Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 Next
Comments 110101 to 110150:
-
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Paul Daniel Ash. You said that "you have your own theories about what WILL happen". You still haven't pointed out where I said that. Please state or retract. Thank you. -
Albatross at 07:21 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Gaz, "I cannot put any faith in GISS due to the Arctic proxies." I am not sure what these "proxies" are that you are referring to in the operational NASA record-- they do not use proxies in GISTEMP. Or did you mean to say that you have issues with the method they employ to interpolate sparse data over the Arctic? Did you know that NCDC use similar data and interpolations techniques as NASA does? Moreover, NASA include data from Arctic stations which, as far as I know, HadCRUT does not. Those data have value. Do you know exactly how HadCRUT estimates the anomalies over the high Arctic Gaz? Do you have any faith in the RSS MSU data over the high Arctic, or that product in general? Sorry for all the questions, but it seems that you are opining about things about which you do not have much experience, so I'm trying to establish what you do and do not know. For better, or worse, the experts use the term ocean acidification. Sorry, like it or not, we have to deal with that. It is certainly not a valid reason for dismissing it. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
archiesteel. Going from 8.1 to 8.0 isn't "acidification". It's simply the wrong term, but is used so much now. -
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 14 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Colder temperatures closer to the ground is a temperature inversion and it needs specific conditions to occur. Maybe your BOM stations have the data to check it. Firstly, it needs still night air so that cold dense air can accumulate close to the ground. Next you need clear skies and dry air. Why? because under these conditions backradiation is reduced allowing the ground cool efficiently by radiation to space. Got a BOM station in northern Queensland to compare with? This is text book stuff. Say "Essentials of meteorology: an invitation to the atmosphere". And yet again, in discussion of water vapour and evaporation effects on climate, your BOM stations are largely irrelevant because the processes that matter happen at sea. As far as I can see, you dont study either the text book or basic physics because you believe both wrong. However, I dont think you can make a cogent argument for them being wrong until you first understand what our best model is. -
ClimateWatcher at 07:12 AM on 14 September 2010A history of satellite measurements of global warming
"Further to the acronym comment, can we have the expansion of MSU please." MSU is the Microwave Sounding Unit. It is a measurement system of radiometers which, not surprisingly sample electromagnetic energy in the 'microwave' portion of the spectrum. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has operated satellites which have had various generations of MSU instruments on them since late 1978. The MSU samples energy that is emitted by oxygen atoms. The theory of operations is that the higher the temperature at a given region of the atmosphere the greater the energy that will be received at the satellite. The energy at this wavelength is not particularly large in terms of earth's energy budget, but the unique nature of the emissions in theory makes it suitable as a temperature record. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Paul Daniel Ash. That "theory" was about warming - held until five years ago. And no, not "wild-ass guesses" just observation - of the HadCRUt 10 year data, as I have explained. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
archiesteel, no my distrust of GISS relies on a email conversation with Phil Jones! -
Riccardo at 07:07 AM on 14 September 2010A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Berényi Péter, the millenium prize problem has a completely different goal than "simply" solve the Navier–Stokes equations. Are you just making noise to not let people understand? -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
archiesteel, As I said, my choice, whether that's 'wrong' or not. No I know he didn't call me a troll otherwise I assume the site owner would delete the comment, but I've seen this 'type' of posting before, and I'm not in favour of it. I would have thought that the fact that I've been completely upfront on my opinions shows I'm not "trolling". If I don't change my views based on a few replies, that most certainly doesn't make me a troll either. -
archiesteel at 07:05 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: "Albatross, yes, I too have read that the changing pH really is an issue - but it isn't "acidification"." If the pH is being lowered, how is that not acidification? "I cannot put any faith in GISS due to the Arctic proxies." Yet, their figures are corroborated by the Danish Meteorological Institute, which relies less on proxies than GISS. Again, your distrust does not seem rooted in logic, but rather seems heavily influenced by the disinformation campaign waged by climate change deniers... -
ClimateWatcher at 07:05 AM on 14 September 2010A history of satellite measurements of global warming
Some time ago, in order to understand this, I plotted the GISS Model E (upper-left) versus the RATPAC sonde data (lower-left), the RSS MSU (upper-right) and the UAH MSU (lower-right)
-
Paul Daniel Ash at 07:03 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
