Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
Comments 131101 to 131150:
-
Quietman at 06:11 AM on 18 September 2008It's the sun
Pep John's thread on Solar Cycles is also relavent to this thread. Naturally when I used this in the Arctic Sea Ice Melt thread I was attacked by alarmists who apparently did not read it. -
Quietman at 04:03 AM on 18 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick That is the subject of my studies of late and the reason for my interest in the work done by Fairbridge. There are many point in earth's history where there were abupt changes. How abrupt these events were is totally unknown but assumed to take time because we thought that planetary evolution was both constant and steady. We now find that abrupt changes can happen very quickly. I think within a human lifetime as it would explain the rapid changes of the past but obviously this needs to be studied further. -
Mizimi at 02:15 AM on 18 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Another point on the schematic: It is estimated 90%+ of the earth's CO2 is locked up in ocean sediment http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Phytoplankton/ and that process is STILL going on....so how can there be any kind of a balance as the graphic indicates? The only way you can 'force' equilibrium like that is totally ignore other factors which simply destroys the basis of the argument. -
Mizimi at 02:07 AM on 18 September 2008Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Water vapour is present in the upper troposphere; thus it radiates heat outwards and has a cooling effect, particularly in higher latitudes where insolation is lower than the tropics. As HS. says, increased cloud cover increases albedo, and since evaporation rate is a function of water/air temperature and turbulence, warming accelerates cloud production ... Increasing cloud (eventually) increases snowfall. All negative feedbacks. -
Mizimi at 01:17 AM on 18 September 2008It's Urban Heat Island effect
Isn't the comparison a bit off? The night-time shot is presumably a single pass compilation whereas the other is a year's data processed and averaged. I would therefore expect the UHI signal to get buried. Can't seem to find a temp anomaly picture at low enough time resolution to make a valid comparison. -
Mizimi at 00:23 AM on 18 September 2008It's not bad
From the Ministry of Ag, Ontario: "The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years... For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed." http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm Commercial growers all over the world have invested millions of $ into CO2 enhancement of greenhouses: Given that they are businessmen, if there was no appreciable crop increase they wouldn't be doing it- No? Now I would call a 50% increase in crop mass substantial, maybe not BUMPER, but clearly enough to warrant the cash investment. So there is plenty of empirical, current, evidence that raising levels of CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster. It isn't an issue, it's a fact. Just as clear is that concentrations up to 1000ppm the Rubisco Activase limit does not manifest. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:08 PM on 17 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
I do not appreciate the condescending implication of "starters." I have some clues about all this. You bringing Beck in the discussion does not really indicate that you know better than I. However, I notice that you now are using better sources. So now we can talk. Jaworowski has his opinion and the link you give is just that, his opinion. He has consistently declined to bet against IPCC predictions, so I don't know how much confidence he has in his own opinion. Nevertheless, that piece is not peer-reviewed science. The book is quite interesting. It emphasizes the fact that the ICE-EDGE is the really important area for production, since open water becomes very quickly nutrient depleted. Production of phytoplankton is good but eutrophization hardly qualifies as a boom for marine life. It is really anyone's guess how that ecosystem will fare if the Arctic becomes totally open in the summer. However, the book seems to suggest that the longer the water is open and the larger the open area, the quicker it will be nutrient depleted. I noted another return on your search query page indicating a lack of success at netting krill, why is that? http://www.imr.no/arctic/cruise_diary/phytoplankton_bloom_on_spitzbergen_bank The AGU paper is about a computer model to simulate blooms and does not really go beyond that, at least as far as the abstract says. Am I to assume that you trust computer models for complex systems involving biological and physical components? The Siberian forest paleo data is interesting but what exactly is your point there? Does it really suggest a much different total latitudinal repartition ot just different boundaries? How exactly is it applicable today, when humans have so much influence on ecosystems? The bristlecone vertical growth paper says this: "Average density above tree line is greater than below tree line, though no statistical significance can be shown." If I had the classic, obnoxious skeptical attitude, I'd say that you really can't draw any conclusion from this because of the lack of statistical significance. I won't go as far, but say that it remains to be shown that this is more of an extension in vertical repartition than simply a upshift. As for your other links on growth rates (and your summary dismissal of the Rubisco activase problem on the other thread), it considers trees in isolation of ecosystems. There is no doubt that biomass can store carbon, everybody knows that. The problem is that we won't let it happen. Let me put it on other words: how likely is it that the enhanced growth rates, will compensate for the land use changes? How about more frequent wildfires? How about parasites and invasive species? You made