Recent Comments

Prev  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  Next

Comments 98651 to 98700:

98651. Rob Painting at 23:08 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Mila, I don't consider coral scientists discussing "resilience" is particularly helpful in communicating to the public, how serious a problem this is.
98652. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:03 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       ... Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals ... Please read carefully all the work I have cited: 4 Years After Tsunami Corals Stage Comeback, 2008.: „While initial surveys immediately following the tsunami showed patchy (albeit devastating) damage to coral reefs in the region, surveys in 2005 indicated that many of the dead reefs in the study area had actually succumbed long ago to destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide to catch fish. It is also possible that the crown of thorns starfish—a marine predator—had caused widespread coral mortality.” About these facts there is nothing in the article commented by me - only the corals are dying as a result of warming and the decline in calcification of the ocean. Well ... I can not help that the world of science is so divided - in terms of impact of the reduced calcification and warming of the oceans on the corals.
98653. Mila at 22:47 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       A few years ago IUCN published report: Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-042.pdf in Web of Science: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF99078.htm (doi: 10.1071/MF99078 - free access ) and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;301/5635/929 ( http://myweb.dal.ca/br238551/scienceandcorals.pdf for a free copy) doi: 10.1126/science.1085046 have the highest citation count (in hundreds)
98654. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:44 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       @dhogaza, JMurphy 1. But let's focus on scientific argumentation. As there is no argument - these are the “biographies”? 2. Why quoted F.S., whose argument is a lot worse - than the R.S.? 2. Link to the second and the Guardian is so well known in the world of science ... - or say - show - an untruth? Conclusion: Too little is known that the high probability of greater influence of natural cycles (than currently estimated, eg IPCC) to exclude.
98655. Theo at 22:15 PM on 13 January 2011
       Czech translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       How dare you cenzor the discussion? Is the debate over?
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your deleted comments contained material in violation of the Comments Policy. Specifically, being off-topic, and containing accusations of fraud and abusive profanity. Future comments deemed in violation of the Comments Policy will be similarly deleted. By posting comments here, you implicitly agree to abide by the Comments Policy, as do all who comment here (the number one reason for moderation is to keep threads on-topic). This commenting is a privilege, not a right. Thanks in advance for your understanding and compliance in this manner.
98656. JMurphy at 22:09 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       dhogaza wrote : "Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat"." Does that refer to the link to a Jeffrey Glassman (PhD, of course - mustn't forget that : makes him sound more important) ? I'm always constantly amazed at how so-called skeptics will reference the strangest of theories by the wildest of so-called experts, and expect to be taken seriously. Generally, though, I'm not sure what point that poster is trying to make ? I realise English is not his first language, but it just appears to be a stream of individual studies and reports, which only appears to suggest that because everything is not 100% settled (or because some pepple have different conclusions, not necessarily against AGW, though) AGW must be false and something else (anything else, in fact) is responsible for the warming climate. Having said that, however, the next posting from this person will probably be trying to suggest that the temperatures aren't rising because...to be followed by a long list of reports, papers and oddities which have very little in common but that they are not 100% pro-AGW. (Oh, no - sorry : it's actually about corals not really suffering at all, with the obligatory oddity from CO2SCIENCE this time)
98657. dhogaza at 21:44 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak, your link in your #2 covers just about every denialist meme from the Oregon Petition Project to "Al Gore is fat". Surely by now you understand that you have to cite credible sources if you're going to get any love around here? Please get real ...
98658. Rob Painting at 21:38 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Corals are my favorite topic Yup, rate highly with me too. Having dived the Great Barrier Reef and some in the South Pacific, their decline bothers me greatly.
98659. dhogaza at 21:38 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       "A few remarks. 1. While discussing the natural cycles need to refer primarily to the work of R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy." Why? They're satellite data interpretation geeks, and not that great at it, as outsiders have had to correct their homework for them on about three occasions before they finally got it more or less right. They've done very little work on how climate works, and Spencer's is mostly grasping-at-straws stuff trying to do everything possible to throw doubt on the mainstream climate science explanations of how stuff works. Including how natural variations work. If Spencer's right, then the work of everyone who's worked on explaining how the planet enters and leave ice ages, and many other aspects of past climate that were indeed entirely driven by natural variation (if, by that, you mean "everything other than people injecting CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels"). Spencer being right would be as startling as that iron sun guy being right and the mainstream science explanation of how the composition, structure, and energy-production fusion reactions of the sun work being wrong.
