Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 Next
Comments 114101 to 114150:
-
chris1204 at 19:20 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
muoncounter @ 3 Saying someone who disagrees with you or with some aspect of what you are saying is a very comfortable argument - indeed, it's an argument to which no response is possible. Denial is not the sole province of the 'sceptical' community. All of us can go into denial. All of us cherrypick facts to suit our point of view. We sometimes call this selective recall. The AGW community is no exception to this universal human tendency. Earlier this year, we were hearing about the record ice melt in the Northern Hemisphere. Now that NH ice seems to be holding up (indeed firmly back within two standard deviations of the mean over the last thirty years), we're told that it's not sea ice extent but rather sea ice volume, quality, or whatever metric comes to hand. Meanwhile, sea ice extent has continued its increase in the SH. And yes, I'm aware that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctic ice cap may be losing mass. I do my best not to cherrypick. 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. Could this just possibly mean that some negative feedbacks or forcing might be coming into play? It would be nice if this proved to be the case - certainly, a better outlook for the planet. I don't pretend to know who's right at least on the sea ice question. I've held off to date on commenting on the appropriateness of long range psychiatric diagnoses by unqualified practitioners. However, repeated references to 'denial' with references back to the psychiatric literature make me grumpy. -
Paul D at 19:11 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP You are way off topic. Then I suggest you don't use incorrect analogies! But in any case, I accept your answer as acknowledgement of your error. -
RSVP at 19:00 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #117 You are way off topic. -
RSVP at 18:59 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson #106 This thing about light dispersing is getting off topic as far as the thread is concerned. You are right, energy cannot be destroyed. Perhaps as far as the IR there could be scattering due to GHG.. why not? (this aside from energy absorption). Perhaps this explains some warming phenomenon. -
Paul D at 18:55 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Geez. Your scenario is radiated heat from the ocean. If you are going to use analogies, then keep to the one you started with. If your analogy is incorrect then accept the fact. -
RSVP at 18:51 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #114 Yes but Sunlight is far from laser quality. -
RSVP at 18:48 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR 101 In this narrative, it sounds like CO2's ability to transfers energy to non GHGs is extrememly efficient, if not 100% efficient. Why then does concentration matter, (i.e., the basis of AGW)? CO2 only couples a small percentage of the Earth's surface heat, while nearly all of this energy gets out. So in your second case, it takes a lot more energy from the source to get the same air mass up 1 degree centigrade. Your reference to a magic electrode is unwarranted because in heating air only .03% of the energy (or thereabouts) goes into heating the CO2 it contains. So in case 1 you make it sound like CO2 is super heat sink, while for AGW a difference of 100 ppm makes all the difference in the world. -
Dan Olner at 18:48 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Looking at the finality of these combined data-sets, something occurs to me: those of us who spend any time commenting on these forums need to remember that the vast majority of people aren't interested in the sort of climate change arguments we have. There's a danger, I think, that we mistake the heat and noise of blog-science for what's happening out there in reality. Most people, I believe, would see the evidence presented here and conclude that, yes, the planet is warming. Obviously, undeniably. I worry that we need to find a better way to channel our energies: blog arguing can feel 'important' when perhaps it isn't. Question, then: given that, actually, most people would accept the overwhelming evidence, how might those of us accepting of the science best spend our finite time? We *could* spend an infinite amount of time arguing with contrarians, about the scientific equivalent of whether the data shows we're heading to winter or summer. Perhaps we need to not let ourselves get drawn into that quite as much any more. Contrarians have made quite enough rope to hang themselves with. We still need to argue, and amazing blogs like this will always be needed. But perhaps we need to withdraw some of the oxygen of attention contrarians still get. The battle is about doubt, not science. That battle isn't going to be won arguing with people still harping on about particular weather stations, months after that line of argument was shown to be nonsense. It'll be won convincing the wider public that any doubts they may have harboured are (sadly) misplaced. -
