Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
Comments 123451 to 123500:
-
SLRTX at 12:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
josil (#1) Denialists mix ideology with science as if ideological arguments somehow define climate science. Al Gore is not a scientist. So he's a moot point. Same thing goes for the IPCC. That organization's main purpose is to influence policy, based on the evidence of AGW/ACC. But, the IPCC doesn't define the science. Denialists would like us to believe that somehow Al Gore and the IPCC is using the "hockey stick" to "swindle" us into believing in climate change. That simply isn't true. Those arguments are red herrings. They have nothing to do with the science of climate change. -
SLRTX at 12:32 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, Great post. Regardless of the evidence clearly supporting AGW/ACC, some people are beyond any rational comprehension of the evidence. When it comes to discussing climate science, I separate people into 4 categories: 1. Those who get it. 2. The rational ignorant. These people are rational and understand the experts may know a bit more about things than they do. They may not completely understand the science, but they know they don't have to understand everything to believe the experts. The "rational skeptic" may be in this group. Emphasis on "rational". These people would appreciate this site for its simplicity and links to solid references. (Here's a link to a description of a "rational skeptic": http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html) 3. The irrational ignorant. These people make up a large part of the denialist camp. They don't understand the science, argue the peer-review process is a conspiracy, and think they know more than the experts. This group thinks they are skeptics, but they certainly aren't rational. Forget even trying to convince these cranks. Their train left the station long ago. 4. The misinformer. These are the corporate or political hacks who (should) know better. They make up the remainder of the denialist camp. They have an agenda, and will do anything to stop actions to curb global warming. They use the irrational ignorant to amplify their lies. Too bad the irrational ignorant can't see the real conspiracy in front of them. The misinformers are part of the real conspiracy, and the irrational ignorant are just tools to further the denialist agenda. WUWT is a good example of a misinformer site. It sure attracts a lot of the irrational ignorant. -
shawnhet at 12:23 PM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
"i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory." Personally, I can't see how you don't see the relevance here. You were arguing that we can just plug "the physics and chemistry" into the models and come up with some predictions(or projections). The Wiki page discusses how this is *not* what the models do - "Parameterization in a climate model refers to the method of replacing (physical)processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process. This can be contrasted with other processes—e.g., large-scale flow of the atmosphere—that are explicitly resolved within the models."(bracketed term added by me for clarity) Notice how they replace a more complex real process with a simplified process. "You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory." Well, we could make hindcasts for periods if we got some previously undiscovered data. If we found a way to reconstruct the PDO for the last 1000 years we could use that to hindcast the temperature. IAC, there is no requirement for a theory to make predictions of the past, just that it make some testable predictions that can be tested against real world observations. Thanks for the Atmoz link, I will need some time to digest it, though. Cheers, :) -
josil at 12:18 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Unfortunately, much of Al Gore's "work" has the flavor of denialism more than science. I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved. For example, even granting AGW there is still a wide range of alternatives for dealing it.Response: "I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved."
