Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 Next
Comments 113951 to 114000:
-
thingadonta at 12:27 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
"many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning" Many solar scientists I have read state that we don't know enough about the sun to make that conclusion. Solar radiation, on all levels and cycles, and its effects on Earth, are multiple and diverse, and poorly understood. This means one can't definitely distinguish between these two processes relating to global warming -greenhouse gases and solar variables, and therefore all of your above fingerprints could still be correct and yet greenhouse gases may still not be the main driver of global warming in the last several decades. I didn't say this, solar scientists are saying it.Response: When I was putting together the various human fingerprints on climate change, I came up with nearly 20 different fingerprints. I ended up choosing the ones that were distinct to fossil fuels and greenhouse warming. For example, if the sun was causing global warming, we would see days warming faster than nights. We see the opposite - nights warming faster than days - a characteristic of greenhouse warming. Similarly, if the sun was causing global warming, we would see the upper atmosphere warming as well as the lower atmosphere. Instead, we see the upper atmosphere cooling as the lower atmosphere warms. Again, a distinct signature of greenhouse warming. The unique signatures we'd expect from solar warming are strikingly absent.
I must confess, it still surprises me that people cling to the "sun is causing global warming" hypothesis. The fact that the sun has been cooling in recent decades coupled with the observations of all this heat trapped by greenhouse gases puts the matter beyond any doubt in my mind. -
Bern at 12:23 PM on 30 July 201010 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Thanks, John, that's the other half of the story that needs to be told (and it answers many of the questions that came up as a result of the NOAA report). I will, indeed, use your graphic in a powerpoint slide! :-D -
EliRabett at 12:01 PM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Somewhere up above the statement was made that heat from power plants flows into the ocean from heat exchangers. Since only a fraction of power plants are located on the ocean (Eli is too lazy to look this up) the claim is on thin ice. -
muoncounter at 11:37 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#71 "premise of the stomata studies is that the calculated atmospheric CO2 is determined to be significantly higher than that determined from ice core data." See a nice debunking of said premise. Also see another and yet another. "I am not sure what you mean by "the plot" as I posted several plots." Go back to your post where this is labeled as "The Plot"
What bothered me in this 'geocraft.com' plot was the conspicuous absence of the CO2 lows mentioned by Kouwenberg etal in the 2005 paper, as shown below in their Figure 3.
The geocraft.com plot cites Kouwenberg and Ria (?) from the same year; did anyone check for other work by Kouwenberg's group? So my statement was simply that whoever put together 'The Plot' used only a portion of the available data. And that the conclusion reached by Kouwenberg etal. is the polar opposite of that reached by geocraft.
"studies exist that have conclusions that conflict with one another - that is a part of science"
I couldn't agree more. But it is also a part of science to follow all available data trails.
Unfortunately, this stomata business was picked up by the usual suspects, notably WUWT; I've already found 5 others that I won't give free publicity. And of course, WUWT gives a link back to the article at geocraft.com.
This is a great illustration of the denial machine at work.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:22 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP asked "It sounds like CO2's ability to transfers energy to non GHGs is extremely efficient, if not 100% efficient. Why then does concentration matter, (i.e., the basis of AGW)?" Answer: Because the higher the CO2 concentration, the more CO2 molecules get in the way of IR photons that are emitted from other CO2 molecules. That causes a longer delay in the energy escaping to space. If the concentration is "low," nearly all the energy from the surface still is absorbed by the atmosphere, but the delay of that energy escaping to space is shorter, meaning the bottleneck of energy escaping to space is wider, so less energy accumulates before the rush of energy trying to escape increases enough to reach equilibrium again. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:11 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
John: In light of the stir Judith Curry has created over at Real Climate and at Climate Progress (see this post here: Consensus on a scientific issue is established as science evolves through the following successive stages (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990) ), perhaps this would be a good time for Skeptical Science to weigh in with a post on the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today in those same terms. The National Academy of Science recently touched on this back in May in their report Advancing the Science of Climate Change - Settled Facts. But as usual, the media failed to follow up on it. Such a post would go a long way towards reducing the noise level being generated here at Skeptical Science by the usual denialist sites and their denizens. Cross-posted this at RC as well, in case you want to touch with Gavin et al to avoid duplication of effort. The Yooper -
