Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 Next
Comments 129551 to 129600:
-
Quietman at 12:09 PM on 15 May 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick Re: "A trillion milligrams = a billion g = a million kg = a thousand metric tons" A lot for you, nothing to the Earth. Everything is relative. The surface is 70-75% water. Water controls the climate it just so many ways (but it's the sun that gives the oceans most of it's heat potential). Re: "I still don't know what you mean... " The science isn't settled. Re: "1. So what if the policy at one time ignores global warming risk? Once upon a time, there were few restrictions on smoking and ciggarette advertising - why would people not restrict an unhealthy product? Well, it is unhealthy, and (libertarian objections aside) now we have restrictions." Because it's not a pollutant, it's perfectly safe mixed into the air we breathe and required by plants, a part of nature's carbon cycle. We have known about GHGs and CO2 as a GHG for over 100 years so you don't seem to realize that real scientists know it's not a problem. Never has been and never will. It's O2 that can be a bugger. -
Ron Cram at 10:14 AM on 15 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Chris, I will have to brush up on CO2 through the centuries but I have a hard time swallowing a narrow range of CO2 variability. Consider the fact anthropogenic CO2 emissions has increased dramatically over the last two decades, yet the rate of accumulation in the atmosphere is about the same or even less. This shows the carbon cycle can have a hugely different natural uptake of CO2. 2. You write: "These rises {pre-1900 and pre-1950} in atmospheric CO2 are expected to make a significant contribution to the surface temperature changes during these periods." Not true. Also "the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively." Please! Have you ever heard the term "false precision?" The instruments available during this time cannot measure in hundredths of a degree. And 0.15C is not signficant, it is a hypothesis - an calculation. No one of the many pro-AGWers I have talked to think 9 ppm of CO2 is significant or even measurable. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:24 AM on 15 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
NewYorkJ, that would be her honesty. The editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. An extensive search of the litterature (22000 journals) by the folks at the DeSmog revealed 4 research articles by her on environmental policy. In the case of E&E her editing is used in lieu of conventional peer-review. Last I checked, E&E was not listed in Journal Citation Reports: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/scientific/Journal_Citation_Reports The issue of land use is not ignored at all by climate science and it is a significant contributor to CO2 production. There is a wealth of litterature on the subject, a few examples and summaries here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#landuse sghwterttrrtrtt4r34r34trt34t5r34rt34tr34rt435rt43 -
Ron Cram at 09:01 AM on 15 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
NewYorkJ, you obviously do not know what an ad hom argument is. An ad hom argument is when you go after the person rather than deal with the facts they raised. All you are doing is saying "Yeah, but it's true." It is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the question of whether or not Loehle's paper is accurate. If it is accurate, it could be published by the Devil himself and it would still be accurate. Ad hom attacks do not impress me. And they should not impress you either. -
chris at 08:04 AM on 15 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ron, I think we've established that oceans have likely continued to take up heat at least during the 5 year period to 2008. The scientific evidence supports that conclusion (see references [*] and [**] in my post #7 above). The magazine note by Loehle that you url hardly lends itself to a contrary conclusion, finishing as it does with:”While the current study takes advantage of a globally consistent data source, a 4.5-year period of ocean cooling is not unexpected in terms of natural fluctuations. The problem of instrumental drift and bias is quite complicated, however, (Domingues et al. 2008; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Wijffels et al. 2008; Willis et al. 2004, 2008a) and it remains possible that the result of the present analysis is an artifact.”
re #17/#20 Your assertions about the lack of contribution of land use changes to atmospheric CO2 levels, and the contribution of mid19th-mid20th century increases in atmospheric CO2 to temperature changes don't accord with the evidence: 1. Atmospheric CO2 levels are recorded in the Antarctic Law Dome cores going back 1000 years (see reference [***] in my post #9)...these have more recently been extended back 2000 years (see [*] below). These data allow insight into natural variability on the decadally-averaged timescale (since the CO2 data in these high resolution cores is averaged on that timescale). During the period from around 1100 to around 1570, for example, atmospheric CO2 levels were ~ 281 +/- 3 ppm. That gives an indication of the variation under relatively stable climatic conditions within a system in which carbon is cycled through the atmosphere/land and oceans. It's small, and especially so when yearly variation (El Nino years result in a slightly enanced [CO2], and vice versa for La Nina's, for example) are averaged out in the cores. Atmospheric CO2 levels dropped during the period of the LIA (275 ppm +/- 2 pm during the period 1600 to the middle of the 18th century). By 1800, CO2 levels were back to the pre-LIA levels of 283/284 ppm. In other words the carbon cycle had re-established its pre-LIA "equilibrium" by the early part of the 19th century. The rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from ~ 286 ppm - 297 ppm in the period 1850-1900, and from ~300 ppm to 309 ppm from 1910-1940, are very clearly outwith the natural variation seen in the preceding 800 years. They don't go up and down slowly over long periods (the fall in CO2 into the LIA was relatively fast), but go up and up rather quickly in the context of natural variation. They are very likely the result of anthropogenic emissions and land use changes. We could document the evidence for this, but perhaps this thread isn't the appropriate place. 