Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 Next
Comments 107201 to 107250:
-
Doug Bostrom at 16:13 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
On a parenthetical note, TTTM is not actually attempting to argue w/RealClimate, he's in dispute w/Peter Minnett. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:12 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
" The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt" And where do you get that idea from? It is precisely the amount of IR that is one of the the problems. The CO2 effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller than the LW radiation explored in the experiment using LW from clouds. The other problem I have with the article is that the graph that you have reposted shows the skin temperature change as a result in LW radiation changes but how much LW radiation reduction from the ocean does that imply? See the above comment for additional uncertainty. That side of the theory is completely unexplored. I cant say this any other way, you either understand my argument or you need to reread the article until you understand the issue. -
kdkd at 16:06 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
archiesteel #182: I think these are the limitations where he's confused the control variable and the experimental variable :) -
archiesteel at 15:59 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment" What limitations are these, again? -
Doug Bostrom at 15:58 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Citing the article at RealClimate only deepens the mystery of what you're trying to accomplish, TTTM. You also sound rather ridiculous when you say the article is bereft of a useful conclusion, or numerical analysis in support of their conclusion. You: I've described the article and said they dont have any numbers to back up their theory. RealClimate:
How about describing, in detail, what parts of that article you disagree with? Specifically, what's wrong with their method? What's faulty about the analysis? Most importantly, you need to show how the IR emanating from clouds is different from IR from other sources, because that's the crux of your argument. The amount of IR is not the issue, it's the mechanism you appear to doubt, but you need to show how. Be specific, because saying "I don't agree" is not an argument.
-
TimTheToolMan at 15:55 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem?" No, I'm pointing out the limitations of the experiment and lack of taking the result further in the science to actually justify the warming. -
archiesteel at 15:51 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC." Wait a minute...*you're* dismissing the article on RC. Does that mean you also think there is no problem? -
archiesteel at 15:48 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TimTheToolMan: It is not CO2 that warms the ocean, but IR radiation. We know how much of that IR radiation is coming back down to the surface. Some of that IR radiation ends up on land, some ends up in the oceans. "My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2." Sure we do: about 3 degrees for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:47 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
The more complex the model, the more important the empirical data. Fortunately there have been very detailed studies of IR transmission in the atmosphere. Many from before AGW was popular. Here is the measured transmittance of the IR band. This is freely distributed to people that use IR transmission in their work. It uses wavelength instead of wavenumber, so you will need to compare to the top axis of Riccardo's post. The picture is large and I can't do it justice here. This has been in use since the 1970's when CO2 was about 330 ppm. It has not changed since then. Always test the theory against the data. The amount of widening is limited, but visible. The amount of IR energy available for CO2 absorption after 1km in the horizontal direction is approaching zero W/m2. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
TimTheToolMan at 15:35 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean." Suffice to say that its me thats done the research here and so I think I know the implications. Your comment of "generic nature" indicate that you dont understand the issue at all. One thing is certain, I didn't make this up. There is an article on RC that clearly describes the problem and the experiment that attempts to explain the solution. In arguing there is no problem you're dismissing the article on RC. -
TimTheToolMan at 15:30 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation." That would be one argument. Its not my argument however. My argument is that science doesn't have any data on the magnitude of the effect for CO2. Therefore Science cant actually say whether CO2 is warming the oceans or not. It comes back to one of my earlier statements where I'd said science observes ocean warming and automatically attributes it to CO2 without having any quantifiable justification. Compare this to the work that has been done to justify CO2's feedback mechanisms and consequent increases in downward LW radiation resulting in measurable increases in temperature in the atmosphere and on land. -
archiesteel at 15:27 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
@Karamanski: I'm sorry as well if I mistook your eagerness to learn for disingenuous posturing. Now, in order to satisfy your curiosity to learn about climatology, you might consider looking at some other sites about this science, as this particular one here rather specializes in responding to popular skeptical arguments, and not provide a general introduction to climate science. Personally, I like Wikipedia as a general learning tool, but I'm sure there are other sites that focus on providing quality information on this subject. Perhaps others here can give you suggestions. Beyond that, you might have to look at online classes and/or trips to the library to learn the science in more detail... -
Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM, you're not making a specific argument, you're only saying that you don't agree with something specific, namely that oceans are susceptible to having their temperature changed as a result of exposure to IR radiation. This is not an argument: "I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today." An argument would consist of your showing how oceans are immune to having their temperature changed by IR radiation. Also, I've not said you're ignorant. I said you're adopting a posture of ignorance, but I'll grant that's going too far; it's possible you simply don't understand the generic nature of IR radiation and are thus confused about how increased C02 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature of the ocean. By your own word, you don't doubt there's an enhanced "greenhouse" effect in play, so assuming you're not ignorant, the matter really does come down either to posturing or confusion. -
archiesteel at 15:15 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
@TTTM: "My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all." This sentence perfectly illustrates how misguided your whole research has been, and why you have allegedly not found an answer for the inexistent issue. Greenhouse forcings, together with all other forcings, heat the oceans. CO2 captures then redirects heat in a random direction, and sometimes that is absorbed by the oceans, but the mechanism of absorption is the same whether the heat is coming straight from the sun, or is being re-radiated by CO2, CH4, WV, etc. "You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer." Perhaps that's because you really haven't found the question either. All you know is that, somehow, it must show that AGW is inadequate... -
muoncounter at 14:59 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
"Arctic amplification is an expected (and now observed) result of an enhanced greenhouse effect" Isn't this amplification an outcome of the higher concentration and larger seasonal amplitudes of CO2 in the arctic?
