Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 Next
Comments 12451 to 12500:
-
william5331 at 13:01 PM on 29 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
It ain't going to happen as long as politicians are financed by vested interests.
-
Eclectic at 10:25 AM on 29 January 2019There's no empirical evidence
Mlebied @366 ,
1. The upwelling heat from the Earth's radioactive core must reach "our" surface via a layer of insulating rocky crust, which slows the heat flow (and helps maintain the core in liquid form ~ and just as well, because otherwise we would lose the planetary magnetic field which largely protects us from high-energy charged particles). The flow of heat up to the surface is minuscule compared with the amount of visible light and infra-red which warms the Earth's surface. (It is far less than 1% of the radiant heating effect, and for practical purposes can be ignored. You will note that the extensive areas of deep ocean floor are maintaining a temperature close to freezing point, despite receiving heat from the core.)
2. As I see it, the diagram omits water vapor effect, to simplify & clarify the contributions made by the many "smaller" GHGasses ( CO2, CH4, etc ). As you will probably be aware, H2O is the "biggest" GHG for our planet, yet H2O is very much a special case.
Looking at the paper cited as origin of the diagram, you will see the approximate warming contributions [at tropopause level] are :-
H2O 90 watts/m2 CO2 50 w/m2 CH4 1.7
N2O 1.3 and tropospheric O3 1.3
In a sense, water vapor (although at our ambient temperatures being the major GHG) is not so much a "primary" GHG as rather a secondary GHG ~ because it is condensable as temperatures drop, and it automatically down-regulates its GHG effect, thus quite unlike the other gasses, which are "uncondensable" and remain active whatever the atmospheric temperature. (On another thread, you will find discussion of "Snowball Earth" conditions which would apply if H2O were the only GHG ~ hypothetical conditions which would result in a frozen planet, holding negligible amount of H2O in the air.)
In a whimsical way, I picture the GHG's as being a dog with a very large fluffy tail. The uncondensable gasses are the dog itself, while the H2O is the tail. The tail is larger than the dog ~ but it is the dog, not the tail, deciding which way the whole caboodle goes. [excuse poodle pun].
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed as per author request.
-
mlebied at 09:08 AM on 29 January 2019There's no empirical evidence
Hello, this a very interesting website upon which I stumbled. very good technical information, which is of interest to me. Could you kindly field a few questions I have after reading this article?
1. You mentioned that earth is warmer than the moon, for example, due to the atmosphere. What impact does the molten core of the earth make in terms of habitability and temperature relative to the moon, which has a solid, rocky core?
2. In the radiance/wavelength graph, it's noted "Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out". Can you comment as to why water vapor effects were filtered out? I have often heard that water vapor is the primary GHG.
Thank you for helping educationModerator Response:[PS] For geothermal heat flux, try here. Note it is measured in mW/m2. GHG is measured in W/m2 and solar input in 100s of W/m2. For Water vapour, try "Water vapour is the most powerful green gas"
-
LTO at 09:00 AM on 29 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Hi MA
Could you use imgur.com or similar to post links to your graphs? I can only see a 2016 one.
I’ve had a quick look at the ERSST data set available here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v5 A sentence jumps out:
”Note that the data are more reliable after the 1940s”
Again, this goes to my point: the chart suggests we have spatial resolution to map the temperature anomaly in 1934 against an average that runs from 1900 to 1999 in areas of the world, including the antarctic, where we had virtually if not literally zero measurements within 1200 km until well after 1934. This is a nonsense.
Based on the rather rude ideological Responses I’ve had from some people, I suppose it’s necessary to state explicitly that my criticism here is specifically about that chart giving a totally misleading impression of the information available in 1934, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Not a general global warming criticism. If your model pops out an anomaly for a region of -2 against a heavily derived baseline for a region in which there have been zero reliable measurements, it simply fails the red face test (unless you acknowledge the error is probably something like 10, rendering those parts of the chart worthless).
Moderator Response:[DB] Please revisit MA's comment here to see both graphics in question.
Off-topic snipped.
-
LTO at 08:30 AM on 29 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Hi Michael
I’m afraid you’re confusing different things. Please try to stay on topic. Merely posting irrelevant guff in an offensive manner trying to shift the burden of proof isn’t conducive to a productive conversation. If you feel a need to caricature someone’s arguments in order to address them, it just comes across as looking like you don’t know what you’re talking about and are trying to mask this. I’m certain that isn’t the case, and if you feel like addressing my actual comments using science rather than bravado and appeals to authority I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts.