Considering much of the conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are directly focused on climate scientists, my guess is there would've been little difference whether Al Gore existed or not. Nevertheless, it's hypothetical and beside the point - what matters is the science, not the former Vice President. -
NewYorkJ at 12:09 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
JeffId..."You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. " Compared with some of the comments I've seen of yours in more contrarian environments, you've done fairly well in that regard here. Unfortunately, there's still the persistent problem of unsubstantiated claims, which is arguably more disasteful than the ad hominens. Things like "I've blogged on it", "[people] agree with me", and "based on lots of hours with the data", all while constructing red herrings that divert attention from the topic, is good for show, and perhaps acceptable among contrarians, but isn't too useful and doesn't fly among critical thinkers. A good suggestion would be to start referencing actual data and papers and make an attempt to stay on topic. -
We're heading into an ice age
OK. This is what I have to say. I am not skeptical about the warming trend caused by atmospheric changes. I do think the current discussion in the media is limited. If we were about to enter an ice age, we might want more greenhouse gases to counter an ice age trend independent of the atmosphere and likely caused by astronomical features. The above discussion says an ice age is unlikely becasue of the warming forces. I say that gets to my basic point. The discussion is too narrow. Do not say "it is getting warmer, we must cool the earth." Ask what will come next? What should we do if the future will be warmer? and also ask "What should do if the trend is for cooler weather?" Our changes to the atmosphere must be in response to what we know about the climate in the future. Warmer will be inconvenient. Ice will kill most of us. I don't know what will happen. I know we need a wider discussion. Our most important question is "So what?" We need more data and a more comprehensive picture with many more questions. The cureent discussion in public is limited.Response: The question "so what?" is addressed in the positives and negatives of global warming. -
Jeff Id at 11:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#59, There is nothing casual about my dismissal. It's based on a lot of hours with the actual data. AVHRR is probably a better measure over warmer areas than antarctic land, but over the land, it's just too noisy for good trends. I provided a link earlier. #60, I don't know what Goddard even said outside of this post. I'm sorry I didn't have time for discussion, I was at work. As far as a source for my statement that sea ice recovered further in 2009, I have several posts done by myself as well as pointed out that it's easy to figure out that there was a further recovery in the summer of 09 over summer 07 just by looking at the extent minimum. Because the winter freeze basically locks in multi-year ice in the center of the Antarctic, the extent minimum is closely associated with the amount of multi-year ice lost. -- It's during the melt when you loose more of the center see.... It's not like we need quantum physics. A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'.... My assertion is that the land has not appreciably warmed. The trend over 50 years is about 0.06 C/Decade and not significant. I said sea ice doesn't respond much to the small warming and responds far more to current, I provided the video of sea ice as evidence. That's all. I enjoy coming to blogs with groups of deep believers and having a discussion once in a while, just to see how open minded they are. You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. BTW, I do believe in CO2 warming.Response: "A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'...."
Quite the contrary, the main focus of this post is looking at warming trends over the Southern Ocean - specifically, where ice-covered regions where sea-ice forms. -
Berényi Péter at 10:34 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
#84 gallopingcamel at 06:53 AM on 17 March, 2010 "seems pretty obvious that the GCMs are way too simplistic" It's not obvious at all, quite the contrary. I would say they are overcomplicated structures on rather shaky physical foundations. Terrestrial climate is a heat engine based on water as a working fluid. Common sense tells that much, one does not even have to be a climate scientist to know that much. Weather-talk is about precipitation or the lack of it, what else? And exactly the water cycle is the most poorly understood part of any computational model of climate. Need to say more? -
yocta at 10:04 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id you have thoroughly confused me. Uou say things like I don't have time to find a source for you. I have looked at the NSIDC data in great detail though. , and then claim you can find a decreasing trend looking at 3 points. You have managed to get everyone OT whilst actively avoiding answering the post's main point on Goddard. All this doesn't help your case for people to take you seriously. I don't understand how you can hope to educate people if you can't explain, or back up your statements with peer reviewed papers that the ice experts you mention have written that agree with you. No offense, but the best scientists I have ever encountered are also very good at explaining things. -