2. These rises in atmospheric CO2 are expected to make a significant contribution to the surface temperature changes during these periods. It's very easy to calculate that within a climate sensitivity right in the centre of the likely range (3 oC of warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2), the enhanced greenhouse warming during the two periods is 0.15 oC and 0.13 oC, respectively. Since the total global warming from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century was around 0.3-0.4 oC: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ the anthropogenic contribution from industrial and land use changes could rather easily account for the bulk of the warming during this period. So clearly it's NOT a "total fallacy to think a few PPMs of atmospheric CO2 in the last half of the 19th century is going to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere or ocean heat content or rising sea levels"! Within our understanding of the greenhouse effect, we certainly expect that these small but significant rises in atmospheric CO2 should cause the surface to warm, and the oceans to take up some excess heat and expand somewhat. [*] C. MacFarling Meure et al. (2006) Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14810. -
Dan Pangburn at 05:23 AM on 15 May 2009It's the sun
As experienced during the Maunder Minimum, the observation that there are few sunspots is associated with cold (see e.g. Fig. 2 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/really_cooling.pdf ). This indicates a connection between sunspot count and energy reaching earth’s surface. It is revealing to plot against time the integral of the sunspot data reduced by a factor times the fourth power of the average global absolute temperature. This results in a graph with amplitude proportional to energy change and therefore an expected influence on average global temperature change. Adjust the factor so that the first part of the curve is fairly level. This graph shows a substantial and continued energy gain starting in about 1945. This corroborates the observation of a Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years and appears to have ended a few years ago. Now, look at the graph of average global temperature such as the NOAA data available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat . Notice the approximate 30 year up-trends and down-trends that have been associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Note that from about 1945 until about 1975 the PDO down trend must have been a stronger forcing than the gain from sunspots since the temperature trend was down. After 1975 the PDO uptrend combines with the increased solar activity to produce the gain in average global temperature observed late in the 20th century. The sun has gone quiet and the PDO is in its downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is going to result in a continuation of the planet cooling trend. The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Clouds are parameterized in the AOGCMs, are recognized as being very significant and are a recognized weakness in the analysis. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence than just Total Solar Irradiation. The Climate Science Community is, for the most part, unaware of the science (it’s not in their curriculum) that proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature and therefore earth’s climate. See my pdf linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof and to identify the missing science. Or email danpangburn@roadrunner.com -
Patrick 027 at 04:55 AM on 15 May 2009It's the sun
"It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. " "In parts of the Mesozoic it was not as hot but had higher levels of CO2, There is zero correlation." It isn't that black-and-white - less than perfect correlation is not zero correlation. From the physics, CO2 must have an effect; uncertainties are more from feedbacks; uncertainties are not infinite. Where there are variations that do not correlate, maybe there were other things happening at those times, such as (depending on time scale and magnitude of variations): biological evolution (such as evolution of land vegetation (albedo)), changes in geography (albedo, direct mechanical effects on atmospheric and oceanic circulations, direct thermal effects on atmosphere and ocean, interaction of thermal and circulation changes and other feedbacks). ----- HOW does O2 cause cooling? Effects on the ozone layer? Interesting, but I need some numbers... ------ "It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. " By the standard you must use for evidence, there is likely no evidence for: millions of years of biological evolution by natural processes generating/sustaining the diversity of life and its interactions Pangea a sizable asteroid hit the Earth ~ 65 Ma by the Yucatan Peninsula the moon landings the (H word; yes, I'll play that card in this case, since I am able to lump it together with these others so that the defining characteristic of the group is not the offensiveness of denial) the expansion of the universe heavy elements are manufactured naturally in stars by nuclear reactions and in supernovae and maybe a few other related processes... ? the Earth is round (because if the space program was faked, then all we have to go on is...) ? quarks -
NewYorkJ at 02:46 AM on 15 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ron Cram, It's not an ad hominen to reference a quote from the journal's editor: "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?" I admire his honesty, but to answer his question: no - not if you want your journal to be respected. Rarely-cited sub-standard journals set up by like-minded skeptics don't carry much weight with the scientific community. It's no better than a self-published reference. What I do know is that the latest peer-reviewed research in the field now renders Loehle one of the last "ocean heat content cooling" holdouts. -
Quietman at 01:56 AM on 15 May 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
ps You don't see the increase because you are not looking hard enough. Everyone admits that it has increased and that is what the articles point out taken collectively. I have not included all because some are just so common place. It's pnly the recently become active (and recently discovered) that make the news. -