DON'T have my own theories about what will happen! If I wrote anywhere here that I did, can you point it out so that I can correct it? 04:39 AM on 14 September, 2010: "my theory about warming" My point is that you do have some guesses or ideas or expectations about what you think may happen. You hedge them about with caveats about how you don't really know for sure, and are open to change with new information. This is exactly what every climate projection says. The only difference, as I said above, is that climate scientists use data, and mechanisms rooted in well-established physical principles, to make their projections. You, on the other hand, rely on what are technically referred to as WAGs: Wild-Ass Guesses. -
archiesteel at 06:59 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: one more thing. You said: "I have learned that some of you think that if warming doesn't continue for 15-20 then you will change your mind. As I said (again) I chose to after only five years - my choice." Right, and as we've explained, five years is too short a time period to establish a statistically-significant trend. Note that we all said 15 to 20 years *if* the cooling couldn't be explained by other sources (such as a dramatic increase in aerosols that would last that long, for some reason...) "Please don't name-call, it's puerile." To be fair, VTG didn't call you a troll. He simply stated that "asking provocative questions, hearing answers but not changing your views" is trolling. He's giving you a chance to avoid that label by giving a rational response to the points brought to you. Science isn't about opinion and feelings, it's about logically interpreting observed facts. -
Chris Colose at 06:59 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
The Paltridge paper is a re-analysis product, it's not observations. No one really thinks that these are appropriate to use to diagnose water vapor trends, which suffer from changes in instrumental over time. For instance, Soden et al (2005) quote: "“Although an international network of weather balloons has carried water vapor sensors for more than half a century, changes in instrumentation and poor calibration make such sensors unsuitable for detecting trends in upper tropospheric water vapor (27). Similarly, global reanalysis products also suffer from spurious variability and trends related to changes in data quality and data coverage (24).” A relevant reference to look at here is Trenberth, K. E., J. Fasullo, and L. Smith, 2005: Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Clim. Dyn., 24, 741-758 Note also that other reanalysis products show different results. Josie-- my interests are mostly in the physical science rather than impacts, but I read Lynas' book a while ago. I think it was a good read. You need to be careful about extrapolating conditions in the past, such as "it was 3 degrees warmer before and this happened, therefore it will happen again" or that things which didn't happen before won't now. It's hard to look at other examples to use as a template for future impacts because we don't have any past analogs for human-induced climate change in the past, but again, this isn't my area of heavy interest. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
I take the points aboput certainty in science. Yet, as I said, if you actually listen to what is said by believers in warming (if you listen with a critical ear) you might be surprised at what is said with some real certainty. -
Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd - Cold air right at ground level, warmer up 1.2 meters; sounds like the classic conditions for radiation fog. The ground cools via radiation after the sun goes down, radiation that will only be absorbed (80%+?) after ~100 meters or so), air right at the ground (~1 meter) cools with the ground by conduction. 1 meter of air isn't going to stop much of that ground source IR! Keep in mind that the back radiation numbers are for a deep mass of air, not 1 meter layers. Exactly what I would expect, quite frankly. No inconsistency whatsoever. Measuring back radiation is of considerable use if you're calculating the Earth energy budget. If you disagree, I suggest you run that disagreement past Trenberth :) -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Albatross, yes, I too have read that the changing pH really is an issue - but it isn't "acidification". As the owner of this site can confirm from my registration details, I work with acids, and I hate the ter "acidification" as it's just plain wrong. I cannot put any faith in GISS due to the Arctic proxies. -
Adam C at 06:55 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz I do not "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Nevertheless, I make an evidence-based prediction that it will, and most likely I will be correct. Science is all about uncertainty and prediction. Nothing in science is known. Telling an audience of scientists that they don't "know" what will happen is completely unnecessary and doesn't make your case at all. -
archiesteel at 06:54 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: "In all the sites I read, it would appear the exact opposite." Saying something has a high probability of occuring doesn't mean you're certain it will occur. For example, if you're playing Blackjack and you haven't seen a figure in several rounds, chances are higher than normal that the dealer has a figure as his hidden card. Of course, you can't tell that for sure, but it'd be unwise to bet he doesn't... -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
VeryTallGuy. That's a shame you posted that. As you'll see above, I HAVE responded. How did you miss it? Is it a standard response to trot out the word "troll"? I did want to engage to get some answers on what believers in warming think. To answer your question (as I have done above plenty of times - even when people didn't answer mine) I have learned that some of you think that if warming doesn't continue for 15-20 then you will change your mind. As I said (again) I chose to after only five years - my choice. Please don't name-call, it's puerile. -