Ned at 09:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id writes: I came to this blog after a comment was left at tAV and I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above. It's a common mistake though because, how can people know that the data which was used isn't very good for trend. This thread is about temperatures in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. Those figures were posted because they illustrate the warming trend in the Southern Ocean. This trend is calculated using measurements of sea surface temperature from AVHRR. Far from being the "worst possible data" AVHRR is routinely and reliably used to retrieve SST for applications ranging from hurricane forecasting to fisheries management. Thousands of scientists in many, many fields use SST data from AVHRR. Your casual dismissal of these data is frankly ridiculous. -
Jesús Rosino at 09:21 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The link to Kwok & Comiso 2002 is wrong; it is here (or here in full). -
Jesús Rosino at 08:44 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Further recommended reading for Steve Goddard would be Gille 2002, Kwok & Comiso 2002 and Fyfe 2006. -
Jeff Freymueller at 08:12 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#53 RSVP, changes in sea ice by itself won't make any difference for global sea level -- the water is already part of the ocean, whether frozen or liquid (excluding grounded ice). Otherwise, what John said. Changes in the ice shelves off Antarctica, likewise, don't directly impact sea level. But the loss of ice shelves appears to have been followed by a systematic speedup of the glaciers that fed into the ice shelves, and that will affect sea level. -
gallopingcamel at 07:02 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
RSVP (#68 & #78), I am reluctant to disagree with someone who appears to be on my side considering that we are out numbered and out gunned on this blog. However, the limited heat capacity of CO2 (given the very low concentration in our atmosphere) can be ignored as any energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is rapidly shared with other gas molecules in the atmosphere. -
gallopingcamel at 06:53 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
Peter Hogarth (#72), the Royer/Shaviv thing has been going on for some time. Royer's latest update (2010) will likely evoke some response from Shaviv. While I don't buy Royer's exaggerated claims for the role of CO2, I am skeptical about Shaviv too. Shaviv has suggested that the Earth's position relative to our galaxy's spiral arms can affect our climate. Sounds like weird science but remember that Plate Tectonics was laughed at for many years. You appear to be keeping an open mind with regard to climate drivers other than CO2 or cosmic rays. That makes perfect sense to me; it already seems pretty obvious that the GCMs are way too simplistic. -
Peter Hogarth at 06:46 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
33.Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 17 March, 2010 Apologies Ken, I misread your post in undeserved haste. Air in contact will indeed take up some of the energy released, and PBs point about a thermostat, more like a regulator, working against cooling/heating when air temp moves below/above zero. -
Jeff Id at 06:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#52, Perhaps you could tell them for me. -
RSVP at 06:20 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Regardless of whether this trend represents cooling or warming, how does it ultimately affect the global sea level? Was'nt that the main issue after all?Response: The main issue for this specific topic was the false statement "sea ice is increasing due to cooling". Both satellite, ocean floats & ship surface measurements all provide empirical evidence that the Southern Ocean is in fact warming, not cooling.
The issue of temperature trends over the Antarctic continent and what's causing Antarctica to lose ice mass at an accelerating rate is a whole other can of worms. -
Albatross at 06:10 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id, @51 "I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above." This is yet another puzzling and unsubstantiated statement-- the continental surface temperature data from the AVHRR sensors may have problems, we can probably all agree with that. The same is not true for the SST data for the polar oceans which are being discussed here. The reality is that Goddard is seems to be confusing temperature trends over the Antarctic specific reference to the the warming oceans surrounding Antarctica. And Goddard also shows an image on his WUWT blog post which is based(according to you) on the "worst possible data" -- have you posted at WUWT to tell him and Watts that? -
Jeff Id at 05:58 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#50, No comments were made here about the long term 'health' of frozen water. Is ice healthy and water sick? I tried to make the point that most of the comments on sea ice melting in the 07 event were related to currents not warm air. Several ice scientists have made this point and are in agreement with me, or I am with them if you prefer. I came to this blog after a comment was left at tAV and I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above. It's a common mistake though because, how can people know that the data which was used isn't very good for trend. As far as sea ice in general though, I don't think we have much to worry about. -
