Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 Next
Comments 129851 to 129900:
-
Mizimi at 21:06 PM on 15 September 2008It's the sun
QM: I did mean trees as well as other plant types. Plants ( and trees) using C3 process are the oldest species; C4 plants are newcomers. So trees ( of all types ) are C3's. C3's can tolerate much higher levels of CO2 than C4's as in early epochs, but they cannot work with low levels of CO2 (under 220ppm for example). C4's can work with very low levels of CO2 because they concentrate the gas in tissue before using it. BUT they don't like very high CO2 levels according to recent research...though this is contended by others. -
Patrick 027 at 13:50 PM on 15 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Hi Quietman. I went through all your volcanic links above. Generally, it seems that there have been new and interesting discoveries, but nothing establishes a change over recent decades in volcanic activity under ice that would correspond to recent climate changes, etc... ----------- "Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice" http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html "The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth’s crust is thinner"... "What caused the hotspot to suddenly form is another mystery."... I don't think hotspots form 'suddenly' (on the relevant timescale for recent climate changes, at least). It was newly discovered. The second quote above may be an example of careless word choice. What caused the ice stream to form (suddenly?), where it previously did not exist? It could have been global warming. What caused it to form where it did? In that matter, geology could be a factor. ------------------ "Volcano Deep Down Could Be Melting Greenland’s Ice" http://www.medindia.net/news/Volcano-Deep-Down-Could-Be-Melting-Greenlands-Ice-30702-1.htm discussion of 'variations' in geological heating seem to be about spatial variations, not temporal. ------------------ "Study: Volcanoes Unleash El Niño" http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20031117/elnino.html Very interesting. But the causal link is through the already-known-to-be-important volcanic aerosol cooling (I had no idea that's what you were refering to in our previous discussion at "Science and Society"). And the impression I get here is that volcanic aerosols are not generally necessary or necessarily sufficient to cause El Nino conditions. There isn't a mention of a recent trend in that kind of eruption (explosive tropical) or ENSO either - although from the graphs on this website, there seems to be a period of greater volcanic aerosol abundance from ~1960 to the 1990s, after a period of relatively low volcanic aerosol abundance from ~ 1910 (or earlier in the Southern Hemisphere) to ~ 1960. Does this correlate with any ENSO (El Nino) behavior changes? Even if the answer is yes, there are other changes that would or could affect ENSO - some change in solar forcing, changes in human aerosols, both globally and also I would think in spatial distribution, and the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse forcing. There are other modes of internal variability, and while I don't know of specific interactions or explanations, it doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to suspect that monsoons (also affected by aerosols, not that others are not), MJO, QBO, and NAO, NAM, SAM, etc. could be pushing some of ENSO's buttons. I think such a thing as ENSO might be a general expectation for sufficiently wide (east-west) and large oceans along the equator - I've heard that a climate model may produce ENSO like behavior if the Atlantic is widened sufficiently. In the sense that a computer model is a theory, I think there is a theoretical explanation for ENSO at least in general. In so far as what human minds have comprehended, I don't know how far the understanding goes, but I know that typically trade winds push water westward in the tropics, building up a warm pool in the western part of a tropical ocean, and lifting the thermocline in the eastern part - potentially enough to allow upwelling of cold deep water. If a perturbation causes the winds to let up, the warm water may slosh back, and that changes the thermal forcing of the winds, which could allow continued weakenning of the winds, etc. - and the reverse could happen too, it's a positive feedback either way. There are many complexities to add to that picture (double ITCZ in western Pacific, equatorial Kelvin waves, equatorial countercurrent and equatorial upwelling, Ekman pumping), which I am not qualified to go into in so far as ENSO is concerned, but I can speculate that perhaps the temperature difference between the cold upwelling water in the east and the warm pool in the west has to reach some threshold before the positive feedack is strong enough to overcome some other effects that would tend to maintain steadier winds - and a longer period of time for a westward current to remain in low latitude waters could allow a higher temperature increase in the water along the way from regional radiative conditions (more sunlight - and when clouds form they have high tops in the tropics, so they have a stronger greenhouse effect than many clouds elsewhere, I think). ------------------ "Healy Researchers Make A Series Of Striking Discoveries About Arctic Ocean" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011129050111.htm