chris1204 at 10:43 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 59: By reiterating that the SH and NH show different trends, as if that somehow alters the alarming problem in the Arctic, you just did. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. There are different trends in the two hemispheres which warrant scrutiny. Pointing this out is not cherrypicking - just statainbg a fact which is then open to a range of intepretations. Dappledwater @ 70: So inolation can matter an awful lot. I'm aware we are currently at a periood of relatively low insolation. I have never suggested that any of these phenomena negate AGW - merely that the picture is more complicated than it may appear at first sight. dhogaza @ 62: So which of the various extent metrics should we rely on? The point is that there are several of which JAXA happens to give the most pessimistic view (yet not without grouinds for optimism). New ice may eventually become old ice. -
michael sweet at 10:28 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP @115: Congratulations! You have learned that the heat transfer in the atmosphere is efficient. The last 200+ posts have not been completely in vain. Now one more point: the CO2 in the atmosphere ABSORBS almost ALL of the energy from the surface before it escapes into space. If you want to continue to insist that only 3% is captured you must provide a reference that shows that. -
kdkd at 08:08 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #50 I see that you have continued with off topic posting, and that you have chosen to completely ignore the substantitive parts of my argument. I can only assume that this means that you are conceding that your attitude to the analysis of the scientific big picture is lacking in logical rigour, preferring as you to to focus on isoloated bits of information where you can magnify all perceived uncertainty out of all proportion to its importance. -
KR at 07:52 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
GeoGuy - regarding manmade CO2 causing the warming: Are you familiar with the following: - Isotope evidence for human driven CO2 increases in the last 150 years? - The many records indicating high CO2 concentrations now, and correlations between CO2, solar output, and temperature in the past, since CO2 isn't the only driver of climate? The 'warming sun', incidentally, is determined by not only proxy records but by clean-slate physics of fusion reactions and fusion by-products in the sun. - Correlation between CO2 and temperature in the current era? - Measured entrapment of IR at CO2 and H2O (feedback) wavelengths, with accompanying energy imbalances? Given these, it's difficult for me to see how you could come to the conclusion that manmade CO2 isn't causing the current warming. As to Monte Heib - I would take his statements with a large block of salt (or more properly coal). His website contains lots of mis-information; he seems more than a bit biased, and doesn't provide numeric support for his statements. -
Geo Guy at 07:22 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Muoncounter # 9 - The premise of the stomata studies is that the calculated atmospheric CO2 is determined to be significantly higher than that determined from ice core data. What this discrepancy says is the historical amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere are subject to debate and until a more accurate determination can be made, we should not soley rely on just one method. In addition, the assessment of atmospheric CO2 over geological time gives a more accurate picture of the temp-CO2 relationship. Climate had changed regularly over time (geological time) and so studies that address those changes over such a time scale give us a more comprehensive picture than taking data that reflects a smaller time period. For instance if you were to focus on the Permian-Triassic period, one could easily surmise a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature. On the other hand, data from a 150 million year time frame (Cretaceous-Tertiary) reveals an inverse relationship with atmospheric CO2 on a clear downslope while temperatures rise and then stay steady. Also note that the CO2 content of the atmosphere over geological time has been well above the current levels, rising as high as 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian and falling to current levels only once before during the carboniferous. As for including plate tectonic events, while they do play a role in climate, the main periods of such activity were the upper cretaceous lasting for about 100 my. Since volcanoes contribute to cooling (due to a air), one might surmise that period of volcanic activity actually prevented the temperature from increasing further than data suggests, at a time when CO2 was on a sharp decrease. Canbanj # 14 - No I do not. You can contact Sootese directly and I am sure he will enlighten you. . Dan Olner # 27 - I agree to a certain extent. Many people seem to be convinced that since the global temperatures appear to be warming, that is a direct result of man-made CO2. To be there is a wide leap of faith between one (global warming) and two (it is due to man-made CO2). While science may be somewhat exact, the application of Science is where things tend to fall apart - something many people posting to this blog seem to be unable to comprehend. Glenn Tamblyn # 29 - my point for the post was to present a view that extends over the geological time scale. As you can