Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 Next
Comments 107351 to 107400:
-
Joe Blog at 10:02 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TimTheToolMan at 07:36 AM "So you say but what proof/mechanism do you offer that energy gained over a day cannot be retained whereas the same energy can accumulate over months or years?" The oceans are the main reason, energy (LW&SW) will be absorbed during the day(LW reduces loses, SW "heats"), at relatively shallow depths, because the SW heats down through a shallow column of water, and "heat" is lost at the surface(through LW, evaporation, conduction), convection kicks in through the column that is absorbing shortwave and brings the energy to the surface, whilst mixing this area through turbulence, when the sun goes down. And "heating" stops, this surface layer will fall back to a stratified profile, due to the fact that its still loosing "heat" at the surface, but there is no "net" input of energy going below the surface. So looking at it "extremely simply", conduction is the means that energy is stored in the deeper ocean, and its not a very efficient mover of energy, and it would take a lot o time, to move energy down into the ocean this way, due to the way that the surface interacts with SW/LW, to keep moving energy to the surface... but the oceans have some 1300 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. P.S. it may have been asked... but why isnt the inverse barometer applied in the sea level graphs? -
Albatross at 09:53 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
JohnD, From the paper: "Global-ocean evaporation estimates for the period 1994–2006 are obtained from SSM/I (2), OAFlux (23), and the Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite data (HOAPS; 42) version 3, which is available only through 2005. All the evaporation datasets estimate the latent heat flux using the bulk aerodynamic formulation in order to compute ocean evaporation (2). Satellite observations of surface wind speed at the reference height, sea surface temperature and specific humidity of air near the sea surface are the key variables used in the formulation. Despite, the greater variance in the E estimates (see SI Text 2 and Fig. S5), the temporal variability of these datasets is consistent, with all monthly estimates within one standard deviation of their monthly ensemble mean. The average values of global-ocean evaporation ranges between 400,200 km3∕y (for SSM/I) and 415,900 km3∕y (for OAFlux)." Even allowing for this uncertainty E is still greater than P over the global oceans. "If the pan evaporation data was to be used directly, then over land E>P also, by a large factor." Not that I do not believe you, but which paper is that from? -
Doug Bostrom at 09:49 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I was asking why not label petro and coal biproducts pollutants rather than go after CO2? What's the byproduct of industrial application of petroleum and coal we're speaking of here? Are internal combustion engines designed to produce C02? Is the objective of a coal fired generation plant to produce C02, with the grid and load simply a big resistor to get rid of the pesky energy byproduct? This is beginning to resemble one of those Oliver Sacks situations, a weird inability to perceive some particular thing. -
TimTheToolMan at 09:35 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Handwaving "thermal properties" may fool some but you've not answered the question. -
johnd at 09:18 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Albatross at 08:36 AM regarding E>P over oceans, do they indicate how E was determined? If the pan evaporation data was to be used directly, then over land E>P also, by a large factor. The trend is perhaps the most reliable indicator. -
RSVP at 09:16 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #|15 "Maybe you can explain why refined petrolium products or coal havent received this qualification " Maybe you cant, or simply didnt understand the question. I was asking why not label petro and coal biproducts pollutants rather than go after CO2? Or is this part of the CO2 sequestering business agenda? -
johnd at 08:37 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
DSL at 08:12 AM, that study is looking at the effects of droughts which are short term and regional events. Both the lead article here, and the first paper referenced by LukeW at 06:59 AM indicate general increases in rainfall globally. -
Albatross at 08:36 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
LukeW, Good points. Yes, a lot is happening. I would not trust the pan evaporation rates much (they do not reflect what happens over vegetated surfaces, and are notoriously error prone). Anyhow, the authors here specifically talk about increases in global-ocean evaporation as the SSTs increase (see their Fig. 2). Over land modeling ET is incredibly difficult and observing it using EC systems is not much easier, and data from the global FluxNet network are probably the best data that we have for ET from various biomes. Not sure if they have looked at trends-- they only have about 10 years of FluxNet data though. Yes, factoring in land use change is problematic. But don't forget that man made dams can also reduce run off by holding back some water. Fig. 2 in the Syed et al. paper shows that there is evidence of the hydrological cycle over the oceans/seas which cover about 70% of the planet (by only considering the oceans one avoids problems with land use change). Also, P - E < 0 (from their Fig. 2, E > P) over the oceans, which suggests that there must be increased precipitation over the land areas (b/c globally P-E should be ~ 0). -