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 29 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4
Regarding: "This Could Be The Biggest Scandal Of The Climate Change Era"
I would say it is the biggest scandal.
"Take William Nordhaus, one of 2018’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners. While Nordhaus agrees that climate change is a serious problem, he weighs up the costs of mitigation against the predicted damages that will be inflicted by a warming planet and concludes that our objective should be to limit temperature rises to 3.5 C (6.3 F) because to be more ambitious would be too expensive."
This is dangerous thinking. This is putting huge faith that he alone has got the numbers right, when he might not, regardless of his nobel prize. Its a huge task for one person to calculate.
What assumptions has he made? How many things has he left out that economics stuggles to put a price on? At the very least, lets have a consensus view of economists, including plenty that are not neoliberals and wedded to the ideas of infinite growth.
"Our economy is based on a concept of continual growth. And for advocates of this principle, any questioning of it is simply a leftist plot to stop growth at all costs. "
It is indeed, and its an impossibility. Unlimited growth based on extractive industries is impossible in a finite world, unless you just dig holes and fill them up again! Growth has already slowed In developed western countries from approx. 6% in the 1950's to approx. 2.0% currently in a linear trend, despite huge efforts to boost growth. The writing is on the wall.
The current economic and population growth trends if they continue will leave future generations with a depleted resource base and high costs for even basic technology. The worlds focus has to change urgently towards better more efficient use of resources and conservation of what resources the planet has left, and smart growth in the services sector, AI and other sectors not so reliant on extracting materials. And strategies to promote reduced population growth. If we dont do this in a smoothly considered way, it will be forced on us in painful ways,
"Progress should be indicated using new measures of welfare and well-being, rather than production growth,"
New Zealand is exploring a measure based on the economy, the environment, and peoples well being. A nice, neat, concise 3 tiered strategy.
-
michael sweet at 03:07 AM on 29 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
LTO,
Since this is a scientific blog you must support your claims with citaations to the relevant literature.
Please support your wild claim " It is an absolute nonsense to suggest we know anything about the temperature across the globe to this level of resolution". This data was hashed over in the 1070's and 1980's. In the 2010's the BEST group, specifically designed by deniers to find errors in the conclusions of GISS and HADCRU, found that the evalations of GISS and HADCRU were accurate. On what basis do you now claim errors?? You initially claimed that you had no relevant experience with this data. Now you claim that on your own authority all scientists are wrong. That is a very weak argument.
Your second wild claim " I don't believe that the 1,200 km radius is valid for temperature anomalies" was also resolved in the 1970's. GISS went with 1200 km and HADCRU with 250 km. Data accrued since then has shown that HADCRU is less accurate than GISS. On what basis do you challenge this scientific conclusion? It appears that you are again citing your experience without reviewing the data.
I look forward to your citation of peer reviewed data to suppoprt your wild claims. In the absence of peer reviewed citations you must at least read the relevant literature before you make the claim that scientists have incorrectly concluded 1200 km is accurate. Since the deniers who funded BEST were unable to find any errors I expect you will be hard pressed to find any.
-
MA Rodger at 01:41 AM on 29 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Oops!!
I've lost a graphic @76.
-
MA Rodger at 01:40 AM on 29 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
LTO @75,
The graphics in the OP show the distribution of "global temperature" for 1934 & 2016, but not the actual "global temperature". You appear to be disputing the method by which that distribution can be extended to places that have no measured temperatures.
Assuming you are happier with 250km smoothing (as opposed to the more normal 1,200km), here are two graphics based on the same GISS data with such 250km smoothing.
The ERSST data has less gaps, even in 1934, probably because the weather stations sail around the oceans and are thus always filling in gaps. Or it may be that the methodology used in ERSST isn't impacted by the 250km smooting button at GISTEMP.You will see in the top right corner of these graphics the resulting global temperature anomaly. Note that the 1934 global anomaly (1900-2000 base) is still negative. It would be a very brave man who suggested these graphics do not entirely support the message of the OP.
-
LTO at 23:59 PM on 28 January 20191934 - hottest year on record
Hi all
Thanks for your responses, but either you've misunderstood my criticism or you aren't being serious. Let me restate it.
