Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 Next
Comments 24351 to 24400:
-
sam13501 at 17:33 PM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
You mentioned SE asia earlier and according to your source, 'on the average, hot record broke, etc.' I will take your sources with a grain of salt if you don't mind but that's irrelivant. Mini-ice age conditions like 1816 are characterized by winter conditions that arrive when they are not supposed to be there, like May or September, and it is in that way that they ravage crop production. You mentioned SE Asia earlier and that there were hot records broke and a high average etc. But if you look up at my list:
March 2016: Vietnam had 1 foot of snow 300km south of hanoi.
This is interesting because March,April is SE asia's summer-it is when the sun is directly over that region, so that is 1 foot of snow-in the summer-in the tropics,deep in the tropics.. Thailand was also hit by that cold spell leaving everyone scratching their heads as to what was going on.
We do not have an accurate record of exact specific temps from the previous MIA period, we just know from the history books what the weather patterns were.. maybe some records were broke or are these averages or records being influenced by localized heat island effect from human activity..that's your ongoing debate with skeptic scientists- Roy Spencer [
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/ ] or whoever, WUWT people..admittedly that debate is beyond me, to study and pik that stuff apart is beyond my comprehension.. admittedly maybe you are right about that but anyone who has looked at this issue even in passing; can see that endless debate; i think its your comfort zone to make that argument; but that's not my argument.. Is it normal to have snow in the middle of May snow in the tropics etc. of cource thats not normal! since about 2010 those incidents are increasing as the solar minimus preogress.
-
Eclectic at 14:38 PM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
Yes, Sam @ 292 , and have you noticed that India has recorded a record high temperature in this month of May? A scorching 123.8 degrees Fahrenheit ( 51degreesC ) in north-west India. That is a scorcher indeed - making Maine & Vermont look quite temperate.
Returning to USA April, the north-west was very much hotter than usual. And Alaska . . . Alaska showed April as 10.0 degreesF above the 1925-2000 average figure.
That's ten full degrees hotter, Sam. Or 5.5 degC if you're scientifically inclined [which I gather you aren't] . To quote NOAA : "parts of the Yukon River observed the earliest ice break-up on record and Fairbanks observed a record early 'green up', or start of the vegetation growing season.
Some extra snow in a small part of the USA is looking rather trivial, in comparison.
Worldwide for April, there was cooler than average weather in the Patagonia region and the Quebec region. The rest of the world was hotter than average. Sam, for land area, that's about 99.8% warmer, versus 0.2% cooler.
Sam, your argument looks ridiculous and a nonsense.
-
citizenschallenge at 14:16 PM on 21 May 2016Climate scientists, mourning Earth's losses, should make their voices heard
Good thoughtful article, I hope it touches many scientist.
I'm not one, just a life long passionate observer. For better than a half century I've watched the wonderful progress of Earth sciences leading to astounding breakthrough and insight. Always resolving an even clearer and more fascinating understanding of Earth's, and our, life story. As the destruction of our biosphere has gone from bad, to horrendous, to deadly.
We certainly have turned a fateful corner, and most the people out there, have no conception of what our planet is all about. Worse, they simply don't care, insecurity and faith in dogma satisfy them. Until an appreciation of Earth and how we were born of her permiates their daily awareness, nothing will change and governments will continue making wars, rather than dealing with what's heading our way.
Please better convey our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine as a real entity, not abstract sets of figures and theory. Help people appreciate the profundity of our biosphere, help them see past the postcard shallowness most possess.
And if that fails, as it has for decades,
Perhaps it's time to start, turning in and focus on like minded. Start quietly networking (Why quitely?, because there are a lot of very angry, even vengeful folks out there.) with like minded and giving up on those who want to make you enemies. It'll would probably demand some pragmatic paradigm shift. ~~~
_______________________________________________________
Back to the hopeful and striving to convey our planet as an real living entity, Robert Hazen has done and excellent job. It's a good example of presenting complex science in a clean comprehendable fashion.
Check it out, he's gone beyond lectures this year: LIFE'S ROCKY START - (2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o6ovoaLFic
Cheers,
PS. Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?
-
sam13501 at 13:36 PM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
I remember reading once that the NOAA doesn't have access to Russia, so they model the climate there?
Anyways here's the latest on the hottest May ever.. I already assuming that in a few weeks I'll see something in the news declaring May the hottest ever..
May 16, 2016: 4to7 inches of snow in Maine-record breaking snow for May, New England record spring snowfall 6+ inches, Vermont, PA, Michigan, Ohio 3+ inches, Tennessee US Highways closed because of Ice + snow. This is the first time there has been snow in Maine this late, last time was 1972 but that was may 2nd.. this is past middle of may. Vermont snow record for may broke by 15X.. Ohio snow during this years marathon.. Michigan cities all get snowed,not since may 13, 1912 have they had snow and that was .01 inch.. this time it's 3 inches.. Strange 'snowpellets' in PA, odd type of snow,hail combination not before seen.. Wisconsin cold and snow record broken, 5" Snow in Montana and WY, Waterloo and Dubuque Iowa record cold, Dallas FtWorth record cold.