Paul D at 18:42 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP A point light source spreads out like a cone. Good thing too for the case of the Sun, otherwise we'd be toast. Quoting school boy text book physics doesn't help you much. You are deviating from the scenario you set up initially. Your scenario was an ocean radiating energy and a 'mirror' above it. The assumption was that the 'mirror' was a few miles at most above the ocean. That is NOT a point source scenario and your original scenario is different from a school text book concept. The energy from the ocean will 'radiate' in different directions from the surface (eg not a 'cone' or 'spherical' from the point). The only case in which your model would be true is once you leave the earths atmosphere and 'view' the ocean from a distance (so that the earth is a point/sphere). At that distance the radiation you see will be from the earths sphere and would have had a chance to disperse outwards along radiating lines. What you will 'see' at that point in space are all the photons that happened to have left the planet after a lot of interactions and ended up at your position. The issue here is scale and the POV of the observer. In the case of an 'atmospheric mirror' around the world. If it was a perfect 'mirror' then ALL the energy would be reflected back and there will be NO losses or dispersal. All the energy would return towards Earth, it might end up in a different place on the planet due to refection/incident angles, but it won't be attenuated globally. As I pointed out you may get hot spots and cool spots regionally if the mirror was imperfect. If the 'mirror' was 'lossy' then some would not be reflected back. -
JMurphy at 18:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I wonder how the so-called skeptics would react to the following symptoms, all happening at/around the same time : Heartburn ("It's indigestion") Shoulder/arm pain ("It's muscle fatigue") Shortness of breath ("I'm unfit") Sweating ("It's hot in here") Nausea ("It's something I've eaten") Light-headedness ("I'd better sit down") Anxiety ("I'm worried about my taxes") For the rest of us, though, I think we would consider all the symptoms together and call for an ambulance. -
RSVP at 18:26 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
John Russell You are right. I was just checking to see if you were listening. -
JMurphy at 18:18 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Pete Ridley wrote : "My comment #134 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread gives one prominent “climate” scientist’s opinion on this." Sorry, but no matter how many times you try to convince yourself of that, Denis Rancourt is NOT a Climate Scientist. Just in case you have forgotten the in-line response you got, here it is again : He wouldn't get in the room, he's not a climate scientist. He's a physicist, specialising primarily in spectroscopy and hasn't published any peer-reviewed research on climate science. If you prefer your 'climate scientists' to not actually publish anything about climate science, go right ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously. -
kdkd at 18:17 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
BP #23 When doing science, details and facts do matter, while the big picture or independent, multiple lines of evidence can only serve as heuristic tools. So all these little pictures that go together to show a big picture of unequivocal warming, yet your argument elevates the contrarian practice of cherry picking as more valid. Incredible. The way you put it you think we'd expect to see lots of contradictory evidence that as a whole could be misinterpreted to show spurious alarming anthropogenic global warming. However the word spurious only makes it due to your logical contortions and one-eyed view of the supporting science, logic and philosophy. -
John Russell at 18:02 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP says: "A point light source spreads out like a cone." Not in my world it doesn't. A point light source sends out light in all directions. The only light source with the behaviour you describe is one with a parabolic reflector round it. -
miekol at 17:59 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
The Yooper (19) A great rebuttle. I enjoyed reading it. I think you are right. We're stuffed :-) As you say, "And unless that response is one of ZERO CO2 emissions for the next 30 years, our way of life is TOAST (no pun intended) anyway." And that ain't going to happen, ZERO CO2 I mean. We have to come up with something a lot better than what has been suggested so far, and that includes carbon Tax. -
Berényi Péter at 17:52 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Of course they are. And the reason behind it is surface temperature record being whacky. Let me show you a fine bit. You can download GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) version 2 data form NOAA NCDC (United States Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center). According to the documentation you'll find raw monthly mean temperatures for each GHCN station in the file v2.mean.Z. Now, in v2.temperature.inv there is a station 42572503001 NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK (it's close to Belvedere Castle). You can look up for example average temperature at this site for May, 2001 and find 17.6°C. So far so good. However, for this site and this month we also have data at Weather Underground. History for Central Park, NY, May, 2001 It says average mean temperature was 17°C. But we can go a little bit further. Down that page there is a mean temperature for each day of the month. Their sum divided by 31 (number of days in May) yields 16.84°C. The thing is Weather Underground also have all the individual METAR records for that place and period. You can look them up by clicking on a particular day in the list, e.g. May 19, 2001. Therefore the correct number is 16.84°C and not 17.6°C as claimed by the United States Department of Commerce. If even values in the raw dataset can be adjusted upward by up to 0.76°C (1.37°F), a century scale trend of the same order of magnitude is absolutely meaningless. When doing science, details and facts do matter, while the big picture or independent, multiple lines of evidence can only serve as heuristic tools. That is, they can help find true propositions, but they prove nothing. Each and every proposition found that way has to be subjected to a painstakingly detailed scientific verification process. That's how it is supposed to work.Response to #2 miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July, 2010 The bulk of the skeptic arguments I encounter these days are actually attacks on the surface temperature record -