Quietman at 01:52 AM on 15 May 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Re: "The only aspect I don't have an immediate issue with, is that there may be a link between changes in volcanic activity and changes in surface currents (e.g. ENSO)." That was the whole point. But it's not just ENSO. It's the same at every subduction zone where sea floor meets continent. They are all cyclic in nature and the cycles are not uniform. There are at least three major subduction zones in the arctic (there are more but not currently active and therefore not recognized as such but logic dictates their locations by direction of continental movement). And a rifting area at N. E. Greenland. Alaska is currently active. Not from westward movement as the subduction zone is in Asia but along the north continental edge of Alaska. These can be seen on a good quality seafloor floor. It looks like the Canadian Shield is turning clockwise. -
Ron Cram at 23:05 PM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ian, I was not aware of any recent problems so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. As I read over the link you provided, it appears to be the same problem being discussed twice- a slow internal leak is causing false pressure readings. The first notice indicates a few floats will be greylisted as uncorrectable. For the others, adjustments will be made. The second notice discusses the fact newer floats seem to have this problem in greater numbers. They are working on a more reliable testing procedures but also working on a new style of pressure sensor from a different manufacturer. We will have to wait to see what impact the necessary adjustments will have on the data. -
Ron Cram at 22:31 PM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
NewYorkJ, I know the reputation of the editor of E&E. I also know E&E has published papers no other journal would publish only to have the findings published in E&E confirmed in subsequent AGU journal articles. One example is the M&M paper on the Hockey Stick. I also know the reputation of Craig Loehle, which is very good. Ad hominem attacks, against a journal's editor or the author of a paper, do not carry much weight with me. If you can find something wrong with Loehle's paper, then you would be doing real science. If you find something, let me know. David, land use/land cover changes can impact temperature as Roger Pielke and others have been pointing out for a long time. But the main impact of land use/land cover changes is not to CO2. If it was, the issue would be more warmly embraced by the IPCC and Roger would not be so adament that CO2 is not the only impact. Contrary to IPCC statements, no one really knows how much of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century was natural and how much was from 50 years of accumulated anthropogenic CO2. It is a total fallacy to think a few PPMs of atmospheric CO2 in the last half of the 19th century is going to have a measurable impact on the atmosphere or ocean heat content or rising sea levels. You do know that atmospheric CO2 levels change naturally right? You do understand the carbon cycle? -
David Horton at 16:00 PM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
#13 Ron Cram. There is some evidence, and the proposition seems obvious, that from the time humans started altering the environment on a massive scale through agriculture they were having an impact on atmospheric chemistry. Up until that point, hunter-gatherer humans, like other animal species, were consuming plants that were replacing themselves, leaving CO2 in balance. Agriculture changes the equation by extensive land clearance and the build up of numbers of domestic animals. However the changes are still not likely to be great. It is only in the industrial revolution that we start extensively burning the locked up carbon in coal and oil. And sure, this process accelerates, but from the time it began we started to sow the seeds, unknowingly, of the accelerating disaster we have now. So picking a precise starting point for human effects is somewhat futile. Recognising the reality of the effect is essential. -
NewYorkJ at 15:49 PM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ron Cram, Regarding point #2, keep in mind Energy & Environment is not at all a reputable scientific journal. It was set up by like-minded skeptics and is not carried by the ISI. The editor even has admitted to following a political agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment -
Ron Cram at 13:32 PM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Chris, 1. I'm sorry. I misread you. Now I see what you are saying. However, the real warming happened from 1975-2000, not from 1950. According to Labitzke of UCAR, about one-third of warming from that period was solar. Based on the conclusion of his presentation, solar did increase during this period. That was why I misread you. I was certain you were familiar with this commonly held opinion. http://cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu/workshop/tutorials/2001/Labitzke.pdf 2. The amount of data needed depends on the quality of the data and the physical theories in play. Yes, we can conclude that heat uptake by the oceans has stopped based on Argo data. BTW, one of the reasons I like Argo data is that it is freely available to everyone and therefore less susceptible to arbitrary and unexplained adjustments. Craig Loehle recently updated the Willis study with the latest data and guess what? It shows more pronounced cooling of the oceans. You can download the Loehle paper at http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152 3. BTW, Loehle points out some reasons to be skeptical of the Argo data. 4. Where are you getting your numbers for CO2? Have you looked at the amount of human emitted CO2? It is extremely minimal. Any change in atmospheric CO2 during these early periods had more to do with the natural carbon cycle than any human contribution. -
ginckgo at 11:58 AM on 14 May 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Quietman I've tried wading through the 9 pages of comments, and my conclusions so far are: * not a single article you've linked to says what you think it says; none of them certainly support your ideas. * "geologically fast" is still orders of magnitude longer than a human life-span. * You do not understand the magnitude of the global Thermohaline circulation; it will probably overpower the effects of just about all the heat supplied by submarine magmas, and it will certainly smooth out any short term changes in heat supply. * there does not appear to be any evidence that tectonic and volcanic activity are significantly on the rise globally * the significance of planetary alignments on the earth has been falsified conclusively as nothing more than woo; and as soon as someone asserts they understand the fundamental forces of nature better than all the specialists put together, red flags go up anyway The only aspect I don't have an immediate issue with, is that there may be a link between changes in volcanic activity and changes in surface currents (e.g. ENSO). -
