Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 Next
Comments 110451 to 110500:
-
Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd - the backradiation from the atmosphere is driven entirely by the temperature (and humidity, to provide water vapor levels) of said atmosphere. Your table of data implicitly includes the backradiation, as anyone familiar with the subject understands that warm humid air keeps the ground warm, while cool dry air speeds temperature drops. That's basic knowledge in agriculture! You're asking for duplicate data. Scaddenp - The various soil temperatures are important for agriculture and crop growth; the purpose of these "Agricultural Observations" tables. Johnd - Trying to claim that backradiation isn't important simply because it's not listed on a table created for another purpose entirely is a very poor argument. -
Ken Lambert at 23:49 PM on 10 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
This was last my post for Muoncounter (unanswered)from "What caused early 20th century warming", which is directly relevant to this discussion: "In the absence of any anthropognic forcings prior to 1750AD, the only climate driver would be the various Solar cycles including the 11 year cycle, and multiple overlapping orbital cycles which have varied the Earth's exposure to the sun. Volcanic cooling is transient and significant in short bursts, but being randomly distributed in time cannot be counted as part of a natural forcing cycle. The Earth is most probably never in equilibrium, but if you are trying to separate and quantify the effects of CO2GHG forcing - you must be able to accurately tell us where we are in the cycle of 'natural' solar forcing." In new words: "What value of TSI gives the Earth neutral (neither warming or cooling) Solar forcing?" Perhaps Muoncounter could attempt an answer this time. -
Ken Lambert at 23:25 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
DW #104 I am glad that you cited that paper. It is good that my own independent (if not multiple) line of sclerotic engineer thought agrees with such a distinguished list of authors. Even kdkd is tossing bouquets in my direction. -
Riccardo at 23:13 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
@ari no one can say yes or no, it's a too short period of time. Given that in a longer time span there has been warming and that the last about 6 years from 2004 are well inside natural variability and uncertainties (and apart from other reasons i'll not mention), we can only say that statistically we have no reason to believe that the trend has changed. I know, it's not a satisfactory answer, we'd like to have a "yes" or "no". But hey, this is how science works ;) -
JMurphy at 22:58 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Looking at Dr Pielke Sr's responses here and elsewhere, it appears to me that his views on global warming are determined more by his political outlook than by any evidence-based science. How can you look at some of his assertions and not see the cherry-picking to suit whatever point he is trying to make at any particular moment ? For example : "Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003." Can one really determine any statistical significance using a 6-year period ? ...global warming [which, of course, has not occurred since at least mid-2004!]. He wrote this in 2008. Does Dr Pielke Sr still agree with this ? If so, on what does he base his assertion ? ...lower troposphere from, say, 2001 to the present, if anything it is slightly falling Why choose 2001 ? What does he think of the trend up to the most recent figures ? ...since about 1995, if you put a linear plot since then, there has basically been no further cooling of the stratosphere Again, why choose 1995 ? Why not choose 2001, which was chosen for the lower troposphere ? Again, what does he think of the trend up to the most recent figures ? ...arctic ice level so it is higher than it was this time last year, How can anyone assert this as if it meant anything serious, especially a scientist ? What is it supposed to mean ? Again, what does he think of the most recent figures compared to this time last year ? ...Antarctica, for the last number of years, actually has been increasing in its sea ice coverage. How many years is 'the last number of years' ? What does he believe this means ? ...the climate hasn’t been warming over the last number of years. Again, How many years is 'the last number of years' ? Is it 'since at least mid-2004', as he asserted above ? Does he still agree with that assertion ? There is also this from an interview he gave last year : the globally averaged lower atmosphere has not warmed in the last nine years (and, in fact, is cooler than it was in 1998). How does this assertion (using a start date of 2000, presumably) tie-in with the previous claim of 'since at least mid-2004' assertion, which he wrote the previous year ? Is this what he meant by 'the last number of years' ? And why highlight the record temperature year of 1998 ? Does he think that 2010 will continue to prove his assertion that there has been no warming 'in the last nine years' ? Generally, I am always disappointed when I find scientists cherry-picking and letting their personal politics determine their assertions. In fact, Dr Pielke Sr's determination to continue along this line was confirmed by his recommendation of a book by his son. No surprise that a father would recommend his son : it was the title of that book that spoke volumes to me, and highlighted what I think is the rationale behind the views of certain people. The title of that book is 'The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming'. That encapsulates neatly what so-called skeptics believe, whether they are involved with the science or just believers of a certain viewpoint : AGW is a 'fix' (or conspiracy), being used by politicians to do whatever they want to do - usually restrict our freedoms, put up everyone's taxes and enrich themselves, of course. Especially Liberal or slightly-left-of-extreme-right politicians. And by associating scientists and politicians together, they can proclaim that scientists are in on the 'fix', doing it for the politicians, and enriching themselves or controlling us all by producing results that have already been agreed in advance by some secret cabal. It would all be very funny if it wasn't so sad and serious. Dr Pielke Sr, you won't care what I think of you but I am disappointed that there are scientists like you who are prepared to interpret and provide partial results in ways that give your audience what they want to hear, and which, purely and simply, conform to your political viewpoint. -
Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
Thanks for this note, Lee. It's great that you were able to use this site as a resource in the workshop. -
The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
thingadonta writes: LIA and low solar activity shows a good correlation, meaning small changes in solar output are magnified, ie positive feedback, possibly by clouds. If there are strong net positive feedbacks in the climate system, that means that climate sensitivity must lie on the high end of the range and 21st century warming will probably be worse than models predict. Is this really an argument you want to make? thingadonta continues: At least 2 provable lag effects with regards to solar activity are known -daytime maximum T after highest solar output (around 25% lag time), and seasonal maximum T (again, around 25% after maxmum solar output). Applying 25% lag time to the solar output from 1700-1950 indicates maximum T around 2010-now. Oh, come on; there's no physical basis for a constant "25% lag time" that can be consistently extrapolated across temporal scales from a single day to multiple centuries. But in any case, once again this would be bad news for the 21st century since it would mean that more of the impact from our previous CO2 emissions must still be "in the pipeline". thingadonta continues: Its interesting that you call the causes of LIA- a known event- as speculation, but something that hasnt even happened yet, projected T rises, this site calls their likely causes as solid as a rock! Why is that surprising? We can only study the LIA through sparse historical records, uncertain proxies, and climate models. We can't go back in time and place satellites in orbit to measure TSI, volcanic aerosols, etc. In contrast, we know much more about the current climate. We know that TSI is stable or slightly declining, we know that CO2 is increasing and that it's coming from fossil fuels rather than the oceans, and so forth. This is not to be dismissive of paleoclimate studies -- we really can learn a lot about the MWP, LIA, etc. from historical data, proxies, and models. But it shouldn't be at all surprising that we know much more about what's happening today. -
Mike_H at 21:55 PM on 10 September 2010Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
Just wanted to say thanks to the contributors on this site. I have followed a, perhaps misguided, mission to get on conservative web sites and use their comments section to try and correct the many false ideas out there. I am sure I have not changed many minds but this site has been invaluable in helping me counter ignorance with information. -
Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
My first post, I live in Brazil. I am totally a layman and would like to ask the following: It seems that several doubt the accuracy of the Argo data. So what other indices show that the warming continues from 2004? -
Josie at 19:07 PM on 10 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
I'm no expert but I thought that Dansgaard-Oeschger events didn't make the whole globe hotter, they made the hemispheres go in opposite directions, one hotter, one cooler. And I didn't think it was so well established that the timing is always so regular; I thought that there was still substantial disagreement about it (from sensible people, not the wingnuts). -
Philippe Chantreau at 18:34 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
Thingadonta at #13: we already discussed the diurnal temperature changes before and clarified that there was no "lag" so you should at least leave the diurnal cycle out of your speculations. A couple of months ago, Arkadiusz was kind enough to point out the SHALDRIL project. Milliken has studied the core extensively and says: " There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay. The current warming and associated glacial response in the northern Antarctic Peninsula appears to be unprecedented in its synchroneity and widespread impact." http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/11-12/1711.abstract -
jyyh at 18:33 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
What? Climate is weather averaged over 5 years? Has WMO changed the definition? n/t -
scaddenp at 17:50 PM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd - well ask them but they take measurements for a purpose and I suspect backradiation isnt that important for investigation CHANGES in evaporation on land. I do not think that seawater is like evaporation pans. What do you think would the liquid temperatures would be like at night in seawater compared to a pan? I would also guess that on land most evaporation happens in day time with little at night. Evaporation continues at night over sea because surface sea temperature dont fall much. By "Ground" temperature, I meant surface temperature. No backradiation and temperatures would plummet at night. The direct solar is stronger while its shining but backradiation continues at night. You seem to disbelieve backradiation because BOM doesnt it at their evaporation pan sites. How do you account for the measurements at the 1600 sites where it is measured then? -