Pete Ridley at 17:44 PM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Ned, in #165 you invoked the words of Wallie Broecker in his 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” in which he said "[...] .. the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide". Your “That of course is exactly what happened” could be considered somewhat of an exaggeration. If the claims about global temperature increase are to be believed (which is, to say the least, questionable) the globe has experienced a “pronounced warming” of what – 0.5C! Terrifying, isn’t it, especially IF the trend during the past decade continues for another 30 years. Of course we must take into consideration the enormous uncertainty associated with that “if” word and the processes and drivers of global climates. In comment #33 Andrew Adams asked of me “what authority do you have for your claim regarding our very poor understanding of the drivers of global climate?”. My comment #134 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread gives one prominent “climate” scientist’s opinion on this. Anyone who has read any scientific papers on human-made global climate change or even the IPCC reports will be aware of those numerous references to “uncertain”, “assume”, “if”, “may”, “could”, etc. all arising from uncertainty about those horrendously complicated global climate processes and drivers. There is a hypothesis that our use of fossil fuels may be causing significant global warming which, if assumed positive feedback effects occurred, might lead to a catastrophic tipping point at which point the globe may heat up drastically and possibly destroy life as we know it. This hypothesis is supported not by evidence but by a claimed scientific consensus. Those in authority would have us believe that such a consensus justifies taxing us in proportion to our emissions of CO2. There are also a hypothesis that there exists a benevolent (and vengeful according to the Jehovah's Witnesses) superpower that is keeping an eye on our earthly activities. This hypothesis is also supported not by evidence but by a claimed consensus. Those in authority would have us believe that this superpower will exert its ultimate authority in due course. Supporters of both of these hypotheses predict catastrophe if they are not accepted as truth. In my opinion both of these hypotheses are unacceptable confidence tricks supported by those in authority for the purpose of exerting their will. As one of the greatest physicists, mathematicians, astronomers and philosophers ever, Gallileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei), demonstrated, consensus has little part to play in science. I (and I believe most people contributing here) have no significant scientific expertise in the poorly understood subject of global climate processes and drivers. Most here appear to me to pay unearned deference to the consensus and that’s their choice. My choice is to question it. I brought up my children to question what they are told. It made life hard for me on occasions but they have the sense not to blindly accept what those in authority tell them. Best regards, Pete Ridley -
tobyjoyce at 17:43 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
doug bostrom @8, +1 for your comments on the "global sea ice" graph - WUWT started using it when it became clear Arctic Sea Ice is not recovering. Despite the hype, it has an unmistakeable downward trend. There seems to be some dim form of theory behind it - ice that disappears from the Arctic reappears in the Southern Hemisphere. Magic! -
muoncounter at 17:38 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#6 again: One of the data sources for 'The Plot' is Kouwenberg etal, 2005 (abstract only, but I have the full pdf). Omitted from 'The Plot' are "four CO2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800)." That pre-industrial 305ppm average has a serious case of cherry-picking. Kouwenberg reaches the opposite conclusion vs. 'The Paper': "Because the CO2 variation also shows similarities with terrestrial air temperature trends in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere regions — which are the areas most sensitive to global warming — it may be hypothesized that throughout the last millennium, CO2 could have served as a forcing factor for terrestrial air temperature." There is even a graph (Figure 3) showing good correlation between these stomatal frequencies and ice core CO2! Interestingly, Kouwenberg shows up on denier blogs (here's one) as 'peer-reviewed evidence' against CO2 forcing -- which is exactly the opposite of paper's result. Makes you wonder how many other of their 'sources' are flat-out mistakes like this one. -
RSVP at 17:37 PM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
The Ville #98 A point light source spreads out like a cone. Good thing too for the case of the Sun, otherwise we'd be toast. doug_bostrom #105 Very funny. No one is paying me to turn any cranks, but it is sometimes hard not to think about these discussions when driving around town (i.e., helping global warming "one way or the other")... and at some point as I was doing this I did muse on a post that complained about metaphores and analogies. And "since there's nothing fundamental left to say about science here", it would be nice if you could explain what matter really is, that way we dont have to rely on these clumsy models. -