NE USA and Canada-glaciated during an ice age-experiences very cold conditions during a min-ice age.. solar minimums are creating the mini-ice age weather pattern.. I think I said this before..AGW or co2 warming does not stop for example, the elnino/lanina weather pattern, ie:it doesn't 'cancel' the lanina so that you get 2 elninos in a row instead of a normal elnino/lanina. If it can't 'cancell out' a 'little' weather pattern like a lanina, then why would it 'cancell out' a BIG weather pattern like a MIA? It won't, this thing is coming, it's coming hard and fast and we're looking at serious cold related crop damage from now thru the early 2020's as we get to the bottom of solar cycle 24..we then have somerecovery in the mid 2020's prior to the maunder minimum starting in the 2030's AND with volcanic activity already high we could have a big one like a pinatubo at any time, if/when that happens we're realy screwed!
-
nigelj at 13:02 PM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
Zoli
The raw data and adjusted data for global temperatures for the last 50 years are almost identical, as per the graph below which shows both.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/truth-about-temperature-data.html
-
researchertony at 12:44 PM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
I'm a bit of a hobby researcher kind of guy here. Love science and also the bible. Was looking for any trace of that global flood and found something we all need to look into. The two say life was different, both say environment was changed. I have found many parallels in geology and biblical records. For now let's leave bible out. but it does have the last word, the biggest clue we badly need. Learned about polar forests and polar animals that once lived in both ends. Some say there was more greenhouse gases that made a free ice earth at that time. They think the changes happened over long periods of time. Yet others tell us if temperatures increase it will be the next mass extinction event. Only in the polar areas do we find this changes. It is thought that in later times (Pliocene) the earth was warmer (THE SECRET OF ANTARTICA –VIDEO). This is where the contradiction lays. If CO2 increases do we life better and longer as the dinosaurs lived, happy and lush environments, or do we all die from extreme heat etc.
If the bible is right, the kind of greenhouse environment needed for change the earth for the better does not now exist. The kind we will get from our CO2 we make today could very well kill us all just as they say. Just because the earth was once a paradise of lush plant and animal life, does not mean it could get back to that without divine help. There is where the answer to the contradiction lays – the bible. -
Tom Curtis at 09:20 AM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
Kevin C @3, GISTEMP no longer shows the absolute temperature offset with their data, although they did up until January 19th of this year, when they showed an offset of 14 C. That is also approximately the absolute temperature for the interval 1951-1980 (the GISTEMP baseline period) shown by the IPCC in this graph (thick black line on right hand section):
That estimate is based on Jones et al. (1999), Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years, Rev. Geophys., in which an uncertainty of plus or minus 0.5 C is given, according to a more recent paper by Jones (Jones and Harpham (2013) Estimation of the absolute surface air temperature of the Earth, Geophsycial Research: Atmospheres). That paper in turn estimates that "The absolute surface temperature of the world is likely to be between 13.7 and 14.0C for the 1961–1990 period and 13.9 and 14.2C for 1981–2010." Assuming a normal distribution, that comes out as approximately 13.85 +/- 0.3 C for 1961-1990, and slightly lower for the GISTEMP baseline period of 1951-1980.
-
barry1487 at 07:59 AM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
Zoli, you can get the raw data and do the graph yourself. Skeptics have done it and come up with the same result as the Met Office, GISS, NOAA and the Japanese Meteorological Association.
BEST is a project run by critics of AGW. Same results. Here's a link to the work done by other skeptics. They get more warming than the Met Office. Read the commentary.
First the obvious, a skeptic, denialist, anti-science blog published a greater trend than Phil Climategate Jones. What IS up with that?
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Multiple groups have done the analysis using raw and adjusted temperatures. This part of the debate is over. The raw data is available for anyone to try and do it better.
-
Kevin C at 07:11 AM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
Zoli: There's no secret. It's just the way the Met Office do the calculation. If you subtract the mean temperature for a station from all the readings for that station before you construct a global average, then you eliminate most of the effect of stations appearing and disappearing, which would otherwise swamp the temperature signal.
You can test this for yourself using the tool described in this post. If you hit 'select all' then 'calculate', you get a reasonable estimate of the temperature record. But if you turn off the 'align stations' option (bottom left), you get nonsense. (We can tell it is nonsense by doing a cross-validation test.)
