Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 Next
Comments 108151 to 108200:
-
scaddenp at 19:28 PM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Bibliovermis, forgive me if I misunderstand your question. The heat being transported in THC is solar radiation warming tropical water and transporting it about the globe. The idea that heat is from the inside the earth can be readily dismissed. The bottom waters are dense and cold. We measure that. The heat flux from inside earth to surface is also measured from boreholes - routine part of petroleum basin evaluation these days (and part of my job). At around 40-80 milliwatts/m2, this is inconsequential compared to the 190 watts/m2 from sun. -
JMurphy at 18:55 PM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
gallopingcamel wrote : "Most of the time I am flying against the wind on this blog and the faithful are used to applying ritual flagellation." Do you see everything in life in religious terms ? I suggest you should lean less on religion and more on science, when it comes to AGW at least. -
Paul D at 18:55 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
chriscanaris: "So John, I wonder whether we really should be talking about rises of 6 - 9 metres. I do agree however that two metres would definitely be a worry." 1 metre would cause many problems at Portsmouth UK, at high tides. 2 metres would cause flooding in some places. Portsmouth is densely populated, so many homes would be at risk at regular flooding. 3 metres would result in the Millennium tower to be closed regularly and some parts of the island to be un-inhabitable. 4 metres would be very difficult to defend against, probably leading to serious plans for moving the 200,000 population onto new homes and towns on agricultural land. Although I suspect at 3 to 3 metres plans would already be in place. 5 metres would mean abandonment of the city. About half of it is below 5m, certainly not higher. 6 metres ... There would be the question of pollution, due to land fill and materials from buildings being flooded. I guess that would be planned as well. Total costs would be billions probably just for one city and a loss of farmland to home the displaced. The surrounding coastal area would also be affected, with similar evacuations and loss of farmland and other green spaces. -
Joe Blog at 18:42 PM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
archiesteel at 14:52 I shall attempt to... if this works this is just the top one dropped on top o the bottom one, not rescaled on the Y axis, for obvious reasons... The THC is thermohaline circulation. A major ocean current, that basically pumps energy from the equator to higher latitudes.
Bibliovermis at 14:58
I think you will find, that, that giant fusion furnace in the sky is responsible for the VAST majority o the energy in the climate system, not the fission one under your feet. An obvious point, would be the lack of documented oceanic convection...
-
Riccardo at 18:34 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Actually, I'm very pragmatic on this issue. Taken for granted that we're already outside the safe operating space on a few systems, I think that the real question is "how hard can we push the brakes?". Politically we need to define a threshold (a goal) and 2 °C is a good one, but I do not put much value on it. Indeed, I believe that we will push the brakes anyhow and we've started doing it, although not that hard yet. Like it or not, the fossil fuel era will (relatively) soon come to an end and the very long term impacts will be avoided. I can't speak for John, but this is my take on this post. -
archiesteel at 18:14 PM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
@gc (#62): "Actually, the electric automobile was developed first but somehow the internal combustion engine has gained a temporary ascendancy." Indeed, at some point electricity, steam and internal combustion all competed. The main reason the latter won is that it was much easier to set up a gasoline distribution network (i.e. gas stations and trucks) throughout the US than have an electric power grid covering the majority of such a vast therritory (unlike what we have now). Steam engines used coal, so you can imagine what that would have done for pollution... :-) -
Riccardo at 17:53 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
chriscanaris, "wonder whether we really should be talking about rises of 6 - 9 metres." It depends on our ability to discriminate between different time frames. -
chris1204 at 17:42 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