Albatross at 06:52 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz, Fair enough about gravitating towards HadCRUT, but as for your claim that "I don't think GISS is valid", that is a rather odd statement, especially given that HadCRUT, NCDC, GISS and JMA (and even the ECMWF reanalysis) are all in excellent agreement (see the latest post at RealClimate). GISS has been shown to be "valid". Is it perfect? No. But then neither are the other global temperature (surface and satellite) datasets. Yet they all present a coherent, robust and remarkably similar picture of long-term warming. Mojib Latif has warned about people drawing incorrect conclusions from noise in the global SAT record arising from internal climate variability. The climate system is not going to warm monotonically, climate scientists know that. And that is why they look at trends over periods of 20-30 years and not <15 years, or worse still <5 years. Anyhow, this post is about contradictions, so I'm not sure how your comments on the SAT record fit in with this. Also keep in mind that the pH is logarithmic. Please email the experts at NOAA (specifically PMEL) and Scripps Institute of Oceanography and Woods-Hole Oceanographic Inst. and tell them that you think ocean acidification is not an issue and that they have it all wrong. Personally, I do not like the term, but I still undertsand that the science has shown it to be a very real issue for marine life. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Paul Daniel Ash. With all due respect, I don't think you're really reading what believers in warming actually write. I don't recognise "I don't know of anyone who seriously thinks they know the future". In all the sites I read, it would appear the exact opposite. No, Paul, I DON'T have my own theories about what will happen! If I wrote anywhere here that I did, can you point it out so that I can correct it? Being sceptical isn't a theory, Paul. And I don't know what "WAGs rooted" is - please explain. -
Josie at 06:40 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
Thanks for your comment Chris, that is really helpful. I have been wanting a public discussion of the idea of 'runaway' for ages- it seems very hard to get one. Mark Lynas in his book "6 degrees" created a scenario in which we pass 2 degrees C above pre-industrial and then things are taken out of our control by a sequence of events and we rise inexorably to 6. This did not seem to me like the picture I got from reading science, apart from as a tiny possibility, hardly one that is regarded as likely. But I have not heard any climate expert address it specifically, and many have been very positive about Lynas's book, which I found odd considering what they said elsewhere. What do you think about this? -
VeryTallGuy at 06:39 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz "No, in a word, I'm not here to argue, but to learn." Can you enlighten us as to what you have learned please Baz, because asking provocative questions, hearing answers but not changing your views has a name: *trolling* Either you've learned something, or you're trolling. Which is it ? All the people here who've honestly engaged with you deserve a response. -
VeryTallGuy at 06:32 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr Pielke, first of all, sincere thanks for engaging so positively here, it is genuinely appreciated. Unfortunately, there is nothing in your response which in any way addresses my fundamental point, which is that the variability in the monthly data is not just a small amount, but at least an order of magnitude too large to justify your claim that a monthly snapshot can provide a planetary heat balance on that timescale. I must confess I find it disappointing that you haven't effectively responded on this. I do agree that, in principle, looking at a planetary heat balance in Joules rather than degrees would be better, however in practice the long term data is simply not available at the moment. Also, temperature is much more easily understood by the layman, enabling the science to be more accessible, which is vital if the right response is to be made. -
John Hartz at 06:11 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
@ Radar30331 A key assumption made by Dr. Pielke is that there has been no significant warming of the deep ocean layers during the 2004-2009 period. Even Dr. Pielke admits that this key assumption an neither be proved or disproved because the requisite database simply does not exist. The "accuracy" of Pielke's postulate will therefore likely never be proven or disproven. -
archiesteel at 06:10 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: "The term "acidification" is bizarre." It's not, really. The oceans' pH has lowered at unnaturaly high rates, hence they are "acidifying" according to a very well-understood metric. "I never claimed to be rational!" Well, science is a rational enterprise. You don't have to be rational all the time (I know I'm not), but when discussing something so important developing a rational argument is paramount. "Five MORE years has done nothing to change that, but hey, if warming picks up again significantly then I'll change sides." Warming has picked up significantly since 2006, and even more so since 2008 (if you like looking at short time spans). "I think the trouble (from looking out of my tent) is that too many of you 'think' you know what will happen to the temperature in 20-30 years time. You do not!" As Paul Daniel said above, no one does know, however we can map out some degree of probability. If there is even a one in ten chance of a catastrophic outcome (I believe it's much more than than), then it makes sense to try and mitigate it, especially since the best way to mitigate it is to transition away from fossil fuels, something we should be already doing for *other* reasons. -