Discovery of more volcanic/hydrothermal activity than was previously thought to exist - this does not mean a recent change in that activity has occured. ------------------ "Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008)" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm nothing about a recent change or any correlation to climate changes... ------------------ "Buried Volcano Discovered in Antarctica" http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html An eruption occured 2300 years ago, volcano is still active. " “This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Vaughan said. "The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades, and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration." " The article never states that an increase in geothermal heating in recent decades has been established, however. "Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers."..." "This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters," he said, which most scientists attribute to global warming resulting from human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels. " ------------------ "Kamchatka Volcano Blows Its Top" (July 2007) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705110230.htm "Chile's Chaiten Volcano One Of Scores Of Active Volcanoes In Region" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507105654.htm "Explosive Eruption Of Okmok Volcano In Alaska" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720093810.htm Yes, the location and composition of volcanic eruptions as well as the size/kind of eruption are factors in any climate/weather effects. The greatest cooling can be generally expected from low latitude volcanos because they are most likely to produce a global blanket of long-lived (for aerosols) stratospheric aerosols. Higher latitude eruptions' aerosol distributions may be less likely to cross hemispheres, and the stratospheric circulation each winter tends to bring air toward the poles and then back to the troposphere, so high latitude aerosols may come out of the stratosphere faster. Ash from high latitude eruptions may, depending on exact location, have some chance of landing on snow or ice, reducing the albedo and thus having a local or regional heating effect which would contribute to a global warming effect (until either the snow or ice melts - except for the albedo effect of the earlier melting time if that is involved - or enough new snow or frost falls/forms on top of it). On the other hand, I think any ash cloud hanging over most surfaces except snow and ice would increase the albedo and have a cooling effect, and then there is also the albedo effect of aerosols via their effects on clouds - these effects being more short lived. There is no indication here of a significant change in volcanic activity in recent decades from the previous decades or centuries or beyond. ------------------ "Tectonic Plates Act Like Variable Thermostat" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813171122.htm direct geothermal heat supply still generally wouldn't significantly affect climate, especially global climate, during most of Earth's history except near the beginning. But this could be related to changing rates of geologic outgassing of CO2 over millions of years. ------------------ IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE: I also found: ------------------ "Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet?" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229183818.htm very interesting. no suggestion of current activity or timing of activity in recent geological past. ------------------ "First Evidence Of Under-ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008)" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm a volcano erupted 325 BC and remains active. "Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters." " ------------------ -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:04 PM on 15 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
This brings an interesting question: Mizimi, Healthy Skeptic and all you "skeptics" threading here, you're all so sensitive about accuracy, and not letting opinion get in the way of true scientific understanding and all those noble ideas. Yet when Squidly blurts out an enormity like "volcanoes make more CO2" there isn't a peep from any of you to correct him. Why? -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:31 PM on 15 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Squidly, you must have got your info from Rush Limbaugh or some other clueless clown. If you found papers on the internet, why not give links? The USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory says exactly the opposite of you. I'll go with them, don't take it personally. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html Here is a short excerpt: "the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value." -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 15 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