From http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.30.html">Lowe and Gregory in Nature Reports 2010: 'New research suggests that the possibility of sea level rise of up to two metres by 2100 should be given serious consideration. One key study examined the ice flow rates that would be required to produce substantial sea level rise by 2100 and concluded that a rise of much more than two metres would be “physically untenable” [which is from the Pfeffer 2009 abstract verbatim]...Proxy evidence from oxygen isotope ratios in Red Sea sediment cores6 suggests that sea level rose by as much as 1.6 metres per century at a time in the past when the large ice sheets covered an area similar to their present-day extent...Although increases of up to two metres this century can't be ruled out, this does not mean that they are inevitable or even likely. For climate change to produce much more than one metre of sea level rise, ice sheets would probably have to contribute considerably more to the rise than they do now... The recent acceleration of Greenland outlet glaciers and Antarctic ice streams [this is a reference to Velicogna’s GRACE study of 2009] may be due in part to natural variability, and it might not continue. Some observations indicate that a number of the outlet glaciers and ice streams that accelerated in the 1990s have since started to slow down... In this sea of uncertainty, how do we derive a better estimate of sea level rise? ...The [current semi-empirical modelling] approach is loosely based on an understanding of physical processes, but the relationship is determined by statistical methods. The general assumption is that the relationship between sea level rise and temperature (or forcing) will hold in the future and for a much greater range of warming than occurred during the period from which it was calibrated... There has already been some debate about the statistical validity of these approaches... Adding up the estimates of the various observationally derived contributions to historic sea level rise, which all have uncertainties, we find that their sum may fall short of the measured total sea level rise... The semi-empirical methods assume that any difference is due to a missing contribution that will increase with global warming. Though that assumption may be correct, without understanding/ identifying the physical processes that may make up this shortfall in sea level, there is little in the way of supporting evidence.' The ellipses are in the interests of attempted brevity. Lowe seems to have made a major contribution to the UK defra site which concludes: *Our analysis gives projections of UK coastal absolute sea level rise (not including land movement) for 2095 that range* from approximately 13–76 cm. *Taking vertical land movement into account gives slightly larger sea level rise projections relative to the land in the more southern parts of the UK where land is subsiding, and somewhat lower increases in relative sea level for the north. We have, for example, derived projected relative sea level increases for 1990–2095 of approximately 21–68 cm for London and 7–54 cm for Edinburgh (5th to 95th percentile for the medium emissions scenario). *A low probability High++ sea level range has been defined for vulnerability testing. For the UK this absolute SLR estimate is 93 cm to 1.9 m by 2100. In the case of recent iconic flooding such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, we find that much of the problem emanated from the fact that some 49 percent lies below sea level, in places to 10–12 ft (3.05–3.66 m)- a problem compounded by subsidence of reclaimed land. I leave aside the contentious question of whether Katrina like events are more likely - I think they belong on another thread. So John, I wonder whether we really should be talking about rises of 6 - 9 metres. I do agree however that two metres would definitely be a worry. Similarly, I really have no way of knowing whether Lowe and Gregory's take on Velicogna is overoptimistic.Response: Thanks for that link, Chris. The Nature commentary doesn't, however, touch on empirical determinations of Eemian sea levels. Instead, it looks at semi-empirical attempts to predict the trajectory of sea level rise over the next century. As I say above, there's uncertainty about the time-frames involved.
But the end destination, 6+ metres sea level rise under sustained temperatures 2 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels, is determined empirically and independently of the methods discussed in the Nature commentary. I liken it to watching James Cameron's Titanic. We know how it ends but we're not exactly sure what's going to happen along the way and whether Leonardo di Caprio gets offed or not. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:17 PM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: gallopingcamel (62) My apologies for being less than clear with my comments about the development of the electric auto. I should have said something along the lines of "If the electric auto had achieved widespread market penetration before the development of the internal combustion engine...". Thanks for the additional background info. If an electric car could put up with the deep snows of winter and the 200-250 miles per day work entails, I would have one instead of my Jeep PatriotPOS'fine example of American engineering' my company furnishes me with. FYI: It IS possible to fly against the wind without drawing flagellating fire, depending upon the idiom employed. :) The Yooper -
kdkd at 15:43 PM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
To be fair KL and I have history, and in places other than this one, I have been exceptionally rude to him (and him to me). I won't link to the examples as that would be against the comments policy. Let's just say that "repetitive rubbish" is a more polite version of a particular name which I have called him elsewhere. To Ken's mind my impatience with his repetition is unacceptable. Instead I think he considers that we should accept his argument's validity because he's repeated it so often. It's worth noting that Ken's argument remains unchanged in nearly 18 months, despite a range of people pointing out to him the fatal flaws with his argument with varying degrees of civility. -