Albatross at 05:25 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeffrey @46, This discourse is quite revealing. I am not annoyed at all :) I, and other non D-Ks, know for a fact that the scientists who are experts in the cryosphere (Barber, ICESAT, NSDIC etc.) do not agree with your unsubstantiated comments made here and elsewhere concerning the "health" and long term trends in Arctic sea ice. I, and others, also know (as should you) that three points (2007, 2008, 2009) cannot be used to make any assertions (certainly not statistically significant assertions)concerning the trend of any variable, never mind being so bold as to claim that there has been a "recovery" in Arctic MY ice. Anyhow, I find it rather odd that you seem to avoid speaking to the topic at hand here. Do you have anything to say about the Antarctic sea ice puzzle and Goddard's latest campaign of misinformation on Antarctic sea ice? Thanks. -
Jeff Id at 05:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#47, I don't have time to find a source for you. I have looked at the NSIDC data in great detail though. Your "latest findings" link indicated that it was about the Beaufort Sea whereas we're talking about the whole Arctic. Certainly you can see the difference. Being someone with the wherewithal to actually study the data myself it is pretty obvious that we again have more multi-year ice than we had at the 07 minimum. I really don't need someone else to tell me. Keep in mind that when you write 'has recovered' it means has increased, nothing else. You write that you haven't seen the winter results, the multi-year ice level is determined primarily by the minimum as that's when the ice breaks up and flows from the region. It melts as it travels southward. Once refreezing begins there isn't much ice leaving the center of the pack. Therefore, you can answer your own question by comparing the sea ice extent minimums in 07,08 and 09. Simple. -
Berényi Péter at 05:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Arctic sea ice minimum extent for 2002-2009 2007-09-24 4,254,531 km2 2008-09-09 4,707,813 km2 2009-09-13 5,249,844 km2 2005-09-22 5,315,156 km2 2002-09-09 5,646,875 km2 2006-09-14 5,781,719 km2 2004-09-11 5,784,688 km2 2003-09-18 6,032,031 km2 Looks like rotten ice extent is steadily increasing since 2007. Also, last time I've checked it took at least 2 years for ice to get more than two years old. -
Riccardo at 05:21 AM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
shawnhet, i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory. "There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the physics of (whatever causes the PDO), however, this is not necessary to make predictions about its effects." You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory. As for what is what we now call PDO, you might be interested in this atmoz's post. -
CBDunkerson at 05:06 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff, I've looked at the up to date data. Indeed, I provided links to it. The ICESat link above clearly shows Winter 2008/09 multi-year ice below 2007/08... as did the previous graph from the NSIDC. I haven't seen similar results for 2009/10 yet, and we may not as ICESat was failing by that point, but the study linked under 'Latest findings' shows that multi-year ice decreased again. Your claim that multi-year ice has recovered the past two years remains at odds with all available data... which might explain your continued failure to cite a source. If you can't BACK the claim with evidence of any kind, why do you keep making it? -
shawnhet at 05:00 AM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Riccardo, you can't just plug the physics in. You have to program a wide variety of parameters in too. Such parameterizations are essentially just guesses as to how the real world works. Wikipedia has a decent explanation of the process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametrization_(climate) "In your example a PDO driven climate change is the theory that need to be tested. To test it you could do several things including modelling it. You should work out the physics of the PDO and its interactions with the other pieces of the picture and see the results. Again, your model would be a tool not the theory itself." There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the physics of (whatever causes the PDO), however, this is not necessary to make predictions about its effects. Mechanisms are desirable because they allow more specific and numerous predictions to be made(and, hence, better hypotheses as well). But a hypothesis can be perfectly valid even if it could potentially be improved by the development of a decent mechanism. For the record, though, it is certainly possible to imagine many mechanisms whereby shifts in PDO can affect the broader climate(cloud cover and ocean currents, for instance). Cheers, :) -
Jeff Id at 04:57 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#44, I see the problem, the big loss occurred in the late melt season of 07 whereas your graph shows it in Feb 07 and doesn't include the 09 minimum. What I was calling 07 the graph has as Feb 08, we are talking about the same event. If you look at more up-to-date data you recognize that the multi-year ice has recovered for the last two years in a row. #45, It may annoy you to know that most scientists wouldn't disagree with me. Of course, you have to be an open minded reader to be able to understand them. So no, I don't claim to know more than them, only to agree with some of them. It's funny how the less studied always assume, first that things which go against their impressions are anti-science or denial, and second that it's all because of warming. The NSIDC has made statements regarding the recovery this year as well as the fact that the 07 minimum (not February) was due primarily to currents. There was a hint of the weather pattern in 06 and 08 as well. If it's a long term change, perhaps you can blame that on global warming. -