Now it is possible to do the temperature calculation with absolute temperatures, but rather harder. UKMO don't do it at all (and nor do I). But you can get absolute temperatures from either NASA/GISS or Berkeley (land temperatures only). For the GISS data, the offsets to turn the relative temperatures into absolute temperatures are at the bottom of the file. For Berkeley they are at the top.
Alternatively, reanalysis products also produce absolute temperatures. From this page click the show/hide link next to ERA-interim, select 'temperature - 2m/10m', the 'Select Field' button at the top, and then the 'Make time series button' at the bottom of the first box.
The absolute temperatures have a significant annual cycle, which obscures the climate signal. The simplest way to address this is to convert to annual averages. Here are the annual averages for the ERA-interim data:
-
Zoli at 06:23 AM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
We got a vague graph again. Everybody shows only changes but never the raw data. Met Office on the link writes only about changes, too. Why every study keeps the original temperature values in secret?
Can anybody give me a link with the annual global average temperature values? A simple search didn't help.
-
John Hartz at 05:49 AM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
Sam: More facts for you to ponder...
According to the NOAA monthly temperature report (for April), much of Russia and Alaska witnessed temperatures of at least 3.0°C (5.4°F) or greater above average. South America, Africa, and Asia (with an exceptional heatwave in Southeast Asia) also had record high average temperatures.
The April globally averaged sea surface temperature was 0.80°C (1.44°F) above the 20th century monthly average, the highest on record.
According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during April was 890,000 square miles below the 1981–2010 average. This was the smallest April Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 50-year period of record.
April continues record temperature streak, WMO* Press Release, May 20, 2016
*World Meteorlogical Organization
-
Tadaaa at 03:28 AM on 21 May 2016Lord Krebs: scientists must challenge poor media reporting on climate change
Good article, thank you for taking time to write it
the world will look back in wonder at why these articles needed to be written in 2016!!!
-
MA Rodger at 01:28 AM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
Sam @284/7.
You certainly take the prize for obtuse referencing. A YouTube interview that you once heard about which was about a theory used as the basis for a Hollywood move? The following will likely not help you one bit but for correctness sake...
The work that led to Michael Mann being interviewed last year is likely Rahmstorf et al (2015) “Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean over turning circulation.” (Here)
And a paper that more dramatically considers the impact of melt waters on regional temperatures is the discussion paper Hansen et al (2016) “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2ºC global warming could be dangerous.” (PDF).
Do note however that neither fit with your considerations of 'mini-ice age' conditions or solar minimums or frosty US weather.
The film you mention does apparently have a small role in climate science in that it is the exemplar of “scientific misinformation in movies” that it is said to have prompted Schmidt & Mann to create the RealClimate.org website.
-
John Hartz at 01:12 AM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
sam:
You wrote:
... in short I am interested in global cooling and mini-ice age so i asked about any information on the theory that co2 or manmade warming can create a very cold spell.
The scientific body of evidence about the impact of increased CO2 levels on the global climate system does not support such a theory.
In addition, the surface atmosphere of the earth is but one component of the the global climate system — see the SkS Glossary for details.
-
John Hartz at 01:01 AM on 21 May 2016It's cooling
Suggested supplemental reading:
India just set a new all-time record high temperature — 123.8 degrees by Angela Fritz, Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post May 19, 2016
‘99 Percent Chance’ 2016 Will Be Hottest Year by Andrea Thompson, Climate Central, May 18, 2016
-
theCTTA at 00:54 AM on 21 May 2016Why I care about climate change
Agreed, I don't want to tell my daughter that I was part of the problem. I would much rather tell her that we went down fighting or solved the problem. We are ultimately responsible to our children for the way we leave the future.
The way I see the issues are as a cascading series of interconnected effects, like dominos falling. That said, I believe that many approaches to problem solving are needed, and am heartened by the responses here. We, the Clean Technology Trade Alliance, are working on finding businesses with technologies and engineering approaches to develop coalitions to solve the wide variaty of issues (symptoms) being created by not only climate change, but our overal devaluing of natural resources.
ie: Desertification in Chihuahua Mexico, Texas and California are adversily affecting water. Which effects agriculture...food supplies etc...
As I said cascading events, cause and effect.
Thank you for providing this forum for information and conversation.
-
billev at 22:07 PM on 20 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
If the CO2 caused energy imbalance is the reason for the Earth's temperature rise then that temperature rise should be continuous like the steady, and accelerating, rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the record of the Earth's mean temperature since 1880 shows that the rise in the Earth's temperature has not been continuous. There have been two thirty year periods of no temperature increase that have alternated with two thirty year periods of temperature rise. Why this inconsistency?Moderator Response:[TD] Read the post "CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate." Put further comments on that thread, not this one, for this topic in this comment of yours. Further off-topic comments by you will be deleted without warning, because you have had plenty of warnings.