More on this from this paper: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/2/109 There is evidence that increased carbon burial was a major contributing factor to the late ordovician glacial events. Palaeos concurs with the overall sequence: http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/LateOrd.html -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:07 PM on 15 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Healthy skeptic, don't oversimplify paleo data. The Ordovician was warm, except for those glacial events you mention. Even at that, the South pole of the time (North Africa) was nothing comparable to today's with much faster ice flows and subglacial melting. In other words, a much more active and warmer South pole. Furthermore, the vast majority of land masses (Gondwana+S.America) was located at high Southern latitudes. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:25 AM on 15 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Don't tell me to drop it when you're the one who brought it up. The Robinson/Soon pile of nonsense is not a science paper and OISM is a crackpotery nest. The facts cited and supported on Sourcewatch are facts, you can check them for yourself because they are referenced. Beck is the father of all crackpots and wiki, for instance, is a lot more informative and accurate about D-A cycles than Beck. Plus they have links to real papers, so once again, you can check for yourself. -
Quietman at 05:37 AM on 15 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Philippe Mizimi refers to a personal "to do" list of things to read up on. -
Quietman at 05:17 AM on 15 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe The top link in 231 is a Wiki site and appears to be mostly political. Maybe right, maybe wrong (opinion). The second link did not work, but chalcedon? Sorry I don't buy into home schooling. Schooling should be in done in institutions. Home study is another subject. I don't know or for that matter care about these petitions or any consensus as you already know. I support the Fairbridge hypothesis because of the logic, but admit that "gravity" is a subject poorly understood, only because I have never found a good explanation for what it is, only admissions that it is not fully understood. And yes this is off topic and needs to be dropped. -
Dan Pangburn at 23:40 PM on 14 September 2008Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
The current UAH satellite numerical data (lower atmospheric temperature differences from the 1979 thru 1998 average) is at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt . According to this data, the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE for the first 8 months of 2008 is LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 46.7% of the total linearized increase (NOAA data) during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution. -
Dan Pangburn at 22:57 PM on 14 September 2008CO2 lags temperature
Response of the climate system depends on the combined effect of ALL feedbacks, known or not. When all are combined, the NET feedback can not be significantly positive. This is mandated by the temperature trend reversals of the last and previous glaciations. Without net positive feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm -
Dan Pangburn at 22:44 PM on 14 September 2008Models are unreliable
Atmospheric water vapor is also clearly a positive feedback. There are also negative feedbacks. Dr. Richard Lindzen has identified one, his iris effect. Response of the climate system depends on the combined effect of all feedbacks, known or not. When all are combined, the NET feedback can not be significantly positive. This is mandated by the temperature trend reversals of the last and previous glaciations. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:21 AM on 14 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Ah, the OISM sand their oh-so-funny petition. Since you're all about seeing both sides of the story, you could of course check source watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine It is interesting that the "Institute" lists deceased faculty members as well as live ones. Could they have a shortage of credible names? That would be ironic, considering how open they are to anybody and everybody for signing their pathetic "petition." As anamateur paleontologist, you might be interested to know that one of the educational resources listed by Robinson in his homeschooling site is this: http://www.chalcedon.edu/ I'm sure that you will find their take on evolution interesting. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:17 AM on 14 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medecine? Willie Soon, of the Soon and Baliunas fraud? Are you trying to suggest that this is a science paper? How closely did you check this? You must apply the same standards of scutiny to these sources that you apply to RC, otherwise you're not skeptical, you're just biased. RC alone in their belief? Which one, the fact that there is no detectable D-A cycle in past 10000 years (at least)? What scientific references do you have to contradict that fact? Did you consider that real scientists don't even know of Beck's existence because he does not do science, does not publish anything and is totally irrelevant to any real science debate? Beck is not an author. It is not a belief but a fact that all the serious reconstructions (based on real data) put the present times warmer than the MWP. Why don't you check real science papers and see where their conclusions are going? You can leave out Mann if you think there has been too much controversy around it already. Tha fact that Beck makes up cycles that are nowhere to be found in data and then manages to skew his own made up graph in a way that wouldn't fool a high schooler does not bother you, yet you accuse the RC contributors of defending beliefs without substantiation? What the heck? On the other hand, you subscribe to Fairbridge hypothesis that he himself did not have enough confidence in to actually publish, but that's not acting on faith? Look, you can believe whatever you want. This blog is about saying exactly what the exisiting SCIENCE (published in peer-reviewed science publications) says on one subject, and there is really no doubt on that side. You can argue ad nauseam about why what you believe is not in the existing published science, I won't discuss that any more, it is in fact off topic in the context of this blog. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:38 AM on 14 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Another what on what list? Not on the list of real science papers, or otherwise scientific references that Mizimi is pointing to. So far you got us Beck, who manages to fumble with his own made up BS, and a WSJ article. Impressive. Last I look, WSJ was not about science. Where are the figures coming from? If Gray is using NOAA data and applying the corrections suggested by Nyberg et al., is he aware of the fact that they seem to misunderstand Landsea's recommendations and apply his numbers wrongly? Is it just raw NOAA data for early century numbers? What are we talking about? The WSJ article does not include a single reference and offers no clue whatsoever to where these numbers are coming from. As we have already discussed, past hurricane activity is a highly contentious area and the uncertainty renders almost impossible a discussion of trends in storm frequency. The intensity ranking of past storms is also a considerable problem. What's funny is that even by these numbers the latter part of the century has a higher percentage of the storms hitting that were major storms (34/83 vs 39/101), which is in fact in agreement with the expectations of real climate scientists studying hurricane activity. Gray is one train late (and some of his ideas about climate defy the laws of physics, but that's another story). I have not heard any serious climate science researcher claiming that GW was the cause of more tropical storms. What they hypothesize (and support rather well) is that GW makes for storms likely to be more intense and to intensify more rapidly. So what exactly is your point? And why discuss only the hurricanes hitting the US? The ones going to Central America or dissipating over the North Atlantic don't count? What happens to the numbers once you include all storms? -
Quietman at 02:22 AM on 14 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe Apparently Beck is not the only author that puts yhe medieval temperature maximum higher than today. "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junc tion, Oregon 97523: "current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago" But the graphs that accompany the above paper do not look anything like Becks. This does not confirm (or deny) Becks paper but does show that the time period was warmer than today which confirms the many other articles I have read on the medieval warm period. I did look at RC but they appear to be alone in their belief. -
Mizimi at 01:42 AM on 14 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dan: The real problem is that the climatologists are only too happy to research positive feedback and include it, but treat negative feedback as inconsequential, even though, as you point out, their own data clearly shows there are very strong negatives at work. And each time something in the overall system starts a +ve trend, something else wakes up and starts a -ve one. the system has had millions of years to evolve sub-systems to damp oscillations and maintain climate within life supporting limits. Also, nobody is really sure that we know what all the influencing factors are, so the model at the moment is like a cardboard box on wheels. (not a even a Ford let alone a Ferrari) -
Quietman at 01:35 AM on 14 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi Ok, I thought you meant trees as I had read somewhere that some are better than others as carbon sinks. I also had read that grasses were better carbon sinks than trees but not why. Interesting, thank you. -
Mizimi at 01:21 AM on 14 September 2008Models are unreliable
"In addition phytoplankton emit Dimethyl Sulphide (DMS), which reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce sulphur dioxide. This acidic gas forms tiny droplets which help to seed clouds over the ocean, and these reflect sunlight thus cooling the planet. Measurements of methane sulphonic acid (MSA, which is derived from DMS) in ice core bubbles indicate that there were more phytoplankton in the polar oceans during the ice ages, as expected from the theory above. Therefore as the climate gets warmer there will be less seeding of clouds over the ocean - clearly a positive feedback." http://www.chooseclimate.org/climatetrain/scipolcc.html -
Mizimi at 01:07 AM on 14 September 2008It's the sun
