Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 Next
Comments 109351 to 109400:
-
Albatross at 08:54 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Badger, You are welcome. Follow the second link in my post @88 ("more info here"). -
scaddenp at 08:44 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
John, no significant change means no cause. Unlike GHG concentrations. As to whether laboratory measurements are born out in the natural world, then I can only point you at the classic Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 paper which tested just that, confirmed by numerous other studies since. -
johnd at 08:31 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Riccardo at 08:20 AM, that is exactly the point I am making. As the diagram indicates, at 1 bar pressure the absorption band for thermal energy exceeds the range of 200K to 400K, that limitation being solely the range of the diagram. For comparison think H2O and the changes of states that occur that affect the absorption and release of thermal energy, and how they relate to the natural environment. -
johnd at 08:22 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
scaddenp at 08:04 AM, re "unnatural environment", obviously the laboratory Phil, the properties of CO2 as proven in the laboratory as referenced in the lead article, and illustrated in the diagram posted. Re your second comment, think cause and effect. -
Riccardo at 08:20 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
johnd, I'm making the opposite point, molecular absorption of CO2 (or any other molecule, for that matter) is an intrinsic property of the molecule. Pressure and temperature of the gas only slightly widen and shift the absorption band. Try a google search for pressure and Doppler broadening. In accurate radiative transfer codes the broadening effects are taken into account because the "wings" of the wider emission at higher temperature and pressure near the ground is less absorbed in the upper atmosphere. But these are subtleties. -
kdkd at 08:15 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
BP #72 I'm sorry, but that's really not good enough. Comparing charts by eyeball like that is so ridden with pitfalls of subjectivity (conformation bias, perceptual bias and so on) the only way you can hope to offer a valid comparison is through statistical comparisons. And that's even before accounting for Albatross' comments at #78, which suggests that even if quantified your analysis would be invalid in any case. As I've said previously, if you want to be taken seriously, you've got to do much much better than this in terms of the way you go about assessing the evidence. -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
john, I remain extremely confused by both your posts. "far greater range than found in natural environment". What unnatural environment are you talking about then? That temperature of surface varies with season is hardly surprising, nor is the globally, annually averaged heat capacity of surface materials varying in any significant way on the time scales we are interested in. I fail to see what you are driving at here. -
johnd at 07:33 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Riccardo at 06:44 AM, I think you are making the same point as I was. The properties of CO2 allow it to absorb and radiate thermal energy over a far greater range than what is found in the natural environment, and it is the environment itself that determines the width of the absorption frequency. -
John Hartz at 07:11 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
@ Albatross: Thanks for the link to the GISS webpage. Where can I find a laundry list of the current generation of climate models, i.e., the ones that the IPCC will use in the new assessment process now getting underway? -
johnd at 06:52 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
CBDunkerson at 06:28 AM, is it not instead that the ocean, and land, heat accumulation that is causing the warmth in the atmosphere. Incoming solar radiation must first be intercepted and absorbed by matter on the surface BEFORE being converted to IR that then transfers into the atmosphere. How near surface temperatures just below the surface vary over the course of a year indicates that at times incoming solar energy is excess of what is being lost into the atmosphere and so is accumulated as thermal energy below the surface, whilst at other times incoming solar radiation is less than that being lost to the atmosphere from below the surface where the thermal energy stored begins to decline. -
Riccardo at 06:44 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
john, "The absorption of IR, being thermal energy, heat, in the atmosphere falls within certain limits due, not to the properties of CO2 [...]" It's not so. First of all, IR is an electromagnetic wave as any other. It is emitted by warm bodies and this is why it is associated to heat. The absorption properties of a molecule depend on the characteristic frequencies of vibration of the molecule which in turn depend on the physical properties of the chemical bond. No relation with temperature here. The environemnt has an impact on the width of the absorption frequency (and very little on the central frequency) but not on it's ability to absorb or radiate EM waves (apart from extreme "pathological" cases which are not relevant to our atmosphere). In short, your claims are physical absurdities. -