johnd at 16:34 PM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp at 14:07 PM, why wouldn't they measure radiation from the atmosphere, that seems strange. Given it is supposed to be twice the magnitude of direct solar radiation it would then be the single largest input into the process. It doesn't make sense that you now claim that back radiation is manifest in the ground temperature. Ground temperature is very stable, it varies only slowly, especially if any moisture is present as the evaporation of moisture actually is a cooling process removing heat from the surface, and as can be seen, other factors have far greater influence in varying the rate. Ground temperatures do respond more rapidly once surface moisture has been removed through evaporation. These measurements are not strange or far removed from the conditions at sea. The actual measurement of evaporation is taken from water in a standard evaporation pan, the same as what would be used to measure evaporation rates in a marine environment. -
andrew adams at 16:23 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
Surely the "recovery from the LIA" argument fails on basic logic anyway? It's much warmer now than it was before the LIA, by that logic temperatures should have levelled off before now. It's like saying you are still climbing out of the valley when you are half way up the mountain. -
Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Albatross, I agree with everything you said. Except in my case it will be ice cream, not popcorn. I'll let those of you on the other side of the planet pick up the baton for a while. Good night. -
Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HumanityRules @116, my contention is not that the attempt to calculate OHC is almost pointless. My contention is that the calculation of OHC from ARGO data is in its infancy, and will take some time before it becomes a reliable measure. I actually agree with Dr. Pielke in one respect: when OHC can be measured directly and accurately, it will be an excellent tool for monitoring global warming. My point #3 was regarding sea level rise, which is currently the best proxy for OHC (though the steric contribution needs to be disentangled from the melting of terrestrial ice), not pre-ARGO temperature data. (Note, however, that sea level rise, which has continued on pace (see Albatross's post above), is a potential problem for humanity regardless of its origin.) You say: “For the sake of the OHC argument the evidence suggests we can ignore deep water as the location for this missing heat until the science changes.” That simply isn’t the case. The 2009 state of the climate report (linked earlier by Albatross, I believe), says: “Only with a truly global ocean observing system can we close fully the global energy and sea level budgets, so we must improve our observations of the ocean below 2000 m where Argo floats currently do not reach.” This point, again, emphasizes that the ARGO data alone are currently not enough to diagnose global warming. As for your final point, the central issue of this thread is not OHC. It is a statement made by Dr. Pielke that global warming halted during the period ~2004 to 2009. He based that assertion on the upper ocean heat content. But several lines of evidence, including those I presented, show him to be incorrect or, at best, overstating the available evidence. -
Rob Painting at 15:11 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HR @ 113 -" I don't think the identification of some faulty instruments in the system is necessarily a problem. The non-identification of such instruments is. I hope you acknowledge that Willis and others have actively sort these problem instruments and have corrected the data set on the basis of this." Yes and I hope you remember that Willis & Lyman published a paper in 2006 claiming the oceans had cooled, when in fact it was largely down to faulty instruments on the ARGO floats inducing a spurious cooling bias (and a warm bias in the XBT). Not only did they ignore the advice of other experts pointing out that their data may be flawed, if you read their paper they actually point the finger at the satellites measuring radiation at the top of the atmosphere suggesting the problems lay there. Recent cooling of the upper ocean "A likely source of the cooling is a small net imbalance in the 340 W/m2 of radiation that the Earth exchanges with space. Imbalances in the radiation budget of order 1 W/m2 have been shown to occur on these time scales and have been related to changes in upper OHCA [Wong et al., 2006]. These findings suggest that the observed decrease in upper ocean heat content from 2003 to 2005 could be the result of a net loss of heat from the Earth to space." As far as Willis is concerned, all I'm saying is he's been cocksure before, in the face of contradictory evidence, and in that case took some time before he accepted the problems lay at his doorstep. Now if you draw your attention to the link I provided @ 78: Two “micro-leak” defects leave some 25-35% of the Argo floats deployed between 11/2005 and 7/2009 vulnerable to errors in reported pressure and possible eventual failure of the transducer. Note the date of the bulletin (2nd March 2010), this is a separate issue from those identified several years ago, but again related to the pressure sensors on the ARGO floats. More spurious readings perhaps?. ARGO is a great idea, but attributing great certainty & accuracy to the data thus far, is a bit premature. -
Albatross at 15:09 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
CBW, OK, I have been hanging out in the stands with Rob Honeycutt :)But, I just wanted to drop in to stretch my legs and to clarify something. Willis said that there had been "little net warming" between 2005 and 2009 (?), that means that there was warming, albeit a little. That statement too flies in the face with what was confidently/definitively proclaimed by Pielke Snr.(as do the global SL data shown above and other metrics). That said, what can be stated is that given the uncertainties in the data, the noise and short window of time, the (current) data suggest that there was very little change in the global 0-700 m OHC over the short window in contention. Which reminds me, let us not forget the pitfalls of cherry-picking windows as illustrated/underscored by cynicus @23. Anyhow, I also wanted to add my support for MrJon's excellent summary @84. Perhaps Roger could post said text on his blog and ask Anthony to do the same? Looking forward to seeing the release of the latest OHC data this fall... Rob asked me to get some more popcorn, so I had better do that ;) {PS: For the record, I have absolutely no idea who "Rob" is, just trying to inject some humour...) -