QM: Plants are classed biochemically as C3, C4 and CAM. C3 plants are the earliest evolved class and include all trees, bushes, shrubs with high wood/lignin & tannin content. They are the source of coal. C4 plants evolved relatively recently (8mya) and essentially are the grasses..oats, wheat, barley,bamboo alfalfa and so on. They can be woody (bamboo) but use a 4-carbon molecule in photosynthesis, hence the name. CAM's are specialists...they have means to cope with stress...high Temp, low water or CO2 etc...and include cacti, succulents and so on. Because C4 plants are more efficient chemically than the others, they return LESS CO2 to the atmosphere during respiration (about 25% less than an equivalent C3)so eventually lock up CO2. -
Mizimi at 00:34 AM on 14 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Quote prof. William Gray, Colorado Uni.... "Consider, for example, the intensity of U.S. land-falling hurricanes over time -- keeping in mind that the periods must be long enough to reveal long-term trends. During the most recent 50-year period, 1957 to 2006, 83 hurricanes hit the United States, 34 of them major. In contrast, during the 50-year period from 1900 to 1949, 101 hurricanes (22% more) made U.S. landfall, including 39 (or 15% more) major hurricanes." for full report see.... http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118541193645178412.html It would be interesting to see the history of Pacific storms and see how they compare....another one on the list.... -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:24 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
As I said, you can check the posts and see for yourself whether or not the critics are valid. Beck's CO2 curve is based on the assumption that there were humongous biospheric fluxes of CO2, which are simply not physically possible. Furthermore, the isotopic signature that would go with this is absent from the proxies. It explains CO2 rise as a feedback to temp increase but with inconsistent response depending when it's convenient for him or not. It also assigns peaks in CO2 in the curve to volcanic eruptions, while the Mauna Loa record shows no such variations associated with Pinatubo or El Chichon. There is too much litterature to link to on the subject, just about all current research on CO2 changes over time will contradict Beck. This piece of work was "published" by Energy and Environment, which does not really have a peer-review process but instead is subject to the whims of the editor, Sonja Boehmer Christensen. She has a history of sympathy for the Young Earth creationist ideas, among other things. On another occasion, Beck took an IPCC graph and doctored it so as to exaggerate past temperature changes by a factor of 3 (chenged the scale on the Y axis). He also takes care of stopping the graph at 1970, although the x axis continues to 2000, which allows him to suggest that the MWP was warmer than today. If today's temp were on that graph, they would be way higher than anything in the MWP. It would still be useless, since that reconstruction is old and totally outdated now. Beck's graph (graph only, no comments): http://www.realclimate.org/images/beck_modified_large.jpg Original IPCC curve is in the RC thread. Beck's article in German can be found here: http://www.readers-edition.de/2007/05/07/der-co2-betrug-der-groesste-skandal-der-wissenschaftsgeschichte-der-neuzeit In this one, rather interesting is the apparently cyclic evolution of temperature, which seems to be Beck's take on Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. According to most research, these cycles do have a periodicity around 1500 years, but they are not present in proxies for the past 23000 years or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event (ref at bottom of page). Beck shows spikes at -400, then at 1200, so far so good (except for the lack of D-O cycles for 20 millenias). However, there is another one correponding to our recent temp increase. It should not be there before 2800, if the periodicity is conserved. If you look carefully at Beck's graph, you'll see a little break in the x axis, and then suddenly, the scale shifts. The curve, however continues its beautiful sinusoid movement unchanged to conveniently peak at present time. Simply hilarious. Enough about Beck, that's already a lot of time wasted on this. -
Quietman at 05:12 AM on 13 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi I am not familiar with C3 and C4 (except for the plastique kind) but from what you said I take it that pines are C3 and maples, elms and oarks are C4. What about the leafy evergreens like cedars, C3 or C4? -
Quietman at 05:08 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Phillipe Re: "Beck is a buffoon who fakes data." Other than Real Climate*, can you prove either of these claims? Beck being right or wrong means nothing to me or to my argument but I am curious about the attacks. *Sorry but thier alarmist reputation leaves much to be desired. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:01 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi, your equation melting ice=colder ocean does not quite work out. Melting ice means no albedo and increased absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean, leading to higher ocean temp. Arctic biomass does not like it. If you're talking about the German teacher Beck who cooks graphs, it's worth pointing to the other side of his story: Beck is a buffoon who fakes data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/langswitch_lang/in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/ Whether or not you agree with RC's position their critique of Beck is exactly on point. Data is data (or in Beck's case, the lack thereof) -