see, in the diagram there are periods where CO2 and temperatures appear to correlate with one another (late Permian to early Triassic) and there are times when they have a negative relationship (early Cretaceous to about 1 million years ago. To fully assess the relationship, we need to see how it was over geological time and not during very small time periods. muoncounter # 21 - I am not sure what you mean by "the plot" as I posted several plots. If you are referring to the Stomata studies, the analysis is different from the one you lists which dealt with a specific plant species. Instead of accusing a person of cherry picking, step back and realize studies exist that have conclusions that conflict with one another - that is a part of science. To understand the way in which stomata are studied from a climate perspective, read this brief article on the method used: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mcelwain_03 Glenn Tamblyn # 29 - It is hard to determine exactly what the sun's output has been over geological time given that we have only developed the methods to measure solar output. in the past 40 years or so. While there may be proxies used, as with all proxies there is a significant margin of error with any such data. As for Monte Heib's site, I feel he has some good arguments that need to be addressed instead of being discounted as frivolous. The focus on man made CO2 causing the warming trend many people go to great lengths to argue (notwithstanding they tend to prove that the earth is warming and not prove that the warming is attributable to man made CO2.) As a geologist I have spent my life assessing past environments and as such those who say the current warming trend is solely due to man made CO2, have to, in my mind, come up with stronger arguments to disprove that the warming is not linked to some of the many natural phenomenons that contribute to climate change. davidpalermo # 60 - I fully agree. I wonder if they have tried and not been able to come up with the answer they would like to have? -
Rob Painting at 06:58 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris - "Phew! It was pretty torrid 125,00 years ago with a lot of CO2 in the air - well within the span of human habiation" Sure, if you consider less than 300ppm of atmospheric CO2 a lot. Aren't we near 390ppm now?. Chriscanaris - "and ceratinly not a young sun phenomenon." Certainly not, more like a greater insolation due to orbital eccentricity of the Earth phenomemon. -
barry1487 at 04:37 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
@Berényi Péte Do you not realize that over the past year skeptics and others have taken the raw, unadjusted data and found that the results closely fit the formal records closely. You can switch out airports, or cities or rural areas and you get the same results. The satellite records are close to the surface records for the last 30 years. Anyone who has actually crunched the numbers, replicating GISS/CRU methods, or making up their own, is finding that the adjusted records are not significantly different from that produced with raw data. To return to the point of the post here, 8 or 9 other indicators corroborate the conclusion. There really is no wiggle room left for a rational mind. The planet has been warming. -
gallopingcamel at 04:24 AM on 30 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Pete Ridley, (#136) Barry Brook strikes me as someone who Flanders and Swann would have called a "general all round egg-head". I mean that in the nicest possible way even though he is a committed CAGW alarmist. His blog (Brave New Climate) is far and away the best I have seen when it comes to energy policy. Those of you who want to do move beyond a futile debate about global warming should consider spending some time at BNC discussing "solutions".Response: Barry is great. I met him at the Brook/Readfern vs Plimer/Monckton debate. The other three turned up for a sleeves rolled up, bare knuckles brawl. Barry's talk had the calm, dispassionate air that had me going back to my university lecture days. The main theme of his blog is that both sides of the debate have many points of agreement on how we should produce energy. -
DarkSkywise at 04:15 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I just went through some of the comments @ the CNN piece... nice to see so many people taking issue with the fact that the interviewed skeptics were: 1. someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2. someone from the Cato Institute, 3. "a blogger" and 4. "a financier who follows climate science as a hobby" instead of some, well, real climate scientists. ;) -
KR at 03:35 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
This story is linked off the front page of today's CNN, which is good to see. It also made yesterday's Fox News, including the fact that the 80's, 90's, and last 10 years are, in order, the three hottest decades on record. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:19 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Further to John Russell's remarks, it seems to this layperson that where there is no ice visible there can be no ice volume. Unless the subsurface arrangement of ice is remarkably plastic and/or ice volume can increase and decline with amazing speed, steadily larger annually periodic swings in visibility of ice by us air-breathers seem to me a reasonable hint as to ice volume. -
dhogaza at 03:19 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
It's true, however, that extent is declining much more slowly DURING JULY than over the last few years.