sailrick at 14:55 PM on 10 September 2010How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
"...published science is telling us "we don't know enough", yet the blog post boldly states "we know it isn't the sun". You mean like all the supporting published articles referenced in the article? C'mon -
Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Roger, again we agree on something: I would be delighted for people to read your exchanges with Kevin and Josh, as well as the exchange here. It is unfortunate that so many people will be influenced by sensationalistic rhetoric and demagoguery rather than a rational evaluation of the whole body of evidence. It is unfortunate for us all that that the media has lost its independent voice in favor of commercial considerations, and that well-funded special interest organizations can corrupt rational discourse on our future by distorting the truth. The issue of climate change (and the human impact on the environment in general) may be extremely important to the future of humanity, and it needs to be evaluated with a meticulous regard for the truth. You quote Willis: "...there is little net warming over this period." Here, you misrepresent him. The actual quote is: “Since about 2005, most any analysis method that makes use of the Argo data should get approximately the same answer, which is that there is little net warming over this period.” This is an accurate statement. He did not say that there was no global warming, he said that the Argo data did not show warming. This is the central issue in this thread. You claim there was no global warming during the period in question. The most that can be said (and the only thing Willis said) was that the Argo data did not show warming during the period. Had that been your statement, this thread would not exist. You, however, elected to represent the Argo data as a complete picture of global warming and stated that warming had halted. Willis, others, and even you, have acknowledged that there are still unresolved issues with the Argo data, so it is absolutely not a complete picture at this time. You say: “Your comments #2 and #3 seem to miss this finding.” My comments #2 and #3 are excerpts taken not only directly from sources you cite, but from the actual quotes you included in your post. Both show that there was, in fact, warming during the period which you claim had no warming. Whether they were at odds with Willis or not is irrelevant -- they were at odds with your statement that warming had halted. How can you cite independent evidence of warming, but then claim no warming? It does not make sense.Moderator Response: [Graham] "Had that been your statement, this thread would not exist". Spot on! -
John Hartz at 14:08 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr. Pielke You postulate that global warming halted during the period 2004-2009. Why did global warming halt during this period? -
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
As far as I can see, they arent measuring radiation from the atmosphere. It is manifest in ground temperature - that would be very different without it, especially at night. I also find this emphasis on land evaporation (an extremely minor source of water vapour) rather strange as it has complicating factors not relevant to warm sea water. As for direct observation, well Philipona 2004 is one source while you may prefer Spencer's backyard experiment For systematic measurement network, see GEBA station network. As is often the case, Science of doom also has good discussion about the measurement. -
John Hartz at 14:03 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
HR 1 You state, “The NODC near realtime update of OHC shows that the oceans haven't been warming since 2004ish.” How much statistical noise is embedded in the annual OHC (upper layer only) computed by the NODC for this time period? Is the annual OHC to be computed by the NODC for 2010 likely to be higher, or lower, than the number computed for 2009? -
johnd at 13:44 PM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp at 09:50 AM, one of the features of climate science is that ultimately the results of all the hypothesis and theories must manifest themselves in the physical world in a manner that is not only readily observable, but measurable also. Thus perhaps given the magnitude of the back radiation as opposed to direct solar radiation, in order to better illustrate your explanation can you show where the back radiation exhibits itself, and the magnitude as measured in the table of data that is compiled daily by BOM specifically measuring evaporation rates and all the factors that drive such evaporation. Note that these tables are updated daily so you will need to save each days data if intending to refer to readings that appear on any one day. -
HumanityRules at 13:26 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
98.CBW Your point 1) repeats the idea that the ARGO system is riddled with sufficient problems to make the attempt to calculate OHC from it an almost pointless task. Yet your point 3) extols the trends derived from the long term OHC record. I still don't get the logic that the very sparse pre-ARGO data is fundementally of a better quality than the near global ARGO record. BTW I'm very happy to accept that the ARGO data is imperfect, I don't think anybody is arguing that its perfect. 2) Deep ocean is warming at rates that cannot account for Trenberth's "missing heat". That is the important detail here. For the sake of the OHC argument the evidence suggests we can ignore deep water as the location for this missing heat until the science changes. 112.CBW You appear more interested in scoring points against Roger than getting to the bottom of OHC. Number 2) being a case in point. -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 13:07 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