[GT] billev, I have replied to your comment on the thread TD linked to. -
sam13501 at 21:12 PM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
i never said i had 'evidence' i said i heard about an interview once about the theory that the movie 'day after tomorrow' was based on.. and that theory is a co2 theory (or man made warming theory), so its one of the 'establishment' science things..since they used it in a hollywood film and hollywood tends lend support to the co2 science..i'm not bent out of shape about the evidence you have posted indicating that warming is continuing.. i know that the skeptic's have questioned the reliability of some of these charts that orgs like the noaa put out..im not going to challenge them here as anyone can goto those sites.. all i did here was to suggest that extreme cold events like super blizzards in the north and snow in the tropics 'seem' to be on the increase and that these are typically 'mini-ice age' conditions and they 'seem'to be gathering pace as the solar minimums set in.. and that possibly the global warming movement was born from the fear of an imminent ice age.. in short I am interested in global cooling and mini-ice age so i asked about any information on the theory that co2 or manmade warming can create a very cold spell.
Moderator Response:[RH] You're clearly not listening to anything that's being said. And you're just prattling along with your incorrect information that you can't seems to find.
You've been given multiple warnings now. Patience is wearing very very thin. You're going to have to significantly up your game if you want to continue your posting privileges.
-
ranyl at 20:59 PM on 20 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Thanks Howard...
Road to 2C is inevitable I suspect now even with negative emissions.
Early Pliocene 3-5C hotter with a max CO2 400ppm and average more like 350ppm from many recent papers and were at 480ppmCO2e.
Its going to take a huge brake to stop this rollcoaster ride.
However we have depleted almost every ecosystem and therefore their regenration might bring CO2 in check to some degree.
-
michael sweet at 19:53 PM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
Sam,
When you are unable to find your supposed evidence people here believe that the evidencce never existed. It appears that you remember a lot of evidence that you cannot now find. If you want to convince people at this web site you will have to start supporting all your wild claims with citations. I note that Tom Curtis has provided data and evidence for all his claims, and written citations so they can be verified. You have provided no evidence to support your wild claims.
-
sam13501 at 17:35 PM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
later i was unable to find the interview..
-
sam13501 at 17:33 PM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
Once when I was browsing youtube, less than a year ago (i guess) i came accross a bit like "The Dick Hartman Show" and he said he was going to interview a guest, Michael Mann(im sure you know who he is) and if I remember correctly MM was going to talk about the possibility of an extremly cold period starting around 2020, due to in his opinion, "conveyer belt shutdown" a theory used in the Denis Quaid movie "The Day After Tomorrow" oddly enough that would be the same time the current weak solar cycle would be bottoming out.. I'm thinking pdo&amo both cold at the same time but i don't know what a 'conveyor belt is' any information anyone has on that theory?..it seems to be the co2 version of iminent ice age..
-
sauerj at 13:54 PM on 20 May 2016What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing
One Planet, I can't find pledge signers list for current 114th congress, but HERE is list for previous 113th congress. 3 of 6 GOP Climate Solutions Caucus members are on the 113th pledge list. The other 3 GOP reps didn't start office until the 114th congress. Of these Bob Dold has signed the pledge; I can't find if either Carlos Curbelo (FL) or Ryan Costello (PA) have signed. ... Unfortunately, the Grover Norquist pledge (Americans for Tax Reform) is a formidable political reality as 94% of House GOP have signed it (link). ... But, the 100% revenue neutral Fee & Dividend approach effectively gives us a way to get around this political stumbling block, and that's OK, because this by itself would still be very effective in moving us toward a FF-free (or greatly FF-reduced) economy. Take note that Dr. James Hansen is a strong supporter of this 100% revenue neutral CFD approach. ... This is what makes CCL vision so attractive; they realize the political reality and embrace it head on. If we can help keep building this political will and getting other GOP pledgers to get on board, we might actually get some real national discussion going and get something with some real force passed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:34 AM on 20 May 2016What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing
sauerj,
My observations of the behaviours of the die-hard adherents to Grover Norquit's pledge indicates that anything that would shift wealth and benefit away from the portion of the population that does not deserve the benefits and rewards it has been getting away with personally gathering will be unacceptable to them. And they will use the Pledge to Grover as an excuse for the irresponsible inexcusable choice they want to make.
So I would expect that the GOP members who are receptive to CFD did not sign Grover's pledge (not all GOP signed onto that piece of Playschool Theatrics) and that Democrat members who support it do not represent regions where the smiting might of disinformation political campaign attacks would significantly affect them (some Democrats have supported continued coal burning). However, I would wholeheartedly welcome learning that GOP members who signed the pledge have decided to ignore the expectations of those who sign it and are willing to act rationally and responsibly to advance global humanity to a lasting better future for all.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:01 AM on 20 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
billev
Proof that CO2 causes temperature change. Perhaps rephrase that. Proof that CO2 influences the planets energy balance, and that in turn changes in the energy balance then change temperatures.