the argument that complexity restricts our comprehension about climate, but complexity is even more of a restricing factor with forecastin the behavior of ecosystems. You have no problem betting on it, that's your take. The tree paper also says this: "However, the scientists who conducted the study said such high growth rates probably will not be sustained as the experiment continues. They emphasized that the results do not indicate that more lush plant growth would soak up much of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning." -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:18 PM on 17 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Your post #14 is accurate but you could have traded "somewhat" for "less than 1%." Science does the best work possible with the best data that is available. Data are constantly sought, improved and correlated. Science is always a work in progress. If you want to talk about a really inexact science, we should start with economics. -
Patrick 027 at 09:43 AM on 17 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
" Sometimes no action, sometimes slow and sometimes quickly. One was on "continental drift" (tectonic activity) rate changes and another on mountain building at subduction zones. So yes, geologically speaking these things can happen quickly," but how quickly is quickly? -
Dan Pangburn at 09:14 AM on 17 September 2008Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
A study of satellite data on clouds and water vapor indicates that prior predictions of substantial Global Warming are wrong. The study introduces a new method to diagnose the total radiative feedback parameter. Corrected analysis will result in low climate sensitivity where the GCMs predict insignificant global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The subject is discussed at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm . A completely independent analysis reveals that there is insignificant net positive feedback. This has the same effect on the climate as the finding of low climate sensitivity. 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 significant 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 significant net positive feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. An assessment from a third perspective also determines that there is no significant net positive feedback. It can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 17 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Healthy skeptic, you really think I'm pulling this out of my rear-end? Denigrating scientists and accusing them of intellectual dishonesty, fraud, etc is so common among skeptics, it seems to be all they have. Even the moderate Quietman has no problem about accusing all the RC contributors of being biased and suggests that their funding is a cause of their "views" despite the fact that they do not receive funding from anyone to keep up the site. I've never heard you protest because he was denigrating these scientists. Do you even know what some of Gray's claims are? Have you checked the existing research about his claims? Find me the published papers that Gray would, according to you, be alluding to in the WSJ story, then we talk again. Gray is a respected expert on hurricane forecasting. He has published many papers on that subject and tropical meteorology. His track record of publications on climate science is quite different. But, as I said, if you have papers that would be of interest, link them. That what this site is all about. However, save us the memo circulated for the 2006 conference on hurricane and tropical meteorology, it is not a peer-reviewed science paper. Gray still calls on deep water upwelling from the tropics into the THC in this piece, an idea that has been discredited for a long time. He also seems to believe that evaporation can somehow make energy disappear. He makes all sorts of claims on historical behavior of the THC that do not have supporting evidence. Nobody is infaillible. Interesting is the fact that Gray testified in Congress that the Termo Haline Circulation was accelerating (while there was no real oceanographic evidence of it), leading to increased hurricane activity, then changed his theory when evidence was published that the THC was actually slowing down. As glider says, scientists don't know everything about hurricanes, which are really more a feature of weather than of climate. -
Mizimi at 00:33 AM on 17 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Phillipe: try these as starters:- ice core records siple curve pre ind co2 www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm http://books.google.co.uk/... http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JC002994.shtml http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK279&q=arctic+phytoplankton+bloom&meta= Whilst it is off topic you might like to read these on treeline movement and CO2 response which show that the biosphere is responding with negative feedback. http://www.sciencedirect.com/... http://216.239.59.104/... co2 effect on trees growth rate sour oranges -
HealthySkeptic at 15:10 PM on 16 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
#11 Philippe >> "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.... Gray is one train late (and some of his ideas about climate defy the laws of physics, but that's another story). " And a damn fine story too, I'll bet. LOL! Are you seriously suggesting that Prof. William Gray's more than 40 years of tropical meteorological research experience is not "real science", as you call it. This attitude of denegrating well respected scientists who don't agree with your world view is reminiscent of Creationist tactics! It is certainly not a scientific approach. -
