Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 Next
Comments 110701 to 110750:
-
Daved Green at 15:25 PM on 7 September 2010Antarctica is gaining ice
Might be interesting to keep a watch on Antarctic sea ice extent and the rate of change , it seems to be doing some interesting things down there . -
Tom Dayton at 14:32 PM on 7 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
GC, my comment on that more relevant thread complements scaddenp's comment that he has correctly put on that other thread. Gee, it seems you've made that same contention on that other thread earlier, and were given the same information in return. But you never responded and now are repeating the same contention.Moderator Response: Everybody please follow scaddenp's example by continuing this discussion on that other thread. -
scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 7 September 2010Station drop-off: How many thermometers do you need to take a temperature?
(Replying to GC from another thread but more relevant here). GC - the article you cite shows that dropping the stations doesnt produce a warming bias. However, your post implies that you think that wicked scientists are willfully holding back data that they should be using. However the data isnt in their hands to withhold. To quote NCDC. "The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. The rise in maximum and minimum temperature stations and grid boxes in 1995 and 1996 is due to the World Meteorological Organization’s initiation of international exchange of monthly CLIMAT maximum and minimum temperature data over the Global Telecommunications System in November 1994." (Source here Of course nothing that a willingness to pay more tax on your part to support these data collations wouldn't fix... -
scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 7 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
GC - the article you cite shows that dropping the stations doesnt produce a warming bias. However, your post implies that you think that wicked scientists are willfully holding back data that they should be using. However the data isnt in their hands to withhold. To quote NCDC. "The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. The rise in maximum and minimum temperature stations and grid boxes in 1995 and 1996 is due to the World Meteorological Organization’s initiation of international exchange of monthly CLIMAT maximum and minimum temperature data over the Global Telecommunications System in November 1994." (Source here Of course nothing that a willingness to pay more tax on your part to support these data collations wouldn't fix... -
gallopingcamel at 13:44 PM on 7 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
michael sweet (#46) Amen to the idea of using all the data. I totally support John Cook on that one. When it comes to selecting surface weather stations for inclusion in HADCRUT3, GHCN and NOAA/GISS databases the same idea should apply. Yet this excellent website seems to meekly accept that over 80% of the available stations have been discarded since 1975. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Station-drop-off-How-many-thermometers-do-you-need-to-take-a-temperature.html -
HumanityRules at 13:39 PM on 7 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
I thought Ryan Maue's website might be useful for the discussion. The final section in Graham's article "Never mind the frequency, feel the width" worries me. What seemed to be the most recent concensus was summed up in a Nature paper earlier this year. It was authored by most of the personalities involved in the debate and seems to have come to the conclusion that we can not yet distinguish any anthropogenic signal in the hurricane data. They remain certain of future predictions. So Graham's comments should really be in the future tense rather than the present tense. Any suggestion that the recent increase in any hurricane metric is anything but part of the natural variability is wrong. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:16 PM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Re: HR (19) Thanks for the Pielke link. Perhaps it's just me, but does anyone else see the irony in this quote from the link:"What would be useful is for the weblog Skeptical Science authors to discuss the value of using (and issues with using) the accumulation of Joules in the climate system as the primary metric to monitor global warming."
and that Pielke allows no comments on his post urging more discussions at Skeptical Science? The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 12:52 PM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
You seem to have riled the beast. :) Skeptic and denier do seem to be inappropriate with regard to Pielke snr. 18.Pete Dunkelberg Agreed but there is absolutely no reason to believe that energy is transferred to the deep at rates that would clear up the missing heat problem, as things stand we almost certainly have to look somewhere else. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:00 PM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Conservation of energy is fairly classical, and much better known than ocean currents. -
kdkd at 11:16 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
BP #5 I fear that you are creating false expectations that the measurement model for ocean heat can be more precise than is currently possible. I'd expect to see detailed statistical work demonstrating the validity of the problem you allege that you have observed, not just a mere assertion, which is the current status of what you have written. On a related note, I see that you are allowing an accusation that you may be engaging in scientific fraud to go unchallenged. -
TOP at 11:09 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Glenn Actually there have been studies of Ocean Basins. Interestingly the Basin that is warming the most is the South Ocean and there have been basins in the North that have cooled. The Dutch paper touches on some of that. Waar blijft de energie van het versterkte broeikaseffect? I find it rather interesting that we don't see weather in the oceans like we do on the surface. Maybe it is there but at a much slower time scale. -
actually thoughtful at 10:45 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
I think Trenbeth is right that this is a very sad state of affairs (not being able to show where the heat is). If you think of the ocean as a water heater (cylinder for some readers) - you can maintain incredible stratification. I have seen 40F at the bottom of a 4 foot tank and 140F on the top (ie 55C across 1.3 meters). But this requires NO mixing! So if the oceans are mixing, that kind of stratification is not going to happen. It is relatively hard to get warmer water to go DOWN a column of water. I will be very surprised if we find oodles of heat at lower depths. Which, to my mind, makes it a mystery. It is one the VERY few chinks in climate theory. As you blast away at my comment - no need to tell me I have oversimplified - I promise that I know that! -
actually thoughtful at 10:31 AM on 7 September 2010What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?