The earths energy balance is heat flowing in from the Sun and heat flowing out to space. If those two flows don't match, the amount of energy here on Earth can change. If heat in is greater than heat out, heat here on Earth builds up. And the size of these energy flows is staggering. A rate of around 121,500 trillion watts in and out. AN energy flow in of that magnitude, if it wasn't balanced by a flow outwards, is enough energy to boil the oceans dry in less than a 1000 years. Even a small imbalance in these flows can cause significant changes.
So something that can influence the flow of energy out to space, restricting it in some way, would have a profound impact.
The following graph is from a paper published in 1970. It is measuring the energy flowing out to space from a point on the Earth below, from near Galveston in Texas. To understand the graph, think of it like a rainbow. It is plotting the energy flowing to space for a range of different wavelengths in the infrared region, infrared 'colours' if you like. So the amount of energy flowing out to space is proportional to the area under the curve.
There are to curves. One is a calculation from theory, the other was a direct measurement, taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in 1969, the first time this sort of measurement could be taken from space. Today such measurements are everyday occurances. One graph has been shifted up for clarity, actually the two graphs match almost perfectly, such was the state of this science in 1969.
Remembering that the energy flowing to space is proportional to the area under the graph, look at the big notch. That is less energy reaching space than would be expected. That is a disruption of the outward heat flow that sets the Earth's energy balance. And that is caused by CO2. There is the Greenhouse Effect and the impact of CO2 all in one observation.
The Earth is over 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be because of it.Moderator Response:[PS] Billev seems to accept that photons received direct from sun will affect temperature, but that photons coming from gases in the atmosphere somehow magically do not affect temperature (or energy balance). If someone is willing to deny something has experimentally tested and fundamental as Plancks Law, then I doubt any science will convince them.
-
JIm Steele at 10:24 AM on 20 May 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Rob, Seriously. Reef forming coral expanded during the warm periods of the Mesozoic. Do you really want to argue coral suffered more from warmth than they have from the cold during the most recent ice ages?? Please provide the evidence? LInks?
And indeed there has been episodic declines in coral reefs, but the greatest mortality has been due to tropical storms, predators like Crown of Thorns, or disease like White band. Dynamite and cyanide fishing have also been destructive as well as nutrient runoff from agriculture and seage. INstead you want to focus on bleaching, the smallest cause of mortality which is also part of their amazing adaptation mechanisms?!? Why do you disagree with the experts who promote the Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis?http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bleaching-debate.html
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - You mention the Mesozoic and make the flawed assumption that the marine revolution that occurred during this time, as it pertains to coral reefs, came about because of some hitherto unrecognized invulnerability to warm water. This is nonsense.
Coral reefs likely acquired photosymbiosis during the Mezosoic and both the evolution of herbivorous marine feeders and the flooding of continental shelves occurred during this time. The development of photosymbiosis enabled coral to spread into oligotrophic (low nutrient) environments, and the flooding of continental shelves with warming opened up new territory for them. The arrival of mobile marine herbivores also meant coral were better able to complete with macroalgae and seaweed for space - indeed this is suggested as being the primary evolutionary driver during this period. I suggest this review paper as a starting point might prove illuminating: The Ecological Evolution of Coral Reefs by Professor Rachel Wood.
There are simple reasons why coral have suffered or gone extinct because of (natural) global warming events in the past, a) surface seawater was too warm, and b) low carbonate ion abundance associated with ocean acidification made skeleton-building too energetically costly. Calcification rates drop, the coral skeleton becomes weakened and the reef cannot precipitate aragonite fast enough to overcome bioerosion. And this segues into why we are seeing coral reefs disappearing at an alarming rate today. You see that the scientific case explains both the past and present behaviour of coral reefs perfectly well.As for adaptive bleaching, it's not only me that disagrees with the adherents of this hypothesis, it's other coral reef experts and, more importantly, the observations. Intense coral bleaching events induce mortality soon after bleaching and thus dead coral are unable to acquire new algal partners. I'm sure you can agree that death makes adaptation impossible. Moreover, some of the reefs on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) that survived the smaller-scale bleaching events of 1998 and the early noughties, have since died from the 2016 GBR bleaching event.
-
billev at 10:10 AM on 20 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
I am not postulating that the Earth can warm or cool without cause. What that cause is I do not know but I would tend to think it is an alteration in the Earth's relationship with the Sun. I also think that if one wishes to prove that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming then the focus of temperature measurement should be upon those few feet between the Earth's surface and the measuring instruments employed on land for measuring that temperature. The nature of the heat loss from the earth's surface to those instruments might reveal whether it is a linear loss or whether it is influenced by an outside agent such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As far as increased irradiation not increasing surface temperature, this could occur if the irradiation was so small that its effect could not be measured with the instrumentation available.