98660. Rob Painting at 21:34 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Yooper @ 1 - Not shaping up too good just yet, we'll have to wait and see. February is when the waters around these parts really warm up:
98661. Rob Painting at 21:28 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       
98662. dhogaza at 21:27 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       HR: "It strikes me that "net increase in atmospheric water vapour" is a prediction of a warmer world not specifically AGW." So HR now - and forever in the future one hopes - accepts that the water vapor feedback is real and positive? Cool. "Many AGW critics don't deny we've seen a recent warming trend." Many, however, do. "It seems to be the attribution of that warming world that's crucial." Unless you deny the basic physics of how CO2 traps long-wave infrared radiation, there's no way to do so. If you accept that ... and since you now quite clearly accept the fact that the water vapor feedback is positive and real ... you're already right in the 2.0-4.5C sensitivity to CO2 doubling range cited by the IPCC in AR4.
98663. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:04 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       sorry ... PS 80-54: A tipping point for coral symbiosis: Non-linear response to environmental change may drive a rapid shift in coral symbionts, Oliver , Arrigo and Palumbi., 2009.: “Multiple linear regression models
98664. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:02 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Corals are my favorite topic. Do volcanic eruptions enhance or diminish net primary production? Krakauer and Randerson, 2003. : “Up to decadal-scale ocean cooling tentatively linked to volcanic eruptions has also been found in a study of south Pacific coral [ Crowley et al. , 1997]. Nevertheless, it appears puzzling that the maximum growth reduction seen in this study lags by several years the period of maximum eruption cooling.” Robecknew, 2003.: “It was so cold that winter that Jerusalem experienced rare snowfall and coral at the bottom of the Red Sea died, because the water at the surface cooled and convectively mixed the entire depth of the water [ Genin et al. , 1995]. The resulting enhanced supply of nutrients produced huge algal and phytoplankton blooms, which smothered the coral. This coral death had only happened before in winters following large volcanic eruptions [ Genin et al. , 1995].” Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. McNeil, Matear and Barnes, 2004.: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Nasza analiza wskazuje, że średnia roczna stopa koral rafa zwapnienie wzrośnie z przyszłego ocieplenia ocean, a ostatecznie przekracza sprzed rewolucji przemysłowej, stawki o około 35% do roku 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.” Coral adaptation in the face of climate change. Baird and Maynard, 2008., speaks of the rapid adaptation of corals to climate change. 4 Years After Tsunami Corals Stage Comeback, 2008.: “ A team of scientists from the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has reported a rapid recovery of coral reefs in areas of Indonesia, following the tsunami that devastated coastal regions throughout the Indian Ocean four years ago today. The team, which has surveyed the region's coral reefs since the December 26, 2004 tsunami, looked at 60 sites along 800 kilometers (497 miles) of coastline in Aceh, Indonesia. The researchers attribute the recovery to natural colonization by resilient coral species, along with the reduction of destructive fishing practices by local communities.” : “Multiple linear regression models show that high mean sea surface temperatures, high acidity, and low frequencies of high temperature anomalies account for 45% of the variation in proportion of Clade D at all examined sites. Models of future Indo-Pacific climate predict that areas now unsuitable for Clade D will rapidly change to favor Clade D dominance: the front of Clade D suitability is predicted to move across the subtropical South Pacific at rates of 20-49 km per year. Many of these areas currently host low levels of Symbiodinium D, raising the concern that environmental change will sweep over areas faster than dispersal and population growth can add Clade D symbionts to reefs.” CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future . Idso, 2009.: “Lough and Barnes (1997) found that "the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years." Currently, however: “The study shows that the biggest and most robust Porites corals on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have slowed their growth by more than 14 percent since the "tipping point" year of 1990.” "The data suggest that this severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least 400 years," Lough: "It is cause for extreme concern that such changes are already evident, with the RELATIVELY MODEST CLIMATE CHANGES observed to date, in the world's best protected and managed coral reef ecosystem," ... however: "The causes of this sharp decline remain UNKNOWN, but our study suggests that the combination of increasing temperature stress and ocean acidification may be diminishing the ability of Great Barrier Reef corals to deposit calcium carbonate," Dr Lough said there had been some concern that coral growth has been declining in recent times. "However, data from density bands place these results into a larger context. Density bands show that coral growth and calcification on the Great Barrier Reef vary considerably over time.” "Coral records show that there have been several major increases and decreases over the past several centuries. “ Generally Conclusion: “the CURRENT DECLINE appears to be a RETURN TO MORE NORMAL GROWTH CONDITIONS from high growth rates earlier this century".
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Arkadiusz, please stop using all-caps. Posts containing all-caps will be deleted, per the Comments Policy. Thanks for the compliance.
98665. JMurphy at 20:46 PM on 13 January 2011
       Not So Cool Predictions
       By the way, the programme above is only viewable until Sunday 16 Jan 11 on the BBC iPlayer. After that, I don't know.