The 1934 chart in this topic purports to show the 'global temperature' for 1934 was cooler than "average for the 20th century", with massive swathes of the globe and southern hemisphere oceans and Antarctica in particular apparently being multiple degrees cooler. It is an absolute nonsense to suggest we know anything about the temperature across the globe to this level of resolution. There is a huge fraction of the southern hemisphere that was much more than 1,200 km from the nearest measuring station in 1934. ( See https://imgur.com/a/E8mtlqf ) There wasn't even a single weather station on Antarctica then (1.5x size of continental US), but you'd like me to believe it was 1-4 degrees colder than 'average' in 1934.
Further, I don't believe that the 1,200 km radius is valid for temperature anomalies over the ocean to any certainty, where currents must play a far greater role than on land. In other words, the error across the chart is far greater in most places than the purported effect. It is totally misleading and asserts something we don't know.
As to the people talking about needing only a handful of measuring stations. Unfortunately you appear to have not read the fine print. This is only if they are very strategically placed around the globe. They were not strategically placed in 1934, with massive gaps. One of the big elephants in the room with historical temp records are ocean temperatures.
As always, thoughts on what I may have got wrong very welcome. Please do acknowledge and quantify uncertanties. Thanks!
Moderator Response:[PS] This is verging on sloganeering and strongly suggests you have either not read or understood the resources offered to you on the anomaly method. Arguments from Personal Incredulity have no place here. Either present data supporting your claims or show us the faults in the published analyses of SST data. Scientists do the hard sweat over data.
If you are determined not accept the science, then this site is not for you. I would encourage you however to engage in some critical thinking and decide what data would change your mind. Then we might be able to help.
-
MA Rodger at 19:26 PM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
Philippe Chantreau @1259,
The 'hypothesis' is a little off-stage so not directly linked to climate change, instead appearing within the general conspiracy-theory community. See here or here.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:32 AM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
SOurce's acknowledgment at 1258 is highly commendable. I am tempted to ask: where did this hypothesis of an abrupt and large change in the Sun's photosphere temperature initially come from?
-
S0urce at 04:42 AM on 28 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @ 1256, MA Rodger @1257
Thank you for the answer and linked sources. I've to agree that the scientific evidence is quite conclusive, and that my theory of a color/classification change from yellowish to pale-white metallic or G2 to F-9 doesn't seem to hold.
Moderator Response:[PS] And thank you too for your contribution. Constructive debate happens best when both sides acknowledge errors and misunderstandings, and clearly indicate what they agree with in an opposing argument and what they continue to disagree with.
-
MA Rodger at 22:41 PM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
S0urce @1255,
You are, I feel, asking for a scientific reference which specifically says the colour of the Sun is changed or unchanged since 1975. If there has been no such colour change, there is hardily likely to be such a reference.
The NASA Factsheet for the Sun describes its Specral Type as G2V. We can assume this is the current classification, the Factsheet having been last updated February 2018. The Specral Type of a star is defined by its temperature G2. The roman numeral V defines its luminocity (or size). Indeed, The Spectral Type G2V is a direct indicator of a star's colour as it can be determined from ratio of the star's radation flux of in the visible wavebands 500-600nm and 390-490nm, yielding a value (B-V).
You are asserting up-thread that the Sun's temperature has risen and that it sould now be classified as F9V. The NASA Factsheet says otherwise.
And the Sun's Spectral Type was G2V according to Gray (1992) 'The Inferred Color Index of the Sun' and if that is not early enough for you, Gray (1992) cites Morgan & Keenan (1973) 'Spectral Classification' who also give the Sun's Spectral Type as G2V.
This scientific evidence, I would suggest, is quite conclusive.
-
michael sweet at 11:52 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
Sourcer,
As MA Rodger pointed out to you here, the energy emitted by the Sun has remained in the range 1360-1364 W/m2 since 1975 (longer records are available). If the temperature of the Sun changed than the energy received on Earth would change. Ergo the temperature of the Sun has remained constant since 1975 (and actually longer than that).
-
nigelj at 09:55 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Why Trump is 'wrong' on climate change
Arnie makes several good points in this article like this one: "The world leaders need to take it seriously and put a time clock on it and say, 'OK, within the next five years we want to accomplish a certain kind of a goal,' rather than push it off until 2035."
Maybe he has come back from the future to warn us...
-
Skeptical Wombat at 08:56 AM on 27 January 2019Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Sorry that should be Eunice Foote.
-
RedBaron at 06:54 AM on 27 January 2019Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
@26 Barbara,
It's easy to see that the Lancet links you posted contains papers that show a completely naive and unrealistic understanding of agriculture and the primary food systems of the planet.