Moderator Response:[PS] Orbital forcings are directly calculated. Their influence is well studied (maybe start here). How you accept that this forcing, slow and very small compared to GHG, affected climate and yet GHG do not. To suggest that GHG affect thermometers 2m about surface is to profoundly misunderstand how GHG effect works. I suggest you go to the basics. How about the ocean measurements then?
-
John Hartz at 10:01 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
Suggested reading for Sam:
Extraordinary Heat Wave Sweeps Southeast Asia and Points Beyond by Christopher C. Burt , Wunderblog, Weahter Underground, April 19, 2016
-
sam13501 at 09:07 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
oh i see, those are not temps they are 'temp. ranks' this is exactly what im talking about.. they will always manage to slice the data in a way that shows it's 'warm' again they are saying that April was the warmest april on record.. that's obvious bullshit when it was freezing the whole month with snow and asia and europe were also cold.. I was just watching the Rome masters with djok and murray last week, been watching it for years, this year everyone in the stands were wearing jackets and scarves, i checked the weather it was 11*c there in May.. it has been a very cold april and may..something is being seriously fudged here.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.
Please see the Moderation advice given you in your previous comment.
-
sam13501 at 08:57 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
and i think what people like tony hellar are saying is that these charts include adjusted and fabricated data. In April I checked the weather for various cities in the US everyday, Boston, Wichita Falls, WDC,NY, everyday it was freezing, like i said there was a white easter and 16 FEET of snow in PA, everyday in the entire region it was freezing or near freezing..if it was 60* in PA then why was there 16 feet of snow, if it was so warm then why was only 5% of the crop planted? Today is May 20 Chicago-low7*c, high 18, NY 12,21 WDC 12,21 wis 6,22 etc. according to your chart it was warmer in april than it is now.. obviously the charts that the noaa put out are faked.. i put up photos that showed much more ice in greenland now than just a few years ago, but im sure you have charts that show opposite..
also tonys charts that shows there are less days now that break 100*f, 95*F than in the 30's and 60's .. real or fake?
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
MA Rodger at 04:20 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
sam @278,
If you are to get anything from your visits here, it would be best if you show your data sources. I get the impression you are rather too wedded to Tony Heller & his RealClimateScience.com website, a place that is certainly packed full of WMD or Wordage of Mass Deception, so you may be reluctant to do this.
However, data sources are always useful. For instance, if you track down the Heller post you talk of with its "(3)charts, using US HCN stations" you can also find the source of the drought chart Heller uses, which is an update of Fig 2.3a of U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3, June 2008. (PDF here) Note that it was likely sight of Fig 2.3b that gave Heller the inspiration for his post. But tellingly for us here, what else is there in that document of June 2008? I think there is some (for instance, see Fig 2.4) that makes a bit of a nonsense of this talk of yours of cooling US winters.
-
sauerj at 02:41 AM on 20 May 2016What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing
One Planet Only Forever@6: I agree w/ your comment, but the reality of today's US Republicans (who have pledged not to enact any new taxes; Grover Norquist pledge) causes an impasse. CCL's approach: 'OK, that won't stop us, we can get around this'. And, they are! They are getting some GOP members' attention & real support (which opens the door to building relationships for really getting things moving).
SkS members would all agree that CFD at $100 US/ton CO2 (CCL proposal) would be a very effective start to motivating toward a FF-free economy. Dr. Shi-Ling Hsu (Case for Carbon Tax) argues that CFD is the most effective way (compared to Command&CaptureControl (Regs), Cap&Trade, and Subsidies). CCL's approach is to figure out a way to effectively and respectfully work within the political constraints that we have. And, the 100% revenue neutral CFD proposal (no new net tax burden) removes any political foothold from the GOP to thwart this policy (on the grounds of tax burden). And, this is working; GOP members are signing-on in support (see citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/). In fact, CCL places such a high priority on bipartison cooperation that they purposely do NOT invite any new Democrats until a new GOP member joins (currently there are 6 democrats and 6 republicans). I find that kind of "vision" very refreshly (another example of the positive spirit behind CCL).
But, in the end, though CFD by itself will be very effective. A combination of 1) 100% revenue neutral CFD, and 2) subsidies to R&D, and 3) Command&Capture (regs) would be extremely powerful. My personal analogy is that CFD is a "pulling" economic force (it pulls the economy & markets toward the best solutions); while Command&Capture (regs) are a "pushing" economic force (they push the economy & markets away from an undesire state). I compare the effectiveness of these to that of front-wheel drive cars (pulling) vs rear-wheel drive cars (pushing). If you had to pick between the two, you would pick the former. But, the ultimate would be BOTH (an all-wheel drive car), especially to move somewhere as expedieting as possible. R&D subsidies would be like hiring a mechanic that works 24/7 on your car to continuously optimize its technology.