98666. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       A few remarks. 1. While discussing the natural cycles need to refer primarily to the work of R.W. Spencer and J.R. Christy. On the "incentive" I would recommend this graph R.S.. 2. Stratospheric temperature decreased after each volcanic eruption and then very slowly growing. Of changes in water vapor in the stratosphere - from an unknown (to end) reasons (falling since 2000 - research by S. Solomon) - You can not "isolate" sufficiently closely the possible impact of GHG troposphere - on temperature of the stratosphere. 3. Superposition of cycles, cycles of simple summation of phases = cycles of unknown origin (eg, millennium cycle) - this field of knowledge which is at the beginning of "way of knowing. " 2. Warming is forever GHG. Natural cycles - the sun - the temperature increase - followed the water vapor content and CO2, CH4 (respiration, deep ocean ventilation) in the atmosphere - the dominance of marine circulation - usually western circulation (especially in Europe, Antarctica) = the natural greenhouse effect. ... and a sea climate - winter and the nights are always warmer than the continental climate - the minimum temperature is growing faster - than the maximum temperature. Eg. Africa - Middle East. 13C and 18O of wood from the Roman siege rampart in Masada, Israel (Ad 70–73): Evidence for a less arid climate for the region, Yakir et al., 1994.: “The ancient tamarix cellulose is depleted in both 13 C and 18 O compared to cellulose from trees growing in the Masada region today. Similar trends were observed on comparing modern tamarix trees growing in the Negev Desert with those growing in the temperate climate of central Israel. Considering the factors that can contribute to the observed changes in isotopic composition, we conclude that the ancient trees enjoyed less arid environmental conditions during their growth compared to contemporary trees in this desert region.” Climatic effects on the δ 18 O and δ 13 C of cellulose in the desert tree Tamarix jordanis, Lipp et al., 1996.: “Since the Roman period, RH at Masada decreased by about 17% [!], while the δ 18 O value of local groundwater remained similar to present-day values, suggesting that changing atmospheric circulation has played a role in climate change in the Middle East over the past two millennia.” Stable isotopes of a subfossil Tamarix tree from the Dead Sea region, Israel, and their implications for the Intermediate Bronze Age, Frumkin, 2009.: “The Sedom Tamarix demonstrates a few hundred years of 13 C and 15 N isotopic enrichment, culminating in extremely high δ 13 C and δ 15 N values. Calibration using modern Tamarix stable isotopes in various climatic settings in Israel shows direct relationship between isotopic enrichment and climate deterioration, particularly rainfall decrease.” “This was apparently the most severe long-term historical drought that affected the region in the mid-late Holocene.” The latest version of the report being prepared IPCC I would agree only with those conclusions: “It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.” 3. Tropical - solar cycle - fingerprint looks like this: Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing, Mheel et al., 2009.: “One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability.” 4. Using relevant filters, we find a much larger (0.07% TSI) and the cyclical variation in TSI over the past 250 years. Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD 5. High solar activity cycle such as 6 thousand. years - volcanic eruptions - the XIX - XX-cycle - a decrease of ozone - a decrease of phytoplankton - the weaker “damping” of EN(LN)SO (comment 35) - more frequent and more rapid changes in the EN-LN - and for example a great floods ...
98667. archiesteel at 18:23 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       @co2isnotevil: for an example of a clearly-made, compelling case, check out the link to hfranzen's website at the end of the main article.
98668. archiesteel at 18:20 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       @co2isnotevil: heh. I can see I struck a nerve. I'm not a climate scientist, however I know enough to see when someone is trying to obfuscate their questionable theories behind a wall of barely understandable arguments. It is clear what you and RW1 are trying to do here, i.e. keep pushing the same flimsy theory over and over again, while complaining that the peer-reviewed system prevents your "brillant" insight from getting the recognition it deserves. Good scientists can make clear arguments and don't to regurgitate walls of numbers and convoluted logic in order to make their point. There are many here who excel at communicating the science. Then, there are those who believe that they merely need to *sound* smart in order to convince others - or at least trap them into endless looping arguments where the same erroneous reasoning is endlessly recycled. Seriously, state your case clearly and concisely, or keep it to yourself. A comments section is not the place to spam the output of your prized atmospheric simulator.