As the figures demonstrate, large parts of the Arctic see >390ppm for more months of the year than the lower latitudes. Peak CO2 occurs in April-May, as the melt season is getting underway.
-
TimTheToolMan at 14:41 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
My argument is very specific. My argument has been well defined and relates specifically to CO2 warming the oceans as opposed to other skeptic's arguments of CO2 warming at all. Or the extent of warming or whatever. You say I'm ignorant but I say I've researched this and not found an answer. If such an answer exists then all you need to do is find it and AGW theory remains intact. I am of the opinion, however, that an answer simply doesn't exist in the science today. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:31 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTT,M, if you were making some specific argument against some specific thing, my speculations about your appearance here might be an "ad hominem attack." However, as you've not made an argument to address, such a thing is impossible, ipso facto. That is, unless we're prepared to accept "I doubt it" as an argument, which I don't. Arguably, being a "skeptic" does not entail maintaining a posture of ignorance while demanding to be educated. -
TimTheToolMan at 14:22 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
"If such a person as TTT,M really cared to have an answer as opposed to argue, he'd start by going to the literature and usually would never show up on SkS." You know nothing about me and nothing about what I have researched on this topic. The fact I brought it up at all ought to indicate that I know something about it. You've made an unprovoked ad hominem attack on me and have obliquely tried to imply the science is solid even though you provide no data to support that position. I do appreciate the link you've provided and my initial reading indicates that the issue is not addressed by this paper. It will take me some time to go through the references. I HAVE researched this topic and read a large number of papers looking for the answer. Not for some time though. I gave up a while back. I genuinely am looking for an answer. At this point I am a skeptic for good reason. As far as I'm concerned AGW theory is inadequate. -
archiesteel at 14:06 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Hopefully TTTM will stop wasting everyone's time and start actually learning the science, but somehow I doubt it. :-/ -
Doug Bostrom at 14:02 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
I've been wrong before, Karamanski. Perhaps I'm just too grouchy today. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:59 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Thanks, Riccardo, terrific job. Seconding and extending your thoughts on Spencer Weart's book, if people would read Weart before commencing to argue against facts as opposed to discussing actual open issues, the general quality of discussion on this matter would be much better. -
kdkd at 13:53 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
doug: Thanks for pointing TTTM in the right direction regarding the literature. I've been trying to encourage him to start looking in more detail, as it's clearly unreasonable for me or anyone else to do his work for him :) -
Karamanski at 13:50 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
doug_bostrom, archiesteel, Learning about the meticulous details of climate change fascinates me. I thought the question I asked above was a very good question. I frequently hear the idea that polar amplification is a signature of greenhouse warming and cannot be idicative of solar forcing(I know the sun cannot be causing the warming now). I heard it in the "Solar schmolar" video on the "its the sun" post. I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding between you two. -
Kooiti Masuda at 13:46 PM on 9 October 2010The first global warming skeptic
Where are the figures of "real measurements" from? -
Doug Bostrom at 13:36 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
If such a person as TTT,M really cared to have an answer as opposed to argue, he'd start by going to the literature and usually would never show up on SkS. It's diagnostic of a person interested in pointless argumentation that they show up here repeatedly demanding answers they'd do better to seek out for themselves. As an example, here's a paper from long ago, with a citation trail extending in two different directions on the timeline, which if followed will eventually sort out TTT,M's hermetically conserved disputation: Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Nino Notice, there's no way SkS can reproduce the level of detail conveyed in that double-ended trail of cites. TTT'M's favored rhetorical method is to demand that the folks at this site behave as perfect proxies for people who do research in the various fields he's not interested in. It's a old, tired technique. It's also conspicuous-- once we notice-- that TTT,M spends more time and effort badgering people at this site than seeking answers on his own, in a rich literature freely available. Unfortunately, the articles posted at this site necessarily leave some ambiguity hanging in the air, because full understanding of the topics covered here requires a level of specialist knowledge in the hands of remarkably few people, with the collective knowledge of all related topics beyond the reach of any single person. As well, presenting a case durable against a person infected with distrust requires detail beyond what's useful for most people. Folks like TTT,M exploit this, for whatever reason. This asymmetry works in two directions, however. For instance, TTT,M says, "Its a question of the numbers. Science doesn't have any (that I'm aware of) and so doesn't actually know whether CO2 is responsible for ocean heating at all. Notice that TTT,M is substituting his and our lack of expertise on this subject for an argument, when in point of fact experts don't agree with him. It's crucial to discern when "I doubt it" is being positioned as an argument. When we have a choice between "I doubt it" and what an actual expert says, it's generally better to go with the expert. This is not fundamentally a fair fight or even a fight at all. On one side is TTT,M and on the other the scientific community. The thing that allows TTT,M to obtain his stimulation here is that--of course-- SkS is not designed to deliver a postgraduate-level education on dozens of different fields related to climate change. So to that extent that's true, SkS will always be prey to silly distractions like TTT,M. -