JMurphy at 17:14 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
miekol wrote : "There is lots of ways we can accommodate CO2 increase. Here’s one idea. Isn’t it a fact plants need CO2 and if you increase CO2 their growth becomes prolific. So why not green the Earth? As the Earth’s atmosphere and seas warm there will be lots more precipitation, all very condusive to turning the Earth into the fabled “Garden of Eden.”" You had better read a few pages on this site for more information on that, especially : Positives and negatives of global warming Can animals and plants adapt to global warming? CO2 is not a pollutant Also, don't forget that the fabled Garden of Eden was very sparsely populated (to say the least !) and forbidden for human habitation... -
Daniel Bailey at 16:46 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol: We agree that the industrial world has indeed built its standard of living and society on the backs of CO2 emissions. But Business As Usual got us to where we are today and has Become the Problem. And cannot continue. Given the response lag time of both human nature (with its endless ability to procrastinate) and the lag built into the disequilibrium response of the climate to the forcings imposed upon it by CO2 (30-40 years; we are just now realizing the temperature response imposed by the carbon slug of the 70's and 80's injected into our carbon cycle) there is perhaps nothing mankind can do to avoid a severe coming disruption to our food production chain. Note the use of the word avoid. Opportunities still lie before us in terms of mitigating the future deleterious effects a warming world has in store for us. Michael Tobis, over at Collide-a-Scape (summarized by Lou Grinzo on his blog) summarized it best: "...carve out a “middle ground” where we spend some effort on a more or less inconsequential improvement on the carbon imbalance. Surely that’s better than nothing? Well, no. Not consequentially, no, it isn’t. The correct long-target for CO2 emissions is zero. The correct short-term target is negative. That’s not radicalism or idealism or romanticism or folly. That’s just the facts." It will take a comprehensive, worldwide, species-wide response to the crisis we find ourselves in. And unless that response is one of ZERO CO2 emissions for the next 30 years (at which point our climate should stabilize at about Another +1.8 to +2.4 degrees C relative to 2010 temperatures) our way of life is TOAST (no pun intended) anyway. Carbon Capture Sequestration and other discussed geoengineering options in the literature today hold various promises, but none to help us NOW. Reforestation efforts are a mixed bag. The literature abounds in studies on this. An attempt to summarize: Some short-term gains can be achieved, but once a forest reaches maturity it goes into a relative CO2 balance intake-vs-emission-wise. At the expense of planting most of the world's grasslands and a good portion of its croplands. Assuming the grasslands don't turn to dust in the face of unrelenting shifts in rainfall patterns...or washed away by an atmosphere now holding an extra 4% moisture in its fuel tanks (equivalent to the volume of Lake Superior on my doorsteps). And by itself, nothing to help us NOW. I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer wet blanket here. All this discussion of potential options has merit. But in terms of realizable, actionable near-term policies to implement (as a species), we've got nuttin'. Time is a more precious commodity than we realize. And we have little left. Above and beyond everything else, that is what scares me most. And I've no answers. The Yooper -
miekol at 16:45 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re:doug_bostrom at 16:28 PM on 29 July, 2010 New Orleans is an example of how not to build levees. -
thingadonta at 16:40 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
'Global warming' happens all the time because the sun continually warms the Earth-so it is obvious that 'global warming' is unmistakeable', this has been going on since the sun started shining. (The question of natural versus human rate of temperature change, is a question which should at least be stated less ambiguously/more correctly). How's this for a theory: The way climate change terms often have multiple meanings half explains why they keep finding 'evidence' for their position. One only has to look at the sun and see evidence for 'global warming', so to speak, every day. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:28 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Miekol, New Orleans is nice and green, with mild winters, is at or even below sea level and has ample vacant properties available for little money. Perhaps you should put your hypothesis to the test and try moving there. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:24 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I'm not sure why folks are using the graph HR points to as some sort of evidence of stability. Even by eyeball it's got a downward trend, and in any case as others have pointed out it's for global sea ice. As has been pointed out here on SkS, Antarctic sea ice has increased in extent according to expectations though it may seem counter-intuitive.. The fact that the graph -still- shows a declining trend is no cause for celebration, it only helps illustrate how dramatic loss has been in the Arctic. -
canbanjo at 16:12 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Geo Guy Do you know where the Sootese temperature record for the past 600 million years comes from? I am aware of the Hansen reconstruction of the past 65 million years: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.18.pdf It does not corollate with the Soteese graph at all over this period. -