98669. Daniel Bailey at 17:10 PM on 13 January 2011
       Coral: life's a bleach... and then you die
       Nice post, Rob (love the title)! Maybe it's in the post & I missed it, but how's the Great Barrier Reef faring in the elevated SST's of this strong (potentially the strongest ever) La Nina? The Yooper
98670. HumanityRules at 17:03 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       44 sout There's the possibility for the impacts of ENSO to be modulated by natural processes. One interesting relationship is between PDO and ENSO. Here's the first paper I've mangaged to have a look at. While it concentrates on East Asia the introduction suggests other researcher have made similar observations in areas affected by ENSO, including Australia. This paper makes the observation that the impact of La Nina or El Nino may be affected by which phase PDO is in. The interesting fact is that we may have recently entered a new negative phase of PDO in the past few years.
98671. co2isnotevil at 16:28 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       RW1, The absorption overlap is a little more than twice as much, however, additional overlap occurs as condensed water vapor in the cloud is a broad band, nearly saturated, absorber of IR energy.
98672. co2isnotevil at 16:24 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       archiesteel, Go ahead. Check this. You must have a 3-d atmospheric simulator you can use, don't you? If not, I suggest you get or build one so you can see this for yourself. BTW, make sure you understand the differences between Planck distributions in the wavelength, frequency and wavenumber domain. There are some subtleties here that I've seen many people trip over. For example, I've seen attempts to convert the emitted power per unit solid angle per unit frequency of a Planck distribution of frequency into the emitted power per unit solid angle per unit wavelength of a Planck distribution of wavelength by scaling by the speed of light. Look up Planck's Law in a wiki or somewhere to see why this won't work.
98673. RW1 at 16:09 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       co2isnotevil, "So while the lesser overlap is true for the nominally clear sky, the overlap for cloudy sky conditions is larger." About how much larger for the cloudy sky?
98674. co2isnotevil at 15:50 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       hfranzen, re 66 Not exactly, but close. I also misstated something. I went back and looked at the code and the amount attributed to each gas is accurate when lines overlap. What I said before represented an earlier version of the code. What this does say is that under nominal conditions, there's little overlap of saturated water vapor lines and saturated CO2 lines and that there's not a lot of overlap where the resulting sum becomes or remains saturated. If you examine the spectral response, the saturated CO2 lines around 15u overlap nominally weak water vapor lines, although when passing through clouds, these weak lines become much stronger. So while the lesser overlap is true for the nominally clear sky, the overlap for cloudy sky conditions is larger.
98675. RW1 at 15:40 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       hfranzen (RE: 66), "If I am reading these numbers correctly I conclude that the absorption of IR by CO2 is almost independent of the presence of H2O and that there is, therefore, at the level of accuracy of GWPPT6, a negligible amount of line overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption lines." How do you figure? With the inclusion of H2O, the total absorbed power from 2xCO2 is nearly 3 W/m^2 less (62.7645 - 59.9992 = 2.7653 W/m^2). The total increase is about 3.6 W/m^2 (188.5290 - 184.8995 = 3.6295 W/m^2). If only half of the increase affects the surface, the net perturbation is about 1.85 W/m^2 from 2xCO2.
98676. watchingthedeniers at 15:38 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       John, so glad to hear that you and the family are OK. I live in Melbourne, but all of us are thinking of Queensland. Mike @ WtD
98677. archiesteel at 15:35 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       @RW1: "Point me to source and/or documentation that says the total absorbed power is 7.4 W/m^2 and that only 3.7 W/m^2 affects the surface because only half of the 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed is re-radiated downward." Please prove these numbers are inaccurate. People have been very patient with you, but now it's time to present actual evidence that supports you case. Thanks. @co2isnotevil: When in doubt, just throw a bunch of numbers around. Oops - doesn't work when actual scientists are there to double-check, it seems!
98678. archiesteel at 15:30 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       @pirate: "First, of course I care about my children and grandchildren, so please don't bring that tired and offensive arguement out." I'm sorry, but Gordon never claimed that you didn't care about your children and grandchildren. He talked about *his* children and grandchildren. The problem is that, of both of you, he is the one taking the cautious stance, i.e. that AGW is real, something that is corroborated by a vast amount of evidence. You, on the other hand, are taking a gamble. You're gambling that 97% of published Climate Scientists are wrong, you're gambling that all of the current evidence is flawed, and you're gambling that shoddy scientists who have no problem claiming that tobacco is harmless are right, even though they do not have any evidence to support their claims. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is the best survival strategy. It's certainly a lot better than believing nearly every expert on the subject is wrong, and choosing to follow political skeptics with poor credentials and nothing to support their claim.
98679. hfranzen at 15:13 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       Response to #65. Thank you! If I am reading these numbers correctly I conclude that the absorption of IR by CO2 is almost independent of the presence of H2O and that there is, therefore, at the level of accuracy of GWPPT6, a negligible amount of line overlap of H2O and CO2 absorption lines. I hope I am reading these numbers correctly for, if I am, this means that GWPPT6 is better than I have any right to expect.