Quietman at 14:49 PM on 16 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick Unfortunately the ENSO hypothesis I had put in my notes but I did not write down the source. At the time I was looking to find out what drives El Nino for my own knowledge so it was not important to me to note the source. I remember it was a dot-gov site and I searched for "el nino". Re: Not happening quickly. There is an article at ScienceDaily.com (or LiveScience.com) that explains why we need to rethink rates of change for the earth. It seems that the earth works in spurts. Sometimes no action, sometimes slow and sometimes quickly. One was on "continental drift" (tectonic activity) rate changes and another on mountain building at subduction zones. So yes, geologically speaking these things can happen quickly, we just don't take notice of the changes unless we happen to be monitoring them (and we have not been for very long). -
HealthySkeptic at 14:39 PM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
# 222 cce >> "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." What evidence do you have for that? cce>> "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 large number of skeptics believe that the GW is happening. What they have trouble swallowing is that it is happening as a result of human activities. cce>> "(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. Yes, they do at the moment. But recently, more and more scientists are changing their minds (as good scientists should) and rejecting AGW when the data and observations don't agree with the hypothesis. And AGW is just that at the moment, an hypothesis. -
Quietman at 14:20 PM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe Distain is a little strong. I use the wiki sites for a quick reference but I don't take them seriously and double check what I read. I see too much inconsistancy and errors in subjects that I am very familiar with. As I said before, Palaeos is two sitesL Palaeos.com and Palaeos.org, the dot-org site is a wiki and while better than wikipedia is still questionable and needs to be verified. Kind of like peer-reviewed papers (more than an article but less than established documents). The references posted at both, however, are reliable means of cross-checking. A wiki that slams people (or any site that does this) I simply don't go to. I come to this site with an open mind and to learn more about Climate Change. But as a skeptic I question both extremes and take neither as fact. It has helped my understanding quite a bit. I just don't care to argue with someone that has a closed mind as you have seen. I do not address anyone once I have seen the trend in their arguments. I have done some editing on Wikipedia but essentially spelling and grammar. When I disagree I go to the discussion page to point out the errors and let the original author do the edits (and there are many errors). -
Patrick 027 at 14:12 PM on 16 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Quietman - I went back and looked - it appears I did skip over the link from your comment 8. When I click on there now, though, it takes me to a list of other science (and politics about science) blogs (which sidetracked me because they were interesting). Aside from that, nowhere did I see in any of the links you supplied here a claim of some recent change in geologic activity - the closest being speculation that changes could be occuring related to an ice stream in Greenland (doesn't apply to all of Greenland) and the Pine Island glacier (doesn't apply to all of West Antarctic ice sheet) - neither of which are affirmed as being due to a recent change in geological forcing - so it is still quite possible that any recent changes there could be due to changing climate, with some such locations perhaps being more sensitive or having different thresholds because of a constant geological factor. I interpreted other articles (such as those concerning explosive submarine eruptions or the mid ocean ridge in the Arctic) as being new discoveries - not indicating a change in the actual thing that had been discovered. (If there is some quote to contradict that which I missed please point it out to me). "The current hypothesis on the cause of ENSO is not the volcanic eruptions, that is symptomatic not cause, the cause is undersea volcanic vents along the subduction zone as explained in the tectonics article." I missed any such connection made between submarine volcanic activity and ENSO behavior - could you provide the quote from the article? (I'm not saying that geothermal heating itself wouldn't have some effect, but I think (those calculations I did at "Science and Society") that except in some rare extreme cases, the temporal variation on such short timescales would be miniscule compared to so many other available variations that might trigger or modulate ENSO behavior. I don't think compositional fluctuations from hydrothermal vents would have big enough effect (such as on buoyancy, on a large-enough spatial scale) to be significant in ENSO either. ..."not all volcanos produce them"... [aerosols] ..."or outgas the same compounds." Agreed. "SO2 outgassing hss a different effect than CO2." Agreed. "Particulates from undersea eruptions do not reach the atmosphere." Agreed. "SO2 and CO2 released by these submerged volcanos have two dramatic effects: convection currents and acidification of the ocean (something blamed on AGW but actually volcanic in origin)." Well, no I disagree strongly there. First, it isn't AGW itself, technically, but the emission of CO2 that is a major cause of AGW, that is directly causing ocean acidification as well (not that climate itself can't affect (bio)geochemistry, but in this case I don't think that's a big factor). Second, the amount of CO2 geologically outgassed is miniscule compared to anthropogenic emissions, and more importantly, it didn't change a lot just recently (on a timescale to matter to AGW, or even to glacial/interglacial variations). The long term SO2 emission rate probably isn't changing much either. Of course there are short-term variations, like single eruptions, but overall these are relatively constant fluxes, and so biogeochemical conditions