Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 Next
Comments 107551 to 107600:
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:50 PM on 8 October 2010It's the ocean
Karamanski, I believe you're thinking of Keenlyside et al 2008 (full text, pdf) which includes Mojib Latif as a coauthor. The abstract is probably better to read directly rather than letting someone else paraphrase it. The key lies in the words "surface temperature" and regional variability, how much heat is available where we can measure it in various regions of the surface temperature network and different regions of ocean surface. Keenlyside predicted a regional cooling in the North Atlantic area caused by circulation changes in the North Atlantic ocean, sufficiently strong as to cause a change in the overall surface temperature trend, even as other areas of the globe continued to warm. Behind all this is no change in the total amount of energy being retained on the planet, rather a change in distribution. Popular press treatments of this paper conveyed the impression that warming was going to stall or even that the Earth was going to cool, which is wrong in terms of energy being retained on Earth during the period covered by Keenlyside's prediction. Richard Wood explains this in a commentary at Nature accompanying Keenlyside et al: [Keenlyside's] starting point is the ocean. On a time scale of decades, this is where most of the ‘memory’ of the climate system for previous states resides. Anomalously warm or cool patches of ocean can be quite persistent, sometimes exchanging heat with the atmosphere only over several years. In addition, large ocean current systems can move phenomenal amounts of heat around the world, and are believed to vary from decade to decade. Wood goes on, regarding the extent of the predicted cooling: The authors use their model to predict that the MOC will weaken over the next decade, with a resultant cooling effect on climate around the North Atlantic. Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That emphasizes once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades. On a parenthetical note, it's fun when scientists bet money on validation. Some climate researchers found Keenlyside's analysis and forecast sufficiently debatable as to offer a bet on the outcome. -
Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Not terribly surprising, actually. Tropical species are adapted to much more consistent conditions than temperate or arctic species. -
It's the sun
*Including* the offset you are so concerned about? -
It's the sun
Ken Lambert - You haven't responded to my latest post. Do you understand that the 'baseline' is the starting point for forcing deltas, and that the incoming trajectory for temperature incorporates the forcings existing at the baseline timepoint? The offset you are so concerned about? -
scaddenp at 13:59 PM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
RC have a post up on it - which is basically "wait and see, we think it is instrument error". -
Stephen Baines at 13:53 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
BTW that's Deutsch 2008. I'm bad with dates...Must be my age. -
Stephen Baines at 13:51 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Interesting. Hey John. I sometimes use a paper from PNAS by Deutsch et al 2007 in class in my physiology lectures as a good example of how to apply physiological principles (in this case temperature vs performance curves) to ecological problems. That paper also finds that tropical insects, and perhaps tropical cold-blooded species generally, are likely to be more susceptible to increasing temperature than temperate species, even though the temperature change is likely to be greater at high latitudes. The reason in that case has to do with adaptation to climate variability. They show that tropical species are operating much closer to their optimum and maximal temperatures, presumably because low seasonal variability in temperature in the tropics allows them to be more finely tuned, metabolically speaking, to their environment without too much risk of experiencing lethal temperatures. Temperature species, on the other hand, operate well below their thermal optima and maxima, presumably to avoid the possibility of experiencing lethal temps. The much lower margin for error in tropical species causes their population growth to be negatively affected by predicted temperatures, while higher latitude species actually experience an increase in population growth initially in response to warming. -
adelady at 13:45 PM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
chrisc, et al Post-normal science as defined reads ".. appropriate for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent .." I really dislike the use of this term. To me, it's dog-whistle in the sense that "we-don't-know-enough" = "facts are uncertain". The examples given are for surgeons being forced to deal with life-threatening injuries despite not knowing the full extent of those injuries or engineers faced with a collapsing dam or bridge not knowing exactly how the original fault arose. With climate science the same does not apply. It's in the same position as any other branch of science - it is simply not possible to know every single thing that might possibly have some marginal impact on the body of knowledge. But the core body of knowledge is substantial and proven. The accumulating data merely supports and expands the current science, occasionally there's an interesting unexpected item. Those are mainly big things, like the speed of Arctic ice loss, with a few small ones, mainly in the area of regional effects which are specific consequences rather than core to the science itself. (And all science would stop in every field if it was impossible to find out anything new or interesting.) There are questions about just how much faster sea level and temperatures will rise, how badly acidification will impact certain regions or food items, lots of questions. But the core issues of 1)the climate is changing by warmong, 2)the observed change is much faster than any known previous warming, 3)the cause of this change at this time is CO2 released too fast from carbon sinks, - not one of those core facts is in question. So I'd strongly dispute climate science as meeting the definition of post-normal science. -
muoncounter at 13:24 PM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