johnd at 06:04 AM on 14 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp at 07:52 AM and KR at 23:09 PM. With regards to the question "how fast would temperatures have dropped if there was NOT back radiation", that really is not what we are seeking to understand. What I would like to understand is why with soil temperatures radiating warmth from below, and air temperatures measured at about 1.2m above ground level supposedly providing back radiation, why then do the minimum temperatures AT ground level fall so low. We know that normally temperatures quickly fall as distance from the surface increases, but as these terrestrial minimum temperatures indicate, whatever warmth contained in the air just 1.2 m above the ground is not enough to stop even more warmth being lost at ground level. Whilst focusing on this difference of minimum temperatures over a short 1.2m distance, we should also consider what differences we would find between the maximum temperatures recorded by a thermometer in the shaded enclosure and an exposed thermometer at ground level, especially when considering just what factor direct solar radiation has on evaporation as against back radiation. Whilst stations such as Alice Springs may measure back radiation, the network of stations that BOM use from across all of Australia to collect data for agricultural use are exactly the appropriate ones to use in a thread regarding water vapour, in that determining the conditions that drive evaporation is perhaps the most important part of understanding why the water vapour in the atmosphere varies as it does. What is there to tell us that conditions in the atmosphere drive the evaporation instead of evaporation driving conditions in the atmosphere? It is of little use to measure back radiation unless this can then be measured in how it manifests itself as heat arriving and being absorbed at the surface, and whilst the BOM data only gives the nett result without breaking it down as to individual inputs that determine the nett result, those nett results expose an situation that is inconsistent with what input back radiation is supposed to have. With regards to clouds, firstly I don't think the climate has ever been stable, a quick look at any cycle over any time frame indicates short term cycles within longer term cycles within even longer cycles. However I have seen some information from NASA that concludes that overall, clouds have a nett cooling effect, rather than a warming effect on the earth. -
Albatross at 06:00 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
radar30331, Google "global warming has halted". -
Paul Daniel Ash at 05:48 AM on 14 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
No, I can't give you an "internally-consistent thesis" because I don't know... too many of you 'think' you know what will happen to the temperature in 20-30 years time. I don't know of anyone who seriously thinks they know the future. Most everyone has some expectation of what they think it may be. You say right in that same comment that "I was a 'warmist' in 1999, and thought that the warming would continue... By 2005 I figured that I may have my theory about warming wrong... if warming picks up again significantly then I'll change sides." So you have your own theories about what will happen. The only difference is that climate scientists' are systematic and evidence-based, and yours seem to be WAGs rooted in a rather selective reading of the available data. It's an OK place to start, but for someone who claims that you're "not here to argue, but to learn," you're doing an awful lot of argument by assertion. -
michael sweet at 05:45 AM on 14 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Humanity Rules: Here is the temperature map for J-F-M from the NCDC:While Siberia has large cold areas, the USA is not that cold. Canada is hot and evens out Siberia. The majority of the world is hot or warm. The temperature anomaly was 0.66C, the fourth highest on record. Fourth highest out of 130. For me that is a hot period. It just happened that the cool areas were the USA and Europe. By contrast, this summer has been RECORD heat in many areas.
-
A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Berényi - In regards to water vapor feedback, you should look at Dessler and Sherwood (2009) (as referred by Chris Colose), where they discuss gridded averaging of complex behavior, and how it appears to work just fine in modeling. At it's core, they state that "The large-scale wind and temperature fields that mainly control the humidity are explicitly calculated from the basic fluid equations, unlike small-scale processes that must be represented by crude parameterizations.", as the water vapor involved in the feedback is primarily in the upper tropical troposphere, above the majority of clouds. -
ClimateWatcher at 05:38 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
"Finally, ClimateWatcher is simply wrong on almost everything he said. I'd urge him to review the Dessler and Sherwood (2009) paper, or the observations of upper air moistening (e.g., see some of Brian Soden's work)." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read Dessler and Sherwood. Was there a particular passage that you found relevant? I am taken by the upper air decrease in both absolute humidity:
and relative humidity:
as outlined by Paltridge, Arking, and Pook:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/fulltext.pdf
Particularly in the tropics, the region that Dessler and Sherwood assess to control water vapor feedback.