miekol at 15:41 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re: Daniel "The Yooper" Bailey at 13:55 PM on 29 July, 2010 Apology accepted :-) And so as you say, "Back to on-topic: Given that the world is indeed warming, what is to be done? " It truly would be great if we could, in an instant, stop all CO2 production, and sit back and see if in fact CO2 in the atmosphere stabalizes and/or reduces. But we can't. That's the reality. Since the advent of the industrial revolution the so called western society, principally Europe and North America has been getting very rich by pouring CO2 into the stmosphere, and compared to most of the third world have a very high standard of living, I’m Australian. And if it turns out to be fact that it’s CO2 that is causing the temperature increase then we have been inadvertently ‘engineering’ the atmosphere. Surely if we can ‘engineering’ the atmosphere accidentally, then with all our wealth and science resources we can ‘engineer’ a correction, without having to impede the economic progress of the third world, in particular China and India. They are not going to reduce their CO2 production anyway. There is lots of ways we can accommodate CO2 increase. Here’s one idea. Isn’t it a fact plants need CO2 and if you increase CO2 their growth becomes prolific. So why not green the Earth? As the Earth’s atmosphere and seas warm there will be lots more precipitation, all very condusive to turning the Earth into the fabled “Garden of Eden.” But what of coastal cities? We can dyke them. If the Netherlands can do, I’m sure the rest of the world can. Plus per tonne of carbon, forestry is the cheapest method of reducing CO2 polution. Its about $10.00 per tonne. -
muoncounter at 15:41 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#8: "deftly shift to NH sea ice. Cherry-picking?" If picking one out of two is cherry-picking. But we've only got two hemispheres and one is losing ice at an increasing rate. But I'll see your graph and raise you this one, also from Cryosphere Today. In fact, from the same page as the one graph you picked. Be sure to zoom in; its a big one. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:36 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re: Humanity Rules @ number 8 above: You are linguistically correct in that Arctic sea ice by itself would not be a global indicator. It is directly reflective, however, of a global disequilibrium response to a planetary forcing due to rising CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions and other, subsequent, positive forcings. And in that regard a significant indicator of global climate change/warming. Using the Cryosphere Today graphic for global sea ice trend is a bit of a straw-man argument. That graphic focuses on global area. No considerations are given to extent or thicknesses/volumes. As the NOAA report makes clear, Arctic sea ice trend IS in decline. Multi-year, thicker ice, is almost gone, replaced with seasonal ice, resulting in greater seasonal melt oscillations. Polar amplification of warming due to climate change will keep it moving in that direction as well. Pray for a continued weak Arctic DiPole this year and next to slow the export of the remaining ice out the Fram Strait... For various reasons (winds, ozone, weather), portions of the Antarctic sea ice are in stages of decline, stasis or growth, with a net inconsistency overall. John's article doesn't even mention the net multi-gigaton mass loss of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets themselves, as documented in the NOAA report. Again, the need for brevity in a summary article. But that's why he included the link to the source report. Arctic sea ice Trend vs global sea ice Trend = apples & oranges comparisons. Sobering report from NOAA. The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 15:34 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
I've only read one section in the full report so far, Ocean Heat Content OHC (page S56 onwards). Some fasinating images of the patterns of changing heat content of the oceans. The text seems to primarily concern itself with the regional nature of the OHC anomolies and how that's changed over time. It seems to spend a long time connecting this to regional climate features such as NAO and PDO. Can we be sure that the overall change in OHC from 1993-2009 truely is a sign of a warming world or just a measure of the shift of warmth around the oceans? Or maybe more likely a combination of both. How do we prise apart the two features in the data? (if they exist) -
muoncounter at 15:22 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
#6: I fail to see how an average value is determined from the isolated bits of data in "the plot". One of the nice things about the Law Dome ice core is that 280ppm is a very consistent value for the first 800 years. There's enough data to state that even the standard deviation of the CO2 concentrations is a consistent 2.8 ppm or less during that time period. This isn't a graph I made from these data (and I have made quite a few), but it gets the point across:
I question the significance of the ice-house/hot-house simplicity of climate reconstruction over geologic time. Unless you factor in the plate-tectonic setting during the relevant time periods, a simple hot/cold temperature graph doesn't tell the whole story. Same objection applies to the final graph you cite.
As far as a relationship between CO2 and temperature, see below:
Again, not my work, the source is shown and here is a link to the host page.
#5: Hang around a while, you'll see all three styles of denial in action. What is nice about this site is that at least most people remain polite.