Quietman at 03:30 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John While not proof of anything, an interesting related article on The Worst Hurricanes at Live Science. -
Quietman at 03:11 AM on 13 September 2008CO2 lags temperature
Dan Ok, now I am confused. I thought we were discussing CO2 here. But a reduced sensitivity to GHGs in general would also explain less sensitivity to water vapor would it not? -
Quietman at 03:05 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi Yes the Arctic and Polar bears do heat things up. -
Quietman at 02:51 AM on 13 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi and Pep After reading both comments and the rebuttal I tend to agree somewhat with Beck, but also fail to see the relavence to sensitivity. -
Quietman at 02:44 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Philippe I see what you mean by ink bottle. I still remember Diana from when I was growing up on Long Island. There were a few nasty storms back then. But they seemed to have been lass intense until recently. I am more curious in what caused the lull. -
Mizimi at 02:15 AM on 13 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
HS: The paleoproxy graph WA.& you posted in the "Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?" thread is a beautiful example to show there IS a limit to which CO2 can effect temperature changes..the 'saturation argument'. For most of the periods shown, temperature trundles along nicely at 22C despite massive changes in CO2 levels, which for me, indicates saturation is reached at quite low levels of CO2. -
Mizimi at 01:48 AM on 13 September 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Pump more CO2 into the air and warm the place up and plants grow better and bigger....reaction mass increases roughly 100% for every 10C rise...CO2 gets locked up, more clouds, more precipitation, more CO2 from declining oceanic planktonic activity, more CO2, more clouds, more CO2 washed out back into the land where it becomes carbonates, over time CO2 goes down, temp drops, the balance shifts from land to ocean again and the cycle continues. This has been going on ever since plant life started photosynthesis and the small amount of extra CO2 we release will not substantially affect the cycle.Response: On the contrary, the amount of CO2 we release has raised CO2 levels to its highest level in at least 800,000 years (according to ice core readings that go back that far) -
Dan Pangburn at 01:19 AM on 13 September 2008Models are unreliable
Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This mistake causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback does not exist. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm -
Dan Pangburn at 01:09 AM on 13 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
The point is that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. Examination of the temperature data of the last and prior glaciations from NOAA as determined from Vostok ice cores reveals that temperature trends reversed direction irrespective of carbon dioxide level. This proves that there is no net positive feedback. Climatologists, who apparently don't know how feedback works don't realize this. Unaware of their ignorance, they impose net positive feedback in their GCMs which causes them to predict substantial warming from carbon dioxide increase. Without feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm -
Philippe Chantreau at 00:53 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
This isn't really about initiating storms. The number of storms is very much a matter of debate but from what i know it would be very hard to establish a trend there. How the storms intensify is a different problem. I'm not sure that it is really possible to say that the past 30 years show no ocean warming. According to this paper, the past 30 years have seen significant ocean warming: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html Before Emmanuel, this paper looked at increased SSTs and found them to be the best explaining factor for higher intensity storms: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123560v1 -
Mizimi at 00:47 AM on 13 September 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Fear is the greatest behavioural driver in mankind. It is dominant in all our thinking patterns and activities and (sadly) is currently beginning to supplant rationality and reason ( Just look at PC and its effects) Because living in a perpetual state of fear is untenable, we seek ways to 'externalise' it into 'problems' we can solve. This reduces the internal tensions fear generates. Prove this particular problem does not exist or cannot be solved and the fear will be transferred into another problem....no it isn't CO2, instead it's all that water vapour we are putting into the air...... -
Mizimi at 00:32 AM on 13 September 2008The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
If I understand the sat system, it measures changes in the earth's mass distribution (gravity flux) and that is used to calculate MSL. Problem: How do you separate lunar effects? The moon causes two tides on opposite sides of the earth ( the second is gravity rebound) I really cannot see how you could distingiush a signal from the noise?? -