will long since have responded to them until fluxes balance, so there is a steady state on intermediate time scales. "Recent tectonic activity has been observed under antarctica recorded as earthquakes along the transantarctic mountains (an ancient fault line or plate edge)." Now, that's interesting. But even if it were unusual in the last 100 or 200 years, is it unusual in the last few thousand years? "The thinning of the crust under Greenland is directly related to it's active volcanos, mountain growth and seafloor spreading or rifting." But that's not the kind of thing that happens quickly. My overall point being that there isn't evidence of changes in geological activity over such a time period such that they would be causing a significant part of the climate change over the last decades or even centuries (except for explosive volcanism into that air that produces aerosol cooling, which is accounted for by climate theory and models), and also, there isn't really a reason to suspect it as a significant factor. But of course a relatively constant geological condition, such as a hotspot under a part of greenland, could have an effect on the response to climate change, such as the response of overlying ice to warming at the ice surface and above. -
glider at 11:12 AM on 16 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
It is interesting the reduction in OHC is just brushed off as "short term cooling". There is a reason why since 2003 the oceans have stopped gaining heat. It cannot be ignored since it is at the core of the AGW argument. See Hansen et al 'Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications'. Amazing. Ten years of OHC rise and it becomes the "smoking gun" for AGW. Five years of cooling and it is "short term" insignificance. Where is the missing heat? Isn't the real truth about hurricanes as is the case in other aspects of climate that "scientists" really don't know as much as they portend? Cloud dynamics, convection, solar and others are not well understood either. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033950.shtml This paper is still in press (need subscription to view abstract), so will link to this blog: http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-paper-us-hurricane-counts-are.html Now, what makes anyone think that small changes in solar activity does not also affect earth's climate as a whole?Response: Several years of ocean cooling is not unusual over the last 50 years of ocean warming. Solar activity certainly does have an effect on earth's climate - it's believed the 11 year solar cycle has an impact on global temperature of around 0.1C. So it wouldn't be surprising if this had an impact on hurricane intensity which is increasingly being linked to sea surface temperatures. More on the link between sun and climate... -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:48 AM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi, people who deny the reality of evolution and want to have creationism taught as if it was science are irrational and superstitious. Allowing them to alter school curricula will be detrimental to education. I have not yet personally met a Christian scientist who believed that ID or creationism should be called a scientific alternative to Evolution. You seem to go on a tagent and essentially make a strawman, but I won't discuss it. What evidence do you have that sea ice melting will be beneficial to the cycles that you so vaguely and loosely describe? Studies? Links? If you are so intent on respecting the complexity of climate, how can you suscribe to the simplistic and fabricated nonsense that Beck spreads around? There is an enormous amount of real scientific litterature out there on every aspect of climate (even hypothetical ones) and on the all shebang as well. Your disdain for wiki is rather strange, Quietman. I recently noticed they have a lot of links to Palaeos. -
Quietman at 04:03 AM on 16 September 2008It's the ocean
Looking at the maps you will note that the warming occurs along ridge lines. This is NOT coincidental, nor is it caused by AGW but quite the opposite. Refer to comment 13 in the volcano thread linked above. -
Quietman at 03:55 AM on 16 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick From "Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet?" (the first one you found): "However, this study also shows that the land in West Antarctica has been rising beneath the ice sheet in some areas and subsiding beneath it in others, over roughly the past 25 million years. Some areas have subsided to as much as 8500 feet below sea level. This tectonic restlessness contrasts markedly with the stability of the regions that lay beneath the northern hemisphere ice sheets of the recent geologic past, and its affect on the history of the West Antarctic ice sheet has not yet been evaluated." This relates again to the tectonics article linked to in my comment (13). -
Quietman at 03:46 AM on 16 September 2008Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Patrick Yes, I linked to Neds blog because you make an interesting argument in the Bertha thread. I thought that John and some of the other posters here would also find it so. On the arctic volcanos, these were new massive undersea eruptions in 1999-2001 along the arctic ridge, this relates to NEW increased seafloor spreading. The 2007 article on tectonics supports this and the subsequent additional heat convection currents concept. The current hypothesis on the cause of ENSO is not the volcanic eruptions, that is symptomatic not cause, the cause is undersea volcanic vents along the subduction zone as explained in the tectonics article. The aerosol issue is not involved in my argument because not all volcanos produce them or outgas the same compounds. SO2 outgassing hss a different effect than CO2. Particulates from undersea eruptions do not reach the atmosphere. SO2 and CO2 released by these submerged volcanos have two dramatic effects: convection currents and acidification of the ocean (something blamed on AGW but actually volcanic in origin). Recent tectonic activity has been observed under antarctica recorded as earthquakes along the transantarctic mountains (an ancient fault line or plate edge). The thinning of the crust under Greenland is directly related to it's active volcanos, mountain growth and seafloor spreading or rifting. These are like puzzle pieces, each one is not very significant in itself. but added together, along with what little we understand about gravitational stresses, begins to make some sense of what occurs in very long climate cycles. -