Added two crucial words ... -
dhogaza at 03:15 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris: Antarctic sea ice is behaving about as predicted by the scientific community. Most people, when confronted with predictions borne out by future observations, understand that this *strengthens* the scientific case (in this case, climate science). WUWTians and the like say "antarctic sea ice isn't melting, climate science is a fraud!", in other words, a system behaving as predicted means that the science underlying the prediction is fraudulent. Kinda weird, no? -
DarkSkywise at 03:13 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Tony O at 23:07 PM on 29 July, 2010: "Thirteen; Flowering dates are changing. Poor little flowers do not know what season it is." Flowers shouldn't be trusted. Remember what they made us do in the Sixties? Surely proves they're part of the AGW-conspiracy! :P *wonders how long it will take until this'll show up in the Skeptic Arguments list* -
dhogaza at 03:11 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris's claims "recovery of NH ice", and is nicely skewered by the inclusion of the current NSIDC sea ice extent plot. It's true, however, that extent is declining much more slowly than over the last few years. That's due largely to thin ice being blown around - increased extent, lower concentration. You can get a feel for that by looking at the JAXA area graph, which shows arctic sea ice area now dropping very sharply:
-
KR at 02:41 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley - Regarding temperature data, I must apologize; apparently there are three independent data sets, not four. The two satellite sets are derived from the same sensors, albeit with very different data processing. So, the independent data sets are: satellite data (two major statistical analyses), the GHCN database data (currently 1500-2000 stations, many many analyses), and the Global Summary of the Day (GSOD) database (9000 stations, fewer analyses). You can add to that the increasing Ocean Heat Content, sea level rises, longer growing seasons, and a ton of other data, as per the recent NOAA State of the Climate 2009 All raw data indicates rising temperatures, including the last 10 years. All analyses except short term runs with start dates chosen to be 2-sigma events like the 1998 spike indicate rising temperatures, including the last 10 years. I will stand by my statements on the surface temps, and the lack of a decline in recent years. -
Pete Ridley at 02:35 AM on 30 July 2010The nature of authority
Ned, ref.#169, I appreciate that at least this time you quote me accurately, unlike on the “How reliable are climate models?” thread at #220 (although you persist in spinning what I say to suit your own agenda). Your suggestion that “If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating you're probably better off not making it at all” is perfectly valid. I trust that supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis will respond positively to it. Let me assure you that I make no suggestion “ .. that anything that falls short of "the destruction of life as we know it" should be ignored”, however, I do suggest that supporters of The Hypothesis are grossly over-reacting to speculation about what the impact of our use of fossil fuels is going to be on global climates. It pays to be reasonably cautious where risks exist but being excessively cautious can be as damaging as ignoring them altogether. You say that discussing religion is off-topic but the topic is “The Nature of Authority”. John says of his blog’s comment policy “However, I now delete any comments containing the following: * Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments .. ”. If John deletes one of my comments then I know that he considers me to have fallen foul of his policy. Perhaps you need to be a bit more careful when ranting on comparing different religions and science. Regarding my comments about confidence tricks, these were directed at anyone having a vested interest in promoting a myth in order to enhance their authority. Anyone who denies that there are those who promote The Hypothesis for reasons of vested interest beyond concern about the impact of our use of fossil fuels is in my opinion either gullible or dishonest. I invite you to consider the words of two sadly departed individuals who were prominent in the debate about The Hypothesis, supporter Professor Stephen Schneider and sceptic John Daly (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). Best regards, Pete RidleyModerator Response: The impact of global climate change is covered in these posts: It’s not bad and CO2 is not a pollutant. Comments about those topics belong on those threads. -
JMurphy at 02:31 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley, perhaps you'd like to dismiss the Japanese Meteorological Agency's temperature figures too. Maybe, because they were under American occupation for so long after the last war, they have been inducted into that great big conspiracy that the rest of us (whoops, have I given the game away ?) are involved in ? -
Ned at 02:18 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