98680. Daniel Bailey at 15:06 PM on 13 January 2011
       Seawater Equilibria
       Re: hfranzen (78) So you're basically saying CCS is an idea doomed to failure & we're all screwed by the CO2 we're emitting. Nice. Unsettling even to one who's studied this for a long time. Sigh. Thanks for the honesty and the insights, Dr. Franzen. Time for a beer... The Yooper
98681. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:59 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       In regard to the strength of La Nina, there is a article by Prof Nicholls (link below) that postulates that this is likely to end up being the strongest or second strongest La Nina ever recorded so far. The article does not attribute the strength of La Nina to climate change. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42858.html I should probably be more careful myself in choosing words and not confuse strong with wet :) We know AGW results in more actual water in the atmosphere. It would be useful to read an article on how the strength of La Nina and El Nino might change with AGW, or if it will. Or if it's more about strong ENSO events having an even greater impact (wet or dry) as we heat up the earth.
98682. hfranzen at 14:47 PM on 13 January 2011
       Seawater Equilibria
       I have missed out on a lot of the discussion above and as I now read it I see that much of it has to do with the deep ocean which is not a discussion to which I can contribute. However I did see one important question about which I can make a comment in terms of my model of the surface ocean. That question has to do with what happens when we (if we ever do) start to decrease the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter what the temperature does the primary vapor-solution interaction will be governed by Henry's Law. This law states that at equilibrium the molality of the dissolved CO2 (that is molecular CO2 itself dissolved in the ocean) is proportional to the partial pressure in the atmosphere The proportionality constant, called the Henry's Law constant, does depend upon temperature but if the average temperature of the ocean warmed by 4 degrees the total solubility of CO2 (as CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate) would drop by only 1.4% at constant ppm (but given the size of the ocean that will be a lot of CO2. On the other hand, if the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (the one variable over which we might still have control) were decreased at constant temperature the ocean. in accordance with Henry's Law, would start releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. If the quantity of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean that equilibrates with the atmosphre were very large relative to the quantity in the atmosphere the ppm would simply rise back to the value it had before our attempt to decrease it until the amount in the ocean dropped to a value closer to that in the atmosphere.. The actual situation will depend upon quantities like diffusion rates and bulk mixing rates in the ocean i.e. an important factor is the fraction of the ocean that will equilibrate with the atmosphere in the relevant time scale. It therefore is not possible (at least for me) to predict what the ultimate result of a serious attempt to cut our emmissions will be, but I can say with certainty that we are likely to be disppointed because attempts to decrease the ppm by curbing our use of fossil fuels will bring about exactly what the deniers are claiming now, namely the ocean will become a major source of atmospheric CO2. This simple law (Henry's) tells the tale - right now the partial pressure of CO2 (the ppm) is increasing so the surface oceans are a net sink for CO2. When we try to cut back it will become a net source and our efforts will be frustrated by the large amount of CO2 in the oceans. As stated above, this frustration will be augmented by increases in the temperature of the surface ocean that will occur as a result of GW.
98683. co2isnotevil at 14:29 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       KR, Here are the results from 5 atmospheric simulations runs. Four atmospheric zones are considered where the vertical profile is interpolated between the zone means and integrated from the surface to 50km. GHG's, except H2O and O3, are considered uniformly mixed, while H2O and O3 follow a profile with a specific average concentration per zone. The zones are defined as follows: Zone range Frac Pressure Temp @nominal surface temp 0: 0km to 3km, 30.54%, 0.84328, 278.855K (42.27F) 1: 3km to 6km, 52.65%, 0.58097, 256.050K ( 1.22F) 2: 6km to 15km, 88.11%, 0.28280, 226.323K (-52.29F) 3: 15km to 50km, 99.93%, 0.04252, 243.075K (-22.13F) When 2 or more gases are absorbing the same wavelength, both are counted, but the total is accounted for as being contributed by only one gas. The gas selected will be the one absorbing the largest fraction of the total. Absorbed power is relative to the emitted surface spectrum at it's average temperature. The first result is the average clear sky absorption with nominal GHG concentrations. The clear sky absorption is 56.6%, while the average cloudy sky absorption is about 85.7%. For 66.6% clouds and 33.3% clear, the total absorption is .566*.333 + .857*.666 = 0.760, for a net 76% absorption and an average transparent window of about 24% and yes, I rounded this up to 24.1% in my energy budget calculations. The second is at 280 ppm CO2 with all else set to nominal. The third is at 560 ppm CO2 with all else set to nominal. The delta absorption from the second case is 3.6 W/m^2, and while CO2 increases by more than this, the water vapor component decreases. The fourth is CO2 at 280 ppm and everything else set to zero. The last is CO2 at 560 ppm and everything else set to zero. Here, the delta is 4.79 W/m^2. With the water vapor missing and not otherwise absorbing in overlapping bands, the effect of CO2 by itself will be larger. 