gallopingcamel at 15:29 PM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Daniel Bailey (#61). Most of the time I am flying against the wind on this blog and the faithful are used to applying ritual flagellation. Once in a while I agree with them but the knee jerk reaction is to beat up on me, regardless! Actually, the electric automobile was developed first but somehow the internal combustion engine has gained a temporary ascendancy. Real electric cars do not have on board generators powered by internal combustion engines as in the Chevrolet "Volt" or the Toyota "Prius". They are very simple vehicles with batteries and electric motors. Test marketing shows that people love such vehicles even though they have limited range with today's battery technologies. For a thoroughly entertaining and informative story about electric automobiles I recommend Sony's movie called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Here is a two minute intro but you should seek out the entire (90 minute) movie about GM's EV1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8 I own a Jeep "Grand Cherokee", a Honda "Odyssey" and an electric car. If I could get my hands on an EV1 it would replace my existing electric car and one of the gas guzzlers. This would improve my cash flow so nobody would have to hold a gun to my head. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:22 PM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Re: Ken Lambert (128)"kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure."
Must be a Freudian slip. Surely you meant the word "my" instead of "his". archiesteel, in his closing comments at 130 above, offers some cogent advice worth considering. You are capable of being a valuable resource here, and elsewhere. The Yooper -
ginckgo at 15:05 PM on 4 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
Ken #34: I think you mistake the term "random" when it comes to evolutionary processes with "equiprobable". Evolution (or more accurately, natural selection and genetic drift) at small scales (time or space) is indeed random, but usually it is also heavily biased in certain directions depending on the environment. Natural selection can be stabilising or disruptive, in both cases the dice are loaded, and statistically will bias survival rates. The more severe the selective pressures are, the less opportunity more and more species have to adapt. The first ones to go are the specialists; and it's usually the generalists that we class as pests. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:59 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Re: adelady (4) Thanks for the SLR mapping website. I note with amusement that windowing in on Washington DC & cranking the SLR up to 14 meters results in waves lapping at the White House and the steps of Capitol Hill. Perhaps then the denizens therein will finally start serious discussions on the issue. Nah. ******************* Re: jyyh (5) As a former cartographer, I cringed as well at certain liberties taken in inland areas (the Aral Sea's 1960 elevation above mean sea level: 53 meters). Take it as a useful reference tool, not as a map with built-in geodetic accuracy. For world sea level rise area inundations and impacts estimation: perfectly useful. The Yooper -
archiesteel at 14:59 PM on 4 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
@chriscanaris: "I'm not sure that an ice-free Arctic is the major driver." It's one of the main ones, for sure. Accessing these resources with thick multi-year ice above would be prohibitively expensive. The lowering ice is clearly one of the reasons behind the Russians' increasing presence in the Arctic (*much* higher north than the gulags you seem to refer to). This includes their provocative assertions about the underwater ridges earlier this year, a diplomatic show of force with Canada. Russians have figured out that AGW is real, and that an ice free Arctic ocean is an opportunity for them. The US, bogged down by the delaying tactics of the Climate Denial Machine, risks losing influence in this important region if it keeps burying its head in the sand. -
Bibliovermis at 14:58 PM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
> > Where is that heat coming from? > > From the tropics. Allow me to rephrase the question. What is producing the heat? The thermohaline current doesn't produce heat, it transports it. Where is the origin of the additional heat? I was talking about instrumental readings, not reconstructions. The hypothesis that the Earth is warming from the inside out could be readily demonstrated. -
archiesteel at 14:52 PM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@Joe Blog: apparently you overlaid them as well. Why don't TOP and you post your reconstructions so we can eyeball them as well? Also, what do you mean by "THC"? -
adelady at 14:46 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