Karamanski at 13:35 PM on 9 October 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
The post does not address the physical mechanism of how the cooling in the northeast pacific that is compensated for by a warming in north-central pacific affects global temperatures, it just states and displays the correlation. What I'm curious about is what is the exact mechanism of how cyclical changes in the distribution of sea surface temperatures in the north pacific affects global temperatures. As stated in the intermediate post, "Consequently it would appear that there is nothing fundamental about a PDO that would cause significant changes to global temperatures." But then in figure 2, there is good correlation between the PDO index and global temperatures if the linear warming trend is removed. Please describe link between the two concepts I stated in the previous two sentences. And I repeat my original questions asked in my first comment on this post. Finally, I apologize for any misunderstandings of the other questions a posted on this website. To be honest I read the posts so many times that I have memorized them. Thank you. -
kdkd at 13:30 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #116 You attempted to make a causal link too far here. So I think there's a typo in your comment, it should read: "I'm going to have to explain what I mean because it's clearly not well explained". Presumably you have numbers to back up your hypothesis? I'm indicating that the clarity of your explanation is poor, and it counfounds at least two independent issues. Also your confusion of the word "theory" with what you presumably mean to be "hypothesis" suggests that you need to work on your position more in order to express youreself more clearly. -
archiesteel at 13:19 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
@doug: yeah, I noticed that as well. The fact that Karamanski doesn't acknowledge the answers he's given makes me think he's not really interested in learning, but rather in wasting people's time (like TTTM, cruzn246 and KL). I could be wrong, but the pattern is there. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:47 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
" You appear to be attempting to differentiate the heat caused by CO2 as opposed to any other greenhouse gas." You're going to have to explain what you mean here because I'm not differentiating anything as far as I'm concerned. So far, I've described the article and said they dont have any numbers to back up their theory. Please be specific about what you disagree with. -
kdkd at 12:39 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #163 There is a flaw in your premise here. You appear to be attempting to differentiate the heat caused by CO2 as opposed to any other greenhouse gas. This part of your argument appears to violate the laws of physics, as heat is heat is heat regardless of its source. This failure to obey the laws of physics (or more charitably, mis-explanation of the phenomenon under examination) is a serious distraction from the rest of your argument, which appears to be at odds with the mainstream scientific interpretation of the phenomenon under investigation. Perhaps you should show us "the numbers" clearly and concisely (i.e. show us explicitly model versus observed) so that we can assess your claims. If you want people to accept your argument you need to do the groundwork to make it easy for them to do so :) -
Doug Bostrom at 12:25 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
I won't have anything but regret over wasting more time if I bother to do that, TTT,M. Find somebody else to pester. I'm sure they'll be along soon enough. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:24 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
You would have my gratitude if you could point me to the paper that quantifies the effect described in the RealClimate article and thereby validates the AGW theory as relates to ocean warming due to Anthropogenic CO2. -
Kooiti Masuda at 12:21 PM on 9 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Potential evaporation (or potential ET) is a hypothetical concept. Roughly speaking, it is amount of evaporation (including transpiration) assuming that the ground surface is always wet and all other things being equal as actual. But detailed definitions related to what I said "always wet" and "other things" are different from one author to another ... how to specify air temperature, humidity, wind speed, surface roughness, surface albedo, radiative energy input, etc. Also there are many different approximate ways to estimate it. So we need to be careful about the methods when we compare results of different authors. Conceptually it can be said that potential evaporation consists of two factors, energy input to the surface, and deficit of moisture in the air near the surface. And actual evaporation from land involves at least one more factor, availability of water on the ground (usually from the soil). Pan evaporation can be considered as a kind of potential evaporation, but not equal to its typical definition. Brutsaert considers that pan evaporation varies oppositely to actual evaporation. It is reasonable when moisture deficit dominates pan evaporation and it is mainly a result of actual evaporation. Situation may be different when moisture deficit does not vary much and changes in the energy factor is dominant. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:20 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