Moderator Response:[JH] Edited per request.
-
howardlee at 01:25 AM on 20 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Ranyl - I'll answer in sequence:
Remineralization depth CO2 feedback starting in ernest?
I don't know, but it's a plausible factor among many including fires that you mention. The Global Carbon Budget shows that the ocean carbon sink continues to increase at about 10 GtCO2/yr but there is large yearly variation in those data. Kwon et al said: "...considerable fractions (more than 30%) of the full response occur on timescales of decades..." and: "... changes in remineralization depth could feed back on twenty-first century climate change." And "... our work suggests that the impact on the global carbon cycle could be substantial."Iron fertilization:
Iron fertilization is nutrient supply, so it would tend to increase anoxia, provided other essential nutrients like phosphorus, nitrogen, etc are present in the Redfield Ratio.Inundation of nutrient-rich land:
Yes this should increase nutrient supply at least in coastal areas.Industrial farming:
Yes this is one of the major factors behind the exponential increase in coastal dead zones since the 1960s.Carbon sequestration: Yes. See Andy Skuce's excellent 3-part article on "The Road to 2 degrees"
The bottom line is that the climate system is complex machinary that we've stuck multiple fingers into. All the knock-ons and feedbacks - positive and negative - are highly tangled. But evidence from Earth's past show that the positive feedbacks exceed the negative ones on a human timeframe, before he negative ones win out on a geolgical timeframe of many millennia.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 20 May 2016What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing
I agree with Carbon Fee & Dividend, with the carbon fee being significant enough that the dividends are noticably improve the life circumstances of the least fortunate who actually live in ways that result in very little CO2 impact.
In addition to that action, I agree with Sir David King's push for more tax money to be collected and spent on reserch and development of truly suistainable energy technologies. But that tax should be a special surcharge on individual gross income (before reducing the inome by tax allowed deductions like loss of value of stocks), for anyone whose gross income is significant (a tax only on the top 10%).
The bottom line is that many of the currently developed perceptions of prosperity and wealth are clearly unsustainable and undeserved. Pushing for those perceptions to be excused and be maintained until (or unless) a cheaper more popular or more profitable way of living is developed is simply shameful. History clearly shows that less acceptable actions that can actually be temporarily gotten away with will be cheaper, popular and most profitable (for a few for a little while). That Invisible Slapping Hand of the marketplace needs to be acknowedged in order for humanity to more rapidly advance to a lasting better future for all.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
sam @278:
"I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable."
Of course you don't. I never imagined for a second that you are one to let a "beautiful theory" be spoilt be ugly facts. So you just cherry pick some more.
First, when discussing the record global warmth, you cherry pick data from the USA (which had only its 18th warmest April). And not the USA as a whole, but only two particular zones within the US. You can guess which zones be looking at the temperature rankings by state for April 2016:
You make a point of mentioning the North East (which was near average, or below average for the 20th century, and hence very cool relative to 21st century to date) and central US (which is a bit of a stretch, given that most states in the central region were above average, and hence below average for the 21st century todate) - but you very carefully do not mention the North West where three states had their second warmest April on record. I'm sure that was entirely accidental, and not in any way an attempt to cherry pick /sarc.
You also manage to mention Europe (where parts were near average relative to the 20th century record) - but no mention of Australia, or the central Meditarainian, or the Indian Ocean, or the Amazon, in all of which large tracks were the warmest on record. Now either you genuinely believe the Globe consists of just the US and Europe, or you are cherry picking. Outrageiously so.
I like statistical evidence where you can see at a glance that you are not getting a biased picture. If you say April 2016 wasn't that warm, but have to restrict your discusion to less than 5% of the globe to make your case (as you have), then you have not case. You ought to either be honest with yourself about that fact, or leave discussion here to the grownups who are happy to look at the whole of the data, and don't start invoking conspiracy theories every time the data doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
-
howardlee at 00:20 AM on 20 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Chriskoz - I believe that remineralization effects were accounted for in carbon pump calculations which explain some but not all of the 80-100ppm CO2 drawdown in glacial times. As Prof Archer noted in his book The Global Carbon Cycle (2010) "There is no single satisfactory explanation for the positive ocean carbon cycle feedback responsible for the glacial and interglacial atmospeheric CO2 cycles."