52 embarrassed skeptics (if they are honest) -
HumanityRules at 10:02 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
4.Gordon "it is very clear to me why Pielke did not use 2001 as the starting point for his claim." The ARGO system that measures OHC saw a huge expansion in instruments around 2003. This gave something closer to global coverage. It makes sense to highlight a 'complete' data set and avoid comparing this to a spatially and temporally weak data set. As BP has pointed out energy in the ocean should be a relatively stable beast, it's difficult to generate real world mechanisms that allow large, fast shifts in the amount of measured energy once you have a reliable, global measuring system. 8.Pete Dunkelberg and 12.Glenn Tamblyn Classical theory of the oceans is that energy is only slowly transferred to greater depths. I'm not against overturning concensus ideas but ........ -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:34 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Perhaps also as a general point wrt the basic versions. Should they link to the scientific papers directly, or should they link to the corresponding sections on the intermediate level. I also think the second graph is confusing for a basic level description. You need to go to the paper to understand the significance of the different lines and the whole point of basic posts is to avoid that level of complexity. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:31 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
It might be worth stressing that the Levitus study relates to the upper ocean, top 700m, that the Argo floats sample down to 2000m, the average depth of the oceans is 3800m and the maximum over 10,000m. There is a lot of uncertainty about what is happening down deep and the change of heat content of the top 700m is the difference between the heat flux in from above and the heat flux out to deeper levels -
michael sweet at 09:05 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
I also think the diagram is crystal clear. That is not the problem. We spent over 300 posts on the waste heat and related threads trying to explain the exchange of heat in the atmosphere to Johnd and RSVP and at the end they still did not understand. Since my last post scaddenp, Tom Dayton and Phil have all tried to help. I doubt that they will succeed. -
michael sweet at 08:56 AM on 7 September 2010Hurricanes And Climate Change: Boy Is This Science Not Settled!
I noticed that the Pew graph used ALL the available data from the north atlantic. BP's US landfall graph probably uses 5% of the data, (or less). This relates to John Cook's mantra that we need to look at all the data and not just one litle piece. You can look at 5% and say that you see no pattern, only noise. Or you can look at the whole picture. -
scaddenp at 08:49 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Well the diagram seems crystal-clear to me - a brilliant depiction of the energy flows. However, it isnt going to make sense if you dont understand the individual processes, especially black-body and greenhouse which I guess is the source of confusion. Since it is a pciture of global heat flows, I cant see what you could gain by day/night - its day somewhere, night somewhere. -
MattJ at 08:37 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Scadenp, #65: the way this argument drags out shows the weakness of using that diagram. Indeed: some years ago, I remember being told that one of the famous French math journals, I forget which, had banned articles including proofs which were in turn based on diagrams. Their attitude was that if you need a diagram, then you had not worked out your proof in sufficient detail and rigor. I suspect the same thing is going on here. I have yet to see a good diagram on this issue, Trenberth's is copied over and over -- and is misinterpreted over and over. Yet somehow all these people copying his diagram seem to have forgotten the old saying: the definition of insanity is repeating the same failed operation over and over and expecting a different result. The biggest failing I see in Trenberth's diagram is that although sure, the energies add up as you say, the huge value of energy in backradiation is never explained, and seems to even violate conservation of energy when compared to the energy irradiated at top of atmosphere -- wherever that really is. Then more confusion is added by using yearly average figures, where the energies are averaged over day and night, even though the picture of the energy flows (in particular, their directions) is so very different. -
Tom Dayton at 07:40 AM on 7 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
That's strange, George--I don't see the quote you say you took. However, I suggest the best venue for discussion of this particular topic is in the comments section of your blog, where Steve Easterbrook himself has responded well. -
Tom Dayton at 07:28 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd, the conversion of latent heat to sensible heat by the condensation of water vapor does not happen at the surface. It happens in the atmosphere. Thermals transfer energy only from the surface up, not down. Hot air rises, it does not sink. Those two heat "sources" (note the quote marks) heat the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere radiates up and down. -
gmcrews at 07:25 AM on 7 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