CBW - By "snapshot" this refers to a monthly exposure. Sorry if this was not clearer. There is no lag, however, with respect to heating and cooling as measured by Joules. The term "lag" is introduced when referring to the temperature response to a heating or cooling. Readers can evaluate from the entire post of the e-mail exchange between myself, Kevin Trenberth and Josh Willis on the confidence that Josh places in his analysis. No one claims the Argo data is error free. However, you misrepresent the topic he was talking about. In his statement "“Without cleaned up Argo and/or XBT data with reduced biases, I do not belive (sic) that we can actually say...”, the complete quote reads "Without cleaned up Argo and/or XBT data with reduced biases, I do not belive that we can actually say that the satellite data in recent years are more reliable than the ocean heat content estimates." he is discussing the use of Argo to assess the accuracy of the satellite derived radiative fluxes. You misintepreted the context. He wrote with respect to the time period since 2005 "...there is little net warming over this period." Your comments #2 and #3 seem to miss this finding. -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 12:53 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
zinfan94 Thank you for your further feedback. On your comment, "My bet is that there are problems with the Argo data being representative of the entire thermal energy accumulation in the oceans" Josh Willis has told me that an updated analysis will be available this Fall. If there are substantial remaining issues with the Argo data (and the satellite altimetry data also), we will find out then. -
HumanityRules at 12:40 PM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
78.Dappledwater I don't think the identification of some faulty instruments in the system is necessarily a problem. The non-identification of such instruments is. I hope you acknowledge that Willis and others have actively sort these problem instruments and have corrected the data set on the basis of this. It still stands that Willis now believes the data set to be robust and unlikely to undergo anymore major corrections. -
John Chapman at 12:39 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
In support of a non-global event, pasted direct from Wikepedia: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes areas affected by the LIA: Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.["Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-02] Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate." -
scaddenp at 12:32 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
No Daniel - I watch the subject with interest but it is outside my area of expertise. I have moments of wishing that I had specialised in quaternary geology - it certainly is fascinating. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:17 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
Re: scaddenp (12) Thanks for the update. Sounds like you have the makings and material for a SS post of your own on this. I, for one, would look forward to a review by you on it. The Yooper -
scaddenp at 12:04 PM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
thingadonta - "Your argument that 20th century warming post 1950 is based on tweaking model dials, can be untweaked if eg solar lag effects above are taken into such models. " This is simply not true and I dont think this discussion is improved by baseless assertions. There is a huge literature on model creation. Please show us where models are tweaked to fit a warming. Likewise, this detail of "lags". What makes you think that the underlying physics is missing from models? (Hint - how do think energy flows are calculated?). -
thingadonta at 11:52 AM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
A couple of points. -LIA and low solar activity shows a good correlation, meaning small changes in solar output are magnified, ie positive feedback, possibly by clouds. -At least 2 provable lag effects with regards to solar activity are known -daytime maximum T after highest solar output (around 25% lag time), and seasonal maximum T (again, around 25% after maxmum solar output). Applying 25% lag time to the solar output from 1700-1950 indicates maximum T around 2010-now. This explain the T increase since 1950 without much change form the sun, and should even continue to increase since solar output, unlike seasonal and daily effects,m hasnt declined much. Furthermore, the ocean is known to produce a longer lag effect on top of solar lag effects which apply to eg daily and seasonal effects, further enhancing/smearng out solar lag effects. Your argument that 20th century warming post 1950 is based on tweaking model dials, can be untweaked if eg solar lag effects above are taken into such models. Its interesting that you call the causes of LIA- a known event- as speculation, but something that hasnt even happened yet, projected T rises, this site calls their likely causes as solid as a rock! Have AGW proponents got their probabilities all mixed up? I think so. Moreover your comment •"Sudden population decreased caused by the Black Death may have resulted in a decrease of agriculture and reforestation of agricultural land. " is a bit of a fantasy. This is researchers reaching for a human effect where they cant find any, to bolster their paticular human-induced angle. T was dropping worldwide after MWP, and popluation worldwide was increasing. How this kind of thing can get a mention in line with a ball of variable nuclear reactions millions of time bigger than the earth, is beyond me. I think your discussion above is generally good/logical, but various parts/probabilities assigned will be shown to be misinterpreted/wrong in future years.Moderator Response: [Graham] You say " various parts/probabilities assigned will be shown to be misinterpreted/wrong in future years". OK - can I see your data on that please - or did you throw the tea leaves away? :) -
Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Roger, on one thing we agree: It’s a good thing we have blogs (that’s what the kids are calling them) so that misstatements can be refuted. 1. a) You say, “First, I have never used the term instantaneous" in this context.” You used the term “snapshot,” said there was “no lag” and said there was no need to present it in the context of a trend. How my use of the term “instantaneous” to refer to a “snapshot” of a slowly varying quantity, presented as a point on a plot, misrepresents your position I do not know, but I’m sure you can elaborate. b) Did you even read the quote by Willis that you posted? He says his analysis is robust, not the OHC result itself. And he says, “Without cleaned up Argo and/or XBT data with reduced biases, I do not belive (sic) that we can actually say...” So even he doesn’t believe the ARGO data is problem-free. And if you poke around in the literature a bit, you’ll find that no one else does, either. Except, apparently, you. 2. You cite: “...below 3000 m in the global oceans, and below 1000 m in the southern ocean, the ocean is taking up an energy equivalent of about a 0.1 W/m^2 energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere...” In other words, the ocean gained heat, in complete contradiction to your statement that global warming halted. 3. You cite: “...On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr)...” In other words, the ocean gained heat, in complete contradiction to your statement that global warming halted. -
scaddenp at 11:33 AM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
Daniel, I chatted with one of the authors (Barrell) about it over morning tea. He was more hesitant - probably global, but there are many issues relating things like the Be10 timescale calibration, understanding regional ice patterns, etc. In short, a lot of work still be done before the situation is clearer. Interhemispheric connections will be a research topic for a long time to come. -
Alexandre at 11:32 AM on 10 September 2010Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
Here in Brazil the Climate Change issue is not so polarized as in the US. No political party puts its reality in question, for instance. Even so, our press also has its moments of miseducation, be it deliberate or involuntary. In my amateur efforts to spread the present knowledge about the subject, I like to include: - regional projected climate change, as it relates more easily to the general intuitive understanding. - where our national emissions come from. - alternatives to emission and economic implications. -
MattJ at 11:21 AM on 10 September 2010Using Skeptical Science to improve climate literacy
The stigma Lee mentions, the stigma in the public's eye for being a "climate scientist", is a perfect example of why these workshops should have been started TWENTY YEARS AGO. Now it feels too much like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Still, it has to be done, even though now our descendants will receive far less benefit for it. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:19 AM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
Re: scaddenp (9), John Chapman (10) Surprisingly, I agree with Phil (thanks for reminding me of this study, Phil; I'd not had the pleasure of a fuller read of this one yet, so I really appreciate you bringing it to my attention again). I was able to locate a free copy of the study here. If you have a different take on this, let me know. From the text:Three main conclusions can be drawn. First, there is a notable interhemispheric disparity in the timing of the maximum ice extent. The Mount Cook glaciers were further advanced about 6500 years ago than at any subsequent time. In contrast, most Northern Hemisphere glaciers reached their greatest Holocene extents during the LIA (1300 to 1860 C.E.). Second, several glacier advances beyond the extent of the 19th century termini occurred in New Zealand during northern warm periods characterized by diminished or even smaller-than-today northern glaciers, such as between 7500 and 5500 years ago in the Swiss Alps (22) and Scandinavia (23), during the Bronze Age Optimum [about 1500 to 900 before the common era (B.C.E.)], during the Roman Age Optimum (200 B.C.E. to 300 C.E.), and during the MWP (800 C.E. to 1300 C.E.). Third, the greatest coherency between the Mount Cook and Northern Hemisphere records was during the Dark Ages (300 C.E. to 700 C.E.), and broad similarities were apparent during the past 700 years (the northern LIA), with multiple glacier advances followed by a general termination commencing in the mid- to late 19th century. However, northern Holocene moraine sequences are dominated by the LIA-maximum terminal moraine less than 400 years old (typically mid-19th century in the Swiss Alps and mid-18th century in Scandinavia), whereas the most prominent moraine of the past millennium at Mueller Glacier is about 570 years old and is followed inboard by several smaller moraines. This pattern of broad consistency but differing detail of glacier behavior has continued over the past 150 years. Our results are in accord neither with the hypothesis of interhemispheric synchrony of mid- to late Holocene climate change nor with a rhythmic asynchrony, downplaying the importance of global driving mechanisms. This includes solar irradiation changes translating quasi-linearly into near-surface climate. However, recent studies show that climate models driven by solar changes can induce regionally distinct temperature changes (26), and indeed the Mount Cook moraine chronology shows some similarities to the solar record [e.g., (26)]. ...our study shows that mid- to late Holocene glacier fluctuations were neither in phase nor strictly antiphased between the hemispheres, and therefore it is likely that regional driving or amplifying mechanisms have been an important influence on climate.