DSL at 08:12 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
And factor in Zhao and Running (2010) who show that plant growth actually appears to be declining slightly. -
johnd at 08:10 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
LukeW at 06:59 AM, I was about to post something on evaporation trends but see you have already taken care of that. The link below adds to your reference and sets out to try and correct some commonly held assumptions. River runoff is really only a by-product, it is dependent on a number of other factors, and anyway is only a calculation rather than an actual measurement. On the other hand, rainfall and evaporation are actually measured and any modeling can be verified by real data, but more than that they are the two critical components without which the hydrological cycle simply would not exist. Agro-ecological implications of change to the terrestrial water balance -
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
To create the imbalance in energy in/energy out (where Planck's Law does the energy out), you have to have storage of energy within the planet that is not yet expressed as surface temperature. This is matter largely of thermal properties (though melting ice also contributes). Once surface temperatures increase of course then energy balance is restored and no further accumulation occurs. -
TimTheToolMan at 07:36 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
So you say but what proof/mechanism do you offer that energy gained over a day cannot be retained whereas the same energy can accumulate over months or years? And I say cannot in the same way you said could... Now is a good time to mention Plank's Law when dealing with the accumulation. You need to account for that. -
LukeW at 06:59 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Lots of messy confounding issues here: (1) Pan evaporation rates have been reported to be decreasing not increasing, a reduction in windiness being a key driver - Roderick ML, Rotstayn LD, Farquhar GD and Hobbins MT. (2007) On the attribution of changing pan evaporation. Geophysical Research Letters VOL. 34, L17403, doi:10.1029/2007GL031166 (2) El Nino has changed position and intensity increased - Lee, T., and M. J. McPhaden (2010), Increasing intensity of El Niño in the central-equatorial Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14603, doi:10.1029/2010GL044007. (3) Gedney et al initially postulated increased transpiration efficiency – more CO2 less water use – Gedney N, et al. (2006) Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439:835–838. (4) Then Piao et al 2007 suggest both climate and land use change affect global runoff, with land use being half the increase. They refute Gedney et al. on CO2 saying increase in vegetation growth compensates for the CO2 anti-transpiration effect. (Shilong Piao, Pierre Friedlingstein, Philippe Ciais, Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré, David Labat, and Sönke Zaehle Changes in climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends PNAS 2007 104 (39) 15242-15247; doi:10.1073/pnas.0707213104) (5) So we have a mixture of reduced evaporation, stronger El Nino hydrological cycle in Modoki mode position, CO2 anti-transpiration effects and land use change (clearing) ? How much is AGW? hmmmmmm -
Ned at 06:34 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
fdijkstra: Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998? "Pause?" In the satellite data, the trend since 1998 is almost identical to the previous trend, except a little bit steeper:
Figure 1. Satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures, 1979-1998 (blue) and 1999-2010 (orange). Courtesy RSS.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:09 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Re: Ned (123) "Waste Heat" thread(s) Glad I kept my nose out of that one. :) I have 2 basic responses to skeptics; which response I use depends upon the approach taken by the skeptic: 1. The skeptic posts a thoughtful, well-reasoned and intelligent question or observation. I respond with as helpful a reply as is possible (I once spent a half-day looking up an answer for someone). Makes me happy to help. 2. The skeptic, clearly suffering from a terminal bout of Dunning-Kruger Disease, leaps into a thread post with an unsupported, non-factual opinion (usually based on "common sense" or what the animal entrails look like, etc.) and says the science is wrong "because". Curbing my natural inclination to flame (or at least track down & throttle) them, I compose 2 or 3 replies, all incendiary, before settling on something acerbic that may or may not pass moderation. I then go have 2 or 3 beers to blow off steam (or repeat as necessary). Re: dana 1981 (124)"Personally I think it's common sense that CO2 is obviously a pollutant. But then again, I've put in the time to learn some basic climate science. Common sense, when based on ignorance, is usually wrong. "
Well said, sir. Well-said. The Yooper -