Mizimi at 23:58 PM on 12 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Lee Grable: We all lie, every day of our lives. We lie by omission. We lie by commission. We lie in error, even though we believe we have the truth. We lie by quoting truth out of context. We lie by not telling the whole truth. We lie to others and to ourselves in order to make life bearable. We lie by selecting information that suits our purposes. We lie to avoid facing the truth.. We all lie, in many ways and for many reasons. Data has been omitted from various studies because 'it did not fit' (including AGW supporters), and there is currently a debate about this; Beck's 180 year analysis of chemical CO2 records. This site has 'lies' in it. In one thread is a statement that there are 300 stations worldwide measuring CO2 - which is not true, there are 298 datastreams but not all measure CO2 and some of those streams come from the same stations. Whilst the statement is untrue, it does not invalidate the argument that there is sufficient empirical evidence available to validate the argument, nor does it cause me to dismiss out of hand any other statements made by the person concerned. -
Mizimi at 21:46 PM on 12 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
WELL, I think this thread just melted a few more km of sea ice! The graph curve shows an increasing trend downwards. The question...is this natural or man-made is a bit spurious ( or are we not 'natural'?)...and the answer, despite all the heated exchanges and hyperbole, is we don't know. All we KNOW is what the graph shows and the rest is an attempt to explain what we see. It is not good enough to simply say it is AGW...it may be, but until it is realistically modelled and all other factors shown to be irrelevent, then I will remain unconvinced of the argument. In any event, melting sea ice = drop in ocean temp - more biomass (plankton like it cool) = more sequestration of CO2 and so we go round again. The system as a whole has numerous ways to address imbalances as it has (successfully)in the past. -
Mizimi at 18:33 PM on 12 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
Food for thought: "All flesh is grass" is a Truth. Yet the grasses we rely on for our existence ( grain producers) only appeared in the fossil record around 8mya when CO2 levels were dropping. C4 plants are more efficient photosynthesizers than C3's and release less CO2 back into the air during photorespiration, so over a period of time they reduce atmospheric CO2. C3 plants ( trees, woody plants et al) 'suffocate' at CO2 levels below 220ppm, and began to decline as grasses took over various habitats until a near extinction event occurred. Without that event, we would not be here today; arguably (from our point of view) this event was a good thing. Clearly, if we reduce CO2 levels ( for whatever reason) we need to be aware that it will have deleterous effects on certain species of plants ( and the life forms that feed off them) whereas increasing CO2 will not. Any temperature effect that may arise from CO2 rises also affects plant life; roughly, a 10C rise in reaction temp causes a 100% increase in reaction mass, so higher temps (within limits) means greater growth and less land areas under cultivation. [Experiments with grasses indicate a 50% increase in growth @ Co2 levels of 700ppm and a corresponding decrease in lignin - the woody indigestible bits]. -
Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman et al, The climate change over the past few million years has zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with any change between the '30s and today. They are completely different mechanisms. Every metric tells us that it is warmer now than in the '30s. You reject this conclusion, based on numerous independent observations, in favor someone's crackpot theory about plate tectonics. A few other various topics: 1) It is physically impossible for the Earth to behave like Venus. Temperatatures would have to be warm enough to boil the ocean for that to happen. 2) The 619 authors of AR4 WGI are listed here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf They are all scientists. The only time politicians are involved is in drafting the Summary for Policymakers, and even then they can't override the lead authors. As for scientific content, Chapter 9 alone (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) has 10 pages of citations. 3) The IPCC accurately summarizes the state of the peer reviewed science, which is why the relevent scientific societies (who are responsible for actually producing the science) endorse the IPCC findings. 4) The record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent was recorded in 1973, the first year we have satellite data. http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_datasets.html 5) These were the predictions for September Sea Ice Extent made back in May (in millions of square km) From http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/report_may.php 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 X 2 4.1 4.2 X 2 4.4 4.5 X 2 5.0 5.3 5.5 The average prediction was 4.3 million km and the median was 4.2. 2007 was about 4.3 million km. Current conditions are at about 4.7 million square km. The 1979 to 2000 average is about 7 million square km. 2008's melt will not match 2007, but it falls within the expected range. 6) An enhanced greenhouse effect implies a cooling stratosphere, a drop in outgoing longwave radiation, and nights that warm faster than days. Each one of these predictions has been measured. -