Pete Ridley writes: Ned, ref. #224, perhaps you’d like to advise the extent of the uncertainty of estimating global mean temperature anomaly “.. using as few as 61 stations.” but would you be good enough to provide it in Centigrade degrees. You're referring to the work of Nick Stokes as described here. Specific questions about his reconstructions should probably be addressed to him. That said, comparing the standard errors listed for the 61-station reconstruction to the full land/ocean reconstruction using all stations (here) suggests that there's about twice as much uncertainty in the reduced set (for which the trends are 0.0855 +- 0.00835 C/decade in 1901-2009, and 0.282 +- 0.0393 C/decade in 1979-2009). It does not seem particularly surprising that the standard error would double when using a much smaller number of stations. PR continues: If the attempts at estimation by The Hadley Centre are to be believed, we’ve only had about 1C in 100 years – nothing to get excited about really. Globally it's a bit less than that, perhaps an 0.75 C increase over the past century. It's important to understand that number in context, however -- a global temperature increase of 0.75 C is actually quite large given the very short time frame involved. (It's roughly 10% of the change in temperature since the last glacial maximum, a time when the location of my house was buried under a couple km of ice). In addition, the real concern is not the impact of the 0.75 C rise from 1900-2010, but of the probable 2-4 C rise from 2010 to 2100. Both the climate and our technological infrastructure have a great deal of inertia, so it is important to figure out what needs to be done and start working on it ASAP. Had we done so 20 years ago, we would have much more flexibility. If we wait another 20 years, we will have much less. -
muoncounter at 02:08 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#54: "Was it maybe a Dansgaard-Oeschger event? We've had just 85 of these" I was under the impression these were events during glacial periods: Climate during the last glacial period was far from stable. Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events,. What relevance does that have to the current temperature increase? After all, geologists have know for a long time that glacial periods are not monotonically cold. -
davidpalermo at 02:07 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I agree that in order to best educate skeptics and others is to show consistent, reliable evidence pointing to how much humans are contributing to Climate Change. Most of the skeptics I come across pretty much know the Earth is warming but they think it's "Just natural so there is no sense worrying about it." If agencies like NASA, NOAA and others focus more on human caused Climate Change I think that would go a long way toward helping people realize that we should focus on possible solutions. As far as "deniers" go nothing will convince them. I really think if there is more focus on data that tells us humans are a main cause we might get closer to finding viable solutions. I will look more into NOAA's new pages to see how much they focus on human causes... I am on vacation right now! My friends are calling me to get off this computer as I write this but I felt it is important.... bye for now! David -
muoncounter at 01:53 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#28, CC: I'm sorry you felt grumpy; I did not mean to diagnose anyone or anything (and actually I did not do anything of the sort). "I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick." By reiterating that the SH and NH show different trends, as if that somehow alters the alarming problem in the Arctic, you just did. "We frequently hear about record high Arctic temperatures in the Arctic when in fact our instrumental record for the Arctic is very slim and calls for enormous extrapolations." Check the UAH/RSS graphs of satellite temperatures for the northern latitudes. See Ned's recent temperature compendium and the graph of north polar temperature data I presented here. Not slim, little or no extrapolation needed. -
dcwarrior at 01:45 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol at 5 - Query for the moderators and posters. I agree that this is a science site. But it's also a site dedicated to persuading others that climate science is valid and the deniers' arguments are not accurate. Of course a huge part of the effort is establishing that in fact the deniers' arguments are not accurate. Does it end there? Or does this site ALSO want to discuss how to argue that in the most effective manner? If so, isn't a discussion of soft science ALSO relevant? -
Pete Ridley at 01:40 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
PART 2 Ned, ref. #224, perhaps you’d like to advise the extent of the uncertainty of estimating global mean temperature anomaly “.. using as few as 61 stations.” but would you be good enough to provide it in Centigrade degrees. If the attempts at estimation by The Hadley Centre are to be believed, we’ve only had about 1C in 100 years – nothing to get excited about really. I’m not sure that you would agree with KR about four independent data sets but perhaps you do. I don’t get that impression from your article. Vincent Gray has drafted a paper which inlcudes commentary on those temperature measurements so I’ve sent him a link to the “Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions” thread. You might like to try reading “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature” (Note 1) and “NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data” (Note 2) that I mentioned in #225. As for toning down my writing style, thank you for the advice but I’ll leave it to the blog administrator to decide if my tone is unacceptable. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
Pete Ridley at 01:40 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
PART 1 KR, ref. #222, I know that it is not uncommon for politicians to distort the facts but please don’t misrepresent what I post about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypthesis. I am not aware that I “ .. claim no warming since 1998 ..”, was “Cherry picking (a) start date, .. 1998” or claiming anything about 1998. If I did then please point me to where and I’ll retract. If you can’t find anything of the sort then try reading my posts again and you may spot where you may have misinterpreted what I actually said. Regarding those attempts to measure global temperatures, perhaps you’d like to help me out and identify those “ .. four independent data sets .. ” but please make sure that they are indeed independent of each other, starting with the raw data then progressing through the statistical manipulations. -