scaddenp at 06:08 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TTTM - you claimed that the heat "could accumulate" in days if not hours. No it could not. Just because there is a lot of energy coming in does not mean it can accumulate that fast in the real physical world and reasons why are the important key issue in the OHC questions. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:55 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Re: mfripp (5) Thanks for pointing that out. Given the global nature of the datasets required, and that controls were made via satellite measurements (GRACE goes back to 2002, for example), it is of no surprise that this study focuses on the period it did. The availability of regional data, as you point out exists, does not help extend coverage into the global arena. Even if enough spacial coverage existed, too great of a separation in time from the control period covered by the satellites would diminish the accuracy of the portion greatest removed in time from the controls. I.e., the data needs to have a temporal vicinity to the satellite era. Great thought, though. This will be a nice tool for future monitoring usage. The Yooper -
robert way at 05:36 AM on 8 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
I was wondering a little bit about your principal component retention in Figure 1... I would like all your raw data, code, house address and phone number and copies of all your emails pertaining to this subject. If you refuse I will start a blog called "commentaudit" and I will prove that you had a slightly more elevated comment amount than you showed in your graph... -
Doug Bostrom at 05:18 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
I would enjoy somebody doing an integration of this information w/OHC over the same time period. Somebody qualified to do so, that is. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:16 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Further to Albatross' remarks it's worth looking at the abstract, just as a reminder of the modesty of the claim made in this paper: Freshwater discharge from the continents is a key component of Earth’s water cycle that sustains human life and ecosystem health. Surprisingly, owing to a number of socioeconomic and political obstacles, a comprehensive global river discharge observing system does not yet exist. Here we use 13 years (1994–2006) of satellite precipitation, evaporation, and sea level data in an ocean mass balance to estimate freshwater discharge into the global ocean. Results indicate that global freshwater discharge averaged 36,055 km3∕y for the study period while exhibiting significant interannual variability driven primarily by El Niño Southern Oscillation cycles. The method described here can ultimately be used to estimate long-term global discharge trends as the records of sea level rise and ocean temperature lengthen. For the relatively short 13-year period studied here, global discharge increased by 540 km3∕y2, which was largely attributed to an increase of global ocean evaporation (768 km3∕y2). Sustained growth of these flux rates into long-term trends would provide evidence for increasing intensity of the hydrologic cycle. I suppose for those of us obsessed w/this subject the excitement lies in this being another phenomenon consistent w/expectations. For my part I would enjoy somebody doing an integration of this information w/OHC over the same time period. That might address possible overreach as exemplified by fydijkstra's remark. -
archiesteel at 05:13 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
@fydijkstra: "By the way, 1998 is also the year that had the highest global mean temperature, according to HadCrut. Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998?" The fact that 1998 was exceptionally warm does not indicate a "pause" in Global Warming. To suggest as much indicates a weak understanding of statistical significance in trends. Even HadCRUT makes it clear the warming is still there, and didn't pause: -
Ned at 05:05 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Doug_B's and Phila's comments are both excellent. -
dorlomin at 04:55 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Well the second graph looks a little familiar. -
fydijkstra at 04:51 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Figure 1 does not show a very clear trend. The average from 1994-2006 might be a rise of 1.5 % annually, but I see two phases: 1994-1998 rising, and 1998-2007 slightly decreasing. By the way, 1998 is also the year that had the highest global mean temperature, according to HadCrut. Do we see here the confirmation of the pause in global warming since 1998? Not only global warming has stopped, also the monthly river discharge. This is also evidence, that the GISS-data (having hotter years after 1998) are exagerated. -
gallopingcamel at 04:37 AM on 8 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Albatross (#127), That Lindzen quote is from my (admittedly suspect) memory. Lindzen was being interviewed on TV and one of the topics was what trends should be expected for global temperatures for the rest of this century. Lindzen said that the state of climate science was not sufficiently advanced to make such predictions with any confidence. By not radiating unjustified certainty Lindzen impresses me as someone who has humility and an open mind. Berenyi Peter, Thanks for that paper submitted to the GRL. It mentions problems raised by Trenberth and others before setting out to correct them. Clearly Lindzen is big enough to admit mistakes. -