Hi Tom (#22): Thanks for the suggestion. But the entire post is based on a quote I took out of that exact post by Easterbrook. Should I aver that I did not stop reading when I got to that quote in the post? Or that I subscribe to Dr. Easterbrook's blog? I would be glad to discuss the merit of Argument From Authority to decide if IV&V for climate codes is meaningless. George -
johnd at 07:17 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 05:31 AM, there is no dispute as to whether overall the energy budget is balanced or not, or that the energy received at the surface and leaving the surface is the same. That is what compiling an energy budget is all about, so I am bewildered how you can confuse quantifying the nett contribution each process makes to that balance with the combined nett result. Is this a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, I doubt it. It appears that the point of there being a nett loss of heat from the surface when back radiation is offset against heat radiated off is being avoided simply because the maths of -390 plus 324 = -66 is not compatible with a notion that would be satisfied if it was a positive value instead of the negative one it is. If it was a positive value, then the overall balance would still be maintained by additional energy being input into the evaporation process or thermals and transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by those means. If we were to look at it the other way, the heat energy that is lost through evaporation is in part being driven by the heat energy contained in the rain that returns to earth, and a portion of that energy then becomes part of the energy that increases the heat that is being radiated off. The most basic law of physics confirms that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. The argument that you are making is that even though energy is being utilised in one process, it is still available to be used in another process concurrently. That often is demonstrated by accountants as being possible, and widely believed by the masses to be true, but at the end of the day it is simply a matter that someone couldn't tell the difference that a negative value makes to the balance sheet as opposed to a positive value. A deficit is not a surplus, nor a debt an asset, but there are many who will claim otherwise. Is it that when the house purchased for $390,000 is sold for $324,000, that $66,000 then becomes available to renovate the house just sold? That is the argument being put. -
scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd - looking further at all your comments, you seem to making inappropriate divisions. That evaporation energy only comes from the solar input; that surface radiation is only tied to backradiation etc. The surface would radiate from the solar input alone if there was no atmosphere - you cant make that separation. What warms the water? ALL the incoming energy. What causes the surface radiation? The energy from ALL incoming radiation. What causes backradiation? All the energy in the atmosphere whatever the origin. -
MattJ at 07:11 AM on 7 September 2010Spanish and Catalan translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
That's all very nice, but I really don't think it is the Spanish-speaking part of the world that is the lead player in obstructing action on AGW. It is the English-speaking parts, esp. Canada (that immensely destructive shale oil project), our own USA, and now, India. The next language population that needs to be targeted is either Russia or China. After the huge wildfires in Russia, they are more likely to listen now than just two years ago, though it will still be a huge uphill battle to get them to stop selling oil and gas. Why, stopping it is still out of the question: with much luck, we may get them to shift to more gas than oil, cutting back on both. But in order to get Russia to cut back, China has to stop buying so much oil. But China still hasn't taken the hint from the dust storms battering their capital, they bring online another coal-fired power plant each week. So the Chinese translation is probably the most urgent. Finally, as for the comments on languages, I have little trouble understanding Castilian even though I hear and speak only Latin American Spanish. And in fact, the formal written Spanish they study in school in Mexico and South America really is quite close to Castilian: it is the many who never got past 3rd grade who have trouble understanding Castilian. Perhaps this is why I even hear popular singers (on the Spanish language radio-stations here in California) singing in Castilian, pronouncing "thinko" instead of "sinco" for "cinco". -
scaddenp at 07:05 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
GC - Feedback is context of current discussion is something that changes in response to temperature. Water and CO2 in atmosphere are dependent on temperature so both are feedbacks. Forcings are changes that are independent of temperature. Emitting millions of year accumulation of CO2 into the atmosphere is a forcing. It will cause CO2 feedbacks as well. In contrast, you cant change the H2O in the atmosphere independent of temperature, so it cant be a forcing. John Cook - how about a simple spreadsheet on the site (illustrative purposes only) to show how feedbacks work? eg T = k1 * solar + k2*GHG + c1 GHG = f1 * T + c2 Then iterate through time. -
Tom Dayton at 07:03 AM on 7 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
gmcrews, I suggest you read Steve Easterbrook's recent post, "I Never Said That!" -
MattJ at 06:59 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
BTW: a word like 'monotonic' really doesn't belong in a basic version either. I first saw the word in a High School Calculus class. Those who didn't get that far have never seen it. -