-
HumanityRules at 14:55 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
It's a shame that they start talking about planet-wide indicators then deftly shift to NH sea ice. Cherry-picking? Global sea ice seems to have had little trend over the past 30 years as this Cryosphere Today graphic shows.
-
Daniel Bailey at 13:55 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re: miekol at 13:17 PM on 29 July, 2010, who said: "Four is not science at all, its a disparaging comment." Just trying to give straightforward responses to what I thought was a straightforward question. Apologies if I misinterpreted your question (in retrospect I perhaps went a bit snarky with the "silly" reference at the end). Apologies, then, for the attempt at levity. But as a short summary of root cause, for each point, my earlier comment still stands. As far as John's post, I understand his need for clarity and brevity in his article, hence the not addressing the point-by-point attribution of cause to each indicator (which would require a separate post on each). But this has been done, both here and elsewhere. Back to on-topic: Given that the world is indeed warming, what is to be done? Unless the discussion now turns to this, versus an endless rehashing and rebunking of memes, nothing will get done. We must lift our vision, for the weeds no longer matter. And the world, she burns. The Yooper -
Geo Guy at 13:18 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Ok..but that is not the crux of the debate. The cause is what is being debated IMHO. Now IF CO2 increases were the cause, then the documents at the following links would seem to refute this: The first is a plot of atmospheric CO2 records reported in five separate studies which indicate that the CO2records from ice studies are understated. The Plot: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354_lg.gif The Paper: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html The next link is to a page that includes a plot of climate change over geologic time. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm The next link is to a plot of avg global temperature over geologic time. From this plot it is evident that there is little relationship between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperatures. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif -
miekol at 13:17 PM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Comments three and four are off topic. This is a science discussion site. Three is a science topic, its not climate change science, its the science of psychology. Four is not science at all, its a disparaging comment. Both ought to be deleted. The 'Response' to comment two correctly 'on topic'. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:30 AM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Re: miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July, 2010 said: "Now what are the 10 possible causes? " Causes 1-10: 1. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 2. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 3. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 4. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 5. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 6. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 7. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 8. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 9. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. 10. CO2 concentration increases derived from humans burning fossil fuels. Ask a silly question... The Yooper -
michael sweet at 11:28 AM on 29 July 2010It's waste heat
Baa Humbug: I would say the same as KR. Keep in mind that a single photon does not make the whole path, this is a simple model. If the path is longer, with most of the time spent absorbed by a molecule, it will take the heat longer to escape. The speed of the photon does not matter. When the path is longer for heat to escape but the source of heat (the sun) stays the same that means heat accumulates in the atmosphere. I am sure that the time delay could be calculated, but what scientists find useful is the forcing. Cooling overnight is a different process. The time for the heat to escape is longer at night with more CO2 just like during the day. The situation is complicated by water but the essential details are the same. -
muoncounter at 11:26 AM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
Excellent summary. Will the 'oh, no its not crowd' note that some indicators are up while others are down and hence there's no consensus? Here is a relevant definition of 'denial': Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence (emphasis added). The subject may use: * simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether * minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalisation), or * projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility. All three sound all too familiar. -
miekol at 11:20 AM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable. Fantastic. Now what are the 10 possible causes?Response: When I wrote this blog post, I actually wrote a paragraph about causes but for the sake of focus and brevity, decided not to include it. But here it is for sake of completeness:Now let me anticipate the immediate objection: "skeptics aren't disputing whether global warming is happening, just that humans are causing it". This is not the case. The bulk of the skeptic arguments I encounter these days are actually attacks on the surface temperature record, claims that glaciers are growing, disputes that the ice sheets are losing mass - generally attempts to cast doubt on any empirical data that indicates a warming trend.