Quietman at 10:08 AM on 14 May 2009It's the sun
ps see "Global warming and natural climate change in the past" This discussion does not belong in this thread. -
Quietman at 10:07 AM on 14 May 2009It's the sun
not exposed to the air s/b now exposed to the air (refer to the paleomaps) -
Quietman at 10:04 AM on 14 May 2009It's the sun
Re: "and science is nothing if not evidence-based." It is except for AGW, this is faith-based as there is not evidence. Re: "The peak of the Eocene was perhaps 6 oC warmer than now. Atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 1500 ppm." In parts of the Mesozoic it was not as hot but had higher levels of CO2, There is zero correlation. Re: "Likewise the warming of the Eocene is linked to high atmospheric CO2 levels and cooling towards the late Oligocene was sequentially reduced CO2 levels." No it's increased O2 caused cooling, not reduction of CO2. One is a cause and the other is a consequent. Re: "We might account for 100 or even 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that way, but we're more than 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 out. CO2 levels can't have risen in the manner that you suggest - it's incompatible with the evidence." No, it's not when you take into account the massive increase in tectonic activity and bombardment from space of asteroids and comets (from about 70mya through the Miocene). Think just a minute of how much NOx and Methane was being released from former seabeds not exposed to the air. -
Patrick 027 at 08:58 AM on 14 May 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
I've now read it. I still don't know what you mean... -
Patrick 027 at 08:21 AM on 14 May 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Re 517 - I haven't gotten around to reading it yet; not sure what you mean... -
Patrick 027 at 04:55 AM on 14 May 2009It's the sun
Re 359 - when we say that it is only about 0.1 W/m2 (and, actually, I think that's rounded up from maybe 0.08 W/m2), we - here I am assuming what others mean - we don't mean that it is always exactly the same. But it cannot vary much very fast on large (regional and global) scales because much of the heat near the surface had to come from below, etc... a sudden increase in the heat flux would deplete the near-surface heat and it would take time for heat from below to build up the near-surface heat to a point where it can flow out at the same rate... and of course, the rate of radioactive decay within the crust is basically set in stone once the stone forms. Larger changes have to take millions of years... and there are negative feedbacks that would keep it from getting much larger or much smaller than what it would be following a billions-of-years long cooling trend. Re 363 - why, then, should you assume that changes in geothermal heat fluxes and continental arrangements should have any effect? - even though the later obviously and easily could, it would be an assumption (that certain physical laws held for other time periods, etc.) that it ever did... (Of course it (changes in geography) did, and of course CO2 did, etc.) -
chris at 03:48 AM on 14 May 2009It's the sun
re: #361. The PETM obviously didn't have "zero duration". The greenhouse-induced warming took up to 20,000 years with a longer recovery time. It produced a large temperature rise, ocean acidification, and is associated with expulsion of a very large amount of 13C-depeleted carbon into the atmosphere (and oceans). It caused very significant extinctions of marine organisms. #363/364: The science is speaking for itself Quietman, based on careful assesment of evidence....and science is nothing if not evidence-based. The fact is that the PETM is associated with very high atmospheric CO2 levels, and these were 13C-depleted (possibly originating in methane clathrates), and the oceans acidified. These are all characteristics of warming from greenhouse forcing and CO2 uptake by the oceans. Likewise the warming of the Eocene is linked to high atmospheric CO2 levels and cooling towards the late Oligocene was sequentially reduced CO2 levels. We can be scientific and assess the relationship between raised/reduced temperatures and raised/reduced CO2 durng these periods. We can inspect the ice age transitions and observe that the glacial-interglacial transitions were generally associated with a temperature rise of 5-6 oC and raised CO2 of around 90 ppm (180-270 ppm through several of the transitions in the ice core record). Thus a global temperature rise/fall of around 1 oC recruits/sequesters around 15 ppm of CO2 into/from the atmosphere. The peak of the Eocene was perhaps 6 oC warmer than now. Atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 1500 ppm. It's immediately obvious that such high CO2 levels cannot be due to the physicochemical equilibrium between atmospheric and oceanic CO2 that was responsible for temperature-linked CO2 changes during ice age glacial-interglacial transitions. We might account for 100 or even 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 that way, but we're more than 1000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 out. CO2 levels can't have risen in the manner that you suggest - it's incompatible with the evidence. And of course the notion that CO2 follows temperature but not the other way round is logically flawed. Any phenomenon/event that releases large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere must cause the Earth to warm. The Earth warmed rather quickly during the PETM as a result of the massive enhancement of greenhouse gases that has left multiple traces in the sedimentary record. That's what the evidence shows. -
chris at 03:00 AM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
for John Cook re my post #9. Sorry for calling you John Cross...I did get it right once in my post! If you want to edit my post and delete this one, you could tidy up my mistake... while I'm acknowledging/confessing my posting errors, I inadvertently failed to close a "blockquote" in a recent post on the volcanoes thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=9&t=221&&a=28 and that seems to have been carried through subsequent posts! I usually save my long posts with markups as a .htm for viewing in a web browser to chack that it's all O.K., but an unclosed "blockquote" right at the end of a message doesn't show up! -