1) *************************************************************************************** model type = 'Monthly T', res=0.100 nm @ 1u, 23026 samp/decade, Ascale=1 Water Content: 1000:1300:144:1 ppm, Cloud Coverage: NOM, Surface Ice: NOM Absorption: CO2: 383 ppm, CH4: 1745 ppb, O3: 30:80:150:300 ppb, N2O: 300 ppb, CO: 100 ppb absorption component breakdown: H20 = 116.7797 W/m^2, fraction = 0.354451 CO2 = 57.5560 W/m^2, fraction = 0.174695 O3 = 5.2293 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0158721 CH4 = 3.5440 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0107568 N2O = 3.3771 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0102503 CO = 0.0558 W/m^2, fraction = 0.000169222 O2 = 0.0053 W/m^2, fraction = 1.62356e-05 total = 186.5472 W/m^2, fraction = 0.56621 force = 93.2736 W/m^2, fraction = 0.283105 50% up, 50% down 2) *************************************************************************************** model type = 'Monthly T', res=0.100 nm @ 1u, 23026 samp/decade, Ascale=1 Water Content: 1000:1300:144:1 ppm, Cloud Coverage: NOM, Surface Ice: NOM Absorption: CO2: 280 ppm, CH4: 1745 ppb, O3: 30:80:150:300 ppb, N2O: 300 ppb, CO: 100 ppb absorption component breakdown: H20 = 117.0733 W/m^2, fraction = 0.355343 CO2 = 55.5709 W/m^2, fraction = 0.168669 O3 = 5.2355 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0158908 CH4 = 3.5426 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0107524 N2O = 3.4168 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0103707 CO = 0.0551 W/m^2, fraction = 0.000167238 O2 = 0.0053 W/m^2, fraction = 1.62356e-05 total = 184.8995 W/m^2, fraction = 0.561209 force = 92.4498 W/m^2, fraction = 0.280605 50% up, 50% down 3) *************************************************************************************** model type = 'Monthly T', res=0.100 nm @ 1u, 23026 samp/decade, Ascale=1 Water Content: 1000:1300:144:1 ppm, Cloud Coverage: NOM, Surface Ice: NOM Absorption: CO2: 560 ppm, CH4: 1745 ppb, O3: 30:80:150:300 ppb, N2O: 300 ppb, CO: 100 ppb absorption component breakdown: H20 = 116.4037 W/m^2, fraction = 0.35331 CO2 = 59.9992 W/m^2, fraction = 0.18211 O3 = 5.2580 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0159591 CH4 = 3.5451 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0107602 N2O = 3.2633 W/m^2, fraction = 0.00990468 CO = 0.0543 W/m^2, fraction = 0.000164875 O2 = 0.0053 W/m^2, fraction = 1.62356e-05 total = 188.5290 W/m^2, fraction = 0.572226 force = 94.2645 W/m^2, fraction = 0.286113 50% up, 50% down 4) *************************************************************************************** model type = 'Monthly T', res=0.100 nm @ 1u, 23026 samp/decade, Ascale=1 Water Content: 0:0:0:0 ppm, Cloud Coverage: NOM, Surface Ice: NOM Absorption: CO2: 280 ppm, CH4: 0 ppb, O3: 0:0:0:0 ppb, N2O: 0 ppb, CO: 0 ppb absorption component breakdown: H20 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CO2 = 57.9766 W/m^2, fraction = 0.175971 O3 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CH4 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 N2O = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CO = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 O2 = 0.3406 W/m^2, fraction = 0.00103377 total = 58.3172 W/m^2, fraction = 0.177005 force = 29.1586 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0885026 50% up, 50% down 5) *************************************************************************************** model type = 'Monthly T', res=0.100 nm @ 1u, 23026 samp/decade, Ascale=1 Water Content: 0:0:0:0 ppm, Cloud Coverage: NOM, Surface Ice: NOM Absorption: CO2: 560 ppm, CH4: 0 ppb, O3: 0:0:0:0 ppb, N2O: 0 ppb, CO: 0 ppb absorption component breakdown: H20 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CO2 = 62.7645 W/m^2, fraction = 0.190504 O3 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CH4 = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 N2O = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 CO = 0.0000 W/m^2, fraction = 0 O2 = 0.3406 W/m^2, fraction = 0.00103376 total = 63.1051 W/m^2, fraction = 0.191537 force = 31.5526 W/m^2, fraction = 0.0957687 50% up, 50% down
98684. Albatross at 14:15 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       Michael @40, Good points. Regarding the 5% increase, that was Trenberth's estimated increase for the entire global ocean. So, locally/regionally, values could be much higher-- and that may well have been the case for this event, especially given the record high SSTs surrounding Oz of late. The research papers that will no doubt be published on this in the coming months and years will help shed some more light on the situation. As I and others have said, it would not be correct to blame this event entirely or even primarily on AGW-- La Nina almost certainly had a role. But it is, IMHO, likely that the higher SSTs and attendant higher PWV contents made the situation worse.