MattJ at 06:57 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Answering 3^ Very Tall Guy: yes, it does, but in a basic version, we really do want to avoid terms like SNR. The target audience just blanks out and stops reading it. This is unfortunate, since it is not THAT hard a concept, but that is the reality we have to deal with. -
Phil at 06:55 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
JohnD So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. You do not need to add thermal energy to CO2 to make it enter the atmosphere, unless your planet is below -78C (~200K). This is a sublimation point of CO2 (when solid turns to gas). You do need to add energy to H2O because it is a liquid (or solid) at normal earth temperatures. Liquids, such as H2O, (but not CO2 which is a gas) do have a vapour pressure which, as several people have tried to explain to you, is dependent only on temperature. This is why it is a feedback; if the temperature of the atmosphere increases (by whatever means) then the vapour pressure of water increases too. More water vapour in the atmosphere means more IR absorption which means that the heat that will escape into space is retained in the atmosphere for longer, and so the planet heats up. You are still confused about rates of evaporation, seeming to think that this affects the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This is simply wrong. If the rate of evaporation slows (without the temperature changing) then so does the rate of condensation - so no change in the overall amount. -
MattJ at 06:55 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
I love the comparison with lung cancer and shortness of breath! That choice of an example is hard hitting, succinct, and persuasive. -
scaddenp at 06:55 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd - I am not skirting anything. I am trying to put my finger on which part of fundamental physics you do not understand. I am really struggling to make your sense of comments at all. eg you claim surface losses 390 but only gains 324 so a net loss of 66 which must cool the surface. Huh??? LOOK at the diagram. The surface gains: 168(solar) + 324 (backradiation) = 492 It losses: 390(radiation) + 24 (thermal) + 78 (evaporation) = 492! They balance as they must. I am at loss as to how you could interpret the diagram the way you have. -
gmcrews at 06:31 AM on 7 September 2010Is climate science settled? Especially the important parts?
IMHO, the predictive skill of the climate models have not been formally and empirically demonstrated (as in IV&V). I am not sure if this should be considered a "The Science Is Settled" issue or not. Besides sensitivity studies, the models are primarily used as the basis of political policy -- not the thrust of this blog, of course. If the topic seems interesting, there has been a recent discussion on the current adequacy of verification and validation of the models here. For example, Dr. Steve Easterbrook argues there that conventional IV&V for the climate models may well be meaningless. -
michael sweet at 05:59 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
David, Yooper's list is more comprehensive than mine. As you read more you find sites that cater to what you are interested in. I read a lot about ice and not much about changes in animal behaviours. Skeptical Science covers a lot of issues at a basic level and there are often references to other sites for more detailed information. Realclimate is very good but also technical. -
michael sweet at 05:31 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Johnd: As I pointed out at post 56 the amount of energy reaching the surface and leaving the surface are EXACTLY the same. This is required by the second law of thermodynamics. There is no "net loss of heat", you are completely wrong. You are ignoring the input energy from the sun. The energy to evaporate the water comes from the combination of energy from the sun and backradiation. You cannot separate the two as you are trying to do. You have to add them together. The energy budget is closed, there is no loss or gain in the illustration. I am not confused about energy loss, you do not understand the illustration. Perhaps if you read some of the background material we contiously post you would begin to understand the basics. You do not understand the greenhouse effects of CO2 and H2O either. I do not have the time to explain it to you now. In any case, you do not listen to what is explained to you and it would waste my time. I continue posting so that if anyone lurking is reading the exchange and wants an answer they can see what is wrong with your arguments. I am growing tired of having to constantly repeat my previous posts. You are apparently unable to understand the basics of energy exchange in the atmosphere. In addition, you do not understand the simple chart that scaddenp posted. I do not want this to become another "waste heat" discussion so I am not going to post any more about this subject. Your basic understanding of energy exchange is so flawed that it appears to be impossible to convey to you even the most simple facts. I suggest you review the post scaddenp made and his references and see what you can make of it. If you think that professional scientists have left out a large factor that means that you do not understand the paper. You would make a better impression if you said: "I do not understand what this illustration means" rather than "these scientists are wrong". The scientists are right. You do not understand the basic physics. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:31 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