It's full of doctors trying to explain to farmers why their food is unhealthy and it is pretty ridiculous actually.
Just for an example[1]:
"(1)
Seek international and national commitment to shift towards healthy diets. The scientific targets set by this Commission provide guidance for the necessary shift, which consists of increasing consumption of plant-based foods and substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods. Research has shown that this shift will reduce environmental effects and improve health outcomes. This concerted commitment can be achieved by investment in public health information and sustainability education, and improved coordination between departments of health and environment.
(2)
Re-orient agricultural priorities from producing high quantities of food to producing healthy food. Production should focus on a diverse range of nutritious foods from biodiversity-enhancing food production systems rather than increased volume of a few crops, most of which are used for animal production."So here they are with the very laudable goal of improving agriculture, but then emediately hamstringing any effort to restore agricultural land by requiring a reduction of animal agriculture. You can't accomplish goal 2 by following goal 1. It sabotages any attempt to actually improve agriculture to sustainable systems.
Agriculture became unhealthy and unsustainable when the animals were removed from the farm and started being raised in CAFOs and feedlots instead. The land degrades because animal impact is replaced with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Reducing animals even more is not the solution. The solution is returning the animals to the land where they belong.
(3) ...This change would entail reducing yield gaps on cropland, radical improvements in the efficiency of fertiliser and water use, recycling phosphorus, redistributing global use of nitrogen and phosphorus, implementing climate mitigation options, including changes in crop and feed management, and enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems.
As you can see this fundamental lack of understanding continues in 3 as well. All of the goals presented being far more efficiently attained by animals rather than inorganic chemicals. Which also results in both yield increases and quality increases.
4 has parts equally as bad.
management policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land
Ignoring the fact that animals are critical in restoring land. This failure to understand biological systems and the requirement for animal impact to restore degraded land is why we have such disasters like the California and Oregon forest fires. It's poor management designed by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and yet they want "strong governmental control"...exactly what caused such disasters to begin with.
I could go on an on, but to summarize:
We can all agree the current system is set up for failure and an important part of the causes of AGW. However, the solutions presented are not a solution at all. In some ways making it even worse.
-
S0urce at 06:48 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @1253
In my defence, the photograph(s) were used in the scientific litterature back in the 80's, and I'm pretty sure they were taken out in space. What I am looking for is the color index of the Sun from pre-80's till today, then I would give up the theory. -
nigelj at 06:27 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
And yes we have to be aware of the link between sugars and carbs and type 2 diabetes, but this could be mitigated by keeping total calorie intake within sensible levels. Asians have quite a high carb diet, but low diabetes, probably because the total calories are moderate.
We could also maximise eating plant based proteins and fibre, so carbs aren't too high.
-
nigelj at 06:16 AM on 27 January 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4
Regarding "The Way We Eat..." I love a fried or grilled steak sometimes, but I feel there are numerous reasons to go moderate with meat consumption, and I feel this confluence of factors should be what guides our thinking. The sum total of factors is compelling to me. The reasons include more efficient use of scarce land resources, less cancer risk, less heart disease risk, less animal cruelty, possible longer life span, less methane emissions and other factors.
And there is no obvious downside to lower meat consumption, ie it doesnt appear to cause harm.
Mediterranean and Japanese diets are lower in meat than Americans diet and they live longer and have lower obesity and diabetes etc. Of course like the article says, its really hard sorting out cause and effect, but perhaps the point is a low meat diet is not obviously hurting Mediterranean people, and is "very likely" helping them.
We have to make choices , and all we have is the best science available. We may never have perfect sicience, but science is infinitely preferable to gut instincts, unqualified self appointed diet "experts", astrology etc.
Look at the issue another way. Is there any compound in meat and fish that is important to health that we cannot get from plants? Not that I can see. We know there are plants rich in protein, iron can be obtained from certain plants or even mineral supplements, various plant based oils contain saturated fats (necessary to metabolise certain vitamins).
We know vegetarians live longer than meat eaters from numerous studies. Of course this might be because they exercise more, but the point is the plant based diet is not obviously hurting them in some way.
I'm not promoting vegetarianism as such. The new research suggests no more than 600 g of meat and fish combined per week. I eat about 1100 grams of meat and fish combined a week. I could do 800 g I think.