Albatross at 03:36 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
I encourage everyone to look at Fig.2 in their paper. The trends in global freshwater discharge and global-ocean evaporation between 1994-2006 have p-values <0.001, while for the same period the trend in global-ocean precipitation has a p-value of 0.01. Nevertheless, the data are noisy, with the trends more than an order of magnitude less than the standard deviation of the data. They may be onto something, but IMHO there is simply not enough data (given the noise)to state unequivocally that the global hydrological cycle is accelerating-- and they do not do that. In fact they state that “Sustained growth of these flux rates into long-term trends would provide evidence for increasing intensity of the hydrologic cycle.” This paper is not the first to determine that there are indications/evidence that the hydrological cycle has been accelerating, and their findings seem to support previous work to that effect (e.g., Labat et al. 2004). So perhaps one should consider it as yet another piece of evidence that the hydrological cycle may be starting to accelerate. That said, they have developed a useful and novel technique that can be applied as more data become available-- therein probably lies the greatest contribution of this paper, the technique. -
Phila at 03:17 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
#54 chriscanaris As far as tribalism is concerned, I have observed that those most firmly immersed in tribes/subcultures be they political parties, religious minority groups, recent immigrants to a new land, special interest groups, and the like all too often cannot see the mob mentality permeating their behaviour. Membership of a 'tribe' discourages the requisite self-reflection. True enough, but this is just as applicable to viewing oneself as a centrist, an individual, "rootless," "non-clubbable," or what have you. Hopefully, there's no intentional implication here that your stance is comparatively unique in being the result of "the requisite self-reflection," but you've definitely left some room for that interpretation, which is troubling. The discussion of "tribalism" and "post-normal" science is all very interesting, but it does nothing to resolve questions like whether Curry or Schmidt is correct about, say, "IPCC deadlines." In many public arguments relating to AGW, a fact of the matter can reasonably be said to exist and to be accessible to us; at such times, the retreat into airy meta-discussions about the psychology and sociology of science seem less like "the requisite self-reflection" than an attempt to muddy the waters in a case where one person is clearly right and another is clearly wrong. Again, science is a group project. This means that tribalism comes into play, of course, but it also means that conveniently timed accusations of tribalism are part of how the game is played, and are just in much in need of deconstruction as tribalism itself (if not more). Real self-reflection isn't a matter of patting yourself on the back for "understanding" the tribalist motives of your critics; it's a matter of considering whether the things they're saying are demonstrably true, even if you'd prefer them not to be. That's what's missing from Dr. Curry's account of the matter, in my view, and that's why I wouldn't call her views on "tribalism" coherent, let alone constructive. -
CBDunkerson at 03:17 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
From eyeballing the graphs it seems likely they are talking about a simple 'area under the curve' trend line... basically, if you were to draw a line through the data such that the area between the line and the data lines above the line equals the area below the line that line would be increasing by 1.5% per year. Given the extremely noisy signal and the large number of uncertain measurements going into the results I'd agree that it isn't clear how robust that result is. I think their surprise was that the data should show anything other than a near zero trend over such a short timeframe. This result suggests that the total river outflow of the planet will double within 50 years if current trends continue... which certainly seems extreme. -
dana1981 at 03:14 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I've found that when people form incorrect conclusions and you ask them what they are based on, one of the most common answers is "common sense." Personally I think it's common sense that CO2 is obviously a pollutant. But then again, I've put in the time to learn some basic climate science. Common sense, when based on ignorance, is usually wrong. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:12 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Apologies for the lack of a citation and actually that was Church 2008, BP. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the nut of your objection seems to come down to a hypothesis that, overall, continents are sinking below the waves, but you don't offer any details to support this remarkable claim. -
mfripp at 03:03 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
The US Geologic Survey has been measuring water flow for a very long time. Seems like a longer data trail could be obtained. -