I agree it's pretty crude. And I should have pointed out the provisos. It doesn't do anything for bodies of landlocked water. I confess I didn't look at the Aral Sea. By the time I'd got through the Nile, Mekong and Ganges deltas and a bit of a look at the Philippines I'd had enough. -
archiesteel at 14:41 PM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
@KL: "A reduction in slope of a curve is 'flattening'" Especially if you want to suggest that global warming is over, right? It's all in the way one presents things, i.e. glass half-empty vs. glass half-full. The reality is that there have been such reduction of the rate of increase before, and there will continue to be such noise in the complex weather system. What matters are statistically significant trends, and these clearly show a dramatic increase in world temperatures. By the way, you may have missed it, but 2010 is on par to be the hottest year on record. How will you cherry-pick your time periods then? "BP demonstrated a reduced slope in the SLR curve" Barely reduced - not what I'd call a flattening, but then again I'm not pushing an anti-AGW agenda. Overall, the fact remains that sea levels are still rising. "It is still a 'linear increase' - but flattened from a steeper slope!!" "Flattened" suggests no increase, not "increasing less." Of course it doesn't sound as dramatic. "kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure." I don't think anyone would ever feel threatened by your arguments. You've demonstrated time and time again how weak those arguments are, and how you ignore valid counter-arguments. From an outsider's point of view, kdkd has a lot more credibility than you on this sugbject. Your use of "belief structure" is also a dead giveaway about your strong bias, which clearly clouds your judgement. Instead of wasting your time exposing your ignorance in these threads, you should honestly try to understand the actual science. -
jyyh at 14:29 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
adelady, I don't know what to make of the inertia in cartography... Aral Sea is not like that in the real world :-/. -
hadfield at 14:27 PM on 4 October 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
KR, the statement that "a system with positive feedback is by definition unstable" is not mine, it is my paraphrasing of a sceptic claim. What this set of articles needs to do is clarify that the existence of positive feedbacks in the climate system does not imply |gain| > 1, because the Planck feedback dictates that the the Earth's climate sensitivity is low. It doesn't do that, it goes off onto a tangent about a toy model of a carbon cycle feedback. -
adelady at 14:16 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
I found this map a couple of days ago. I found it a bit a bit slow and clumsy to navigate until I got used to it. However, if you use it at minimum size while you get to an area, say, the Mekong delta, then maximise the view and adjust the amount of SLR you get a fairly clear, fairly depressing picture. The Nile delta is a bit of an eye opener. -
jyyh at 14:10 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Chris G: I think the changes are also stemming from the altered Polar vortex. One such study for 10 degrees warmer arctic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Pliocene_megabiome.png of course the oceanic circulation in the prev study was different than now but as the Indian Ocean warms this effect of Agulhas current may well become more common or permanent: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0485%281999%29029%3C2303%3ATROMEI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 One must remember "close to 40% of the Earth's land surface is presently used for cropland and pasture" so the choices of the farmers will have an effect on how the carbon on the air is used by the food plants. I'm expecting (natural) C4-plants becoming more common all over the planet, where it rains enough. One needs quite detailed info on the rainfall patterns, like you said, to predict what the likely biotopes are in future, but I wouldn't be surprised of rice fields in central Germany by 2050, and maize where it rains little enough. -
Chris G at 13:29 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
I think that the sea level rise itself will drive larger problems. Will the relations between China, India, and Pakistan remain stable when these countries are stressed with the redistribution of water resources that this much warming will bring, at the same time that they are dealing with tens of millions of refuges, or more, from Bangladesh? Are there other parts of the world where this much sea level rise will add stress to already stress-filled relations? Honestly, I don't think that sea level rise is the biggest threat. I think the biggest threat will come from losses in agricultural productivity resulting from changes in rainfall patterns that are driven by changes in Hadley cell circulation. I'd like to see an study that estimates climate zone regions then and overlay that with the present zones. That would give us a better idea what will happen to our food production. Still, the conclusion is the same: The sooner we reduce emissions the less it will cost us. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:20 PM on 4 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
"can 6 to 9 metres sea level rise be considered safe?"
