Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Next
Comments 98601 to 98650:
-
dhogaza at 11:07 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Albatross, I was surprised they said "most", too. I looked to see if it was safe to say "northern hemisphere meteorological winter", saw that bit in wikipedia, and qualified my statement as a result. From others: "Forecaster Ian Michael Waite said: ‘We expect January to be colder than average – there’s no way we’re moving out of this mini ice age any time soon.’ Whoever that Ian Michael Waite is (couldn't find anything about him from his supposed home on NetWeather) but he seems to have provided the all-important quote that the so-called skeptics and deniers can latch on to. But has he spoken too soon ?" London certainly isn't experiencing a continued "mini-ice age" this first half of January, unless "more or less normal temps" qualifies. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:54 AM on 15 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Dr. Franzen, I was late coming back to check, but I just saw your replies and calculations in 74 and 80, in reference to my fear expressed in 72. Thank you very much!!! -
Albatross at 10:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Dhogaza @35, We are in agreement, on all fronts :) Just a small comms breakdown. I am surprised that the Wikipedia article says "most locations". As far as I know, all the major climate centres around the world (NOAA/NCDC, Hadley etc.) consider DJF to be the boreal winter. -
barry1487 at 10:50 AM on 15 January 2011Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Question: The surface of the oceans is on average warmer than the near-surface air temperature. How can atmospheric heat warm the oceans? (My guess is that circulation patterns from diurnal and latitudinal changes sea heat exchange from air to oceans under certain conditions, but I still wonder how the oceans are heating when, generally, the air is warmer than the water) -
dhogaza at 10:41 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"In meteorology and climate, regardless of where one lives in the N. Hemisphere, the boreal meteorological winter is officially DJF." So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Wikipedia only says "most locations in the Northern Hemisphere". I said NA and Eurasia because I know it to be true for those two continents, and of course all the screaming of record cold centers around the eastern US and northern Europe. "So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous." Certainly true, such claims are bull, and I'm well aware that we're only about 1/2 way through meteorological winter. And where I live in NA, it's not been a cold winter at all. -
Mike G at 10:22 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
AS @ 51 No, that graph is NOT what De'ath et al's data show. It took a bit of hunting to figure out where that graph even came from, but eventually I found it here: More Coral Reef Shenanigans It's a perfect example of why you should RTFP and understand what the authors actually did before you declare them wrong. Apparently, what the creator of that image did was use the raw data from only the NEW sample sites, which were only a small subset of the total number of samples used by De'ath et al. The majority of the of the data were from Lough's previous samples which included hundreds of corals. The assertion that there were only 9 samples in the early 2000s is false. At the end of the study period in 2005, there were still 21 corals in the sample and 77 for the previous year. At the peak, there were ~300 corals in the sample, not the ~60 shown in the graph. Not only is the creator of the graph not using most of the data De'ath did, they also didn't correct for distance from shore and sea surface temperature. As Lough and Barnes (2000) found in the paper you cited, skeletal density increases with distance across the shelf and calcification increases with SST (which co-varies with latitude). Failure to correct for these variables introduces a spatial bias as corals from different parts of the reef enter the record- e.g. years with more corals from the North would increase the average calcification rate and make it look like calcification was increasing over time, even in the absence of any real temporal trend. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - I would recommend you read Petty 2006; there is a summary of some of the more important spectral data here in The greenhouse effect and 2nd law of thermodynamics, intermediate. -
Paul D at 09:14 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Re Ericmair@26 Haven't seen that one before. Reminds me of the hydraulic power systems in London that pre-dated electric grids. There were massive steam engines that were connected to massive hydraulic accumulators, those were connected to a network of pipes that fed factories, providing power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hydraulic_Power_Company I guess the Gravity Power thing is an accumulator, the exception being that it would drive a generator?? -
co2isnotevil at 09:11 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Regarding my criticism of the GWPPT presentation, it was at the request of rfranzen and I spent at least an hour of my valuable time pouring through it to see what he was doing wrong. Upon review, as I said, the math seemed OK. In fact, it's virtually the same math I've used. The problem was the data going in to the analysis. Much better data is available now and will produce far superior results, just probably not the expected results. -
co2isnotevil at 09:03 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