Has anyone a comment on this report of variations in solar output during 2004-2007? "The amount of visible radiation entering the lower atmosphere was increasing, which implies warming at the surface," says atmospheric physicist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who led the research, published in Nature on October 7. But the change from 2004 to 2007 in the sun's output of visible light, and the attendant warming at Earth's surface of 0.1 watt per square meter, is roughly equivalent to the overall forcing of the sun on the climate over the past 25 years—estimated by the U.N. IPCC to be an additional 0.12 watt per square meter. That suggests scientists may have overestimated the sun's role in climate change. 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, an effect that other greenhouse gases, such as methane, strengthen further. In other words, whereas the new satellite measurements call into question computer models of solar output, it does not change the fundamental physics of human-induced global warming. -
Joe Blog at 13:21 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Ahhh, it is about cold blooded species. -
Joe Blog at 13:18 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming impact on tropical species greater than expected
Im a lil confused by this i have to admit...Well the metabolic rate in warmblooded animals should increase with cold...not warmth, it takes more energy to maintain our core temperatures... Cold blooded is the opposite o course, ill have to have a read o the paper;-) -
johnd at 12:51 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Kooiti Masuda at 12:26 PM, Kooiti, even though it may not be within your direct field of interest, when the topic allows, it would be of interest to hear your perspective on the research being done at JAMSTEC on the Indian Ocean, and the IOD, and how it all fits into our current understanding of regional and global climate. -
chris1204 at 12:47 PM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Oh and thanks also JMurphy :-) -
chris1204 at 12:46 PM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
Thanks for your responses Ned, Mike, Phila, & Doug, all of which are very helpful and thought provoking. I'll follow up the links you've suggested. Ned comments about 'self-organisation' of groups, saying 'I think this is a bad thing. I would like to break this pattern.' I can only say enthusiastically, 'Hear, hear!!!' Phila @ 54, I don't think I'm comparatively unique - if I did, you would be very right to find this troubling. I'm in a line of work which requires a high degree of self-reflection but whether I do it particularly well or not is another question. I often fail at it - just ask my wife and children :-). I'm good at talking about self-reflection, which is not the same thing, as you so rightly point out :-). Doug: 'Reflexive categorization itself is presumed to be a negation of the worth of research, but it's not.' Again, you're absolutely right. And for all my grumbles about the 'post-normal' aspects of a lot of medical research, I can't see any viable substitute for our present system. The only value in labels such as 'post-normal' (I actually think it's a rather clumsy term and wish there was a more neutral label) lies in understanding the limitations of a research paradigm. Understanding the limitations of a research paradigm is not the same as to dismiss it. The research may still be very useful so long as we retain the capacity for requisite discernment. For example, Jenner's popularisation of vaccination (he did not 'invent' it) took place in the setting of zero understanding of our immune system. Nevertheless, none would question the value of his work or that of Pasteur which saved millions of lives and served as a springboard to our current knowledge explosion in immunology. At the same time, there would have been numerous interventions back then which would have looked broadly similar and yet were singularly useless. Some such as homeopathy remain popular even today. -
Albatross at 12:26 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Johnd @22, I get back to you tomorrow, have plans tonight. -
Kooiti Masuda at 12:26 PM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
It is difficult to evaluate global water cycle based on observational data. The achievement of Syed et al. is great. (I am a bit ashamed that I have not published original results though I am purported as an expert in this field of science.) But it is a piece of science in action and it should not be considered as something definite. There is asymmetry in the situation of climate science. From theories, it is easier to discuss global phenomena. From observations, it is easier to discuss local phenomena. *** In the world of numerical climate models (which are based more on theories than on observations), the situation is clearer, but again somewhat confusing. I have watched simulations by all global climate models which participated in "CMIP3" collaboration (the same as which was used in IPCC AR4) in a certain scenario (A1B) of greenhouse gas emission for the 21st Century. As the global mean surface air temperature rises, global mean precipitation and global mean evaporation (which are nearly equal to each other) increase in all models. But the relative rate of increase is slower than that of global mean water vapor content in the atmosphere. Accordingly, the mean residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere becomes longer. In terms of mass flow per unit time, the water cycle accelerates. But in terms of efficiency of recycling, the water cycle decelerates. The results seem robust as far as the current generation of climate models are concerned. There is a small possibility that all models err similarly, because all models use hydrostatic approximation and (various kinds of) cumulus parameterization.Moderator Response: Not to cause embarrassment or red ears, but let's acknowledge how privileged we are to have Dr. Masuda pay us a visit. We can best do so by applying our very greatest effort in formulating any questions we may have regarding the topic of this thread, the global hydrological cycle. -
Karamanski at 11:46 AM on 8 October 2010It's the ocean
A paper by Mojib Latif predicted that changes in ocean circulation in the Atlantic could cause the rise in global surface temperatures to stall for a decade or two. How exactly would changes in ocean circulation cause global warming to temporarily slow for a decade? Is this related to the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillion? Would this have any effect on ocean heat content? I've been curious about this for a long time. Please explain this. -
Ken Lambert at 11:43 AM on 8 October 2010It's the sun