Quietman at 15:14 PM on 12 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi Thanks -
Quietman at 15:11 PM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John Yes, that is the part I dont get. The intense storms are very recent (not the last 30 years but the last 10 maybe) and this is when the oceans don't show warming? I am not positive but was that not the issue of the missing ocean heat? So is it the hot spots or the cold spots where these storms originate? The 2005 paper talks about the tropics and they mention hotter air. But I thought it was primarily the opposing air currents meeting at the equator that iniates cyclones and hurricanes so I am having difficulty following the logic. I am not being skeptical about this, I just don't understand what they are saying, it's like something is being left out or assumed. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:29 PM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Not sure what Quietman is referring to, but this subject is indeed an "ink bottle." From looking at what I can comprehend, it seems that the SSTs/lower trop. temp. differential is an important factor in the rate of storm intensification. The past 2 Atlantic seasons have seen some of the fastest intensifying storms ever recorded. Still, the significance of hurricane/tropical storm activity is somewhat unsure. RC had a post on this some time ago that pointed to major difficulty with the evolution of data quality/quantity. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/tropical-cyclone-history-part-ii-paleotempestology-still-in-its-infancy/langswitch_lang/ -
Quietman at 06:59 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
PS in the hurricanes thread Alan M. posted a comment with a link that seems relavent. This is a subject that I find puzzling. I do understand that warmer oceans would have more energy stored but NASA indicated that the oceans did not warm, so I am puzzled.Response: If you're referring to the argument that oceans are cooling, that's a short term cooling over the last few years which is not unusual over the last 30 years that has shown long term warming and a corresponding long term increase in hurricane intensity. -
Quietman at 06:40 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
that s/b warmer air (dropped the m), sorry. -
Quietman at 06:39 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John I don't know but I would speculate that warer air and cooler seas would tend to intensify storms because of the increased temperature differential. Would not a smaller differential lead to less violent storms? -
Mizimi at 03:24 AM on 12 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dan: That suggests CO2 increase = Temp decrease; could it be the AGW's have got it back to front? (tongue firmly in cheek). But now of course it will be the sun ( no sunspots) whereas before it was NOT the sun. It's like pinning down mercury drops...the harder you try the more it splits up into smaller and smaller particles. I don't think anyone rejects that CO2 is a GG; but that is a whole different ballgame to suggesting it is causing global warming on a scale that we should be concerned with. -
Mizimi at 01:12 AM on 12 September 2008Temp record is unreliable
theTree: Check out Wikipedia: It is (guess)timated that around 14 terawatts of heat is released from the earth's core through tectonic/vulcanic activities, around the same amount of energy that we currently consume. Science is about facts, not opinions. Opinions are shaped by the kind of person you are and you will find a lot of people will deny facts because they do not fit 'their' model of reality. That's why we need science, not opinion, not emotional hype, not fear induced reactions to an un-proven hypothesis. Science enables us to respond rather than react. -
Mizimi at 01:03 AM on 12 September 2008It's the sun
The evolution of C4 plants happened around the Miocene/Pliocene interface when CO2 levels were lower than today and C4 plants began to develop.. C3 plants cannot cope with low CO2, they require 180 -220ppm for successful growth. Experiments indicate a 58% reduction in photosynthesis if the level is dropped from 380ppm to 150ppm and up to 90% reduction below 150ppm. C4 plants require a lower ppm value as they are 'more efficient': the first C4's were grasses. Before the appearance of grasses, most plants used phosphoglyceric acid (3 carbon atoms)to photosynthesise. Hence the name C3. Grasses, on the other hand, use oxaloacetic acid ( 4 carbon atoms) for photosynthesis, and are called C4 plants. As C4 plants were more efficient they began to dominate the planet creating vast eares of savannah and effectively locking up CO2. Thure Cerling has demonstrated that C4 plants "fixed" large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and subsequently into the soil upon death. It is considered that this lowered the level of CO2 and thus GMT, resulting in the extinction of many of the large mammals. Keelings response to Becks paper: www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc+keeling+beck&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk Beck reply: www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
Prev 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 Next