This is directly related to Hfranzen's post. He claims the same same exact thing that I do which is that half of what is absorbed by the atmosphere by GHG's is radiated out into space. Look at the GWPPT presentation he references. If this is the case, which I believe it is, the same thing applies. Why is it so hard to admit that the clear sky atmosphere radiates power into space? Look at the Trenberth paper. He claims that the atmosphere radiates 169 W/m^2. His number is so much higher because he assumes a much narrower transparent window. Examining the emission spectrum of the Earth, the emission lines of the GHG's in the atmosphere are mostly dark, so the only place in the spectrum where this power can be emitted is in the transparent window. KR can't answer this, so how about hfranzen? What is the origin of this power? He must be able to answer this to explain his own work. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
hfranzen - For my part, I wish to thank you for putting in the not-inconsiderable work on your guest post, and for presenting the information for people who do not have your physical chemistry background. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:49 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
If I could ask just one favor, it would be nice to not just throw around empty rhetoric about how bad wind is or responses that there is a conspiracy against wind power. Also please don't turn this into another debate over nuclear power. My view is a great deal of the criticism over wind can be answered with solutions at small and large scales. Both scales can be optimized with a smart grid. Here's just one article about various alternatives http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_energy_how_to_store_excess_electricity/2170/ -
muoncounter at 08:47 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#33: "rumor mill and misinformation machine" Yeah, funny how they think talking about the weather during the summer is cherry picking; but in winter, they seem to pick up every Local on the 8s. Risking John's ire, I will note one weatherman who seems to have his head on straight: Cold? This isn't cold. Forty below is cold. But we're a long way from the record-cold days our parents and grandparents experienced. Thursday was the 99th anniversary of the day in 1912 when thermometers in Oakland, out in Garrett County, registered 40 degrees below zero. That was, and still is, the record-cold reading for the state. This is by no means an invitation to play dueling weather reports here. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - I'm going to go with the moderator on this. 450 posts, most of which repeatedly pointed to errors in your framing of the problem, is several hundred too many. Been there, done with that. -
Rob Painting at 08:35 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
Arkadiusz @ 51 GBR calcification decline looks like this. Maybe it would if De'ath et al made all the errors that Professor Ridd and his colleagues did, that simply wasn't the case. But again you continue to be off-topic, this post is about bleaching the calcification "argument" is in the works. -
hfranzen at 08:27 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Response to #90 Good advice - I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass and am trying to discuss science with the Red Queen. I did initially feel gratified by a number of responses from some participants who were interested in learning something. -
co2isnotevil at 08:23 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
KR, The earth must emit 240 W/m^2 at 255K The power from the surface, clouds and indirectly the surface beneath clouds that passes through the transparent window in the atmosphere is at least 100 W/m^2 too low. What is the origin of this extra radiation, if not the surface or the clouds? This isn't a strawman or red herring, but a question that you can't seem to answer. I've answered this question, but you don't like my answer because it implies there's something horribly wrong with your 'consensus' science. You tried to say it comes from GHG's, but this would be in the emission spectrum of those gases, which when observed from space, are dark. To help you answer the question, consider the following: The average surface temperature of 287K corresponds to 285 W/m^2. Clouds have an average temperature of about 261K, corresponding to 263 W/m^2. The clear sky atmospheric window is about 45% and the window between clouds and space is larger, at about 55% (far less water vapor). Clouds cover 2/3 of the planet. You would claim the windows are even smaller, but that only makes things worse for you. The energy passing through the transparent window is, 1/3 * 285 * 45% + 2/3 * 263 * 55% = 139 W/m^2 Where is the other 101 W/m^2 of radiative power coming from?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Much of this was worked over in excruciating detail on a prior thread. Questions specific to Hfranzen's post, which stands on its own, are the topic here. -
Albatross at 08:19 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
JMurphy, The "skeptic" rumor mill and misinformation machine seems to be working full tilt. I cannot believe, simply cannot believe that claims like this are being made: "Brace yourselves for a 'mini ice age': This winter set to be coldest in 300 YEARS" This is definitely something for the CSRRT. But the request has to come from an organization or reporter. Any takers? -
ericmair at 07:58 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Storage is the answer. Only pumped storage can manage the capacities needed to do a proper job. Now there is Gravity Power (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid-scale-electricity-storage.html) All the advantages of pumped storage without most of the hassles and a lot cheaper too. -
anonandon at 07:48 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
I find myself very much in agreement with scatter and Heraclitus regarding airborne / high altitude wind power. It seems to offer such obvious benefits for more reliable and stronger wind - potentially without the visual impact of huge windfarms at groundlevel. And yet Magenn have had flying prototypes of their Air Rotor turbines since 2006 without bringing a product to market. Is there some catch that I just haven't seen or am I just being a bit too impatient? -