rzwilling at 06:42 AM on 23 September 2010Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Ok thanks for clarifying about Scenario C. It still might not hurt to explain in the "Basic" version that: 1) Michaels was misleading by focusing on Scenario A and ignoring Scenario B, and 2) Hansen had less data in 1988 and got the sensitivity wrong, but his overall theory (GHG and temp increases) has been borne out by observations in the last decades. Thanks again for the great post here! -
muoncounter at 06:40 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
#22:"If you meant all CO2 emitted up THROUGH 1970" A cumulative plot using the CDIAC data shows that most of the emissions prior to 1950 or so don't make much of a contribution compared to everything since. See the cumulative graph in the figures here, for example. The caption says "Half of 270 Gtons [the cum to 2000] emitted since 1974". So if we are just now seeing the heating effects of the first half (its ~40 years post 1974) and have yet to see the heating effects of the second half --- ouch!!! For example, arctic ice melt started accelerating in the '80s; was that due to cum CO2 up to the 40's? That's why I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around a 40 year lag. -
CBDunkerson at 06:28 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
nerndt #25: "Atmoshperic conditions are trivial." This is simply false. Basic physics tells us that without the atmosphere the planet would be about 33 C colder... and thus a solid ball of ice. The amount of heat retained in the atmosphere itself is SMALL (not "trivial") compared to the amount in the oceans, but the atmosphere is CAUSING a great deal of that oceanic heat accumulation. -
muoncounter at 06:27 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
#90: "scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ " Yes, angusmac's refurbished graph shows the model runs with a one year dip; Pinatubo (and the LOTI curve) was more like 2-3 years (see Robock 2003). I'd assume there were more model runs and only these 3 made the paper. -
nerndt at 06:11 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
repsonse to #18 Ned at 02:10 AM on 23 September, 2010 Ned - Of course global warming and cooling occurs, but CO2 has a minimal effect being a small percentage of greenhouse gas effect and that the atmosphere has a minimal effect on the overall energy of the earth (being more than 1/500 of the totla mass). Can anyone here see the big picture? The key point is that mankinds increase of CO2 to the atmosphere pales in comparison to the effects on the oceans and land by other conditions. Atmoshperic conditions are trivial.Moderator Response: See the post (and take the discussion there): CO2 effect is weak -
nerndt at 06:06 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
As for your general idea that since the mass of the ocean is much greater than the mass of the atmosphere, we can safely ignore climate change ... well, that just makes no sense. The mass of the ocean was just as large at the end of the previous interglacial, but that didn't prevent the very radical climate change in which ice sheets spread southward for 80,000 years, eventually covering the place where I now sit with over 2 km of ice. Why would the mere existence of massive oceans prevent us from altering the climate in a similarly dramatic fashion in the opposite direction? That's just wishful thinking, frankly. Hi Ned. The point I was trying to make is that the largest contributor to any global warming is not the atmospher, but the water and land masses. The atmosphere only has 1/500 (or less) overall mass than the oceans and has minimal effect. The one time this may not be the case would be in a large catastrophic event (huge volcano or metror strike) which then changes the absorption of energy by the oceans and land masses and quickly causes climate change. -
johnd at 06:05 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
On the point made in the lead article of this topic of CO2 properties as having been established in the laboratory, the behavior in the atmosphere should follow. The absorption of IR, being thermal energy, heat, in the atmosphere falls within certain limits due, not to the properties of CO2, but must be due that of the environment itself as CO2 can absorb heat to temperatures far in excess of normal conditions without any change of state occurring as this chart shows. The ability of it to radiate heat off, transfer heat to other adjacent matter will depend again on the state of the environment rather than any specific property of CO2 given it remains a gas at normal pressures at temperatures well in excess of anything within the normal environment.