shdwsnlite at 02:59 AM on 8 October 2010Skeptical Science housekeeping: Comments Gluttony
Yes the moderation on this site is very much appreciated by those of us trying to digest and understand the science. It is a welcome oasis from the gibberish and vile on other sites. The comment climb i guess may be the result of two things. The first being that this site is getting more attention and second that the rate articles are posted seems to be increasing. Both of those factors of course are nice to see. -
Bob Guercio at 02:58 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
We could wind up fighting another denier argument. -
tonydunc at 02:57 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
I also don't see a trend, especially since the start point is pretty low, and it looks like the end point is lower. It seems to me without knowing any the parameters for the period before 1993, there is no discernible long term trend. I assume that there is something I am not understanding from just eyeballing the chart. -
Ned at 02:55 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
michael sweet writes: Remember, people on this site spent over 200 posts trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand waste heat. Please don't remind us all about that. I'm still angry about that episode. I can't say what I really think about those two threads (one, two) without blowing the comments policy to smithereens. Let's just say that my opinions of the entire "skeptic" community on this website were strongly influenced by that thread. I suppose in one sense that's not fair. But that thread seriously made me question whether there's any value whatsoever in trying to engage in reasoned discussion with "skeptics" on this site. I would probably feel quite a bit differently if Sensible Skeptic A and Sensible Skeptic B and Sensible Skeptic C had stepped forward in that thread and tried to help out. Didn't happen, though. Yes, I am bitter. Sorry. -
Spencer Weart at 02:49 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Yes, too noisy to say anything very strong about a trend; the statistics must be marginal. Too soon to declare this another sign of AGW, it would be embarrassing if a couple years from now the trend turns down... -
Doug Bostrom at 02:48 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Chris, good comment, more than just a comment. We could wish that most people using the term "post-normal science" in connection with climate science bothered to look it up, as you did. What I find disturbing about employment of the term by folks tossing it around on climate blogs is-- again-- that they label climatological research as well as research in other fields as "post-normal science" based not on the content of the research itself but rather on whether it is connected with anthropogenic climate change, particularly if it happens to lend support to the notion of anthropogenic climate change as a threat. Reflexive categorization itself is presumed to be a negation of the worth of research, but it's not. It's reasonable to claim that the course of inquiry leading to some particular finding was inspired by reaction to a perceived threat; I'm sure we can agree that in myriad cases, concern about an emerging situation may well motivate choices about where to expend research effort, as in the case of HIV. However, categorizing research in that manner does not explain results, doesn't invalidate findings. Regardless of the reasons for why particular questions are answered or attempted to be answered, answers themselves can and must be assessed for reliability outside of motivational frameworks, leaving aside the impetus driving any particular actors. Tagging collective or individual work with labels such as "post-normal," "selection bias" and even the celebrated "cargo cult science" doesn't answer any questions about the validity of things dropped into those various identification buckets. To be useful, criticism of scientific findings must offer detailed and cogent arguments against specific results. Actually constructing a case for why any particular research finding is worthy of dismissal requires unraveling the work in question at a level of intricacy so divorced from sweeping terms such as "post-normal science" that I'm left wondering, what's the point of using these categorizations at all? I've a feeling the answer to that question as it stands in connection with anthropogenic warming usually lies with rhetorical impressionism, has nothing to do with making productive contributions to research. As a case in point, Christy et al have just published a paper discussing observations versus model predictions as they relate to the troposphere. Christy and his coauthors refer to the general context of the importance of improving models, the relevance of their own research in relation to matters outside of the particular matter of the science itself. I sincerely doubt we'll see any charges of Christy's work being "post-normal science" leveled by the contrarian community. -
JMurphy at 02:46 AM on 8 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
Tom Loeber, I have replied to you at Does cold weather disprove global warming?/It's freaking cold! as requested.Moderator Response: Thank you. -
JMurphy at 02:40 AM on 8 October 2010It's freaking cold!