Ron Crouch at 07:37 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#30 Kids and their toys! -
JMurphy at 07:12 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "Newspaper in Germany, France and Britain have announced that this winter is the coldest since 327 years." Are you actually going to present any links to these claims ? While you gather them for posting, I have been doing a little search for myself and all I could come up with for the UK were the following : The savage "mini ice age" freeze has brought an average December temperature of -2.3°C - the worst since records began north of the border in 1910. But, by using official English stats dating back to the 1600s as a guide, it's shaping up to be our coldest winter in 327 years. During 1683 the River Thames was reported to be frozen under 11in of ice. Last night Net-weather's Ian Michaelwhite branded this winter "a mini ice age". The Met Office's Charlie Powell said: "It's rare to have low temperatures so prolonged." The Scottish Sun (!) Let's not quibble too much but the Met Office say the actual figure is -1.9C. But perhaps we should quibble about using CET temperatures (for Central England, of course) to determine anything about Scottish temperatures ? And the 1683 temperature I asked about earlier, seems to be based on the coldest Winter on record - in Central England - using reports of a frozen Thames. As for the "mini ice-age"... Perhaps you read the report from THE DAIL MAIL : Brace yourselves for a 'mini ice age': This winter set to be coldest in 300 YEARS Forecaster Ian Michael Waite said: ‘We expect January to be colder than average – there’s no way we’re moving out of this mini ice age any time soon.’ Whoever that Ian Michael Waite is (couldn't find anything about him from his supposed home on NetWeather) but he seems to have provided the all-important quote that the so-called skeptics and deniers can latch on to. But has he spoken too soon ? Even if he has, the so-called skeptics have their quote and they will be using it as long as they can get away with it ! In fact, the above report was so good (for so-called skepticism) that Nigel Lawson's GWPF used it in toto. (Don't worry, all the links [except the NetWeather & Met Office ones] contain "no follow" values, so I hope they work as they should do) Also, with regard to the Input Boxes I was seeing earlier, they don't appear in Google Chrome, so maybe it was Internet Explorer only...or my computer, somehow ! -
Ron Crouch at 07:11 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Obviously the post I was responding to got deleted.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Sorry, Ron; hacking this out on my phone; refresh is like watching paint dry... -
Ron Crouch at 06:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"Large areas of the northern hemisphere are warming at twice the rate we've been quoting." If that's not scary enough have a read: Earth's Hot Past: Prologue to Future Climate? "The study also indicates that the planet's climate system, over long periods of times, may be at least twice as sensitive to carbon dioxide as currently projected by computer models, which have generally focused on shorter-term warming trends." In this week's journal Science "Perspectives" article. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:43 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Someone must know: Wasn’t there a paper this year that just counted new research papers to see how often the new research indicated that the problem is not quite as bad as previously thought, vs the opposite? I would appreciate a reference to this please. -
The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
co2isnotevil - The emissivity of O2 and N2 at Earth climate temperatures is close to zero, and is inconsequential in terms of radiative energy flow to space. You are discussing a strawman, a red herring. Radiative emissions from the atmosphere come from greenhouse gases and from clouds. Not bulk O2 or N2 - which is why they are not called 'greenhouse gases'. -
muoncounter at 06:13 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
Another GISSTemp shot: 1960-2010 annual trends.
-- click for full scale
Medium orange = 1.5 degrees in 50 years or 0.3deg/decade
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Link's bad. Fixed. -
co2isnotevil at 05:56 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
KR, Let's start with Trenberth's 70 W/m^2 passing through the transparent window from clouds and the surface and out into space. For an earth at 255K, it must radiate 240 W/m^2, leaving a shortfall of 170 W/m^2. We know this power must be leaving the planet, so where in the outgoing spectrum is this power and what is it's origin? I think you are confused between the narrow band emissions from an excited gas and the broadband emissions of a heated, ground state gas. If you don't think that a heated gas emits a Planck spectrum of power, why does the Sun emit a Planck spectrum of power whose temperature from Wien's law is presumed to be it's surface temperature? It's certainly well known that a high pressure gas is a BB, but what this really means is that a high pressure gas is a better BB, relative to absorbing energy. If heated by other means, for example, via GHG's, even a low pressure gas radiates a Planck spectrum, for example, gas clouds in deep space. So, when someone says that O2 or N2 is not a good black body, they mean that without help, it will not absorb radiation from the environment and thus will not emit this absorbed energy. In a strict sense, an ideal BB absorbs 100% of the incident radiation and then emits this as a Planck distribution. O2 and N2 can still emit a Planck distribution when heated by other means, even though in a strict sense, these gases are very poor black bodies. -
Albatross at 05:52 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I also quite like this image, from NASA GISTEMP:
Zonal mean SAT anomalies by month.