-
Anne van der Bom at 05:43 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
muoncounter #79 Actually, scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Pinatubo was much larger (about 4x I believe), so your point is still valid. The only way to deal with this is do multiple model runs, based on different scenarios. The inclusion of one or more volcanic eruptions then becomes part of those scenarios alongside the emissions. -
Paul D at 05:18 AM on 23 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
Kevin Judd: “Big storms and extreme weather require a lot of energy to drive them.” Arkadiusz Semczyszak response "Nothing could be further from the truth. Great storms require a considerable variation in energy over a small area." The Ville: Tell us something we don't know Arkadiusz. Since Kevin didn't actually define what a big storm was, I think you are making an assumption and then automatically correcting something without knowing what Kevin was referring to. If you weren't here to be deliberately negative, you would have asked for a clearer definition of what a big storm was and then made a comment on that. Arkadiusz Semczyszak: "...we understand that with the increase of the energy supply to such an system...number of extreme events as a result of warming MUST be reduced." The Ville: By your own definition you are incorrect. You earlier stated "Great storms require a considerable variation in energy over a small area.", not increased or decreased energy. Arkadiusz Semczyszak: "Polish scientists (Natural Disasters, 2008.) write: "In the years 1701-1850, ie during the period when the Earth was in the so-called Little Ice Age in the Caribbean basin hurricanes were almost three times higher than in the second half of last century." The Ville: Sorry, 'Polish scientists' were cherry picking or wildly wrong. See Ricardo García-Herreras work on Spanish records of hurricanes in that area and era. Given that the Polish were no where to be seen as far as Atlantic exploration is concerned, I think Spanish records are probably more accurate. Specifically between 1576 and 1601 there was a huge peak, they then dipped until 1760, then started peaking again. eg. during a large chunk of the 'LIA' there were both larger numbers and fewer. -
CBDunkerson at 05:03 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
BmuS #17, dana1981's answer is probably the most useful you'll get. If you are really looking for the warming from CO2 emitted in JUST the year 1970 then we are talking about less than 2 ppm and the resulting warming would be exceedingly tiny. If you meant all CO2 emitted up THROUGH 1970 that's a much bigger factor, but difficult to quantify. Let's say CO2 had stabilized at the 1970 level. I think that was around 320 ppm. In that case, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 for a doubling of CO2, I get; ln(320/280) * (3 / ln(560/280)) = 0.58 C Since we are 40 years past 1970 pretty much all of that warming should have now been cycled through into the atmosphere. Obviously, different climate sensitivity factors would yield different results, but the current 0.8 C warming is consistent with the 3 C 'fast feedback' sensitivity estimate. -
CBDunkerson at 04:47 AM on 23 September 2010Antarctica is gaining ice
DSL, wow that IS a bit odd. Antarctic sea ice is expected to eventually start declining, but this seems more likely to be some sort of short-term fluctuation. The 'growth' in Antarctic sea ice has been small enough that the current year amount still drops below the long term average semi-regularly. This contrasts with the situation in the Arctic where skeptics got excited earlier this year about the extent coming CLOSE to the long term average for the first time in years. Thus, the current dip is unusual, but not unprecedented. Looks like the Southern melt season started about two weeks early for some reason. -
dana1981 at 04:39 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
beam me up scotty @ #17 - see Quantifying the human contribution to global warming. Short answer, it's approximately 100% over the past 35 years and approximately 80% over the past century. -
Antarctica is gaining ice
Yah, people, when does Antarctic sea ice extent begin to look a little freaky. I don't expect it to continue to nosedive, but I'd like to hear from any experts as to when the dive might/should stop. -
John Bear at 04:21 AM on 23 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
I agree with Mr. Judd’s argument. As Matt J. (comment 6) pointed out, 2-3 degrees Celsius is equivalent to 4-6 degrees Fahrenheit. An increase in several degrees might seem minute at first, but one needs to consider the scale upon which we are viewing these changes. Consider the human body for example. Our body’s hold a general temperature of around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit; with a less than a two degree increase in our body’s core temperature we are classified as having a fever, entering a state of “sickness.” Now I know our bodies are different than the entire world; or, are they really that much different? The nature of the planet we live in is in no way less intricate than the incredible complexity of our bodies; both exist in a delicate balance. Countless systems work together in harmony under an ideal set of conditions. If the conditions in which these systems operate are altered even slightly, the consequences can be exponential. If you have a fever and catch a cold, are you able to operate at your normal day-to-day level? Now consider Earth “catching a cold,” the symptoms of our planet getting sick can be devastating not only now, but for future generations to come. -