BP:If it were true, this energy had to come from somewhere. As the oceans have by far the largest heat storage capacity in the climate system, no internal heat reservoir can supply this heat, it can only come from outside. The upper ocean is directly attached to the lower ocean. Too little is known about the vertical component of ocean currents. But your (BP) next statement: To support this sudden OHC increase, [assuming no connection between upper and lower ocean] there should have been a transient drop of 6 W/m2 in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), but nothing like that was seen by satellites. leads to the conclusion that .... -
davidwwalters at 04:24 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Yooper, 'Preciate it, it'll keep me busy i'm sure. -
TOP at 04:09 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Not so fast. Waar blijft de energie van het versterkte broeikaseffect?. "The analysis of Levitus et al (2009) also shows, however, that the energy uptake of the oceans between 2004 and 2008 is stalled, at least in the upper 700 m (red dotted line in Figure 2). There is no reason to believe that the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere during this period was in balance. Trenberth and Fasullo did not know where the anthropogenic greenhouse energy, which since 2004 has accumulated in the climate system has gone. They consider it very unlikely that this energy as a whole accounted for melting of sea ice and ice of glaciers, ice caps and permafrost." Roughly Translated -
Tom Dayton at 03:09 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd, the energy needed to convert CO2 and H2O from liquid or solid to gas is not relevant to the greenhouse gas feedback versus forcing topic. What is relevant is that in the conditions present on Earth (versus, say, Mars), there are vast pools of liquid water ready to go into the air as soon as the air's temperature is high enough to hold more water as vapor. And there are vast numbers of particles in the air, ready to be nuclei of water vapor precipitation. In fact, both mechanisms operate continuously even while the air's temperature and therefore water vapor capacity are constant, because individual molecules of water continuously swap positions with other molecules among liquid and gas communities. What stays constant with a constant air temperature is the overall average water vapor concentration. In contrast, there are no pools of liquid or solid CO2. And the Earth's air temperatures are far too hot for CO2 to precipitate. Low air temperature is not a limiting factor on CO2 concentration in the air. -
VeryTallGuy at 02:40 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Berenyi Peter, If you look at the graph, it's impossible to miss the noise; ascribing the accuracy you do to a single quarter's information is laughable. gpwayne I think the explanation is good, but I'd suggest not quoting Pielke in the opening paragraph; it sets up the piece as ad-hom rather than pro-science (I know that's not the intent). HumanityRules I guess whether or not 7-8 years is a trend depends on the signal to noise ratio of the data as well as the time period. I've no idea what the GRACE data looks like personally.Moderator Response: [graham] Hey VTG - nice to see you! I know what you mean about the quote - see below for link to Pielke's response, characterising it as an ad-hom - but in truth all these 'basic' rebuttals are being written to be consistent with the intermediate versions. John Cook chose to use the quote as a fair representation of the overall skeptical argument, and I don't believe it is inappropriate. In fact, reading Pielke's defence rather confirms my point - but see what you think for yourself. -
johnd at 02:32 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 01:41 AM, neither CO2 nor water vapour can have any effect whatsoever without the thermal energy each absorbs. Without absorbing sufficient thermal energy CO2 would not even be able to be present in the atmosphere, so it is no different to water vapour in that respect. So can you explain why by adding sufficient thermal energy to CO2 by whatever means to enable it to enter the atmosphere, it is considered a forcing, whereas by adding sufficient thermal energy to H2O by whatever means it is considered a feedback. Thermal energy must be available from other sources before either can become part of the atmosphere, thus both are solely in the atmosphere as feedbacks before any follow on effects can be determined. -
Tom Dayton at 02:07 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Galloping Camel, water vapor's level in the Earth's atmosphere is limited by temperature. Putting more into the air merely causes an equivalent amount of water vapor to precipitate out. Removing more merely causes an equivalent amount to evaporate in. So the temperature cannot be "forced" higher or lower by using addition or subtraction of water vapor as the primary forcer. As Michael Sweet wrote, the water vapor level reacts to an increase in air temperature that itself has any cause. An example of such a cause is forcing of temperature to be higher by humanity's injection of CO2. Water vapor level increases as a feedback from the increased CO2 level, through the intermediary of increased air temperature. But you are correct insofar as the additional water vapor due to the increased temperature does in turn increase the temperature, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But that increase of temperature is strictly limited; it does not run away. And the initial temperature increase that started this chain of events cannot be due to water vapor, as I explained in my first paragraph. That's why water vapor is not a "forcing," but only a "feedback" from some other forcing. -