My take: While some of the moraine, tree and glacier data is consistent with the LIA being a global event, some is not, which the authors themselves note. However, while checking the cites on this one, I found this other study on glaciers in Peru with more robust findings (enough so I won't bother to waste the time to summarize). It does offer up some interesting rationale as to the why, which I'll leave for someone else to dig into, if they're interested. It was good enough to convince me. After reading this one, Phil, I am satisfied with your correction of me that the LIA was most likely a global event, albeit one with some localized temporal asymmetry. I was wrong in my original contention and appreciate being enlightened. I blame low blood-alcohol levels. :) The Yooper -
johnd at 11:13 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
I'm not sure if this point has been already considered earlier or not, but whenever circulation of ocean waters is being examined with regards to the transport of heat, should this mechanism also be held as being the exact same means as CO2 is circulated. I cannot see as how a body of water could carry one without the other given both are absorbed and released at the surface, and the CO2 molecules themselves carry thermal energy. In addition is the release of a CO2 molecule also a means of transferring the thermal energy carried by the CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere, as well as within the ocean itself? -
zinfan94 at 10:56 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr. Pielke - Yes, I agree on one point. If the Argo data is accurate, and if the upper mixed layers are not heating substantially due to transport of heat to deeper depths, this is a very favorable result because it would give us time to mitigate GHG driven AGW. I hope the Argo data is correct. However, the SLR data clearly show that thermal expansion of the oceans continues. This data is quite robust, and overturning observed SLR is quite unlikely. Far more likely is some problems with Argo measurements, and somewhat more likely is thermal flows into the deep ocean, or some combination of both. If the Argo data is correct, then sea levels should have already flattened. The fact that they haven't is a big problem with the hypothesis that Argo data measure all the heat absorbed by the oceans. If SLR was entirely due to ice melt, the GRACE data on Greenland and Antarctica ice melt is much too low, as well as topographic measurement of these ice sheets. It isn't likely that two different ice sheet measurement systems, which more or less agree with other, are both wrong. OTOH, if SLR was entirely due to thermal expansion, then the amount of heat being absorbed into the oceans is higher than 140 x 10^20 joules in your estimates. Therefore, clearly SLR is due both to thermal expansion and ice sheet melt. The other issue with SLR; the increase in SLR during El Nino periods is greater that La Nina periods, so some sort of thermal energy change in the mixed layer is occurring. Eli Rabett commented earlier on the large increases at certain periods in the OHC record, versus the relatively flat OHC from the preliminary Argo data. There does seem to be some evidence for large swings in the thermal energy stored in the upper levels of the ocean. The swings are larger than can be explained by exchanging heat into the atmosphere. So this is another problem with your hypothesis... My bet is that there are problems with the Argo data being representative of the entire thermal energy accumulation in the oceans. -
John Chapman at 10:45 AM on 10 September 2010The Little Ice Age: Skeptics skating on thin ice
My understanding from the literature is that the LIA was confined to northern Europe, and there is suggestion that it is linked to the behaviour of jetstreams in reponse to solar activity (sunspots). The same response that has been seen in the last few years while solar activity has been low. Jetstreams dipping, cold winters in Europe - but not in Alaska. If indeed it is accepted that the LIA was restricted then it deserves mentioning in the basic version post. -
scaddenp at 09:50 AM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd - you do have it backwards. The solar radiation is 168 and the backradation is 324 - more than twice solar. I defy you to come up with some physics that can cause a molecule to move from liquid to gas without heating the liquid. Evaporation is physically limited and wind doesnt vary enough to change that. For global average, wind doesnt change much so evaporation losses are almost entirely tied to temperature. In terms of FORCINGS, wind etc is irrelevant. Change solar or change backradiation (put in more GHG) and evaporation will increase, but you cant change evaporation independently. -
Roger A Pielke Sr at 09:37 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
zinfan94 - Thank you for your thoughtful comments. With respect to transport of heat to deeper depths that is not sampled, of course, this is possible. However, the thermocline mutes vertical transfers below that level, and most ocean vertical circulations cover a relatively large area and should be reasonably well sampled by Argo except in ice covered areas. If we accept, however, that heat has moved downwards but is not sampled, this is still in conflict with the multi-decadal climate model predictions that I am aware of. This heat also would not be likely available to quickly remerge from these deeper levels back into the atmosphere so as to directly affect weather features. -
johnd at 09:16 AM on 10 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
KR at 08:33 AM, I'm not sure that I do have cause and effect reversed. Even though all processes occur at the very molecular surface of the water, the solar energy is of far greater magnitude than any back radiation, so the water would be responding immediately by evaporating and only any energy unused by that process then being absorbed by the body of water that then radiates at a rate depending on it's temperature. Evaporation however is dependent on more factors than merely solar radiation or ambient temperatures. It is highly dependent on wind. Whilst there may be limited information that has been collected from the surfaces of the oceans, very detailed information has been collected on land regarding evaporation, and evaporation rates that allows examination of exactly what order of influence each factor occupies, and ambient air temperature, or soil temperatures are not what evaporation responds most immediately to. The information on this link, http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV65176.shtml#notes, if followed over a period of time may allow greater understanding of where evaporation falls within the cycle of all events that attempt to achieve equilibrium in the global heat budget. -