Albatross at 03:46 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
CBDunkerson @44, Careful there CB, Jeffrey thinks that he is very well informed, more so than most scientists it seems in fact. He is well known in the denialosphere and has a loyal following cheering him on. Thanks for the links @ 44 CB. Will look at them now. -
CBDunkerson at 03:40 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff, no the graph is not off a year. The extent of Arctic sea ice was slightly higher in 2008 than 2007, but the thickness and volume of the ice decreased sharply. You might want to read up a bit on this because you obviously have no idea at all what you are talking about. ICESat results up to Winter of 08/09 Sumary of why 2008 was worse than 2007 Latest findings -
Albatross at 03:31 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeffrey @41 "but I assure you that I won't waste time giving opinions which aren't correct as I understand them." Sorry, you are too late with that statement... -
Albatross at 03:27 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeffrey, @ 37 you are off topic, and "#34, First, we're discussing the recovery since 07. Your first graphs show the drop to 09 from 1980-2000 mean so it's not evidence." I am speechless. Wow, just where does one begin? And "The melting arctic ice situation is far more related to currents than the small warming in my opinion." "Small warming"? Wow again. Any thoughts on Goddard's latest blunder regarding the state of the cryosphere Jeffrey? -
Jeff Id at 03:26 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#38, No time now, but I assure you that I won't waste time giving opinions which aren't correct as I understand them. -
Jeff Id at 03:23 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#36, Sorry for the lazy posting. See figure 3 in this post. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/antarctic-coup-de-grace/ Error bars, as you may know, do not account for instrument drift or offset. They only account for scatter of measurements. If you look at Fig 3, you can see why the trends are different. However the data is more complicated than that, there are regional effects where one area had cloud and others didn't. This creates a situation which is very difficult to correct for. I'm sorry but I won't have more time for this fun thread until later tonight. -
Berényi Péter at 03:21 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#35 Peter Hogarth at 02:04 AM on 17 March, 2010 Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 17 March, 2010 "Phase change involves energy, certainly, but no temperature change" No temperature change of water, of course. But the air above, that does the freezing, warms up. Energy should go somewhere. As its winter temperature is way below freezing even at coast, there is room for an inrease. Katabatic winds are not fun, wind speed can reach 320 km/h, that of (non-existent) category 6 hurricanes. --- Thinking about it atmospheric carbon dioxide should have a wintertime cooling effect over Antarctica. Air 1 km above ice sheet is warmer (-50°C) than both surface (-70°C) and space (-270°C). Due to Kirchoff's law as IR absorptivity of air increases, so should emissivity. As there is no warmer heat reservoir in sight, this air mass radiates more than it absorbs, net cooling is called forth. In extremely dry Antarctic air carbon dioxide dominates over water vapor. More CO2, more cold air production, stronger winds, more polynyas, more sea ice. Looks like a heat sink controlled by a negative feedback loop, i.e. thermostat. -
Albatross at 03:20 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id (AirVent), I have to vehemently disagree with the following misleading statements made by you: "The same is true for the Arctic, the loss of sea ice was due to currents." And "there has been a recovery in multi-year ice since the 2007 minimum." Of course winds and ocean currents play a role, but they are not the sole players in modulating Arctic sea ice. To suggest otherwise is being anything but honest. These are the same myths that keep getting trotted out by those in denial and blog commentators like Watts. I have to agree with CBDunkerson and Peter Hogarth, and the NSIDC. There has been no recovery in MY Arctic ice since 2007, the overall negative trend in Arctic sea ice extent in the late summer is accelerating (from the NSDIC site, look at trends up until 2003, then trends up until 2009). Anyhow, this thread is about Antarctic Sea ice and Goddard's misinterpretation of the in-situ data, and his erroneous hypothesis as to what is modulating Antarctic sea ice. Jeffery (Id) if you have any thoughts on that, then I and others would be interested to hear them. Humanity Rules @8 re the impact of precip. on Antarctic sea ice, look carefully at the flow chart (conceptual model) shown in Figure 10 in Zhang. -