Quietman at 03:11 AM on 16 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi Thank you, I was not aware of that. -
Quietman at 03:04 AM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe My point about Wiki is that I don't go there. As I said they (and you) may be right or wrong. All I said is that the medeval thermal maximum is disputed. The reference I used may be a poor one but it is not the only one. I have seen this many times in different places but the only place I see it as lower is at Real Climate. But the point is irrelevant. I have no argument. -
Quietman at 02:58 AM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe Re: your comment 230: "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." Re: my comment 232: "And yes this is off topic and needs to be dropped. " Re: your comment 233: "Don't tell me to drop it when you're the one who brought it up." I was in agreement was I not? -
Mizimi at 01:47 AM on 16 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
Philippe: Try reading the posts. #14 would be a good start. About accuracy: climate science is a remarkably inexact discipline in that it uses a curious mix of data: Proxies - which means we have no direct evidence and therefore use evaluation of causually connected processes to determine data. Yet logic tells us the farther we are away from an event ( both physically and temporally) the less we can dicriminate the underlying factors that caused the event. Satellite data which are supposed to be more accurate than older data sources yet even these sources disagree with one another.. Older data sources are used when we don't have 'accurate' or long-term satellite sources. We have no accurate data on biomass response to climate changes, only guesses because the numbers are too big and too diffuse. We do not even have precise data on how much fossil fuel is being consumed...and so on. Yet we are being told that the future of civilisation depends on ameliorating a warming trend calculated on these data and a remarkably precise figure it is- given the background data. So forgive us our desire for a bit more precision before we commit ourselves one way or the other. -
Mizimi at 00:44 AM on 16 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Phillipe: "It matters to us because of the social implications of having irrational superstitious people designing school curricula and shaping policies." So if we dumped all the historical "school curricula" designed and taught by christians and muslims and hindus etc and all that followed from them.....just where would we be? Still sitting in our caves, probably. And by inference, every scientist who is a christian, muslim, etc etc is an irrational superstitious person who should be shut out of any process of determining how society should be shaped? And of course their work must be unacceptable since they are irrational and superstitious. How many scientists working on climate change have religious beliefs? When can we start the witch hunt? #226 On ice melt and sea temps et seq. Like all things to do with climate, no single subsystem works out in isolation. That is our biggest problem, we do not have enough knowledge to complete a model. I quoted a very small part of a cycle which is happening right now. Like all parts of the overall system it gets more and more complex and inter-ractive as you trace each component. More plankton=bigger predators right down the food-chain, locking up CO2. Plankton and other biota die, drift to the ocean floor and lock up CO2 for 1000's of years. More plankton= more sulphur dioxide = more clouds. Climate is as intricate as life, if not more so; every sub=system is dependent to a greater or smaller extent on all the others through feedback mechanisms and it is foolish to try and isolate parts of the whole and say "This is the answer". It is not a simple system and thus cannot be resolved in a simplistic manner. -
Dan Pangburn at 21:59 PM on 15 September 2008Models are unreliable
There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. By definition it complies with all laws of nature including physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein said “no number of tests can prove I’m right but only one is needed to prove I’m wrong”. That one test that proves to be wrong the theory that added atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming was run on the planet computer and the results are archived in the Vostok ice cores. They show 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. 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. -
Mizimi at 21:19 PM on 15 September 2008Models are unreliable
Dan: Depends what you take as significant. The time span is important,as well as the net feedback quantity. A very small change over a very long period ( like glacial periods) can eventually have a profound effect, This is the basis of Chaos Theory. One of our major problems is that we do not have enough hard data to quantify these matters to sufficient degree to allow a reasonable model to be constructed. We have a lot of information, knowledge and some data, but mostly we have guesstimates derived by various means ( some quite dubious), and that isn't good enough for a system of this complexity. -
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....
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