adelady at 09:14 AM on 10 September 2010Ocean acidification isn't serious
Jim, they probably aren't gardeners. Gardeners fully understand more and less acidic/alkaline in relation to soils. Though I think it would be pushing it to propose an analogy based on blue and pink hydrangea blooms. -
zinfan94 at 09:14 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr. Pielke, I first should apologize for my previous comment deleted by the commentator. I am more used to the rather rough environment over on WUWT, and should have moderated my comments to a more civilized site. I want to address a couple of the three points you just presented. Point 1. regarded the ability of Argo to measure the heat flow through the upper mixed layer, and Point 2. discussed the possible heat flow into the deeper ocean. I am a chemical process engineer familiar with heat balances, so I took a look at the amount of heat that models claim should be heating the oceans. (BTW, I agree whole heartedly that we should be attempting to measure heat flows, not temperatures. The term global warming is unfortunate, because in reality the planet has been storing a lot of thermal energy, and has been for a long time. A better term would be planetary heating, not global warming.) In any case, the amount of heat that should be heating the oceans is about 100 to 140 x 10^20 joules per year. This is a lot of thermal energy, but not outrageously high. Thermal energy released by burning fossil fuels is about 4 x 10^20 joules, so this is about 25x to 35x the amount of heat from using fossil fuels. So lets examine the case where this heat is transported by a sinking column of seawater into the deeper ocean. If the seawater was 1.0 deg C warmer than upwelling water somewhere else in the ocean, it would only take a flow of about 3.3 cubic miles per minute of seawater to carry the "missing" amount of thermal energy into the deeper ocean. If the seawater was sinking at one foot per second, which is a reasonable estimate of velocity, then less than 300 square miles of the 139 million square miles of ocean might be involved in this sequestration of heat into the deeper ocean. Another way to express this, only slightly over 2 square miles out of each million square miles of ocean would be involved. It isn't very likely that the Argo system would be able to find and measure a thermal flow like this. If there were 1000 sites scattered around the ocean, each would have an average effective diameter of one kilometer; and even if an Argo float did pass through one of these areas, I am not sure the Argo is data processed in such a manner that we could identify the heat flow. I don't agree with your earlier assertion on this thread, that Argo would measure the heat passing through the mixed layer that ends up in the deeper ocean. Although these points are interesting, point 3. regarding the inconsistency between the Argo data and SLR is the key problem with your hypothesis. For some reason you don't want to accept that recent observations of SLR has put the metric roughly back on the same trend line as observed over the last 25 years or so (approximately 3 mm per year). Last year (June 30, 2009) you posted on WUWT that SLR had flattened. But once the 2009/2010 El Nino kicked in, the SLR resumed. Depending on how much SLR is due to land based ice melt versus thermal expansion of water, the SLR confirms that a significant amount of thermal expansion has occurred such that there must be significantly more ocean heating than the Argo data show. Clearly the SLR data is inconsistent with your interpretation of the Argo data. I agree with ocean heating being the key metric of the heating of the planet, but disagree that the Argo data is the best measure of that. Until proven, and until the conflict with SLR is explained, the SLR data seem a far better measure of the ocean heat buildup. -
kdkd at 08:56 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
Dr Pielke seems to have admitted (in a round about way) that while theoretically, Joule imbalance is the best measure of global warming, on a practical level the measurement systems are not yet good enough to do so in a way that we can make strong conclusions from short time spans. I'm also releived that we're getting some explicit treatment of measurement uncertainty from Ken Lambert as well. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:49 AM on 10 September 2010Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
NETDR... But by most analysis 1C is way down on the probability curve. The IPCC states between 1.5C to 6.2C with something around 3C being most likely. There is a good lecture on Youtube by Dr Richard Alley called "Taming the Long Tail of the Distribution" that is well worth watching. If you are using 1C as the basis of your position then you logically need to place equal weight on the potential for 7C or better. IMO it would be foolish to toddle along assuming 1C with uncertainty as high as it is. Better to plan for the 3C median with our eyes wide open for the long tail. -
Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd - You have cause and effect reversed here. Solar energy is absorbed by the water, warming it, and then the warmer water increases it's evaporation rate, providing a negative feedback (limiting response) on the temperature rise of that water. You had that order backwards. And that water also emits IR (water being close to a black body spectrum emitter). Both the IR and latent heat in the evaporated water warm the air over the water, which emits IR in response - providing backradiation (positive feedback) to the water and limiting it's cooling via IR and evaporation. On the other hand, I completely agree that the changes in rates of various energy exchanges is of definite interest. We're an awfully long way away from boiling any oceans, though. Nobody is predicting that.
Prev 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 Next