Jeff Id at 03:16 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#34, First, we're discussing the recovery since 07. Your first graphs show the drop to 09 from 1980-2000 mean so it's not evidence. In the last graph you show the 07 minimum seems to be reflected in 08. Probably due to some filtering or something. We know very well that 07's minimum was not a typical year right? Your grpah shows very little drop from 06. You can see the slight recovery in 09 in your graph, and in the video, perhaps this is 08 because 09 minimum was better. Enough so that some NSIDC guys are even admitting it. As to the warming argument, the net energy transfer from a slightly warmer yet mostly well below freezing environment is small in comparison to even a very slight flow change of water. Stir a glass of ice cubes and you can see the effect. The melting arctic ice situation is far more related to currents than the small warming in my opinion. -
Jeff Freymueller at 03:00 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#28 Jeff Id, cool video. Worth the 2 days of processor time! As far as the temperature trends on the continent go, you are basically handwaving here. All data have noise. Why would the data noise cause a particular pattern of (slight) positive and negative temperature trends? Why do you think that the makers of this figure did not understand the level of noise in the data and compute adequate error bars? Why, other than your opinion that the pattern seems unlikely, should we think that the pattern is not actually correct if it is larger than the uncertainties? I'd also add that in terms of where impacts of warming are observed in Antartica, the figure seems about right -- only small changes over most of the continent, but significant changes on the Antarctic Peninsula. I'm not sure what other claims some people are making, but your figures seem to be pretty consistent with Figure 2, and this pattern of temperature change seems quite consistent with the observed impacts. I'm curious why you would refer to the loss of the ice shelves as "contamination". There are two questions here: (1) is the measurement of delta-T over time accurate? (2) is a linear trend an adequate representation of the changes? As far as the ice shelves go, they certainly call into question the use of a linear model with time (2), but unless spatial smoothing is applied they will not "contaminate" anything. Suppose that the same figure with the same colors simply had the numbers next to the color bar multiplied by 26 y, and the title changed to Change in Temperature, 1981-2007? Given that most of the ice shelves were labeled, it seems pretty clear to me that the labeling was applied so that people would not misinterpret the changes as some kind of oceanic "hot spot". -
CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
Sorry, the ~33 degrees C is an average over the day. Looking at lunar surface temps (higher than the Earths would be, as the moon has a lower albedo), night temperatures without the atmosphere would be about -153 C. Wear warm socks... -
CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
RSVP - if you read the entire graphic, the surface exchanges are +168 insolation, +324 back radiation (reflected to the surface), total of 492 w/m^2. The outgoing is 24 convection, 78 transpiration, 390 IR, total of 492 w/m^2. 492 = 492, dividing by 492 leaves 1=1; the equations are balanced. As to nightfall, I believe this is a daily average, adjusting for Earth surface area and angle of solar incidence. Regarding atmospheric temperature; part of the atmospheric temperature is due to direct insolation (67 in this diagram), and a larger part is due to ground IR (390-40-324=26 absorbed), convection (24), and evaporative heat transfer (78). Meanwhile that 324 w/m^2 reflected by the atmosphere - it is reflected to the ground, warming it, increasing ground temperatures and then indirectly warming the atmosphere through the aforementioned pathways. GH gasses act as insulation. They slow heat loss from the Earth; more insulation/lower loss causes an accumulation of more solar energy, leading to a warmer Earth, radiating more energy at the surface. That balances out the steady state condition at 1=1, solar input to radiative output. If the back radiation went from 324 to (say) 325 w/m^2 due to higher CO2 (atmospheric outgoing changing from 235 to 234), the extra 1 w/m^2 energy imbalance will heat the surface until thermals/evaporation/radiation increased to match it. I think that's pretty straightforward. As to that warm glow - I think the estimate is we're ~33 degrees Centigrade warmer than we would be without GHG heating. That would be a noticeably colder night... -
RSVP at 02:06 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
KR And there does seem to be something strange about the lovely graphic. 1) 342 incoming, somehow becomes 390 outgoing. That doesnt even makes sense at noon. But if you were considering a 24 hr average, it makes even less sense. 2) The graphic shows 342 incoming. Nice Sun shine, I can relate. But then it shows 324 back radiation. That isnt far from 342. I should be feeling a nice warm glow as I step outside at night, but this is not my experience. Out till which hour in the evening does this last? Thanks in advance. -
Peter Hogarth at 02:04 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 17 March, 2010 I fear energy and temperature are being a bit confused. Ponder that word "Latent". Melt/freeze Phase change involves energy, certainly, but no temperature change. Agree though that latent heat plays a role in all this. -
CBDunkerson at 01:52 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff, do you have a source for your claim that multi-year ice has recovered since 2007? It contradicts every study I've seen on the matter. For instance;
As to your view that warming had nothing to do with thick multi-year ice breaking up and being exported out of the Arctic... I suppose we'll just have to agree to live on different planets.