The high meat / saturated fat diets like The Atkins Diet rely on the ketosis theory of losing weight. Ok this appears to be solid science, but other science indicates people find it really hard to stay with the Atkins style of diet long term.
The losing weight issue is different anyway form the healthy diet issue (although they overlap). A really effective diet that helps people keep weight off long term remains elusive, especially if you are very overweight. The body resets permanently at increased appetite levels. I see a lot more stomach stapling operations.
-
Barbara at 05:52 AM on 27 January 2019Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Since there is a very much new analysis of the impact of meat eating and dietary choices on global warming perhpas you should update this section: see Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
-
sdinardo at 05:31 AM on 27 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
William @4: a typo. 5.4 / 0.8 = 6.75 kg of ice.
-
MA Rodger at 01:50 AM on 27 January 2019It's the sun
michael sweet @1253,
As you say, the Sun's colour is dependent on what you are looking through to see it. Out in space, where there is nothing in the way, the Sun appears white as the red and blue parts of the spectrum cancel each other out. This German graphic shows how more of the blue part of the visible spectrum is lost in the clear atmosphere, causing the yellowish colour.
-
Evan at 23:58 PM on 26 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Thanks for the feedback William. It's nice to know when analogies do/don't click. And your point about the melting of ice from condensation is important because these are the effects that people often don't think about, but which have large consequences. As you implicitly point out, it's not all about whether or not temperatures are going up.
Thanks for the video link SirCharles.
-
michael sweet at 23:43 PM on 26 January 2019It's the sun
Source,
An interesting question to post on a scientific blog. Which is more accurate:
1) Carefully calibrated scientific instruments operated by highly trained specialists over a period of decades or
2) Untrained novices eyeballing 40 year old photographs taken at unknown locations and atmospheric conditions and comparing them to what they see on a randomly selected day outside their home.
I will note that at my home the color of the sun is different at noon than it is at sunset and differs depending on the clouds and air pollution in the sky at the time of observation.
I think the readers here at SkS will be able to reach their own conclusions.
-
S0urce at 21:43 PM on 26 January 2019It's the sun
This is a response to MA Rodger's answer in the Other Planets are Warming.
I failed to finish the comment @1251, but the reason why I found the argument interesting is because everyone can in an easy way, and with rather simplistic material, prove for themselves that the Sun has in a 40 year period gone from being "yellowish" to a pale-white metallic color. This change in color represent a change in temperatur which we can call X. If the data doesn't show X change in temperatur during this period; is the data wrong or is the empiricall method used missleading?
-
william5331 at 17:11 PM on 26 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
That was about the neatest description of evaporation and its consequenses I have read. Very nice. Note that latent heat from ice to water is only enough to raise the same amount of water from zero to 800C. Consequence..... If warm moist air flows accross Greenland, each kg of water that condenses out of the air releases enough heat to melt 5.4/8 = 6.75kg of ice. Makes you think.
-
Skeptical Wombat at 12:46 PM on 26 January 2019Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
It turns out that Eunice Brooks identified the importance of Carbon Dioxide three years prior to Tyndal -See Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays.
Unfortunately Brooks did not have Tyndal's flair for self promotion so her contribution has lain unnoticed until it was recently discovered by Raymond Sorenson.
-
John Hartz at 03:41 AM on 26 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin:
Hot off the press:
4 Climate-Influenced Disasters Cost the U.S. $53 Billion in 2018 by Daniel Cusick, E&E News/Scientific American, Jan 23, 2019
-
SirCharles at 23:47 PM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Dr. James Hansen: Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms Video Abstract
-
MA Rodger at 19:53 PM on 25 January 2019Other planets are warming
S0urce @53,
There is usually no dispute that the strength of the Sun has increased over the eons. (So says the Standard Solar Model although the 'weak early sun paradox' does occasionally throw up some contradictary ideas, eg Graedel et al 1991). Yet an increase of 200K in the Sun's temperature over periods of a century or even centuries is in a different league. A rise in temperature from 5800K to 6000K (with theSun unchanged in size) would result in a 14% increase in solar radiation, boosting Earth's insolation from 1366Wm^-2 to 1442Wm^-2. Solar insolation has been accurately measured for 40 years with no sign of such a rise.
And actually, we wouldn't have required such measurements to notice an increase of that size. A rise of 200K in the Sun's temperature would have applied a ~12Wm^-2 forcing to Earth's climate, enough to boost Earth's global temperature by ~10ºC, a bit of a game changer if it happened over a period of a century or so.Moderator Response:[TD] I deleted S0urce's duplicate post in this thread. See the copy s/he posted in It's the Sun.