Albatross at 04:11 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Hi Rob @38, "But Dr. Scott Mandia started it!"-- says the albatross pointing a huge wing at post #22. Seriously though, I think some politicans have borrowed a page from Hollywood-types in terms of antics used to "advance" their careers. Hmm, I have a self imposed deadline to meet and am clearly procrastinating. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:03 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Albatross... Yeah, I'm sure as soon as John gets up we're both busted. ;-) Sometimes I think we're living in upside down world in US politics today where doing stupid things can actually propel your career. -
Albatross at 03:47 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Rob @36, No need to apologise to me, I'm just concerned that we are distracting from the point of the post-- that said, I do now feel obligated to answer questions asked of me. Hope John is not grumpy when he wakes up (; I'm sure that an AG can file a case whenever he or she chooses to (maybe I was not clear on that), but to do so without sufficient grounds is probably not good for one's career ;) -
archiesteel at 03:44 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
@angusmac: please re-read my response to this at #55. If you don't understand parts of it, please tell me. -
Albatross at 03:42 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Badger @83, Maybe this will help. Dana and Tom, What you said :) Current equilibrium climate sensitivity for the GISS model is about 2.7 C. More info here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:40 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Albatross... Also sorry if we're going OT. I could be wrong but I think the AG probably can file a case regardless of whether it has grounds or not. And that's what happened. The case was completely without merit and was struck down by the judge. Literally, I think Cuccinelli was just trying to make noise in order to raise his own profile in politics. In that, the case didn't need to have any merit at all. It's just grandstanding for attention. For Cuccinelli it was mission accomplished. -
dana1981 at 03:17 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Tom Dayton - well said. -
Albatross at 03:16 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Angusmac, You claim, "If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached." The physics behind GHG forcing is a theory, not a hypothesis. Same holds true for the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The challenging part is getting models to simulate the complex climate system on the planet, and then seeing how the system responds to changes in internal and external forcing mechanisms. Models are wonderful resources b/c they permit one to undertake carefully planned experiments, and that is what Hansen et al. tackled in 1988. How might the climate system respond to increasing radiative forcing from GHGs? The 1988 paper was seminal, but as is often the case for seminal works, it was imperfect-- and Hansen et al. fully realized that much. The science (and models) has advanced since then...it seems it is only the skeptics who are stuck in 1988. It was through a combination of huge leaps in computing resources, better code, and by considering new data and advances in the science that modelers have been able to dramatically improve the models. The new generation of AOGCMs even include atmospheric chemistry. While the model in 1988 was imperfect, it certainly was not nearly as imperfect as some contrarians have elected to falsely state on the public record. That is what this whole post is about-- I really cannot understand why some people cannot see that. So Angus, you have the wrong end of the stick when you and others keep claiming that keep claiming that it is the scientists who are stuck in the past and not moving on. What you are complaining about in the quote (that I cited above) is actually exactly what scientists continue to strive towards. PS: Are you familiar with the Earth Simulator 2 project in Japan? -
dana1981 at 03:16 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
angusmac - yes, you're missing about 90% of my article. The issue has been amended. We don't currently believe that 4.2°C is the correct short-term climate sensitivity for 2xCO2, we believe it's around 3°C, which is confirmed by comparing Hansen's results to reality. I'd really prefer not to have to repeat this for a sixth time. Scenario C is irrelevant. It's "on the money" because its' a combination of a too-low forcing and a too-high sensitivity. Saying C is on the money is like saying if I go twice the speed limit and then half the speed limit, I was going the right speed the whole time. -
Tom Dayton at 03:14 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
angusmac, the "hypothesis" has been amended--considerably! The models currently "use" a sensitivity lower than the one Hansen used. I put "use" in quotes because the models do not take the sensitivity as an input; the net effect of all the factors in the models is summarizable as a sensitivity. But those amendments were not made simply as a reaction to the mis-prediction of the original model. Instead, the models started to be improved long before any meaningful evaluation of the accuracy of Hansen's prediction could be done. The improvements continue to be made to the underlying physics of the models. The "hypothesis" that is most important is that temperatures were predicted to rise, and have, as opposed to being unchanged or dropping. Less important is the exact rate of rise. Of course the rate is important, which is why research continues urgently. -
John Hartz at 03:11 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
I presume that Dr, Hansen and his team have maintained a log of changes they have made to the forecasting model they used in 1998. Is the log in the public domain? -
A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