tobyjoyce at 01:39 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Chriscanaris, @ "Nevertheless, the NH sea ice is doing a touch better or even reasonably well (considering earlier predictions of collapse of Arctic ice) .... " This is very loose. Arctic ice extent is at its second (or maybe third) lowest ever recorded for this time of year. You have to looking at the data with rose-tinted spactacles to see a "recovery". A "recovery" apparently means "not a complete collapse". Complete collapse seemed warranted in June, when the extent was dropping at the fastest rate ever. Meanwhile ice volume is still at the lowest ever. There is nothing in the Arctic Ice data to argue "global warming is not happening". Hopefully, CryoSat-2 will put some matters beyond dispute. Antarctic ice loss is mostly a land phenomenon - sea ice extent does not mean much there. -
Pete Ridley at 01:39 AM on 30 July 2010Models are unreliable
There follow a couple of comments that I posted originally on 28th at #226 but was removed by admin, perhaps because I had inadvertently carried over some links from a previous comment. I’ll post it now in two parts in case there was something else that was not found to be acceptable. -
Ned at 01:38 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
chriscanaris and others who might be interested: There's a great paper out this month on the history of the Greenland ice sheet: Alley, R. 2010. History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29: 1728-1756. Here's a brief excerpt dealing with the shape and extent of the Greenland ice sheet during the previous interglacial: =============================== "The MIS 5e Greenland Ice Sheet covered a smaller area than now, but by how much is not known with certainty. The most compelling evidence is the absence of pre-MIS 5e ice in the ice cores from south, northwest, and east Greenland [...] In contrast [...] the ice cores from central Greenland [...] and north-central Greenland (the NGRIP core) do contain normal, cold-environment, ice-sheet ice from MIS 5e. [...] The central Greenland cores do reveal that MIS 5e was warmer than MIS 1 (oxygen-isotope ratios were 3.3‰ higher than modern ones), and the elevation in the center of the ice sheet was similar to that of the modern ice sheet, although the ice sheet was probably slightly thinner in MIS 5e (within a few hundred meters of elevation, based on the total gas content). Thus, if we consider also evidence from the other cores, the ice sheet shrank substantially under a warm climate, but it persisted in a narrower, steeper form. [...] The efforts summarized above suggest that melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed as little as 1–2 m or as much as 4–5 m to sea-level rise during MIS 5e, in response to climatic temperature changes of perhaps 2°–7 °C. The higher numbers for the warming are based on estimates that include the feedbacks from melting of the ice sheet, and the associated sea-level estimates are strongly favored by the statistical/modeling analysis of Kopp et al. (2009). Therefore, central values in the 3–4 m and 3°–4 °C range may be appropriate. =============================== Based on this and other things I've read, I would guess that roughly half of the 6 meter increase in sea level at the last interglacial came from Greenland, less than half from West Antarctica, and the remainder from other sources. Here's a nifty figure from the Alley et al. paper, showing a comparison of the shape of the ice sheet today vs. during the last interglacial:
Fig. 7. Modeled configuration of the Greenland Ice Sheet today (left) and in MIS 5e (right), from Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006).
-
villabolo at 01:32 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
HumanityRules at 14:55 PM on 29 July, 2010: "Cherry-picking? Global sea ice seems to have had little trend over the past 30 years . . ." **************** If this game is going to be played then focusing on Global Sea Ice is cherry picking itself. Why are you not including TOTAL Global Ice? Besides the corn in Kansas does not care what is going to be happening in the Southern Hemisphere in the next ten years. It is the Arctic Ice Cap's disappearance that is going to alter our weather systems in the Northern Hemisphere. -
CBDunkerson at 01:15 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #128: Creationists aren't twisting science around? Apparently you've never heard of 'intelligent design'. -
chris1204 at 01:02 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 9 Phew! It was pretty torrid 125,00 years ago with a lot of CO2 in the air - well within the span of human habiation and ceratinly not a young sun phenomenon. Was it maybe a Dansgaard-Oeschger event? We've had just 85 of these and the little ice age has been interpreted by some as the cold phase of such a cycle. Of course, a possible current Dansgaard-Oeschger event does not exclude anthropogenic forcings - clearly you can have both. Significantly, however, the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps reamined intact through this time - hence our ability to extract ice cores. Food for thought.Response: What happened to sea levels 125,000 years ago certainly is food for thought. Sea levels were at least 6 metres higher than current levels. That tells us much about how Greenland and Antarctica react to just a degree or two of warmer temperature. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:04 AM on 30 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