chris at 02:45 AM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Re #12 1. Ron, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Can you clarify where you got that idea?! I pointed out that the evidence indicates the solar cycle results in a surface temperature response of around 0.1 oC of cooling max to min, and obviously 0.1 oC of warming min to max. I pointed out that there has been no warming trend in the solar irradiance since the late 1950's...if anything all measures of solar parameters indicates a small cooling solar contribution during the last two decades. There was very likely a small solar contribution to warming in the early part of the 20th century (1900's-1940's). 2. Well yes. 4-5 years is an extremely small time period in this context. It's not surprising that there are large uncertainty ranges in the measurements...however one cannot cherrypick extrema from uncertainty ranges! The bottom line is that the ocean heat/sea level rise "budget" seems to have been "closed" by analyses published in a couple of papers earlier this year (see my post #7 and papers cited there). The evidence indicates that there has been a steric (warming) contribution to sea level rise during this period. Thus one cannot conclude that heat uptake by the oceans has stopped since 2003, since the evidence indicates that it hasn't. Obviously we'll have a clearer picture (less uncertainty) as time progresses. 3. Fair enough. Unless additional errors appear in the Argo data one may as well assume that the Argo output is accurate. There may or may not be an inconsistency in the Argo data compared to the sea level-mass-steric analysis. 4. Atmospheric CO2 levels rose from ~ 286 ppm - 297 ppm in the period 1850-1900, and from ~300 ppm to 309 ppm from 1910-1940 (the two periods you specified) [see ref. [***} in my post #9]. Within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC of surface warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, this should yield warmings near 0.15 oC and 0.13oC, respectively. So the CO2 rise most likely did contribute to warming (and sea level rise) during these periods. Of course no one is suggesting that raised CO2 was the sole cause of warming during these periods. It's likely that there was a solar contribution to warming at least during the period 1910-1940; some of the warming during this period was also due to recovery from high volcanic activity (aerosolic cooling). -
Ian Forrester at 01:11 AM on 14 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ron Cram said: "1. So you are claiming changes to solar irradiance can cause cooling but not warming? The solar physicists I know will be very surprised to hear that!" Re-read what Chris said. He said that the drop from maximum to minimum was 0.1 degrees C. Funny that you should completely misinterpret that to "can only cause cooling." Also there are at least two other problems identified in the ARGO system besides the one you mention. See: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html -
Ron Cram at 23:49 PM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
David, my comment was linked more to industrial emissions of CO2 than to any historical debate about when the industrial period began. Look up CO2 emissions from 1850 to 1900 and you will see they were miniscule compared to emissions in the last half of the 20th century or compared to natural changes to atmospheric CO2 from the carbon cycle. There is no way CO2 can be blamed for sea level rise during the years 1850-1900. -
Ron Cram at 23:43 PM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Chris, 1. So you are claiming changes to solar irradiance can cause cooling but not warming? The solar physicists I know will be very surprised to hear that! 2. My comment was intended to point out the error bars were nearly as large as the supposed change. Anytime I see that I have to become skeptical of any real change, especially when other scientists have already published saying there has been no significant warming. 3. The Argo data is far and away the best observation network we have for the climate system right now. The surface observation system is confounded with many problems, the greatest being the fact it is looking at atmosphere and not ocean storage of heat. Your dismissal of the Argo network because you don't like the data is troubling to me and should be troubling to you. The Argo technology is not that new. The instruments that measure temperature and salinity are very precise and reliable. The only problem the floats had were with the fall rate, so that the numbers being reported were thought to come from a different ocean depth. I do not know anything about the methods of L&W or the other papers you cited, but I do know about the Argo network which began deployment back in 2000. Argo has had global coverage since 2003, take very precise measures and now we know about the potential for fall rate error so it is being watched very carefully. 4. Regarding pre-industrial sea level rise, take a look at any chart of CO2 emissions. Very, very little CO2 was emitted from 1850 to 1900. In fact, CO2 emissions did not really kick in until 1950. CO2 rise cannot explain the increase in global temps from 1910 to 1942. -
NewYorkJ at 18:08 PM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
David Horton, You could even go back a little further than this and link anthropogenic influences to LIA cooling. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755328.stm http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html ...although others believe natural influences (solar, volcanic) are the key drivers of the few tenths of a degree of global mean temperature change during that period. Regardless, recent warming has been very rapid. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/ -
NewYorkJ at 17:56 PM on 13 May 2009Are sea levels rising?
It's interesting to note that the jump leading into 1998 doesn't lessen due to the Inverse Barometer correction. Likely that jump was largely a result of thermal expansion as ocean temperatures shot up well above the trendline due to the super el Nino. Oceans have had slight cooling in recent years, largely as a result of ENSO values turning negative, yet sea levels continue to rise, indicating perhaps that land ice melt is accelerating. The next moderately strong el Nino could bring a sizable jump. -
NewYorkJ at 17:51 PM on 13 May 2009Are sea levels rising?