I'm a slow learner, I forgot that "Tim the Tool, Man" is his own ultimate authority on the behavior of the climate and thus it's pointless trying to tell him anything. Oops. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:17 PM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
On a meta-note, Karamanski's I'm confused...please explain this? artifice is beginning to wear thin, now that we've read it on multiple topic threads. Here's Karamanski claiming to be "confused" and in need of help and he's already got a grip on Arctic amplification. I'd suggest not biting; this does not seem a person in need of assistance. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:14 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Its not a question of understanding, Doug. Its a question of the numbers. Science doesn't have any (that I'm aware of) and so doesn't actually know whether CO2 is responsible for ocean heating at all. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:11 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Bingo, TTTM! Reduced rate of heat loss! Now, just think, "With the same amount of heat gain as before the change in heat loss." If you can understand those two things working together, you understand the whole thing. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:07 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
Perhaps you should do more than a superficial reading before commenting on my understanding of the experiment. My conclusion is precisely the same as theirs. "So basically "science" has come up with a theory for ocean heat loss decrease due to increased CO2, showed that in principle an effect exists" The difference is that they've described their conclusion in the best possible light and entirely glossed over the fact that they only have half the story and dont know whether the effect actually accounts for the ocean warming. -
kdkd at 12:00 PM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM #157 I find it strange that the RealClimate article you refer to makes the conclusion that: "To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed." Which is the opposite of yours. It appears to me from a fairly superficial reading that you are misinterpreting the quasi-experiment. Cloud cover is used as a covariate with CO2 in order to control for the effect of greenhouse gasses on ocean heating. This is in the absence of being able to do a real experiment. As a result you seem to be describing the behaviour of the "control" condition (to the extent that a control condition can exist in this type of experimental work) to make your conclusion. However this is not my area of expertise and I will defer to others with a better understanding of this part of the science. -
TimTheToolMan at 11:43 AM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
The RealClimate article to start with is this one The upshot of this is that they acknowledge that CO2 doesn't directly heat the oceans and theorise that instead it causes them to cool more slowly. So they devise an experiment to show how increased downward LW radiation changes the temperature of the ocean's cooler skin with the suggestion that will result in decreased heat flux. Their experiment does indeed measure a change in skin temperature but uses the much larger effect of cloud induced downward LW radiation which is of the order of 100W. Compare this to CO2 increase which might account for a few Watts. And their result was a small but measurable effect with the 100W cloud effect. So what hasn't the science covered? Firstly the effect explored was more than an order of magnitude greater than the effect of CO2 and secondly the change in skin temperature wasn't attempted to be related to changes in LW heat loss from the ocean at all. So basically "science" has come up with a theory for ocean heat loss decrease due to increased CO2, showed that in principle an effect exists...and stopped. It has no idea whether the effect of CO2 is sufficient to explain the accumulation of heat in the oceans. At least none I ever found... -
kdkd at 11:27 AM on 9 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I've taken the response to one of TTTM's deleted comments (that was still in my RSS reader) over to the appropriate thread. Please redirect discussion of the role of CO2 over there. -
kdkd at 11:26 AM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
TTTM wrote on another thread: "I cant explain this issue [that we should be able to make a direct causal link between CO2 levels and ocean heat content?] easily. It involves a lot of background knowledge and anyone truely interested in this can take it from the initial references I've provided. By "the rate observed", I'm talking about the increases in OHC observed over the last few decades. AGW theory attributes this heating to the radiative imbalance caused by Anthropogenic CO2." Actually the scientific literacy on this blog is quite high, so the fact that you can't explain it "easily" is not a problem. Except perhaps with the quality of your explanation. Please give it a go. -
archiesteel at 11:25 AM on 9 October 2010How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
In another thread, TimTheToolMan said this: "If a year or especially six years are cool then that needs to be explained because if it cant be explained within the framework of AGW theory then AGW theory is broken." ...or, as the recent P&J study shows, OHC as it's currently measured doesn't show the whole picture. I don't see any reason to think a single year is indicative of any kind of trend. On the contrary (as CBD pointed ou), it is a shining example of cherry-picking, and no amount of out-of-context quotes from Ternberth is going to change this. -