Tom Loeber, instead of pasting loads of links to newspaper/online media articles giving records for anything from one to fifty years, how about links to officially recognised records that are significant, i.e. coldest on record, second coldest, etc. Anything else can be safely ignored. Also, please give a link to an official source that states that England was the "coldest in...140 years". Again, anything else will be a waste of your time. PS It appears you WEREN'T banned, yes ? -
Berényi Péter at 02:40 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#53 Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 7 October, 2010 I'm going to be kind & assume you are being fascetious with your comment. Thanks, you are right, I am. And while we are here you can ask kdkd to tell doug_bostrom it's very poor form to show data without properly attributing the source of the raw data. Anyway, I guess it's based on Church 2006, which is bogus.
The reason I tell you this is because the Complete PSMSL Data Set can be downloaded, in either annual or monthly resolution and you can check it for yourself if the claimed acceleration exists or not as I have done for myself.
However, if one is only interested in acceleration, the proper way to do it is to compute acceleration for the individual stations, and have a look at the distribution of these accelerations. Reconstruction of average rate is neither necessary nor desirable for this end.
Sea level is expected to be more dynamic than vertical land motion, simply because both viscosity and heat capacity of crust and the underlying mantle is many orders of magnitude higher than that of seawater, heating is steady on this timescale while mass redistribution in solid earth is also slower.
So the spurious acceleration signal added by vertical land motion is expected to be much smaller relative to acceleration term of sea level change than the same kind of noise in rates.
Still, even the acceleration signal derived this way is rather noisy with a huge dispersion (relative to average). Therefore a non-zero "average" acceleration can't be genuine, it is indistinguishable from zero, even on a century time scale.
On the other hand in the remote case reconstruction of Church & al. made sense after all, it is easy to see all their acceleration took place before 1930, after that date there is none. As almost all CO2 induced warming is supposed to happen after 1950 (because emissions before that time were tiny), it's kinda check-mate, isn't it?
-
It's the sun
Gah - writing too fast. In my previous post I should have said "1750 was part of the end of the LIA", not "900". -
Ned at 02:32 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
pbjamm, if you naively project BP's quadratic trend forward in time, it would eventually level off and start decreasing. The fact that there's no justification for doing so is beside the point. -
Ned at 02:29 AM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
Ken Lambert writes: How about we agree on 0.2-0.5W/sq.m for the range of Solar forcing since AD1725. How about we don't try to maximize confusion by blurring the distinction between time periods? You claimed that a graph showed that "the actual value of the Solar forcing is in the range of 0.3 - 0.5W/sq.m and ongoing since about AD1700" That was a highly misleading statement, since the actual graph showed it not even rising up to 0.3 -- the bottom end of your claimed range for the past three centuries -- until the 1930s. Ken continues: Is the 'zero' axis not the zero Solar forcing and equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar?? If not what else could it be?? Ken, there is no unique "equilibrium TSI where the Earth neither warms nor cools due to Solar". No such number exists! There are infinitely many possible values of TSI which would produce neither warming nor cooling of the Earth. I keep making this point and you keep ignoring it. Assume that TSI is currently X. Now, assume that it increases to X+0.25 W/m2. The additional irradiance causes the planet to heat up, and feedbacks in the climate system amplify that warming slightly. As the planet warms, outgoing longwave radiation increases per Stefan-Bolzmann, until the planet reaches a new equilibrium where all of the following are true: (1) TSI is X+0.25 (2) Outgoing longwave radiation has risen to balance that increase in TSI (3) The temperature is stabilized at a new, higher level, and the planet is neither being warmed nor cooled. You keep assuming that any departure from some imaginary equilibrium TSI would lead to perpetually increasing or decreasing temperature. That is just plain wrong -- fortunately, because if you were right there would probably be no life on this planet! Ken continues: Using some crude geometry I have calculated [...] This gives a roughly 45/55% ratio Solar/All Other for not just the first half of the 20th century - but the whole period 1725 up to 2000. You are once again lumping together different periods of time. I assume you're just inadvertently deceiving yourself rather than deliberately trying to deceive others. Before the early 20th century, solar forcing is much larger than GHG forcing. By the mid 20th century, GHGs are catching up and passing solar. In the late 20th century, GHG forcing is very large and solar is not merely smaller in relative terms, it's actually decreasing post 1975. -