So while there are many skeptics who agree that global warming is happening but question the cause, the bulk of energy spent by global warming skeptics is to attack the evidence for global warming. The most popular skeptic argument reported via the iPhone app since February is attacking the surface temperature record. So while I would love to move on from the issue of whether global warming is happening, the fact that the majority of skeptic activity is focused on this question prevents me. -
Bern at 11:10 AM on 29 July 201010 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable
That's a nice graphic! I'm going to forward it to a few friends of mine, along with some useful links. Sadly, I'm fairly confident of the response I'll get. :-( Oh, and your first link points back to this page.Response: Thanks, fixed the link error -
michael sweet at 11:07 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR: Great data on collisions and vibrational frequency. I wondered what that data was but didn't know where to find it. -
David Horton at 08:19 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
"we can spread sea water in the desert of the Sahara" - and in doing so lay waste to the whole area so that no vegetation could grow and no animals could live there. Remember how the Romans ensured the Phoenicians would never rise again - they sowed the fields with salt. And after destroying the Sahara (deserts are not empty of biodiversity, they have quite high biodiversity of species adapted to that environment) where do you move on to as temps continue to rise - Australia? Central Asia? Western America? The problem with all these "geo-engineering solutions" is that they involve a cloud of unintended consequences. It seems there are people who are content with any solution that involves, say, the destruction of the living contents of the Sahara, as long as it doesn't involve a switch from coal fired power stations and massive SUVs. -
kdkd at 07:42 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Ned #96 Thank you very much. I've been trying to get Ken to give me an estimate of what the TOA imbalance means for over a year, in terms of climate sensitivity or other temperature measurements, and for all that time he has refused to answer that question. Now thanks to your digging around, we know why ... it's because the energy balance model shows that the risk of serious climate change is the same as the other available evidence. -
KR at 05:11 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - to address the other direction (CO2 having plenty of time to heat the air mass having been discussed here): A heated (high energy) N2 or O2 molecule, given 10^9 collisions/second and 390 ppm of CO2, will strike 390,000 CO2 molecules per second on average, heating them if they are cooler. Temperature therefore equalizes between the N2, O2, H2O, and CO2 molecules. -
CBDunkerson at 04:57 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP asked: "Can GHG radiated heat from the atmosphere cause heating of something that is hot? ... like an asphalt highway midday? or an air conditioners heat exchanger?" I'm not sure how you are defining 'heating' here so I'll explain the full process. Yes, energy which GHGs prevent from leaving the atmosphere does excite the molecules of already heated solids (e.g. asphalt under the noon sun). There is no magical force which prevents photons from approaching an already 'heated' substance. However, all matter also dissipates heat constantly... the hotter the object the more heat it gives off (obviously). Thus, under normal circumstances the heat coming off the asphalt (mostly generated by absorption of visible light) will be greater than the heat retained due to GHG going into the asphalt. The asphalt will be hotter than it would have been without the GHGs (because solar radiation + GHG radiation is greater than solar radiation alone), but it will not continuously accumulate heat ad infinitum. Rather incoming energy and outgoing energy will be equal... and since GHGs increase the incoming energy the 'heat' of the object also increases. Also: "Along that same idea, the warmer the air (due to whatever) the less effects GHG have." Um... no. The warmer the air the GREATER the effects of GHG. More IR photons inherently means more IR photons being delayed from escaping the climate system by GHGs. Finally: "Overall power normally attenuates when it traverses space. If one square KM of ocean water radiates heat upward, and it hits even a perfect mirror, whatever comes back will be a weakened version of that powerwise." What? You're suggesting that energy just... ceases to exist? If so, you are VERY mistaken. If X photons hit a perfect mirror then exactly X photons will bounce off of it. The only way your statement could make any sense is if you are suggesting that some of the energy will disperse through the atmosphere... which is of course true, but doesn't change the fact that it is remaining in the climate system regardless of where it originated. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:31 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