cruzn246 at 11:02 AM on 9 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
What about the ever increasing presence of water vapor? Where are the charts showing its increase over the last 500,000 years?Moderator Response: Here's the appropriate thread for that topic: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas -
CBDunkerson at 10:54 AM on 9 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TTTM #86: One year? Five years? I refer you to the article above and its explanation of the term 'cherry picking'. If you are truly basing conclusions on just two to six data points you're effectively making decisions based on random noise. -
CBDunkerson at 10:50 AM on 9 October 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Karamanski #56: "Even though warming may continuing the rate of global temperature increase is steady and is not accelerating." Again, the data suggests that the rate IS increasing. In addition to the up-slope of the quadratic fit note that the linear trend line has been consistently below the actual results for 15 years (since 1995). With a steady trend you see the random 'noise' causing the actual results to frequently fall both above and below the linear trend. When actual results start to fall only on one side of the linear trend line it is a clear indication that the actual trend is NOT linear (or 'steady' as you suggest), but rather curving in the direction of the variance. "For instance, they did not predict the halt in the increase of methane concentrations over the past decade." The slight slowing in the rate of increase of atmospheric methane levels a few years ago was generally attributed to changes in human emissions... humans are somewhat difficult to predict with climate models - which is why they are generally run with a range of different GHG emission assumptions. That said, methane levels have resumed rising more quickly and there is some indication that this is becoming a positive climate feedback rather than primarily an issue of human emissions. See here. "Arctic sea ice predictions by climate models are 40 years behind real observations." The IPCC tends to be fairly conservative. Some other examples of this can be found here and here. In the case of Arctic sea ice extent the primary factors not taken into account seem to have been increased ice export out of the Arctic region as the ice breaks up and greater than expected 'melt from the bottom up' as ocean temperatures increase. "I find it diffult to think that we will have a temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100." It should be noted that the 3 C estimate is not just a matter of models... the positive feedbacks assumed for that figure (primarily increased atmospheric water vapor and decreased Arctic ice) are evident in direct observations of current conditions. The figure is also consistent with paleoclimate reconstructions. So... past (paleoclimate), present (observations), and future (models) analysis are consistent with the 3 C figure. -
cruzn246 at 10:43 AM on 9 October 2010It's the sun
Regardless, the solar change is dwarfed by the impact from the extra heat trapped by CO2 alone since 1750: an additional 1.66 watts per square meter, Pure supposition. -
archiesteel at 10:27 AM on 9 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@TTTM: As kdkd eloquently put it, heat is heat. It doesn't matter what percentage of that heat is from CO2 forcing, or water vapor, or if it comes straight from the sun. Heat from one source is not fundamentally different than heat from another source. I don't see why you can't "explain this easily." You should at least try.Moderator Response: But not on this page. I just performed a mass swathe of deletions of comments below this one. This will continue until the discussion is taken to the appropriate place. -
Karamanski at 10:26 AM on 9 October 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
If in the cool phase of the PDO, the northeast pacific is cool and the central north pacific is warm, and in the warm phase of the PDO its vice versa, how does the PDO affect global surface temperatures? According to figure 2, the PDO seems to be exerting short-term influences on global surface temperatures superimposed on a long-term warming trend. Because of the correlation between the PDO index and global surface temperatures, it seems like the negative PDO contributed to mid-century cooling, was the PDO alikely a culprit in mid-century cooling? And, since it went back to a cool phase a few years ago, could this cause global temperatures to rise less quickly over the next few decades? Could the PDO be a factor in determining who fast global surface temperatures rise on a decadal a timescale even though the long-term is obviously up? Please explain this to me.Moderator Response: Your question is exactly what is addressed in the post at the top of this page. Your question, and other questions you have asked on other pages, seem as if you have not actually read the posts, but only the posts' titles. Or maybe that you have read only the Basic version when there is also an Intermediate version and sometimes an Advanced version. I sincerely apologize if I am incorrect; I most definitely do not want to discourage you from asking questions or raising points for discussion. But it is difficult to answer your questions without simply repeating the contents of the posts at the tops of the pages. -
CBDunkerson at 10:22 AM on 9 October 2010Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic
Arctic amplification is an expected (and now observed) result of an enhanced greenhouse effect, but not a unique 'fingerprint' of such. Actual 'fingerprints' specific to the enhanced greenhouse effect can be found here, here, and here.
Prev 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 Next