"I have seen the 2mm/year assumption in a lot of places including in the IPCC report of course there listed as 15-20 cm per century. I agree the 6 to 10 meter claims are rediculous! But maybe you better tell Al Gore. The claim in AIG is 20 feet." Common error. AIT doesn't put any timeframe on 20 feet of sea level rise. [I see John Cross already covered this] One could say Gore is being cautious. If you read the latest draft SCAR report, 6 meters is seen as an upper bound by 2100: "Rates of sea level rise at least twenty times the current 3.1 mm/yr sustained over more than a century have been measured for the transition to the current warm period following the termination of the last ice age and during some of the warmer intervals of the last ice age. Until improved predictive capability is achieved, this can be regarded as a reasonable upper bound of Antarctica's potential contribution to global sea level. This maximum rate (62 mm/yr) would lead to a 6-meter sea level rise by 2100, but such rates occurred when there was considerably more ice on the planet." http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE.htm -
NewYorkJ at 17:45 PM on 13 May 2009How to cherry pick your way to Antarctic land ice gain
"The article then transitions into a discussion of sea ice so smoothly, you barely even notice they're no longer talking about land ice." Yep. This confusion seems deliberate by the author. And it's land ice that has the implication for sea level rise. Also, here's more interesting spin from the Australian article: "Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise." A potential contribution of 1.25 m of sea level rise by 2100 from just Antarctic ice sheets is big news, yet the author here is downplaying it by comparing it to quotes (or misquotes in this case) by a politician. An excellent debunking of this trashy piece from the mainstream media can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/the_australians_war_on_science_38.php Fran Kelly: Today, some positive news. Rather than melting, the science shows that ice is expanding in much of Antarctica and that in parts is getting thicker. ... Ian Allison: We have now new evidence that confirms that on average we are losing ice from both Greenland and Antarctica which is contributing to sea level ... Kelly: ... but you found something that suggests its perhaps not as rapid a melt as we once thought. Can you tell us about what you've found, the difference in the East and West in Antarctica. Allison: ... In East Antarctica there might be a slight increase due to increased snowfall. ... on average West Antarctica is losing more ice that the East is gaining -
Quietman at 13:15 PM on 13 May 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
ps Here's the latest in an ever growing string: "The volcanoes in the central African nation could be about to erupt, threatening Goma, which has a population of more than half a million people, scientists said Thursday. They made their observations on visits to the two volcanic peaks of Nyiragongo and Nyamulagira." - MSNBC Science News -
Quietman at 12:28 PM on 13 May 2009Climate's changed before
Here is something that you should know already: The Paleogene Period of the Cenozoic Era: 65.5 to 23.0 million years ago The Paleocene (“ancient recent life”) epoch marks the beginning of the Paleogene Period and the Cenozoic era. The sea-level fell to expose dry land in much of inland North America, Africa, and Australia. South America however was cut adrift with its own unique evolving “ark” of birds, mammals, and reptiles. The Paleocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 65.5 to 55.8 million years ago The rifting of the North Atlantic cut off North America from Europe, and South America lost links with Antarctica. India and Scotland were home to mountain-building episodes. The sea-level rose and seas invaded much of Africa, Australia, and Siberia. Climates were generally warm or mild worldwide. Tropical palms flourished as far north as the London Basin. The unusual mixture of tropical and subtropical elements in the northern latitudes in the Eocene suggests that the mean annual temperature of these regions was not as high as in the present tropics, but that the flora was maintained by a greater rainfall than occurs in these northern latitudes today, with no pronounced seasonality in its distribution, and by the absence of winter frost. The Eocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 38-54 million years ago There was an increase in volcanic activity, and plate tectonic movement, as India collided with Asia. The last remnant of the supercontinent of Gondwanaland broke up as Australia and South America both separated from Antarctica The Oligocene also marked the start of a generalized cooling, with glaciers forming in Antarctica for the first time during the Cenozoic. The increase in ice sheets led to a fall in sea level. The tropics diminished, giving way to cooler woodlands and grasslands. Although there was a slight warming period in the late Oligocene, the overall cooling trend was to continue, culminating in the Ice Ages of the Pleistocene. The Oligocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period: 33.9 to 23.0 million years ago Source: Palæos -
Quietman at 11:48 AM on 13 May 2009Climate's changed before
Chris Your examples are results of modern education just like these: "This finding has opened new doors in dinosaur research on this part of the continent: "It established that dinosaurs were nesting at this high latitude," said Miyashita. " Science Daily or Live Science "Some dinosaurs (warm-blooded, perhaps) were surprisingly good at withstanding near-freezing temperatures, they say. Witness the team's latest find, a diverse stash of dinosaur fossils laid down just a few million years before the big impact, along what's now the Kakanaut River of northeastern Russia. Even accounting for continental drift, the dinos lived at more than 70 degrees of latitude north, well above the Arctic Circle. " There is no excuse for this poor education. This started in the late 1960s with the long hairs and just went downwards since then. -
Quietman at 11:31 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