-
Paul D at 05:42 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Grim, the UK government is committed to replacing many existing nuclear power stations at existing sites. I assume the new power stations will have a higher capacity?? Logically it would make sense to do that, then you would have more mega-watts from the same sites and it wouldn't have an impact on peoples perceptions, since we have already lived with nuclear power stations on those sites. BTW, the 32 gigawatts of offshore wind farms that the Crown Estate has approved, would actually be enough to power all road transport in the UK, even with the low load factor that wind offers. That in turn equates a UK carbon emissions total cut of 25%, because transport emissions is a large chunk of UK emissions. -
scatter at 05:32 AM on 15 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
Well I can't think of significant downsides. It just makes so much sense. There are different levels of airborne wind energy, from low level all the way up to stratospheric, but I can't believe that it's beyond our capabilities to route aircraft safely around it. One to watch for sure. -
muoncounter at 05:10 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#19: "graph "Temperature Cahenge for three latitude bands" seems odd: 2010 is not record warm" This version of the graph does not appear to the have 2010 data point posted as of yet. -
Albatross at 05:09 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
You know that the contrarians/'skeptics" etc. are getting incredibly desperate when they are having to focus on unusually cold weather on a monthly time scale, over an area that covers about 2% of the planet. Dhogaza @22, In meteorology and climate, regardless of where one lives in the N. Hemisphere, the boreal meteorological winter is officially DJF. So claims being made here and elsewhere that Europe, or even portions of Europe, are experiencing their coldest winter on record, or coldest winter in 327 years are simply ludicrous. Let has have a look at the data in March. But still, we should be looking at long-term trends in global SAT. as muoncounter has done in this excellent post. -
Albatross at 05:01 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
HR @48, "Apologies Albatross for mixing up denier and skeptic but it makes little difference." Actually, it does make a difference, but whatever. With regard to you're personnal observation about Mauritius in 2001. There's a report here covering the period you were there. They seem to rule out ocean changes associated with climate change. Again you misrepresent what I said. I said "The reefs were not in good shape-- I did not blame that on AGW. Thinking about the poor health of the reef and the abundance of urchins made we wonder about the potential role of urchins taking advantage of the unhealthy corals. That is why I asked Rob and MikeG, who clearly are very well versed on the subject. To be candid I am having trouble accepting the sincerity for your apology, especially when it is followed by another misrepresentation of what I said and even an incredibly cheap shot about my honeymoon. In fact, I would argue that the latter breaks the comments policy. -
dhogaza at 04:50 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I like the color box graphic, as it makes very clear why denialists like to focus on UK temps as a proxy for the global record (you know, all these comments that claim that the UK historical record shows warming fears are exaggerated, etc). I pointed out recently somewhere that the UK is an island, so would be expected to show warming trends that are diminished (as is the trend for atmospheric temps over the oceans) compared to the interiors of North America and Eurasia, and was tsk-tsk'd for it by the denialist involved. -
dhogaza at 04:46 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
"I always thought that Winter started on 21 Dec and finished on 20 Mar. Or that it is the months of Dec, Jan and Feb." For north america and eurasia, meteorological winter is Dec, Jan, Feb. 21 Dec marks the beginning of astronomical winter. -
Albatross at 04:45 AM on 15 January 2011Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
MikeG and Rob, Thanks for your feedback regarding the urchins. Wish that I had taken the time to look at the urchins closer, but at the time I was more concerned about avoiding their spines ;) -
Tom Curtis at 04:44 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Albatross, This is a perfect place and time to argue the point. In the coming months, various governments in Australia are going to decide how to respond to these floods. If they think there is no AGW, they will conclude that Wivenhoe and Somerset functioned well, that perhaps a slightly improved algorithm for timing and quantity of water releases from Wivenhoe is called for, but that all in all it was a freak event that we probably won't see again for another 50 odd years. It might provide some impetus to look again at some of the canceled dam proposals such as Wolfdene and Traveston Crossing that would not have helped with flood mitigation anyway. Any serious responce will be considered without merit given the infrequent nature of the risk. In contrast, if they think AGW is a threat, they will think that events like this, and worse will become relatively frequent in the future. They will give very serious consideration to improved infrastructure for flood mitigation, and plan for rainfall episodes significantly worse than this. The view will make the difference between whether they consider this a typical scenario for the future (AGW) or a relatively rare near worst case scenario. If they take the later view, they will be wrong and it will cost lives. And if you think the opponents of AGW will hold of on this debate out of any sense of decency, you just need to check out the lies on Andrew Bolt's blog to be disillusioned on that point. -