We're heading into an ice age
Tom Loeber - try posting it on topic, in the it's freaking cold thread. Off topic posts (in this case, individual extrema data on the Ice Age thread) get deleted.Moderator Response: Exactly. -
pbjamm at 02:20 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
BP @49 I find your conclusion confusing. Your graph, at best, only shows that the *rate* of rise is decreasing. It does not indicate that the trend is reversing and in decline. -
It's the sun
Ken Lambert - You ask "How do you know it was NO and NO?"; how do I know that the climate wasn't in equilibrium in 900, 1750, 1880? Very simple, Ken. The slope of temperature change entering into those years, as shown by instrumental and proxy records, was not at or even close to zero. If the world was at equilibrium, you would see only seasonal changes in temperature. But given the time constants for ocean energy change, variations in forcings, etc., it would take a fairly significant time period for equilibrium to settle. [Side note - the fact that the various models track the paleoclimate record using historic forcings indicates that they are doing a reasonable job of dealing with thermal lags] 1750 has perhaps the best (not perfect) chance of being at equilibrium of those three dates - 900 temps have a steady downward trend, part of the Little Ice Age, I suspect, while 1880 is in early industrialization with numerous forcing changes from early CO2. But as the various forcings move around, the climate can only follow, only hitting equilibrium if (a) forcings don't change for a period long enough for the oceans to catch up, or (b) forcings reverse and pass climate change going the other way. I believe (IMO) that you are stuck on the "baseline" definition here, Ken. A proper analysis starting from a baseline includes not only changes after the baseline (forcing deltas, in this case), but the original trajectory of the system prior to the baseline, which includes all forcings at that date. Given those you can measure magnitude and correlation of trajectory changes relative to forcing changes. Failing to incorporate the baseline trajectory, the history, would be a massive error - but as far as I can see nobody has made that particular mistake. Only you, if you insist that existent forcings at the baseline are not included in the original temperature trajectories. Your "large extra slice of area" is part and parcel of the non-equilibrium trajectory at the baseline date; part of the history. I really don't know what else I can say, Ken. It's really that simple. -
michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP: Many people feel it is common sense to consider the facts of the matter when making a decision. Your suggestion that the Supreme Court would rule against common sense in this case is nonsense. Pick up your pace and read the background information. It is depressing to have people like Doug Bostrom spend so many of their valuable comments replying to uninformed blather, when they could be raising our knowledge level. Remember, people on this site spent over 200 posts trying (unsuccessfully) to help you understand waste heat. Pass on the favor by reading on your own to be more informed. -
Tom Dayton at 02:10 AM on 8 October 2010There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Glen Tamblyn has been posting excellent rebuttals to the Skeptical Science commenter The Inconvenient Skeptic, over on The Inconvenient Skeptic's site page about the Taylor Dome ice core analysis. That is relevant to this Skeptical Science page (There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature) because The Inconvenient Skeptic's core argument is that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. As commentors and moderators have been pointing out to The Inconvenient Skeptic, his detailed comments on that topic do not belong on the Skeptical Science page The Value of Coherence in Science. -
Bob Guercio at 02:09 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
The graphs don't look very convincing. Please don't tell the skeptics that I said that. Bob Guercio -
Tom Loeber at 02:04 AM on 8 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
I'm trying again. There are reports of all time historical record lows in a number of countries this year that I attempted to post and if this works, I'll try to do it again. Does appear as if I was banned. JMurphy is right and I was wrong. England did not receive an all time record cold winter recently. Actually it was the coldest in anywhere from 30 to 140 years according to numerous posts and findings.Moderator Response: You are posting on the wrong page. Off topic posts are deleted. I'll give you some time to see this reply by me, and then I will delete your comment. Go to the page "It's Freaking Cold!"
Prev 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 Next