-
RSVP at 01:45 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
KR 1+1-1=1. Do you agree? If so, we agree on something important. Next step. Heat (1) that would otherwise radiate into space is impeded (so you say) by the CO2 (i.e., never leaves, or is returned which is equivalent). Now, this either elevates the surface temperature, or it elevates the atmosphere's temperature. Which is it? It cant be both. If you don't agree, please let me know how this unit of energy heats both atmosphere and surface simultaneously. Thanks in advance. -
Ken Lambert at 01:39 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Berényi Péter makes some good comments. Think about the mechanism of ice formation and the heat balances involved. Phase change in frezing ice on water involves liberating the latent heat which is 80 times the amount to change the temperature of liquid water by 1 degC. Applying cold air at sub-zero temperatures to the sea surface liberates the latent heat as the water freezes. Heat has to go somewhere - it slightly warms the air. More ice = warmer air immediately surrounding the water-ice phase change. -
Berényi Péter at 01:08 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Global Sea Ice (kudos to the Air Vent) Notice ice dynamics around Antarctica. -
On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Love that (US) data! Not an answer to Tamino but in the same ball park -
Jeff Id at 01:04 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#29, I don't agree. The warm water from the south would have made no difference with a half degree C either way. The thickness argument is also false in my opinion. The thicker ice just got pushed out. The weather pattern change in 2007 is very much visible in the video linked in my last comment and there has been a recovery in multi-year ice since the 2007 minimum. -
Peter Hogarth at 01:02 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id at 00:03 AM on 17 March, 2010 Nice animations! Winds causing anonalous 2007 minimum: the same scientists might also add that this may not have have been possible if the ice was not significantly thinner. You have done enough work on Arctic ice extent to appreciate that the 2007 values and subsequent "recovery" are against a significant multi-decadal background trend of reducing ice extent and thickness (as well as a significant regional warming trend over the same period). -
CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
RSVP - I actually consider the CO2 reflection of IR back to the ground _considerably_ more important than mass heating of the atmosphere. Very little of that IR goes into molecular heating of gases; CO2 is an efficient radiator. It does, however, reduce radiation losses from the ground, and change the steady state temperature conditions of the surface - in order for the steady state thermal conditions to stabilize with a lower percentage IR loss to space, the ground warms up and emits more IR. Hence global warming. More of the atmospheric heating comes from convection/conduction and evaporative heat transfer than from direct IR. And increasing GH gasses directly reduce the percentage of IR loss. See this lovely graphic, which appeared in the course of the "Is CO2 a pollutant" discussion: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif This shows an excellent overview of the steady state thermal condition. It's not the heat capacity of the atmosphere at all, but the rate of energy flow in and out of the ground/atmosphere system. Even with a _zero_ heat capacity of the ground and water (for a thought experiment), the greenhouse gas energy flow rates would set the steady state condition - the heat capacities act as inertial buffers on the steady state condition and on dynamic events (clouds, storms, El Nina, insolation, etc.) -
CBDunkerson at 00:39 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff, your argument that sea ice changes in the Arctic are due to currents rather than warming is a false dichotomy... they are clearly due to currents AND warming. Without warming the ice does not break up as much and thus forms greater bottlenecks at the 'drain' points. Further, the marked decline in Arctic sea ice volume and thickness (which has continued since 2007) indicates that ice growth is not keeping pace with ice loss... a situation which only the measured warming explains as there has been no marked ongoing change in Arctic currents.
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