-
S0urce at 18:37 PM on 25 January 2019It's the sun
The Sun was classified as a G2V main sequence Yellow dwarf star, and oddly it still is. But the fact is it no longer is a yellow star, it's a white star. The once yellowish sun is now a brilliant metallic white, as result of an increase in the average temperature of the photo sphere of approximately 200 degrees kelvin.
It is possible to actually prove this increase in temperature to yourself.
The only equipment and materials you need are an astrophysical publication in book form that predates 1980 and gives the photosphere temperature and classification of the Sun , a camera, and a color/temperature star classification chart . All publications no matter where they originate that predate 1980 will say the Sun is a G2V main sequence yellow dwarf star. with a photosphere temperature of 5600-5750 Kelvin. It will also describe the visible overall appearance of the Sun as "pale yellow", which correlates with that temperature color -wise. There may be an image showing you how the Sun appears, usually just a circle of pale yellow. If you reference a star color /temperature chart you will find this to be true, that 5750 correlates with a pale yellow star.. The Sun as a G2 star was on the upper end of the "yellow" classification, but as it gained 200degrees K to 6000K , it's classification changed from G2 to F-9, which is on the lower end of the "white" star classification temperature and color.Moderator Response:[TD] See MA Rodger's response comment in the Other Planets are Warming thread. Everybody please post further responses here in this It's the Sun thread.
-
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
I think Molsen is wanting to pick a shorter time period to make his point (ie cherry pick). When you have a noisy time series (like this one), you dont get to pick arbitary periods (see "the escalator" in right hand column). The amount of variance in the data determines how many points in the time series are needed to determine a significant trend. Climate is defined as 30 year average of weather for a good reason.
-
Daniel Bailey at 11:27 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
That graphic already incorporates 2018 data.
-
Molsen at 11:02 AM on 25 January 2019Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
Daniel Bailey, if instead of using the trend line that incorporates 2010 data, you use the trend line that incorporates 2018 data, you will see that it has shifted up slightly.
PS, you're right — the answer should be updated to reflect new data. The existing data is misleading.
-
RickG at 10:30 AM on 25 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
@bArt 334. "The reason I choose to remain an AGW skeptic at this time is because a series of unscientific but still logical and true facts bring me there by deduction (which is all that readings and models happen to do also)."
I disagree, unscientific is not logical. There is a reason more than 97% of mainstream science says AGW is not only real but a serious problem. And there is absolutely no doubt that the increased CO2 and warming is anthropogenic. Its plain straight forward chemistry shown through carbon isotopes. No ifs, ands, or buts.
-
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 25 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
bArt - your point 4/ raises interesting question. How do you really go about about evaluating an issue. There is a lot about critical thinking versus motivated reasoning here.
One good starting point is to decide what evidence would make you change your mind (and please dont insist on nature doing something that climate science says cant happen like monotonic temperature rise).
You might ask, what would it take for me to decide AGW is wrong and I think this post outlines at the bottom what discoveries would certainly cause me to change my mind.
-
Evan at 06:01 AM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
nigelj@1 Yes, evaporative coolers are a good example. When I was young we did not have air conditioning in our car. When travellig in the desert we put wet washclothes on our forehead to cool ourselves down. Same principle as an evaporative cooler.
Although evaporation only occurs above 0C, below that temperature the process is fundamentally the same, except it is called sublimation and not evaporation because frozen water is moving to the vapor phase. I enjoy watching a small pile of snow inside our shed in Minnesota slowly disappear in the middle of winter.
-
nigelj at 05:45 AM on 25 January 2019SkS Analogy 17 - Lotteries, evaporation, and superstorms
Very catchy, informative and entertaining analogy. I found myself trying to remember under what conditions evaporation occurs. It could be helpful to include an embedded link to a wikipedia article on evaporation, or a brief summary that evaporation can happen at any temperature above 0 degrees C, and is proportional to temperature, and the vapour pressure of the atmosphere etcetera. Or maybe this is superfluous to the thrust of the discussion, and over complicates it?
Several of the principles noted form the basis of evaporative coolers.
Another consequence of a warming world and higher levels of atmospheric moisture is storms produce more intense rainfall. This was very significant for Hurricane Harvey.