"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." You are exaggerating and splitting hairs Ned. Some of the proxies are higher than the black line average and some naturally below. The highest is about 0.4W/sq.m circe AD1750. I can dig up the actual numbers from the site and check it - but for now 0.2 - 0.5 is good enough. My point about the area under the curve being the total energy is the critical one. "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." Again - such a number MUST exist for the pre-industrial (unforced by AG forcings) Earth. Conservation of mass would indicate that the Earth has a constant amount of dirt, water (in ice of liquid form) air etc etc. There would be an overall function which takes into account the specific heats, latest heats etc of the whole Earth system subject to warming by external forcings. "I assume you are also not including the climate response forcings (IR cooling and WV feedbacks) in this analysis which net currently is -0.7 W/sq.m and would give a significant energy loss area under its curve to add to the Solar and All Other above." I have already mentioned S-B IR cooling plus feedbacks as being added to the other forcings which will bring the system toward equilibrium. S-B cooling is currently -2.8W/sq.m and proportional to T^4 so will rise rapidly with actual temperature increase - closing the forcing gap (unless WV and ice feedbacks rise faster) The S-B IR + WV response curves should be included in these 'AG Radiative Forcing' charts with Solar so the viewers can get the real picture of the overall warming curve for the planet. Try harder next time Ned. -
Karamanski at 11:32 AM on 8 October 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
I agree entirely that humans are causing global warming, and that solving the problem should be our highest priority. However, I am very skeptical of the accuracy of climate models and their global temperature projections for the 21st century. I think a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius is a bit wide of the mark. Since 1880, global temperatures have only risin .8 degrees celsius.In order for global temperatures to rise by 3 degrees celsius by 2100, global warming would have to undergo a very rapid acceleraton. Apparently this isn't showing any signs of happening. Global temperature increases over the past decade have been on the low end of climate model projections. I'm not saying that warming has stopped, but I am saying its falling short of climate model projections. I find it very hard to believe that we will have a global temperature increase of 3 degrees celsius by 2100. Could you please explain this to me? -
johnd at 11:23 AM on 8 October 2010Global warming is accelerating the global water cycle
Albatross at 09:53 AM, these maps from BOM perhaps best illustrate the difference. Note that it is E as measured by pan evaporation that is charted. I think that pan evaporation should exceed rainfall is something that should be self evident. Given that pan evaporation appears to be the only actual standardised physical measurement, at some point all other calculated values of evaporation under defined conditions such as Evapotranspiration (ET) must at some point be referenced back to such physical measurements. I note in the explanation you provided, it is E that is referred to, not ET, so I assume that it is being used to define the same E as BOM do, though that is not clear.
-
pbjamm at 11:23 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
@ TimTheToolMan adelady asked you @40: "Where exactly will the heat to drive the next el Nino come from?" @43 you respond: "In answer to your question or rather to put it into perspective, the heat you speak of could accumulate in a matter of days if not hours." If this is so, then why does it not at all times? You say @47 that only a tiny portion accumulates per day. Please take the time to explain the mechanism at work here. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 11:09 AM on 8 October 2010The value of coherence in science
@ Chris There are some ~500-600 comments on that Realclimate thread making it hard to find the relevant exchanges, but the Climate Progress post linked to by JMurphy @ 57 is a copy/paste of guts of it. -
Joe Blog at 10:53 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Ahh, after having a bit o a better read o the comments, i see Goddard didnt apply inverse barometer, so apple n apples then...Response: The data with the inverse barometer applied is a "better" signal - if you don't filter out the atmospheric pressure effects, you get a much noisier signal with lots more ups and downs (much better for cherry picking). In this case, Goddard opted for inverse barometer not applied so I thought rather than get bogged down in discussion of inverse barometers, I just plotted the same data he used. -
scaddenp at 10:49 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Should also add, over longer time scales, conduction and mass transport can store heat deeper into the ocean. These processes are slow movers of heat however so surface just warms first, limiting how much you can store in a day. -
michael sweet at 10:31 AM on 8 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP: I have seen no scientific arguments that we should ban gasoline, or even coal, if they figure out a way to keep the CO2 (and other pollutants) out of the air. I think carbon sequestration is unlikely to be economic for coal use, but if it is more power to them. Your argument is absurd on its face- look at it being compared to cigarettes. You need to rethink what you are trying to achieve. Your claim, on a scientific blog, "It doesn't take facts; just common sense" makes you appear a fool. Changing to "why don't we label coal a pollutant" is no better. We all remember your previous similar arguments and your lack of understanding of the basic science. If you want to convince anyone to consider your arguments they need to be fact based to succeed on this blog. Perhaps if you understood the science you would change your opinion. The information you need is on this site if you choose to read it. -
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 8 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
TTTM - I was thinking about heat capacity, conductivity etc. Irradiate a surface and it heats till temperature is such that blackbody radiation matches incoming radiation. You arent asking me to prove that? The storage of energy for a material before that temperature is reached depends it heat capacity. Straightforward for land, but for sea, convection, transport of heat by mass flow, etc. will also affect this (the nebulous thermal properties). Conduction also moves heat away from the irradiated surface so this also has be figured in. -
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.
Prev 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 Next