98685. Phila at 14:09 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Also, Pirate: If indeed we are offsetting the influence of the Milankovitch cycles, then that is a very good thing. It never ceases to amaze me that the very same people who prattle endlessly about all the deep, dark "uncertainties" in climate science have absolutely no problem making imperious categorical statements like this one. It's hard not to conclude that getting the right conclusions is more important to you than using the right facts and methods.
98686. Yvan Dutil at 14:03 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       #48 Very nice paper. By the way, the scenario studied in this paper do take account of the peak oil, peak gas and peak coal in some way.
98687. Phila at 13:56 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Pirate: the AGW theory cannot explain the previous warmings and coolings. And natural cycles can't explain the current warming. Fortunately, modern climatology provides a coherent explanation for both. If memory serves, you claimed to be a teacher of environmental science. Don't you have any colleagues who could explain these basic concepts to you? Or a library?
98688. muoncounter at 13:43 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       #73: "dinosaurs" No dino-SUVs, but they did breathe out CO2... didn't we have a thread on that, concluding that if everyone holds their breath a few minutes a day, problem solved?
98689. Tenney Naumer at 13:30 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       So glad to know you and your family are on high ground, John. What a tragedy. I remember the epic Mississippi River flood of 1993 -- houses and small towns floated away in southern Illinois, where I am from. But that flood seemed to be more a gradual thing. Hang in there.
98690. HumanityRules at 13:10 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       #24 Mila It was Table 11.4 for WGII that I was struggling to remember. 26 MarkR It strikes me that "net increase in atmospheric water vapour" is a prediction of a warmer world not specifically AGW. Many AGW critics don't deny we've seen a recent warming trend. It seems to be the attribution of that warming world that's crucial. 31 David Horton I personnally haven't seen a chorus of deniers on this subject but then I haven't seen a chorus of people saying it's AGW. David Karoly at Melbourne (Monash?) University is the only person to make the direct link between these floods and AGW on ABC News24 yesterday. There's an image below of the effects of La Nina. I guess if you wanted to make comparisons of modern and older La Nina precipitation you'd have to look at rainfall over the whole region under that green boomerang. Within any particular small region under that boomerang (such as Queensland) it's going to be a combination of La Nina and local weather conditions which govern just exactly where the rain is falling. For example some of the earliest flooding events in Queensland in December occured when Tropical Cyclone Tasha dragged in a heap of La Nina rain and flooded three river systems. I'm not sure what's causing the recent flooding of the Brisbane River basin. I'm curious about what happened in respect to the Wivenhoe Dam it seems to have reached peak capacity just at the wrong time but somebody with more knowledge on that would be appreciated. More generally there's a couple of links I came across and thought were interesting. The first is a news report, what impressed me was the date it was filed on. The second is a list of Australian climate disasters from the BOM website, it looks like mother nature has been punching hard for a while. News report BOM climate disasters
98691. Michael Hauber at 12:15 PM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       Certainly an interesting topic. Running some numbers on the Clausius-Clapeyron relation a warming of about 0.5 degrees should result in about 5% extra water vapour in the atmosphere. I don't think that would make much difference to the overall flood level. On that basis AGW has very little responsibility for this event. But other factors may have contributed. If AGW is changing the ENSO cycle, or some other aspect of our circulation, then it may have made a more significant contribution to this event. Of the flood events I can think of for SEQ, many have not been associated with cyclones, but with east coast lows instead. However there was no low associated with this event which does make it at least very unusual. And rainfall trends for Australia are uncertain. Modelling I have looked at by CSIRO suggests more rain in the north during summer, and less rain in the south during winter. This matches the basic global expectation that the Hadley Cell should intensify stretching the subtropical dry belt further south, and intensifying the monsoon. Long range trends for the last 100 years seem to match this, but if you look at the trend the effect is a lot more subtle than the recent severe droughts which have mostly ended would suggest. Also in the models the south/winter drying trend seems to dominate the north/summer rainier trend, whereas the last 100 years it is more the opposite. This spring and summer's weather in Australia also would appear to have a lot to do with the polar vortex, which over the last few decades has shrunk towards Antarctica. Since Spring though it has shown a persistent extension towards Australia introducing colder air, and I believe strengthening the tendancy towards upper level troughing, which has been the dominant factor in recent rains, and not so much the monsoonal/cyclonic type rains that are the primary influence of a La Nina pattern.