Not for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who live in that 6-9 metre zone who will no longer have anywhere to live. And when those displaced by the sea level rise are forced to migrate, the resultant social unrest will keep many others from being safe as well. Sell those beachfront timeshares, if ya gots 'em. The Yooper -
Albatross at 13:16 PM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Adelady @26, I love that analogy...very good. -
chris1204 at 13:01 PM on 4 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
tobyjoyce @ 23: Fair point about the Piomass calculation. But, as you say: 'I have no doubt the Arctic holds some surprises for us. They may not be the ones anyone expects.' Well, yes, my point exactly. You and I might have different or similar expectations - I'm certainly open to the possibility/ probability that Arctic ice cover may be decreasing. However, as the Nature article suggests, all sorts of unusual things can happen. No doubt, the Arctic population is increasing. Russia (or to be more precise the Soviet Union as it was then) has a long and hallowed tradition of settlement in the Arctic (not all of it entirely voluntary - hence the capacity to send large numbers of people into highly inhospitable regions). The push into the Arctic long predates the Soviet dystopia and includes a number of non Russian ventures as you'll find in the Brittanica online artice. Moreover, the article highlights the sheer wealth of natural resources in the area. Whatever we might think of it for ecological reasons, governments in an age of advancing technology will seek to exploit what are some of the world's largest resources of fossil fuel and other mineral wealth. I'm not sure that an ice-free Arctic is the major driver. -
chris1204 at 12:36 PM on 4 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
tobyjoyce @ 23: Fair point about the Piomass calculation. But, as you say: 'I have no doubt the Arctic holds some surprises for us. They may not be the ones anyone expects.' Well, yes, my point exactly. No doubt, the Arctic population is increasing. Russia (or to be more precise the Soviet Union as it was then) has a long and hallowed tradition of settlement in the Arctic (not all of it entirely voluntary). The push into the Arctric long predates the Soviet Dystopia and includes a number of non Russian ventures as you'll find in the Brittanica online artice. -
scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
JohnD - lets also try and make a very clear distinction between forcing and feedback. Feedback is something that changes in response to temperature change. Forcing is something that can change independent of temperature. (Some subtleties over change to other than temperature but thats an aside). Solar is forcing because both earth orbit, and solar output can change irrespective of earth temperature. Aerosols are largely independent of temperature. Albedo and GHG are both feedbacks and forcings because you can change both independently of temperature. Wind is response ultimately to a temperature differential so is feedback to whatever caused the temperature differential to change. Clouds have a more complex relation to temperature and can also be affected by aerosol but cannot independently alter. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:45 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Re: nofreewind (25) If you look at the overall trend lines in the long term data shown in the comment 18 you reference, you can see clearly the upward rise in sea levels, despite the noisy seasonal variations present in the signal. A clear analogy would be to maintain that the sun no longer exists because it disappeared over the horizon at the end of the day. Someone intelligent enough to do data research, construct a graph & post it online as part of a blog would know that to focus on such a short-term variation is meaningless. Except for, apparently, Goddard. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 11:41 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
#25: "meaning the rate of rise has decreased compared to the past rate the past 20 years" Not so. In a time series such as this, small variations do not have a significant impact on the long term trend. Those variations are called noise: In signal processing or computing it can be considered unwanted data without meaning. -
adelady at 11:38 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I love all this stuff about graphs and trends showing declines or slowing or whatever for a few years or months. It's like a commentator on a car race. Oh, my goodness, that last lap was 3 hundredths of a second slower than the previous lap. The fact that the driver in question is lapping the field is irrelevant - because the race is actually won. So we have to find -something- to talk about. -
wingding at 11:34 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
This article is extremely poorly worded. The title says there is a 40 year delay between cause and effect, which makes it sound like the warming effect of co2 doesn't *start* until 40 years after co2 starts rising. Obviously that's wrong. But throughout the article this impression is given. Eg: "The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans." The planet doesn't respond *at all* to rising co2 until several decades after? Of course it does. And: "With 40 years between cause and effect, it means that average temperatures of the last decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s" And the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s. Not just the 1960s. Obviously what you mean is that there is a 40 year delay between cause and *maximum* effect. I only say this because I feel strongly that the way the article is worded, only people who understand this already are going to get it. People who are new to this or are not but are easily confused (*cough* Steve Goddard *cough*), will get (or have already got) the wrong idea. -
nofreewind at 11:28 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Not sure about Goddard(he doesn't seem right in this case), but the graph at the top of this post and the one at comment 18 both show the rate of sea level rise to below the mean for most of the past 3 years, meaning the rate of rise has decreased compared to the past rate the past 20 years. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:28 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: gallopingcamel (57, 60)"Daniel Bailey doubts my motives so let's clear that up."