“So while there are many skeptics who agree that global warming is happening but question the cause ...” Are we really the minority? We only have claim to the importance of the fact that "the CO2 concentration increases humans derived from burning fossil fuels." And we have arguments. “Recent Changes in Phytoplankton Communities Associated with Rapid Regional Climate Change Along the Western Antarctic Peninsula”,Montes-Hugo, et al, 2009, “The climate of the western shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is undergoing a transition from a cold-dry polar-type climate to a warm-humid sub-Antarctic–type climate. Using three decades of satellite and field data, we document that ocean biological productivity, inferred from chlorophyll a concentration ( Chl a ), has significantly changed along the WAP shelf.” “Paleo-records show that analogous climate variations have occurred in the past 200 to 300 years, and over longer 2500-year cycles, with rapid (decadal) transitions between warm and cool phases in the WAP. In this study (~30 years), the Chl a trend evidenced in the southern subregion of the WAP presented similar characteristics to those trends detected during typical interneoglacial periods (~200 to 300 years) (ie, high phytoplankton biomass, and presumably productivity, due to less area covered by permanent sea ice).” That is further evidence that the current warming, then what happens to the ice, these "10 key climate indicators - to change them, is not limited to: „CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels.” The 1,800-Year Oceanic Tidal Cycle: A Possible Cause of Rapid Climate Change Charles D. Keeling (!!!) and Timothy P. Whorf - “Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon. A well defined 1,800-year tidal cycle is associated with gradually shifting lunar declination from one episode of maximum tidal forcing on the centennial time-scale to the next. An amplitude modulation of this cycle occurs with an average period of about 5,000 years, associated with gradually shifting separation-intervals between perihelion and syzygy at maxima of the 1,800-year cycle. We propose that strong tidal forcing causes cooling at the sea surface by increasing vertical mixing in the oceans. On the millennial time-scale, this tidal hypothesis is supported by findings, from sedimentary records of ice-rafting debris, that ocean waters cooled close to the times predicted for strong tidal forcing.” The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records, Debret, 2007: “Since the first suggestion of 1500-year cycles in the advance and retreat of glaciers (Denton and Karlen, 1973), many studies have uncovered evidence of repeated climate oscillations of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years. During last glacial period, natural climate cycles of 1500 years appear to be persistent (Bond and Lotti, 1995) and remarkably regular (Mayewski et al., 1997; Rahmstorf, 2003), yet the origin of this pacing during the Holocene remains a mystery (Rahmstorf, 2003), making it one of the outstanding puzzles of climate variability.” -
CBDunkerson at 00:01 AM on 30 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ken Lambert #123 wrote: "Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat; and this figure is roughly half the 0.9W/sq.m of heating imbalance at TOA, then it is reasonable to expect that temperatures would be affected by waste heat which roughly adds 0.9 + 0.4 = 1.3W/sq.m over those areas." No, that is not reasonable... because it is not consistent with how global temperature anomalies are computed. Essentially, you are arguing that if 50% of all temperature measuring stations are located in the most heavily populated 7% of the globe then that 7% of the planet determines 50% of the global temperature anomaly. Which is simply false. Because the anomalies are computed based on geographic distribution... so those 50% of stations would only account for 7% of the total global anomaly... because they cover only 7% of the planet. Ergo, there is no global bias from localized heating. -
Ned at 23:43 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ken Lambert writes: The 11 year Solar cycle reportedly has a peak to trough of about 0.25 W/sq.m which is about 0.1% - NOT 1% of the 240 W/sq.m of net incoming solar radiation. You're arguing against someone else, not me. I said that the total variation over the solar cycle is less than 1% not that it is 1%. I was trying to correct another commenter who was IMHO exaggerating the magnitude of solar variation. So I'm glad you agree with me. Ken continues: The point is made that human released 'Waste Heat' at 0.028W/sq.m is insignificant when applied to the global surface area; but is quite significant when applied to the 6-8% of the globe from which it emanates. It avearges 0.4W/sq.m over that roughly 7% of the globe. Yes, if you assume all 0.028 W/m2 of waste heat is coming from 7% of the globe, it averages 0.4 W/m2 at its source. Of course, the heat doesn't stay there; it moves around. In any case, sure, waste heat can be locally important, but globally it's insignificant. That is the point of this thread. Ken continues: Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat [...] Please don't muddy the waters. We're doing one thing here, comparing the magnitude of two different forcings. If you want to talk about UHI in terms of its (hypothetical) impact on the temperature record, do so in one of the many threads about UHI or the temperature record. (Keep in mind that there are many, many indications that UHI does not have a significant impact on global land/ocean temperature reconstructions.) -
KR at 23:35 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - You're still missing the point! The point I (and any number of other posters) was making is that energy entering an air mass via conduction/convection heats the entire air mass. Energy entering an air mass via radiation also heats the entire air mass. There are no "separate accounts" as you described. What all of this means is that the 2.9W/m^2 GHG forcing and the 0.028W/m^2 AHF simply add to the general energy in the ground/air/water, as described here. No distinction once the energy is released into the system, RSVP. None whatsoever. The total energy ends up heating up the Earth, water, and air. Temperature changes are the result of the sum of all forcings and feedbacks. And, as you've agreed, the 1% AHF is pretty small change compared to the 99% GHG forcing. As to the ppm CO2 changes? I strongly suggest you read up on that here and here. I feel no need to repeat well-written descriptions of the effects of CO2 levels to correct physics errors on your part. -