98692. Rob Painting at 12:07 PM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       Pirate @ 67 - but the AGW theory cannot explain the previous warmings and coolings. Not unless you believe dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers drove SUV's.
98693. Rob Painting at 12:03 PM on 13 January 2011
       It's cooling
       105 & 106 - UAH satellite data agrees too. It's a trifecta!. From Roy Spencer: "WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR? As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content." Sore loser!.
98694. Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       Martin, the predictions are that Global Warming will make El Nino's and La Nina's stronger, and El Nino's more frequent; which is quite diferent from the way you say it.
98695. Daniel Bailey at 11:10 AM on 13 January 2011
       It's freaking cold!
       To amplify on DSL's perspicacious (I get paid by the syllable) comment: Source here I hear they'll be growing palm trees by Hudson Bay any time now... And here's why they call it "up" north: That's Polar Amplification in action! The Yooper
98696. Daniel Bailey at 11:02 AM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       As for me, I'm staying in the trees where it's safe... (yeah, yeah, "Off-topic"...to the deleted bin I go...)
98697. Paul D at 10:57 AM on 13 January 2011
       Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
       I don't know. Next, someone will be saying that they can float steel in water.
98698. JMurphy at 10:38 AM on 13 January 2011
       Not So Cool Predictions
       It would appear that some so-called skeptics need to learn how to read temperatures and trends, and to this end I would recommend a BBC programme that was on a couple of days ago, presented by a comedian who is an ex-physicist : What Is One Degree Generally, though, it is a very watchable and easy to understand look into what it means to measure temperature and how just a small increase can have large effects. Hope it helps those who somehow believe that the world is cooling.
98699. JMurphy at 10:30 AM on 13 January 2011
       The Queensland floods
       Formidable power of water evident in those videos - best of luck to everyone over there being affected. Here in the UK, we seem to be currently affected by significant downpours of rain, following on from the downpours of snow a few weeks ago, and there are a few potential problems being forecast in some areas. Nothing like what is occurring in the Southern Hemisphere but more evidence of the amount of water in the atmosphere all over the world. Also, the way the temperatures have been here since the cold spell last month, I wouldn't be surprised if this Winter is a lot warmer than the last few weeks of last Autumn. It's odd how the temperatures here have risen as we head towards the middle of Winter. Who knows what will happen next ?
98700. hfranzen at 10:17 AM on 13 January 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       #61: As regards the Ohio state spectrum, the point is that there are, in the vicinity of the bending transition, a host of single spikes that have the earmarks of single transitions standing alone. It seems quite clear to me that the CO2 absorptions are not buried in a sea of water vapor transitions. Maybe there is some overlap, but even then the CO2 would contribute to the absorption. If the overlap is a serious problem it is a mystery to me how there could be agreement between what GWPPT6 calculates and what is observed, as there is. I most confess I don't see where you are trying to go. If it is your wish to cast doubt on the conclusion that the GHG effect of CO2 is the major cause of the observed increases in the earth's temperature you are barking up the wrong tree. That is proven by the detailed computer calculations of the climate scientists. If it is your wish to show for some reason that the GWPPT6 calculaton is without merit you will have to point to something more fundamental than the assumption that water vapor-CO2 overlap is not significant becuse the whole point of GWPPT6 is to show the essential features of diffuse broad-band absorption, and to undermiine that requires a definitive statement such as, "the use of this equation is wrong because" or "these data do not apply" or some such. I have worked as a scintiist for over fity years and it is clear to me that when it comes to appying them to processes all scientific calculations are approximations. For example, we leave out perturbations by masses other than the earth for terrestrial trajectory calculations. Someone wishing to cast doubt upon a calculation could always say, "you can't make that approximation" and, if one were foolish enough, they could go on forever including smaller and smaller perturbations (the sun, the moon, Mars, Jupiter, and on and on). It is my belief that when someone produces a calculation the gives a result that is botn observed and confirmed by a more inclusive theory and someone else wishes to doubt the result it is up to the doubter to produce evidence why the calculation should be challenged. That is what I am asking you to do. And if you can successfully do it I will withdraw totally. That is how science works (at least so I hope). So I sincerely offer you best wishes in your search for a definitive argument. But please do not believe that all you have to do is say, without a number to back you up, that someone cannot make approximations. Without approximations science would be useless.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Word to the wise: This 'casting doubt' has happened before.

Prev  1966  1967  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  Next