat flows including ice and ocean as well as atmosphere. The 2.4% portion in the atmosphere has drastically decreased, but the amount in ice probably hasn't and even if the oceans do dump heat, the last time we had 'ice age cometh' shouts in 2008 the oceans had actually gained heat. Ocean heat content is here. We are confident it's not natural cycles because the oceans have gained so much heat, the mean atmospheric temperature has increased and there has been no noticeable trend in these natural cycles that could explain the warming. The mean solar output for the past decade has been lower than the '90s, and so has the mean ENSO index. Yet the past decade was warmer than the '90s with more heat in the atmosphere, melted ice and oceans.
98097. Ann at 21:19 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       @adrian smits The next step in your reasoning is you will be announcing a new Ice Age every winter and a new Global Warming every summer, since temperatures tend to go a bit up and down during the year. Global temperature is a noisy signal, and if you look at only a short period of time (let’s say a year), you are only seeing the noise. You have to take a step back and look to a longer period (for instance 30 years or more) to see the trend. Anyone who draws conclusions about the earth’s climate based on just one year is … well, wrong (and that applies to both skeptics and AGW proponents).
98098. Dikran Marsupial at 20:55 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
       NETCDR@58 wrote "If you plot the Ln of the CO2 between 1958 and 2010 it looks like a horizontal asymptote but it does increase very slowly." Nonsense, here is a plot of ln(CO2) for that period from Tamino's analysis: It doesn't look anything like a "horizontal asymptote" (unless you have your own personal definition of "asymptote"), not only is ln(CO2) rising, it is rising at an increasing rate. Your argument doesn't survive first contact with the data.
98099. Paul D at 20:42 PM on 20 January 2011
       Infographic on where global warming is going
       If more than 2% was melting ice, we wouldn't have any ice at all. Ice is ice for a very good reason.
98100. LandyJim at 20:20 PM on 20 January 2011
       Monckton Myth #4: Climate Sensitivity
       From what I have read here there are hazardous assumptions and errors creeping in to this. Cloud cover and localized air temperature rises go hand in hand because the clouds reflect radiation emitted by the local environment back down, this is an obvious positive feedback that has been known for a very long time, however this does not operate on a global level because we do not have global cloud cover. Further, it is a fact that increased cloud cover does in fact reflect more solar radiation back into space, ask any astronomer...you increase a planet's cloud cover, you increase it's albedo because more radiation is reflected back into space. However, and this is important, increased cloud cover may reflect heat back into space, but if you have a heat source below that cloud layer, then any heat emitted by that source will be reflected back to the heat source, in this case the surface of the planet acts as both the emitter and the receiver. Monkton is wrong, but he is also right, as are you Guys and Gals. The situation is not as simple as the article above makes it sound. A good example of BOTH sides of this argument is Venus. Earth has an average Geometric Albedo of 0.386 (Bond Albedo of 0.29) Venus has an average Geometric Albedo of 0.84 (Bond Albedo of 0.75) Earth's varies quite a bit, but that of Venus is reasonably stable. Everyone knows that Venus is much hotter than Earth, even taking into account it's closer position to the Sun than Earth. Venus reflects ~80% of the radiation it receives from the sun, against Earth's ~35%, but because the dense atmosphere acts like a blanket, heat is trapped and the planet has the hottest surface temps in the Solar System. This is a clear example of where both sides of this argument area actually correct. However I accept that way Monkton presented it was clearly wrong, and was an example of very poor science.

Prev  1954  1955  1956  1957  1958  1959  1960  1961  1962  1963  1964  1965  1966  1967  1968  1969  Next