johnd at 02:03 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
michael sweet at 10:42 AM, Phil, you are getting it all back to front. I am trying to explain to you something that you don't understand. Or perhaps you do, as rather than concede it you skirt around it by not actually referring to the specific point. that being what a nett loss of heat, in this case 66, really means in terms of heating and cooling. Thermal energy, heat, is radiated of from the water and thermal energy, heat, is radiated back to the water by the atmosphere, the amount radiated off dependent on each of their relative heat contents, or temperatures. As the diagram shows the heat radiated off 390, is greater than the heat radiated back, 324, from the atmosphere. Thus due to the absorption of solar energy, converted to thermal energy, the water is warmer than the atmosphere to the extent that the difference, 66, is a nett loss of heat from the water to the atmosphere. That is clearly a transfer of energy that cools the water. It is simply is not logical to claim such loss of heat is a warming effect on the body losing the heat. Perhaps you are confusing the rate of heat loss with direction?? -
Berényi Péter at 01:48 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Levitus 2009 is bogus anyway. They suppose a large jump in OHC at the turn of 2002/2003. It is about 7.3×1022J during the forth quarter of 2002 and the first two quarters of 2003.
If it were true, this energy had to come from somewhere. As the oceans have by far the largest heat storage capacity in the climate system, no internal heat reservoir can supply this heat, it can only come from outside. To support this sudden OHC increase, there should have been a transient drop of 6 W/m2 in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), but nothing like that was seen by satellites.
6 W/m2 is huge and there is no way to miss it. It is equivalent to a 1.6°C drop in the effective temperature of Earth as seen from space.
-
michael sweet at 01:41 AM on 7 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
GC: Both CO2 and H2O absorb IR and are greenhouse gasses. Because of its short 1/2 life in the atmosphere, H2O responds to other forcings. When CO2 causes the temperature to rise, H2O responds by increasing (it is a feedback). If the Milankovich cycles caused temperatures to decrease H2O would decrease. H2O does not force (cause) the initial change in temperature, it responds to changes caused by other forces. Because humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 is forcing (causing) the temperature to increase. In natural cycles, CO2 responds to other forcings (it is a feedback). In the current, human caused change, CO2 is a forcing, not a feedback. It is a little confusing because CO2 can be both a forcing or a feedback. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:09 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
Re: davidwwalters (54)"Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers."
Here's some resources I've found helpful in providing visual documentation of climate changes: Double Exposure Extreme Ice Survey Swiss Glaciers On-line James Balog's Glacier Melt Video Mauri Pelto's Glacier Change Blog Mauri Pelto's Glacier Website US Scientific Assessments of Change (with links to IPCC versions of same) Sea Level Rise Maps (you can play with various levels of rises in various places to visually see future inundations) Websites (brief list - I'm leaving out literally dozens of favorites here): Arctic Sea Ice - Neven's Blog Climate Charts & Graphs Climate Progress Deep Climate Open Mind OSS Foundation Real Climate - Start Here Scott Mandia When I get the time, I'll post a more comprehensive listing on my (very rudimentary as yet) Typepad blog. Hope this helps, The Yooper -
Gordon1368 at 00:50 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Well, whatever the direction of the last couple years, it is very clear to me why Pielke did not use 2001 as the starting point for his claim. -
Berényi Péter at 00:20 AM on 7 September 2010Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data
Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find (Source: Levitus 2009) No, we do not. There is a revised and updated version at the NOAA Global Ocean Heat Content page by the same authors.
The main difference is that the updated version in 2006 starts to diverge from the published OHC reconstruction. Now it is decreasing slightly instead of the former increasing trend. The difference is about -1022 J in less than 2 years.
-
davidwwalters at 00:18 AM on 7 September 2010Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
michael sweet, >>On the other hand, all these effects are anthropogenic changes in the Earth weather system. In the end the sum of all changes is what matters.<< -That's kinda what I was thinking, I was just unaware of how UHI effect compared to other AGW causes. I appreciate the help. As for Dr. Hanson, -just read "Storms of my...." Along with Skeptical Science, Dr. Hanson's website and some others I have bookmarked maybe you could cite a few more for me. I especially like to point out observable effects of AGW to my (many) friends who are deniers.
Prev 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 Next