ps Ice cores have already proven that CO2 follows temps, not the other way around. This means that regardless of how much CO2 there was, it is irrelevant. It was NOT the cause and only confirms that CO2 increases with increased temperatures some time afterward, that's all. -
Quietman at 11:27 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
Patrick by "blowing smoke" I mean bad science procedures. They assume AGW and try to make the past fit the hypothesis rather than study of the period and let the science speak for itself WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS. -
Quietman at 11:24 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
had to lasting s/b had no lasting -
Quietman at 11:23 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
Chris The PETM is a spike of zero duration in geologic time. It represents an event that caused a heat peak but not a continued warming as it immediately cooled. The cause of this spike is unknown and as it had to lasting effect is irrelevant. The later climb represents changes in ocean currents in direct response to the Med being cut off from the Pacific. -
Quietman at 11:15 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
Patrick It would be interesting if true, however they are blowing smoke. -
Quietman at 11:13 AM on 13 May 2009It's the sun
"The geothermal flux is just too small (around 0.1 W/m2 compared to the greenhouse-augmented solar flux absorbed by the Earth’s surface of over 150 W/m2). " Yes and the continents are fixed. This is an old story that isn't true. It is not a constant but a variable. -
Quietman at 11:08 AM on 13 May 2009Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
ginckgo "The term thermohaline circulation (THC) refers to the part of the large-scale ocean circulation that is driven by global density gradients created by surface heat and freshwater fluxes." This is the wiki definition. It's incomplete, but close. What part do you not understand? -
David Horton at 10:50 AM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Ron Cram "The mid-19th century was during the pre-industrial period" is simply not true. The industrial revolution got under way in the middle of the eighteenth century (and arguably could even be traced back to about 1700) and was in full swing by the mid nineteenth. There was then a "second industrial revolution' from about 1880 to 1914 as the technological developments of the first part of the industrial revolution allowed the start of all kinds of new industries. So if you want to look at human contributions to global warming you need to look a long way back. And then observe the acceleration of industrial production as time went by. -
Quietman at 10:49 AM on 13 May 2009It's the ocean
[In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432). ... In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007). Dr. Pielke is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, he has published nearly 350 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books.] The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat I think that this was an excellent point. -
Quietman at 10:45 AM on 13 May 2009Climate's changed before
ps Volcanos actually causing ENSO is far fetched and yes a bit silly. It's what happens on the ocean floor near the subduction zone where the driver for ENSO resides. -
Quietman at 10:41 AM on 13 May 2009Climate's changed before
ginckgo Sorry, that was posted for Patrick who was up to speed on vulcanism. The Volcanos thread has the argument presented with links to recent articles explaining the background. I am missing one reference about ENSO and I can't find it again to post a link. When I do it will also be posted in the Volcano thread. John wants us to keep the subject relevance when we can. From your statement I think you have some reading to catch up on. :) -
Quietman at 10:33 AM on 13 May 2009Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Patrick Considering that was a pro-AGW article in the "call for actions" for the greens columns, you don't seem very receptive. -
chris at 07:53 AM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
re #9 1. solar irradiance. Ron you are mistaking the longish term trend in solar irradiance (which shows no net warming contribution at least since the mid 20th century and a small cooling contribution during the last couple of decades [*]), and the contribution from the solar cycle. Several analyses indicate that the peak to minimum solar cycle contributes of the order of 0.1 oC of cooling to the Earth's surface temperature (e.g. [**]). In a world warming under a greenhouse-induced radiative imbalance, at around 0.15 oC per decade, we expect the solar cycle cooling to "overpower" the greenhouse induced warming during the downturn (cooling) part of the cycle. Of course in the real world the solar cycle contribution is difficult to pull out since stochastic variation in the climate system (El Nino’s, volcanoes, cloud cover variation and such-like) generally masks the small solar cycle contribution in the surface temperature record. At present, since the solar minimum we’re currently in is somewhat prolonged we’re likely getting the full cooling “whack” from that. 2. steric (warming) contribution to sea level rise. You can’t take the minimum in an uncertainty range and base any conclusions on that whatsoever. After all one could use your “strategy” and state that the steric contribution to sea level rise is as much as 2.5 mm per year! Four years is an extremely short period of time in this context, and reduction in uncertainties requires longer analyses, certainly so if one is attempting to make fundamental, all-encompassing conclusions as you are. 3. As the recent papers I cited show, the evidence indicates there is a steric (warming) contribution to sea level rise during the last few years. That’s not necessarily incompatible with the Argo float data which shows a rather small steric contribution to sea level rise during this period. Perhaps some of the heat has penetrated somewhat more deeply into the oceans. Perhaps some of the Argo data is still flawed. This is a very new technology, and only 18 months ago it was shown that a problem with the Argo data was fooling everyone into thinking that the oceans were cooling: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=35805 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ as you said in your post #1 in reference to sea level rise and heat content: “If data shows one going up and one going down, they may have an error in their data somewhere. Within certain margins of error, this data has to correlate”. Exactly so. However the recent papers (see my post #7) seem to have reconciled any dichotomy. Sea levels have risen during the period 2004-2008. Some of this is due to ocean warming (steric) and some (likely more) due to increased ocean mass (land ice melt). Just as one cannot pick arbitrary extrema in uncertainty ranges to try to make a point, nor can one arbitrarily make a personal selection of which of two opposing data sets are correct under circumstances where there is uncertainty. After all the (short!) history of the Argo floats would tend to indicate that it’s more likely that any error (if there is an error) lies there. And we should reemphasise that we are dealing with extremely short periods of analyses! 