-
Norm Rubin at 05:01 AM on 25 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Thanks folks, that's what I was looking for. More the science and stats part than the ad hominem stuff, since I was raised to be able to learn from a fool, and I also don't mind learning from people who are biased or sometimes wrong I try to avoid tribalism in politics generally, and I find it especially rampant and ugly in the climate wars.
But it will take me a while to get through it all.
Just offhand, of course the US mainland is not nearly the whole world, but it's probably the part that's been keeping the best records of hurricanes for the longest. When you lose your keys in the dark, it may be smart to look first under the streetlights, type thing. Of course, of all possible statistical outcomes, a finding of no significant trend is most easily produced by a too-small sample, so I "get" the criticism.
-
MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
bArt @334,
While I agree with the comments @335&336, I would say that the meaning of much of what you write is not at all clear. So let me present what I interpret you as saying along with my own understanding of its context.
You accept the world is warming and are open to "new findings and information" (4), but this is an exceedingly low base from which to establish the reality of AGW.
You don't give a hoot about humanity (1) or other biological life (3) as long as you are not too hot and have oxygen to breath. Interestingly Arrhenius thought that a little more heat would be good for the world, he living in Sweden which is a tad cold come the winter. There was even discussion of setting fire to coal mines so AGW could be created without having to mine the stuff before you burn it. If Arrhenius had lived in the tropics (as do 40% of humanity) or a less Euro-centric world, he would surely have thought differently.
Your need for volcanoes (3) remains a mystery.
The failure of science to nail down ECS more exactly cannot really be seen as a reason to ignore the serious nature of AGW. Identifying the upper limits of ECS is always going to be difficult as a high ECS is only different from a medium ECS after 100 years or so. The work of folk trying their hardest to demonstrate tiny values for ECS (or TCR) and thus to diminish AGW, such work doesn't really hold water outside the narrow constructs they set it out within. So yes, in a narrow sense "the science is actually not yet settled" but the bit of science you rest your faith in (2) is narrower than narrow and those wholly engaged in that sliver of science are simply refusing to leave the last-chance-saloon at closing time.
The relevance of your final sentence in (2) is not evident.
-
scaddenp at 19:29 PM on 24 January 2019Sea level is not rising
Whatever the rights or wrongs, post-earthquake changes to the district plan are a long way from "If people are to be forced by law to move away from coastal areas or suffer other penalty due to events that merely might happen". Chch dropped relative to sealevel in the quake and rising seas (currently happening as measured not a future maybe) only exacerbate the situation. I sit on other side where colleagues wring their hands in despair when consents are given to building in a gun barrel. Chch suffered enough from that where developers with deep pockets buys land, and fights their way through to sell it on to suckers. I agree that compensation needs to be looked at but so is the responsibility for diligence. Better if councils sorted hazards before development.
-
bArt17240 at 17:50 PM on 24 January 2019Sea level is not rising
This link shows that CCC over-reached when it wrote the district plan for a coastal strip of land here in Christchurch, New Zealand. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/107144890/three-lines-left-out-of-christchurchs-district-plan-has-left-a-community-in-despair
Of course they claim it was an honest mistake. I am very skeptical.
I believe that where a rated property has had full occupancy and building rights for several decades, if the powers that be wish to change the rules, then even though they have the right to do that, any property owner that loses amenity of value (due to policy changes) should be compensated.
We are a bit of a special case here in Christchurch after the earthquakes, we have been told so many lies, have been spied on by govt. and generally been ridden roughshod over, that we now are very suspicious of any officials who wish to change things in their favour and at the same time pull the wool over law abiding citizens eyes.
-
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Just to further at your point 1. You seem to be stating it is reasonable to be AGW skeptic because prefer warming. In places where death toll in 1000s from heatwaves, then they would rather a cooling trend. Is it logical to for each person to determine the truth of what is actually happening on basis of their preference. Or is it, "I all right Jack" ergo AGW is alarmist conspiracy?
-
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
1/ You choose your beliefs around your personal preferences? Hardly logical. A logical basis for believe is where the actual evidence points you.
Again, it is not a question of what the temperature actually is, but how fast that it is changing that is the main problems. Rapid change threatens infrastructure and agriculture.
2/"can cancel one another out". I am not aware of any evidence supporting that. Where did you get that from? Cloud feedback is very complicated (is it net positive or negative?) but able to cancel out water vapour feedback? Again, all the actual evidence whether from paleoclimate, models, TCS estimates etc. puts sensitivity in range 1.5 - 4.5 with likely value of 2.8-3.0. You appear to be accepting some hand-wavy arguments in favour of what you would like to believe rather then any actual evidence.