Nothing personal, GC. Perhaps if you had phrased your comments with a bit more clarity so that there would be no doubt as to your intentions then I would have worded my response differently. My position is unchanged until I have seen evidence supporting the compatibility of A & B. I do have an open mind on it, but the intractability of humanity leaves me skeptical about its ability to change its behavior until its too late to have any meaningful impact. Given where we are now and the emerging picture of the nearness of the cliff we approach, the more my doubts about Lovelock's stance dissipate. Only my nature's staunch refusal to give up, even in the face of insuperable odds, keeps me searching for a way forward. CBDunkerson & scaddenp summarize the remainder of my position well (kudo's to those estimable gentlemen), only with greater eloquence than I. If the electric automobile had been developed first, then there would be no need for widespread internal combustion engine use. Coal is another bugger, tho. The Yooper -
kdkd at 11:08 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
KL #128 "kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure." Nope I'm pointing out that your argument is wrong. It's not based on any competent standard of evidence. The more you repeat this nonsense, the clearer it becomes to others that your case is based on the contents of your own confirmation bias rather than anything to do with empirical validity. Go back and look at what it takes to show a statistically significant change in slope over short time periods again. Once you understand this, you'll understand how foolish you've made yourself look by perpetuating this nonsense argument. -
scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 4 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
JohnD - Firstly, want to back the assertion "possibly, second after sunlight" with data? Think for a moment on why wind affects evaporation. You take a cubic meter of air over water. Evaporation follows CC, raises partial pressure of water in that parcel of air, then wind moves it away. New parcel of air has lower pp of water so evaporation rate continues at same rate. However, our original parcel of area is over water in another place, and evaporation is slower because it already has an elevated pp of water. Locally wind is important, basin wide - not so much. The parameterization of the effect of wind used by models is based on empirical data. I cant see these studies back your assertion. Also, I cant see how wind can be a forcing. "some consider clouds a forcing". So who is "some"? How can clouds be a forcing? What can change cloud formation independently? Only the GCR hypothesis had an answer for that. Is that what you mean (which makes GCR the forcing not the clouds)? Or do you have another hypothesis? -
Joe Blog at 10:35 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
archiesteel at 10:27 You can just drag the NAWT one and overlay just in the article above... but not the otherway round because it rescales... the Y axis's o course are at different scales however... But this is the obvious thing wrong with this picture... unless the globe decided to ignore the laws o Thermodynamics at some stage, ocean Ts are driving atmospheric in these graphs. -
Ken Lambert at 10:30 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
archiesteel #126 A reduction in slope of a curve is 'flattening'. Go back and read other threads - the idea that warming might have slowed - 'flattened' is not controversial. BP demonstrated a reduced slope in the SLR curve - almost identical to my 2.0mm/yr number - much reduced from the claimed 3.3mm/year number. It is still a 'linear increase' - but flattened from a steeper slope!! This is very significant when you know how much heat sequestration is involved in a 1mm steric SLR rise. kdkd is heckling from the bleachers because he finds my arguments so threatening to his belief structure. -
archiesteel at 10:27 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@TOP: why don't you show us your overlaid graphs so we can see for ourselves? -
kdkd at 10:15 AM on 4 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
KL #124 It's extremely frustrating to discuss these matters with you, as you basically ignore the majority of the relevant evidence in order to focus on your preconcevied notion that the so-called sceptic position must be true regardless of the evidence. #122 and #124 are excellent examples of this in action. In particular watch the way that you ignore detailed explanations of why your position is illogical, wrong and based on mischaracterisation of the evidence (see #123 for an example of this). It's a repeating pattern which is why I've been referring to your recent material as 'repetitive rubbish'. -
Alexandre at 09:49 AM on 4 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I love those extreme cherry picks. Sea level has not risen for 6 months! It´s almost 8 pm here. Global Warming has stopped for at least 5 hours... -