Albatross at 04:36 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, "2011 might well be on a par with 1974, and AGW (a very strong La Nina) could have a part, but this is not strong evidence for AGW when the limits of natural variation are still largely unknown." Good, so you concded that AGW might have had a hand in this. That was the entire point. I'm not aware of people here citing this events as evidence that AGW is real. We know AGW is a reality, this event is likely evidence that the hydrological cycle is accelerating, especially when viewed together (as one should do) with the flooding in China, Pakistan, Brazil, N. America. -
Tom Curtis at 04:33 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, Re: Wivenhoe At the end of September, Wivenhoe recieved sufficient inflow to boost to to 126.2% of capacity, which was then released back to 100%. Then in the week before Christmas it was boosted to 111.7% of capacity, which was then restored to storage capacity. In the week after christmas it was boosted to 120.5% of capacity which was then released. It then retained excess water continuosly from January 5th until reaching a peak at 188.5% of capacity on Wednesday the 12th. In other words, it was not "near its stops" but on its normal setting prior to the rain that brought the flood. Even had it been at the end of drought storage of 15%, it would still have been restored 73.4% by the post September 2010 rainfall. At a more normal dry period storage capacity of 70 to 80% (as through the 90's) would have brought it to 100% and made no difference. At its peak discharge, Wivenhoe was releasing 56% of normal storage capacity per day. Another 4% of storage capacity entered the Brisbane River from Lockyer Creek and other creeks between Wivenhoe and the city, with another 15% of capacity flowing in from the Bremer. So, had we gone straight from drought to flood, the total discharge down the Brisbane at the city would have been reduced to 48.4% of capacity, a reduction of 35.5%. That would, of course, have prevented major flooding, but the river would still have broken its banks at Graceville, Chelmer, and the West End. That should give a clear indication as to just how exceptional the current rainfall event has been. Brisbane never went straight from drought to flood even when it didn't have dams. That it could have done so with both Wivenhoe and Somerset as flood mitigation is extraordinary. (Data from Courier Mail and SEQ Water web site. To express figures as percentage of a Sydney Harbour, multiply by two.) With respect to the Lockyer Valley, intensive agriculture did not extend up the sides of the range, which remains forested. As the two most heavilly effected towns (Murphy Creek and Grantham) are close under the range on different creeks, the intensive agriculture had little effect on the outcome. Granted that after passing these two towns, a natural forest would have resulted in a slower runoff, but the damage past these two towns was not caused by the speed of the water. Returning once more to variability, I note that you again concentrate your discussion entirely on Brisbane, and leave out the truly extraordinary features of the 2011 floods. With regard to Brisbane, I note the following facts: "The" flood of 1893 (in fact the first of three) was brought about when Brisbane fell under the rain shadow of a third cyclone in succession. Another cyclone within a week caused minor flooding. A fifth and final cyclone caused major flooding that came within 0.27 meters of the first flood in depth. That means that flood was only 0.45 meters less than the heighest recorded flood since stettlement (ie, in nearly 190 years). The report into the 1974 flood notes that more rain fell in the Brisbane River catchement in the lead up to the 1974 flood than fell in the catchment leading up to the third flood in 1893 (they refer to the second flood on the table). Preliminary reports suggest the rainfall leading to the 2011 flood was twice that leading to the 1974 flood, suggesting that without flood mitigation the 2011 flood would have set a new record since settlement. Floods up to 2.5 meters higher than this again have been detected from geological evidence, which is consistent with aboriginal oral history. My point is obviously not that the 2011 flood is outside the range of natural variability (which it oviously isn't). It is that it is plainly pushing towards the upper limit of natural variability. On the assumption of no Global Warming we should find the 2011 Brisbane floods slightly surprising, both because they are only an (approx) one in 50 year event, and because they have occured without a cyclone. On the assumption of AGW we should find it less surprising, both because we expect such floods to occur more frequently, and because we expect them to occur with more normal (ie, non-cyclonic) rain conditions. Of course, AGW is not an assumption but a well evidenced theory with no coherent challengers. -
Albatross at 04:32 AM on 15 January 2011The Queensland floods