"Both oceans and atmosphere are fluid, dynamic and vast and average measurements can only indicate trends." Not sure what your point is here? The error range associated with measurement of both ocean heat and atmosphere are well documented and I cannot see how they would support your argument.
3. Well that is logical, because biological life contributes next to zero to global warming. Its burning fossil fuel that does the damage.
4. Good, but actually understanding the existing findings and information would be good idea. You seem a little prone to ignoring observations you dont like.
I am still keen to see a response to reply on other thread. Particularly your source for laws pushing people off land on basis projected sealevel rise.
-
bArt17240 at 13:16 PM on 24 January 2019Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The reason I choose to remain an AGW skeptic at this time is because a series of unscientific but still logical and true facts bring me there by deduction (which is all that readings and models happen to do also).
1. Some warming is preferable to some cooling (humans are warm blooded and do not do well without insulation against the cold (0 deg.C). When I physically begin to feel uncomfortable from the relentless heat, I may then prefer a cooling trend.
2. Positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research and therefore the science is actually not yet settled. Both oceans and atmosphere are fluid, dynamic and vast and average measurements can only indicate trends.
3. As long as terrestrial and deep ocean volcanoes exist, and as long as I do not have difficulty breathing (O2 supply) then I am not going to worry about how much "heat" biological life (see above) contributes to global warming.
4. I remain open to new findings and information and accept that a GW trend is currently occurring.
-
michael sweet at 12:50 PM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin,
The RealClimate link that Bob Loblaw has above shows that using only landfalling hurricanes reduces the available data by a factor of over 1000. They specifically argue that this is an inappropriate method of data analysis because it allows the noise to overcome the signal. It appears that the paper you cited has been prebunked. I seem to have been too kind in my post.
Bob,
Thanks for the great links. I see your posts on other sites. Always well informed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:26 PM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Somewhat old now, but Pielke's work has been discussed over at Tamino's Open MInd in the past:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catastrophes-how-many-more/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/
Slightly newer discussion of hurrixcane frequency at RealClimate. The post presents some behaviour by Pielke that is, shall we say, not particularly flattering.
-
michael sweet at 10:09 AM on 24 January 2019Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Norm Rubin,
I am not an expert on hurricanes but I read some.
Nature Sustainability is not the same journal as Nature. It is less prestigious.
These authors have been making this argument for a long time. From what I have read it appears that they are in the minority but there is not a consensus on this topc.
Analysis of USA only data seems inappropriate to me. There are not many hurricanes and the record is noisy. The USA is only 3% of the Earth's surface. You would expect that noise would be bigger than the signal.
This article documents that strong hurricanes (force 4 and 5) have increased in number over the entire Earth. They reference at least 4 other papers that find an increase in the most powerful hurricanes. There appear to be less force 1 and 2 hurricanes so the total number of hurricanes is about the same. There is much more signal to noise in an analysis of the entire Earth. It stands to reason that if there are more force 4 and 5 hurricanes (which cause most of the damage), there will be more damage caused. An analysis of world wide damage for the past 40 years would be more meaningful than a USA only analysis with a longer record.
The paper I cited claims that sea surface temperatures have only been elevated enough to affect hurricanes for 40 years so the earlier data in your cited paper is not as valuable.
Jeff Masters discusses the catastrophic hurricanes that struck the USA in 2018. He discusses modeling that attributes 50% of Florence's rainfall to warming. Similar attribution has been made for Harvey's rainfall in Texas last year.
To me it stands to reason that if there are more category 4 and 5 hurricanes and they produce twice as much rain due to warming than more damage will be caused by hurricanes. There were several strong hurricanes at the start of the limited USA record analyzed in the Weinkle et al paper which affect the statistics.
I expect it to be a long time (decades) before the USA only record of hurricanes shows statistically significant change in hurricanes since there are so few and the record is noisy. The worldwide record already shows increases in powerful hurricanes which cause the most damage.
I doubt there will be much commentary on this paper by scientists unless deniers make wild claims about it. Since it is a valid paper if you choose to make the argument that hurricanes have not changed you can, but it is not a strong claim when the world record is examined. The fact the US damage was so severe in 2018, after the Weinkle paper was published, is suggestive but not statistically significant yet.
Prev 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 Next