4. pre-industrial sea level rise The evidence indicates that sea levels didn’t rise significantly during the millennium before the mid/late 19th century (see paper [***] in post #7). The notion that sea level rise is due to recovery from the Little Ice Age doesn’t make much sense in the context of the sea level record. After all, if any cooling forcings pertaining to the LIA were removed, the sea level rise would occur initially with a rapid rate that would decrease as the “recovery” was approached. The record (see John Cross’s figure 1 above) shows the opposite. In any case the “recovery” from the LIA was pretty much complete by the early/mid 19th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png You specifically suggested (your post #1) that sea levels should “rise at a rate much greater than the natural rates seen during the non-industrialized years”. The evidence indicates that is the case, at least as far as net sea level rises are concerned. There was no significant net change in sea level (as far as we can tell) during the millennium (at least) before the mid-19th century (see my post #7); sea levels rose very slowly from the late 19th century (see John Cook’s fig. 1 above), and the rate of increase has accelerated through the mid-late 20th century. And although the early release of CO2 from fossil fuel use (and land clearance) was smallish in the late 18th/early 19th century, it was quite significant (atmospheric CO2 levels rose from 277 – 286 ppm in the period from the late 18th to mid 19th century [***], and this should have produced a small warming (0.1 oC within a climate sensitivity of 3 oC per doubling of atmospheric CO2). So the initial rise in sea level could indeed “be attributed to anthropogenic CO2”. Maybe it wasn’t of course. But you are making strong assertions that are either contradicted by straightforward evidence, or are only compatible with the arbitrary selection of extrema in ranges of uncertainties. [*] Lockwood M and, Frohlich C (2008) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale Proc. Roy. Soc. A 464, 1367-1385. abstract: We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using observations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the effects of the various time constants with which the Earth's climate system might react to solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD composite used in our previous paper is the most realistic. Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings. [**]J. L. Lean and D. H. Rind (2008) How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701. This isn’t stated in the abstract, but the analysis indicates a solar cycle (max-min) surface temperature change of 0.11 oC with a one month lag. [***]D. M. Etheridge et al (1996) "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn J. Geophys Res. 101, 4115 -4128.Response: It's a common mistake but my name is John Cook, not John Cross :-) -
Wondering Aloud at 06:49 AM on 13 May 2009Are sea levels rising?
Sorry John Thanks for the correction AIG? What the heck? simple typo. I do that a lot. I think the implication in AIT is that this is a likely near term consequence. I know you can find proponents trying to scare us with it being a near term thing. It is mighty hard for people to get frightened over something that might happen hundreds if not thousands of years in the future. Please expand on fractal sketicism. Explain, sounds like fun. -
Ron Cram at 04:50 AM on 13 May 2009A broader view of sea level rise
Chris, I can appreciate the quote in the L&W paper: "we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 +/- 1.0 mm/a over the period, in agreement with the total sea level rise observed by either Jason-1 (2.4 +/- 1.1 mm/a) or Envisat (2.7 +/- 1.5 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval." In other words, the steric rise could be as little as 0.5mm/a over a multiyear period and some portion of this is due to salinity changes. I don't see how this is any different than the finding by Josh Willis that there has been no increase in ocean heat content since 2003. If one understands the impact of "0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter" radiative impact spoken of by Hansen, you would expect a much greater than observed warming. If you have been following the debates on total solar irradiance, you will note that changes in solar irradiance are said to be trivial. The lack of ocean heating cannot be traced to solar minimum, at least not by AGW alarmists. Regarding sea level rise centuries ago, yes, you would expect sea level to rise as the planet is coming out of the Little Ice Age. The mid-19th century was during the pre-industrial period and the beginning of sea level rise cannot be attributed to anthropogenic CO2. Regarding the amount of data needed for analysis, scientists will always prefer more data to less and they should. That does not mean that we do not have enough data now to seriously question the theory of AGW and to begin searching for ways the theory may need to be modified. To restate: It is not possible for an anthropogenically caused radiative imbalance of 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter not to show up in warming oceans year over year over year without some observable intervention such as a major volcano. I just do not see how anyone can argue with that very basic observation.
Prev 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 Next