Eric, kdkd and Tom, Thanks for your posts. I have had a quick look at the data and run into some of the same problems that you have identified. Let us regroup. The record high SSTs were brought up in the context of the floods because research has shown that higher SSTs lead to higher PWV contents (e.g., Trenberth et al. 2005). That was the whole point of bringing up the SSTs. Whether the warming occurred 2000 years ago or presently (most likely b/c of AGW/ACC) is not in question here, b/c those historically warmer SSTs would have likely contributed to the acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Eric then seemed to decide to argue the strawman that "The AGW explanation is not in question here, just whether the variation is unprecedented.". Framing the argument that way entirely misses the point. Not to mention the vagueness of the period in question. Unprecedented in the last 2000 years? During the Holocene? Since the peak of the last interglacial? The PETM? The same argument (and a similar one trying to attribute the recent warming to natural variability) has been used by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW/ACC to disregard the significance of the warming observed in the global SAT records. Anyhow, I feel a little awkward arguing about this on this particular thread given that the flooding has taken lives, destroyed and livelihoods. -
Mila at 04:16 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
I am in the middle of my regular evening consolidation of Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org and discovered a very fitting conclusion of an article (Ocean heat content increases update): As usual, this is unlikely to be the very last word on the subject, but this is more evidence that the planet is basically behaving as the scientists think it is. And that isn’t necessarily good news. -
Climate sensitivity is low
thepoodlebites - My "favorite paper"??? All of them are interesting. Some of the more directly relevant ones from your question (observations) are Hansen 1993 (energy changes since the last ice age), Tung 2007 (sensitivity from climate response to solar variations) and Bender 2010 (responses to the Mount Pinatubo eruption). All of the papers listed on the intermediate page are worth reading, though. I will not continue the climate sensitivity discussion on the "Is it the sun" thread - that's off topic. -
RW1 at 04:11 AM on 15 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
archiesteel, "The simple fact is that the 3.7 W/m² figure is already halved. This represent the net forcing of 2xCO2. The burden of proof is on you to provide clear evidence it isn't." I've simply asked (on numerous occasions) for a source documenting that the total increase in absorbed power for 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2, which is then halved to get a net of 3.7 W/m^2. I've looked all over and haven't found one and no one here has pointed me to one. -
thepoodlebites at 04:04 AM on 15 January 2011It's the sun
#787: Please, not the shotgun approach. Pick one or two papers, give me your favorite, an observationally based estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. The Feulner and Rahmstorf paper used 3.4 C, from A. Levermann, private communication, 2010. -
Phila at 03:53 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
cruzn246: Anyone who says they have that all figured out is full of hooey. So if I've got this straight, your basic position seems to be: "Ignore all those scientists who've been studying these issues for their entire professional lives. Instead, listen to me, even though I present no credentials and no evidence, and routinely get basic facts wrong." Hmmm. I wonder who to believe? -
It's the sun
thepoodlebites - I've replied over on Is climate sensitivity low, the appropriate thread for that discussion. -
Climate sensitivity is low
thepoodlebites - If you look at the "Intermediate" tab of this discussion you will see half a dozen empirically observed estimates of climate sensitivity, along with another half dozen model based ones. Does this address your request for observational data? -
thepoodlebites at 03:20 AM on 15 January 2011It's the sun
#785: Thank you for the link to the Lindzen and Choi 2009 paper. Sorry, my bad. I have found a pre-print of the 2010 update submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. I think that the revised estimate is 1 C. I prefer an observational based determination rather than model driven predictions. Do you have a cite for your empirical evidence for climate sensitivity to CO2? As to circular reasoning, finding problems with Lindzen's 2009 approach does not address the problems with Feulner and Rahmstorf, assuming the conclusions in the premises. How about the uncertainty in the 2100 temperature predictions? How about the NASA study, the Sun does contribute to global warming, 25%. I still think that your predictions are a bust based on the surface record to date. And "business as usual" is a very important point, but it is off-topic here and best left unsaid. -
From Peru at 03:10 AM on 15 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
The graph "Temperature Cahenge for three latitude bands" http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf seems odd: 2010 is not record warm in any of the 3 latitude bands. However, it is record warm in Northern Hemisphere: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.pdf And tied with 2005 globally: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.pdf Isn't this a contradiction?
Prev 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Next