This appears to be consistent with the ICCSP data as well:
-
Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
Gah - the link I put in my last post for the Comments Policy was poorly formed; my apologies. -
Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
ClimateWatcher - minor point for readability, you should look at the Comments Policy for the instructions on posting large images, under "IMPORTANT: The image must be no wider than 450 pixels". The extremely large images you posted tend to break the site layout. Moderator - can these be reframed with the appropriate HTML to bring their size back down? -
Chris Colose at 05:10 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
Thanks, this is a nice addition to the internet posts on feedbacks I would urge readers to be cautioned of a few subtleties in the post by neal which was not made explicit, and could lead to some confusion for first-time readers. For one thing, he was not explicitly talking about the radiative-based feedbacks (e.g., water vapor increase, albedo change in a warmer world) but rather carbon-cycle feedbacks (such as more CO2 ==> warming ==> more CO2) which involves complex interplay between the bio geochemistry of the ocean-land system. The notion of a converging series that can stabilize the system is valid in either case, but the carbon-based feedbacks are not that well understood and usually they become irrelevant if you choose to define a sensitivity metric in terms of a doubling of CO2 (as is commonly done). When we're talking about whether feedbacks are "positive" or "negative" in the context of global warming, we are *usually* talking about the radiative balance of the planet being further modified by the temperature change caused by some forcing (the most relevant forcing being CO2 in the modern day). This is also semantical to some extent, because the most dominant stabilizer of planetary temperature change is the Planck blackbody radiation law, which simply means hot stuff emits more radiation. This is not classically called a 'feedback' however, and so the notion that feedbacks are "positive" is a bit artificial given the lingo in the field. Rather, positive feedbacks should be thought of as modifying the Planck response, essentially smoothing out a plot of the outgoing longwave radiation vs temperature. I have been recently collaborating with Rasmus at RealClimate to put up a post about feedbacks, which hopefully will provide some clarity into this topic, including the runaway greenhouse. I'm hoping that can be available soon. The answer to the question about the runaway greenhouse effect is that CO2 is not a big part in that process. I'm not entirely sure Hansen understood this, but I've also not followed his public statements closely to know what caveats he might have made or what distortions other people may have spun on it. In fact, the runaway greenhouse process occurs when the solar radiation exceeds something known as the Simpson-Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit, and the runaway threshold is almost exclusively determined by the absorbed incoming solar radiation and a planet's gravity. The SKI limit is basically a 'maximum outgoing longwave radiation' threshold that occurs when water vapor can become a dominant constituent in the atmosphere (on Earth or Venus, it doesn't need to be water vapor though in general). Finally, ClimateWatcher is simply wrong on almost everything he said. I'd urge him to review the Dessler and Sherwood (2009) paper, or the observations of upper air moistening (e.g., see some of Brian Soden's work). -
Josie at 05:02 AM on 14 September 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
In fairness, this is not just something that skeptics fail to understand, many environmentalists don't get it either. The media (in the UK anyway) really got addicted to talking about 'runaway climate change'. I am not sure where it came from because I've hardly ever seen the term used in the science. I am aware that a lot of climate scientists are very uncomfortable about the use of this phrase. But there are different ideas bound up in it- if there is a low probability of carbon cycle feedbacks doing something extreme and becoming very nasty even if not becoming self-perpetuating, then is that 'runaway'? How much does something have to run away before it is 'runaway'? -
jyyh at 04:48 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
though chlorophyll using organisms have been found quite high in the atmosphere (in storm whipped marine clouds), no one has proven they could live and proliferate there in the extreme heat, discussed in this thread, thus eventually decreasing the IR absorbance. in any case the temperature on the current ocean sea level would have to be higher than 100 since there are many mountainous areas which could become hot pools of photosynthetic bacteria. But, unlivable (meaning in case too hot) conditions for humans are quite possible in the tropics by human means AFAIK. -
ClimateWatcher at 04:46 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
"ClimateWatcher, CO2 has increased from ~280 ppm to 390 ppm... about 40% of one 'doubling'. Temperatures have increased just over 0.8 C... about 73% of 1.1 C. Do you still think 1.1 C total warming for a doubling of CO2 is the most likely outcome?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Somewhere around that. The century trends since the MSU era began look like: RSS MT 0.9K/century UAH MT 0.5K/century RSS LT 1.6K/century UAH LT 1.3K/century CRU 1.6K/century GISS 1.6K/century CRU SST 1.3K/century That yields a mean of 1.3K/century. Fairly consistent. Your look at long term variations is a worthy notion, but do recall: 1. There is not a good yearly, or even decadal correlation of GHG forcings and temperature trends. 2. Gasses other than CO2 (CH4, NO2, CFCs) accounted for a large but now declining portion of GHG forcing during the 70s and 80s:
3. In fact, from 1910 through 1945, the CRU
land/ocean index rose at a rate (1.7K/century) that
is greater than the current rate (1.6K/century), even though GHGs were increasing at a rate of about one third of the recent rate.