Another meta-comment since there's nothing fundamental left to say about science here. A reasonable person (me, I'm ever so reasonable) might argue at this point-- 104 comments into explaining something that was comprehensively handled with the arrival of Ned's #22-- that RSVP is not practicing skepticism but instead is enjoying a wind-up. If that's the case, he should be thanked for turning the crank because while he's forced the expression of a lot of redundancy he's also managed to uncover several useful mental models for helping people to think about why anthropogenic greenhouse gases warm the planet. If I'm wrong, I don't think RSVP is reachable but nonetheless further synthesis of mental models may be helpful. Are there any more? Maybe RSVP is awaiting the arrival of a molecule of thought of just the right shape so as to click into place. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:17 AM on 29 July 2010What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Thanks, Peter. I spend maybe too much time on climate blogs and noticed Rancourt suddenly popping up of late. Morano gave Rancourt's opinions a push just recently and so apparently his name has been reverberating quite a bit. DenialDepot tickles me pink, JMurphy. The actual subject is not so funny but laughter is good for us and in any case the articles there are yet another method of explanation, more enjoyable for some than unadorned recounting of facts and finger-wagging. Friends of Gin and Tonic and its specialist auditing efforts is also good for a laugh as well as being indirectly informative. -
Tarcisio José D at 04:06 AM on 29 July 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
NED #100 "That would cool the Sahara, yes. What happens to the latent heat when the resulting water vapor condenses and precipitates somewhere else? Again, there's a reason it's called the hydrologic cycle. Imagine a cubic meter of air heating. Immediately he begins to radiate this thermal energy, respecting the law of Stefan-Boltzmann. I wonder, how many feet it can travel up to dispel any ernergia absorbed?? Already the steam carries the energy packed in the form of latent heat, and will only release this energy whem has its temperature reduced to the dew point. So the task of redistributing the energy the water vapor is the most efficient system. Atention....for to divide by 4 is mandatory the distribution before. -
Ned at 03:36 AM on 29 July 2010The nature of authority
Speaking of questions of expertise and the benefit of a deep understanding of one's subject matter ... There is a really neat post today over at RealClimate, in advance of the 35th anniversary of the first (known) paper to use the term "global warming": Broecker, W. 1975. Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? Science 189:460-463. Wally is one of the half-dozen or so people who would absolutely have to be included on anyone's list of "authorities" or "experts" on the earth's climate. In the 1975 paper he leads off the abstract with "[...] a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide." That of course is exactly what happened. Interestingly, in the paper he made predictions for various climate-change-related parameters from 1900 through ... 2010. Broecker slightly overestimates fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions, predicting 403 ppm for the CO2 concentration in 2010 compared to the actual value of 392 ppm this year. He makes several errors that cancel out, and ends up with a value for climate sensitivity of 2.2 C per doubling of CO2 -- near the low end of the IPCC range, but not bad at all. Finally, he missed the thermal inertia of the climate system and assumed the rise in temperature would be basically instantaneous, leading to an overestimate of the temperature increase (+1.1C in 2010, versus around +0.8C in reality). Still, not bad considering that in 1975 nobody had ever compiled a global temperature reconstruction! It's a remarkably prescient paper. Check out the post over at RC.
Prev 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 Next