Joe Blog at 09:38 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Bibliovermis at 09:05 AM says "Where is that heat coming from?" From the tropics, the oceans are going to be a much more efficient transporter of energy than the atmosphere, if the THC is slow, more energy will be lost via radiation to space than if the same energy is transported via currents. So an increase in the THC will result in more energy being transported to higher latitudes than if it is slowed. "What other observations could be made to validate or refute this hypothesis?" Just more extensive sedimentary reconstructions in the north Atlantic... This study more pertains to the warming in the first part of last century, and may raise a few Q's about natural variability... and whether the initial cause of the "unprecedented" warming as seen in the paleo reconstructions is anthropogenic in origins... Or did anthropogenic influences cause the THC speed up(assuming this is what is being seen)... I doubt we did, we weren't really effecting radiative forcing all that significantly at that stage.... and the cores were disturbed for the later part o last century. -
JMurphy at 09:21 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
johnd, the UNSW are still claiming what you were astonished about : A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia. Have you been in touch with them to show them their error, or have you alerted the Japanese or Indians about their work being plagiarised/misused/whatever you think ? -
Doug Bostrom at 09:09 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Yeah, johnd, you're the expert, after all. Clearly you've a good grasp of the literature. -
Bibliovermis at 09:05 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
TOP, For the sake of discussion, let's examine this hypothesis that the ocean is the source of heat. Where is that heat coming from? What other observations could be made to validate or refute this hypothesis? -
Joe Blog at 09:03 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
archiesteel at 06:32 The thing with this reconstruction, is its showing MUCH larger anomalies of deepish water, (400m, and double the size in a straight T comparison... water has a vastly greater thermal capacity than air) than atmospheric anomalies, at all instances in the past up until the core was disturbed(Mid last century). Energy dosnt sink, or concentrate itself, entropy increases, chaos increases(or stays the same) It dosnt decrease. You would expect this reconstruction, if it was driven by atmospheric T's in its region, to be considerably smaller than the atmospheric anomalies, and to be lagging atmospheric T's. This isnt the case. What this reconstruction, seems to imply to me, is that there was a sudden increase o the transport o warmer water into the north Atlantic shortly after 1900, and the atmospheric temperature anomaly at that time, is probably a result of this, rather than the cause of this. Why the increase in the THC?(if thats what it was) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3328.1 I dont know, but ill pretend i do, for arguments sake ;-) -
johnd at 08:57 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom at 08:39 AM, I haven't got time to answer you fully now, I will come back later. However I think you will find that any BOM references to IO SST is unrelated to the areas where the IOD data is collected. Perhaps you can find something that indicates when they began incorporating IOD data into their modeling. BOM were critical of the Japanese researchers a couple of years ago, 2007?, when the Japanese alone correctly forecast that a La Nina that was virtually promised daily by BOM as being imminent, was overidden and failed to eventuate by unique conditions that developed, and had been seen developing in the Indian Ocean by the Japanese. It became quite a story in the Australian rural press the following year when it was revealed that the correct forecast was available but BOM chose to ignore the signals instead following their own outdated, and still outdated modeling. Legal action was being considered against BOM for losses incurred by those who followed BOM, whilst those who followed advice based on the IOD talked of being hundereds of thousands of $ in front. -
TOP at 08:50 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
I overlaid the OP's bottom water hockey stick onto the IPCC's hockey stick. It looks to me like the water temps are driving the air temps. Water has a low albedo, it doesn't reradiate much of the energy that strikes it back into space. The anomaly in the water temps is larger than that in the atmosphere. It is the driver. -
archiesteel at 08:40 AM on 4 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
@TOP: you're not making any sense. What two graphs did you overlay? What do you think isn't "driven by CO2"?
Prev 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 Next