If one assumes that recent warming is due to GHGs,
then something else must have contributed to
the 1910-1945 warming to keep the scaling consistent.
This period is certainly consistent with an increase in insolation:
So too, of course, is a period of centuries long
high temperatures commencing in the latter half of the twentieth century.
From the CRU data set, the recent warming is not
at a record rate, though it has taken us to higher
absolute temperature levels.
By the way, the IPCC says the
"Best estimate for a 'low scenario' is 1.8 °C"
They describe the 'low scenario' as the 'most optimistic'.
When was the last time you heard the warming is
taking place at a rate better than the 'most optimistic'?
-
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
actually thoughtfull, I didn't "ignore" those metrics, but when all is said and done it is the thermometer we must look to. As for ocean "acidification", sorry but I hate that term. If I add a tiny, tiny piece of sugar to a glass of sea water, I haven't "sweetened" it, I've made it a tiny, tiny bit less bitter. The term "acidification" is bizarre. No, I can't give you an "internally-consistent thesis" because I don't know. That's what makes me different from a lot of you, and from a lot of sceptics. I don't profess to know whether we'll suffer from positive feedbacks, or whether the climate system will 'equate'. I think the trouble (from looking out of my tent) is that too many of you 'think' you know what will happen to the temperature in 20-30 years time. You do not! VeryTallGuy. No, in a word, I'm not here to argue, but to learn. Sorry, but I don't get as much time as some of you obviously do. Family and work commitments are too much. Albatross, I didn't gravitate towards HadCRUt, I'm English, so it's natural for me to use a UK organisation. However, that said, I don't think GISS is valid as it uses Arctic data where no recording stations exist, relying on proxies from 1,000 miles away. That ain't good science! When I actually asked Phil Jones which I should rely on (yes, I did) he said HadCRUt - well, he would, wouldn't he? JMurphy: Re, HadCRUt, last 10 years: 0.40 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.42 0.40 0.32 0.44 0.49? (2010) Archiesteel - I never claimed to be rational! Ann, 5 years. I was a 'warmist' in 1999, and thought that the warming would continue. Admittedly, I have to confess I didn't know about El Ninos then(!). By 2005 I figured that I may have my theory about warming wrong. Five MORE years has done nothing to change that, but hey, if warming picks up again significantly then I'll change sides. No one has ever accused me of not being flakey! But it's interesting to note that a few scientists have come out with cooling predictions for 20-30 years based on PDO/AMO. So all, I think we can safely say 15-20 years then, yes? -
radar30331 at 04:20 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
SS regulars, Seems like you're being a bit pedantic here. Somebody at R/C, was it Rasmus? titled this plateau "a pause". Pielke Sr. says 'has halted since 2004' or to that effect. Only time will tell whether the R/C line - that it is a "pause" is correct or not. However Pielke is right no matter what, that in 2008 (or 2009 or 2010) "This means that global warming halted on this time period." This shouldn't be controversial, he is not saying AGW is finished. The POV / idea that it's only a pause will be proven right or wrong. Pielke is accurate, even if you don't care for his wording or lack of caveats. Considering the ocean temp lags the energy imbalance, it's fascinating that it has leveled off even temporarily at a time when warming is supposed to be accelerating. (Yes, noisy signal & sensor limitations understood). -
CBDunkerson at 03:41 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
ClimateWatcher, CO2 has increased from ~280 ppm to 390 ppm... about 40% of one 'doubling'. Temperatures have increased just over 0.8 C... about 73% of 1.1 C. Do you still think 1.1 C total warming for a doubling of CO2 is the most likely outcome? -
ClimateWatcher at 03:17 AM on 14 September 2010Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming
The biggest problem with the IPCC predictions is this. The sensitivity for a CO2 doubling is somewhere around 1.1C. The IPCC suggests that is the lowest possible 21st century trend ( not too far from the observed thirty year trends from multiple temperature records - land, ocean, lower and middle trop from satellites ). So the IPCC indicates that net zero feedback is the LOWEST possible outcome. Since there are known negative and positive feedbacks, I would suggest that a balance of feedbacks for a net zero feedback would be the MOST LIKELY outcome, not the lowest possible as the IPCC suggests. That would mean the MOST LIKELY outcome a response somewhere about the 1.1C per century. The problems with claiming the water vapor feedback (which is modeled to be by far the greatest positive feedback, even exceeding the original forcing from GHGs) are: 1. the actual observations (sonde data and ICCSP) indicate a negative feedback due to drier air aloft over lower level more humid air ( there, of course difficulties in measuring humidity, even greater than the difficulties measuring temperature, but that's what the data indicate). -and- 2. the models do not well accommodate the dynamics of moisture distribution. ( were the upper troposphere to become more humid, it would lead to increases cooling of the upper troposphere:
which in turn leads to subsidence,
which also leads to greater loss to space of IR)
The global area of subsidence greatly dominates the global area of rising
air ( convection takes place mostly at the ITCZ and
along frontal boundaries, subsidence, largely caused by IR cooling aloft covers a much larger area even though the mass of air exchanged should balance. ):
Finally, lots of papers demonstrate a seasonal temperature humidity correlation.
But it's important to realize that a large
contribution to this is dynamic ( dynamic migration of the ITCZ, subsidence and cold(dry) air mass migration in the winter hemisphere, etc. ).
Observations do support some moistening of
the surface, but since drier air over more humid air
actually increases the IR cooling rate, it may well be that the water vapor feedback is actually negative.
Response: I'd really appreciate it if for future reference, you could add width=450 to your larger images so they don't break the website format. Thanks. -
Albatross at 03:04 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Huh? Pielke made that statement on February 15, 2008...7:00 am This is the timeline for the paper by Willis et al. which he is citing: Received 22 August 2007; revised 24 January 2008; accepted 22 February 2008; published 14 June 2008. Pielke wrote on this before it was accepted, but he cites it as being "in press". -
Albatross at 02:59 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Thanks J Murphy @199:) -
John Hartz at 02:46 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
@Graham Although I agree with what you said in the Moderator's Response" posted on #173, if I or another individual were to post something similar, it would be deleted because it would be deemed to be "poitical." Are Moderator's exempt from the Comments Policy of this website? -
robert way at 02:43 AM on 14 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, It does look interesting...especially to see the change in the climate regime since the 1970s. Thank you for pointing this out. It clearly shows the dominance of natural forcings such as the AMO (which fits this almost perfectly) prior to 1970 and the dominance of the anthropogenic signal post 1970 with the consistent warming. -
robert way at 02:41 AM on 14 September 2010European reanalysis of temperature confirms record warmth in 2010
KR All you're seeing in the pre-1970s graph is essentially the changes due to the AMO.... -
JMurphy at 02:41 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Just in case gpwayne is otherwise occupied at the moment, the quote seems to be from here : The above paragraph reinforces a conclusion reached on Climate Science that global warming, at least as diagnosed by tropospheric and upper ocean heat content (see), has not been occurring since 2004. It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue, but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report. Don't know how that fits in with this, from the following year : There has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003. -
Albatross at 02:37 AM on 14 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr Pielke, Exactly which Figure from Willis et al. (2005)did you adapt in your opinion piece (which you link us to above) and how? And it seems that in said opinion piece that you do in fact concede that four years is a short period of analysis, yet here you have been reticent to acknowledge that. You say in your opinion piece: "Although four years is a relatively short period of analysis...." (from pg. 54). Some clarification is necessary.
Prev 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 Next