angusmac writes: If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached. Yes. And as dana1981 has repeatedly pointed out, the "hypothesis" here is basically that temperature would rise at a rate corresponding to a climate sensitivity of 4.2C per doubling of CO2. The observed trend suggests that this is too high, and that a value of 3.4C per doubling would be a better fit. Can we all agree on this? FWIW, 3.4C/doubling falls nicely within the IPCC's estimated range for climate sensitivity. -
John Hartz at 02:58 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
In the context of this discussion thread and the one associated with the article about Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s pronouncements about OHC, I have a question. Are any of the current crop of climate models designed to forecastof how the heat content of the sub-systems comprising the climate will change under different GHG forcing scenarios? -
Albatross at 02:51 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Rob @34, I fear that John might edit this as it is OT, but I want to clarify something before letting everyone move on. The Virginia AG did not have grounds to investigate Mann, nor was it a legitimate action-- he was clearly on a witch hunt and fishing for something. In contrast, committing perjury is actionable and there is compelling and legitimate evidence to make that case here. -
angusmac at 02:45 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
Dana1981, am I missing something here? My contention is quite simple: real world emissions are following Scenario B whilst real world temperatures are following Scenario C. I thought that real (sceptical) science was about making observations, postulating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis against the real world. If the hypothesis is not in good agreement with real world observations then it should be amended until a reasonable agreement is reached. Currently the hypothesis which supports Scenario B is not in good agreement with real world temperature measurements. Therefore it is either a poor hypothesis at best or it is incorrect at worst. Either way it should be amended. Hansen 2005 stated that Scenario B "was on the money." Now it looks as though Scenario C "is on the money." Consequently, if real world trends continue to follow Scenario C then computer model forcing and consequential temperature increases should be revised downwards to match real world observations. -
muoncounter at 02:42 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
All this wrangling over whether Hansen was 23% or 19% off seems to me to miss two basic points: -Way back at #5, mwof pointed out that the cooling effects of the Pinatubo eruption should be factored out of the comparison, as it effectively delayed the conditions necessary for continued heating. There is no way the effects of the eruption could have been predicted or modeled accurately and that renders such quantitative comparison moot. -Any claim that Hansen was off by 300% or 'got it wrong' is blatant nonsense. Whether you choose B, C or something in between, 300% error just isn't there. B predicts ~.7 deg rise by 2010; LOTI shows it to be ~.6. There's no significance to the second decimal place. -
Albatross at 02:37 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
BP @, Really, do you honestly want to go down this path? FIRST, the caption in one of the figures that you provided says it is for 2010s (i.e., 2010-2020). Well, is is now only 2010, and the data you showed go to 2009. So how about we compare apples with apples and remove that Figure? SECOND, there are way too few data points south of 45 S in the southern hemisphere to form a coherent picture. THIRD, by cherry picking these particular data, you are neglecting the recent and valuable work undertaken by several scientists on discrepancies between the satellite, RATPAC and AOGCM data. The data need to be placed in the appropriate context (Santer 2005, Trenberth 2006, Allen 2008, Haimberger 2008, Sherwood 2008, Titchner 2009, Bengstsson 2009) FOURTH, The GCM that Hansen used was incredibly coarse grid spacing in the horizontal (8 degress by 10 degrees; one degree is about 110 km, so the grid spacing was near 1000 km) and also in the vertical, so the model would smooth out features. As if that were not enough of an impediment, Hansen et al note that "Horizontal heat transport by the ocean is fixed at values estimated for today's climate, and the uptake of heat perturbations by the ocean beneath the mixed layer is approximated as vertical diffusion". It was not even a truly coupled atmosphere-ocean model. The fact that the model did as well as it did given that is a testament to the robustness of the underlying physics and Hansen's team. In view of the coarse grid spacing, the validation data should be on the same (or similar) grid spacing. Now two conclusions from Hansen et al.'s abstract which are relevant to this discussion: 1) "The greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s; the global warming within the next several years is predicted to reach and maintain a level at least three standard deviations above the climatology of the 1950s" Verified by observations. For example, see Santer et al. (2003,2005). Also see various surface and tropospheric temperature data sets. 2) "Regions where an unambiguous warming appears earliest are low-latitude oceans, China and interior areas in Asia, and ocean areas near Antarctica and the north pole" Verified-- for example, see the maps provide by Dana in the post. We have also observed-- Polar amplification, warming over continental land masses in N. hemisphere. The southern oceans have also been warming, albeit at a slower pace-- new research from the University of Washington is showing that the warming in the southern oceans extends down very deep. Read more here -