Ken Lambert at 23:21 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ned #100 The 11 year Solar cycle reportedly has a peak to trough of about 0.25 W/sq.m which is about 0.1% - NOT 1% of the 240 W/sq.m of net incoming solar radiation. 1% would be 2.4W/sq.m which is a very large variation compared with Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m of TOA heating imbalance. Yet Solar variation is being suggested as a flattener for the last 10-12 years of temperatures. If that is so, then half the top to btm of 0.25W/sq.m (0.125W/sq.m) must be a large chunk of the warmming imbalance - which looks very small against 0.9W/sq.m of purported imbalance. The point is made that human released 'Waste Heat' at 0.028W/sq.m is insignificant when applied to the global surface area; but is quite significant when applied to the 6-8% of the globe from which it emanates. It avearges 0.4W/sq.m over that roughly 7% of the globe. Now if most of your temperature measuring land based stations are in that 7% of the globe where humans release waste heat; and this figure is roughly half the 0.9W/sq.m of heating imbalance at TOA, then it is reasonable to expect that temperatures would be affected by waste heat which roughly adds 0.9 + 0.4 = 1.3W/sq.m over those areas. I think this is what BP is banging away at in the temperature reconstruction thread. The 'fiddles' which adjust one station to work out a temperature for a point hundreds of km away could indeed be interesting. -
chris1204 at 23:11 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
JMurfphy, CBDunkerson et al: Actually, you're right about NH ice - the graphic as displayed on the WUWT page does omit the 2 standard deviation error bar which is naughty of them - it's not immediately obvious when you glance at the display on their Sea Ice page. I stand corrected. My apologies, gentlemen. Nevertheless, the NH sea ice is doing a touch better or even reasonably well (considering earlier predictions of collapse of Arctic ice) depending on the metric - for example the DMI 30% sea ice, Jaxa, Norsex - area and extent. However, for Antarctic sea ice, see the University of Bremen site and the Cryosphere Today Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly which are quite positive. If you look at the Cryosphere Today Global Anomaly, it's comfortably centred on normal. So is the glass half full or half empty? I don't pretend to know. As regards sea ice volume, I echo John Russell's question and additionally wonder whether the jury is still out if we have only just started looking at this metric. I recall earlier disputation about sea ice thickness. -
Tony O at 23:07 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Want a couple extra Eleven; Tropopause is higher, while stratopause and mesopause are lower. Pretty good indicator that the cause is man. Twelve; Habitats are moving Thirteen; Flowering dates are changing. Poor little flowers do not know what season it is. Fourteen; Trees are dying. Yes I know it is the bugs, but it is the lack of deep cold not killing the bugs. Is ya gonna make quote papers? -
Berényi Péter at 22:58 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
It's 61912882000 DEBRECEN, Hungary. Even more troublesome. Again, adjustments are not random, not centered on zero.
Of course it would be nice to go back and check old records, but unfortunately there is not much genuine old temperature data online. I may visit Hungarian Meteorological Service and have a talk with them (Debrecen has data since 1853, Budapest from 1780).
Moderator Response: This level of detail and sheer space consumption does not belong on this thread. Put future such comments in the Temp Record Is Unreliable thread. But if you post too many individual station records, I will insist that you instead post summary statistics. -
CBDunkerson at 22:51 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
A new study says that phytoplankton in the oceans have decreased by 40% since 1950. We'd better pray this is erroneous because if it isn't we're looking at a massive decrease in human population within this century. Click for article -
Jaydee at 22:45 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP you may find this link interesting. It relates to the differences between Weather Underground data collection and GHCN. To cut ot the chase, Weather Underground uses METAR data and GHCN doesn't. Anthony Watts(!) noted that there are problems with the METAR data. http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/watts-dogs-barking-cant-fly-without-umbrella/ -
Ned at 22:18 PM on 29 July 2010Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
Very nice summary, Glenton Jelbert. Thanks! -
shdwsnlite at 22:17 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol at 15:41 PM on 29 July, 2010 "in particular China and India. They are not going to reduce their CO2 production anyway." I see this argument all the time. They are not going do do anything so why should we bother. Actually it appears that China is trying to do a lot more than the US at this point. Carbon trading in pipeline China keeps promise to curb carbon emission -
Ned at 22:16 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Actually, the Central Park station BP is interested in is apparently a USHCN station. I really haven't looked into the exact process by which data go from the actual station into the USHCN database and then from there into the GHCN database. Suffice it to say that this is a complicated subject (is the monthly average of daily data created at the station, at USHCN, or at GHCN?). If someone else wants to get into the weeds of this process, they're welcome to, but I will definitely not have time to spend on this right now.
Prev 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 Next