archiesteel at 02:33 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Is it just me, or are contrarians becoming increasingly sloppy here? I guess it's a tribute to the science presented here that there would be so many scientifically poor comments trying to attack the points made in the articles: the more influential a science web site becomes, the more it is perceived as a threat by those who are politically opposed to it. Thus, the greater the number of contrarian/trolling comments. -
muoncounter at 02:24 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
#10:"meaning of lag is not that the response starts with a delay, but that the full effect will be seen later." In addition to 'turning off the burner' for a bit, the flattened rate of increase in CO2 after Pinatubo also 'took the lid off the soup pot' (its lunch time here). This essentially delays the continued heating and that should have an effect on the furious discussion over Hansen's 1988 projections. #11: "continues to build up greater heat which circulates around in the oceans for decades before making its way to the atmosphere. " The deep oceans are very cold. I would imagine the lag for measurable ocean heating is orders of magnitude more than 40 years. Since the air heats up (and loses heat) far more rapidly, why does ocean heat storage even enter into the discussion of surface (air) temperatures? -
Albatross at 02:19 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Jeff T, Until not too long ago I would have agreed with you Jeff. But, IMHO, when appropriate, we now have to fight fire with fire. If compelling evidence exists of perjury, then surely as law abiding citizens we should not let such acts go unchallenged? Taking Monckton to task is not the same as the "witch hunt" undertaken by the Virginia AG. I hope that you can see the huge difference not only in terms of evidence, but motives to, in the case of Monckton. This is a very different kettle of fish. I agree that one should stick to the science, hence my delight that the scientists took the time and effort to counter Monckton using facts. Additionally, Monckton has been debunked so many times to no avail. So, IMO, suggesting that scientists are not permitted to take legal action when warranted, and nor should that be frowned upon, is not fair nor reasonable. Why should someone be given free pass in the event that they committed perjury? Taking the high road does not mean that we have to check our principles and justice system at the door. -
John Hartz at 02:16 AM on 23 September 2010A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
In the interest of full disclosure… I am the one who prodded the NETDR to post on this comment thread. During the course of the past four weeks or so, the NETDR and I have been mud wrestling about global warming/climate change on the comment threads of relevant articles posted on the website of USA Today. Since he has repeatedly badmouthed Dr. Hansen and his projections, I wanted to see how he would fare in “debating” with individuals who have legitimate expertise in these matters. Some of you have proven my contention that the NETDR’s assertions are akin to blocks of Swiss cheese. If any you are gluttons for punishment, you can check out my most recent marathon debate with the NETDR by going to: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/09/global-warming-good-news-fewer-big-ocean-storms-possible/1 -
Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
nerndt writes: What stood out most in the article was the line "The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere." [...] This is the key point that has mad me a true skeptic on the oeverall effect of CO2 causing global warming. All energy in the atmospaher has a 1/500 effect compared to the oceans, and C)2 has a 1/100 effect compared to all greenhouse gases. The number DO NOT add up. First off, the statement "C02 has a 1/100 effect compared to all greenhouse gases" is just plain wrong. Because the effects of different GHGs overlap, it's not straightforward to say that gas X causes percentage P of the total effect, while gas Y causes percentage Q. But CO2 clearly has a large warming effect on the climate. See How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas Or, for vastly more detail: CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas? As for your general idea that since the mass of the ocean is much greater than the mass of the atmosphere, we can safely ignore climate change ... well, that just makes no sense. The mass of the ocean was just as large at the end of the previous interglacial, but that didn't prevent the very radical climate change in which ice sheets spread southward for 80,000 years, eventually covering the place where I now sit with over 2 km of ice. Why would the mere existence of massive oceans prevent us from altering the climate in a similarly dramatic fashion in the opposite direction? That's just wishful thinking, frankly. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 23 September 2010Does Climate Change Really Matter?
There's a minor grammatical error in the second to the last paragraph. I believe that would be "affected" not "effected." -
beam me up scotty at 01:41 AM on 23 September 2010Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect
Question: What percentage of the current .8C warming is due to CO2 that was emitted in 1970? Can that be calculated? -
Jeff T at 01:34 AM on 23 September 2010Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
Re #21 (ProfMandia) and #22 (Albatross). Can we please stay away from recommending criminal prosecution? It may be justified, but it makes us too similar to the Attorney General of Virginia threatening Michael Mann. Let's stick to the science.
Prev 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 Next