I brought this up in my interview with Prof Andy Ridgwell last December, and he said:
"I suspect it’s more likely we have all the mechanisms known but it’s how we piece the whole thing together consistent with all the different bits of proxy information we have. Now that the CO2 record of the glaciation is getting better and better resolved in time, they are looking like 100-year steps of 20 - 25 ppm CO2 and there’s some radiocarbon evidence that this carbon must have been mostly radiocarbon-dead. So people have been thinking: could it have been rapid sea rises? Could it have been destabilizing permafrost or marine hydrates? In terms of really trying to interrogate the highest resolution ice core record of the glaciation and actually see within a general change in the carbon cycle between glacial and interglacial, are there particular mechanisms that might be giving a huge kick of CO2 at certain times? If you just flood permafrost with ocean that’s not at freezing temperature, then you suddenly melt the permafrost so you can have a lot of carbon release just because the sea level rise is massive."
-
sam13501 at 00:18 AM on 20 May 2016It's cooling
I do not consider charts such as that,to be reliable.. I saw something on one of the news, "April 2016 was the hottest on record, and it wasn't even close" This was the same April that was freezing all over the NE and central US with heavy snow..and it wasn't just the USA, east asia and europe were also cold, not as cold but it wasn't very spring like.. There have been April's in my life where Spring actually existed, this wasn't one of them, even May is cold.. How could that possibly be the coldest on record. Climate Central's chart says one thing, but tony hellar puts up (3)charts, using US HCN stations that there were more days in the 30s, and 60's that were over 90,95,100* That there were more hot days back then, then there are now.. Charts contradicting each other, ice studies contradicting each other, the charts in the 70,s and 80's showing one thing, the currentcharts showing another.. at this point I only look at weather patterns not charts.. what comes to mind ofcource is all the reliable data we had that showed Iraq had a WMD program..
Moderator Response:[RH] You don't get to merely dismiss data you don't like and accept data you like. You need to show why the data is wrong if you don't accept it. If you're incapable of doing this, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about and should keep your mind open to the potential that reality may be something other than what you prefer to believe.
-
ranyl at 00:06 AM on 20 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Thanks Howardlee,
Sobering indeed, also interesting how recent CO2ppm 12 month apart month on month rises are increasing whilst emissions are apparently falling, is there evidence that this natural positive feedback or others (forest fires) are possibly already starting in earnest?
What do think iron fertilization will do to the fine balance of things?
Do you think sea level rises invading nutrient rich lands and soils will have any significant affect?
And lastly sorry for so many questions, what are your thoughts on how the increase in runoff nutrients caused by the expansion of industrial farming may affect things?
Does seem more and more that a huge carbon sequestration effort is going to be needed and keeping the oceans healthy and carbon sequestering through the warming coming is going to be a vital challenge.
Mind you if over activates like over fishing, waste, pollutants, etc, somehow just stopped occurring then maybe the surface oceans might actually get healthier for while despite the accelerating warming period being experienced. -
howardlee at 23:53 PM on 19 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Mitch - in talking to people who know way more about this than I do, they tell me that the thermal stratification is indeed transient exactly as you describe, but anoxic conditions in Ocean Anoxic Events sometimes lasted hundreds of millennia, well beyond the shelf-life of stratification, suggesting a prolonged enhanced nutrient supply, which seems to be linked to enhanced weathering rates in a warmer, wetter climate.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:23 PM on 19 May 2016It's cooling
sam @275:
"I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light."
The way to avoid cherry picking is not to look at yet more anecdotal evidence as you are doing. It is to look at the summary statistics. Thus, while you quote incidents from some states in the US, in fact in 2016 to date, there have been 640 warm daily records compared to just 121 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.29 to 1 in favour of the warm records. Globally, to date, there have been 46,542 warm daily records compared to 8,275 cold daily records, a ratio of 5.64 to 1 in favour of the warm records.
In contrast to those record, your listing of incidents is 100% cold incidents. When the data shows >5 to 1 in favour, but all your samples come from the 1 rather than the >5, we know very clearly who is cherry picking.
Further, this tendency towards of warm records is something which is well known, and increasing in magnitude:
(Data for contiguous USA, source)
While this is in fact what you would expect from global warming, the idea that we could have global cooling while warm records outnumber cold records by >5 to 1 is an absurdity.
-
billev at 22:02 PM on 19 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
I still have seen no proof that the current level of atmospheric CO2 has any measureable effect on temperature readings. The fact that an entity has the quality of causing something does not guarantee that it will cause that something if there is not enough of the entity. For example, steel has the quality of being able to stop the flight of a bullet. A thickness of one inch of steel will stop a bullet fired from a pistol but 1/2500th of an inch of steel won't. The recorded temperature change the Earth has been experiencing since 1880 conforms to the statements by climatologists that a 500 year period of warming began about 1850 with the end of the of a 500 year period of cooling that had begun around 1350. This would not appear to have anything to do with atmospheric CO2 levels, Also, I think that continuous recording of the pattern of heat loss that occurs between the Earth's surface and the temperature recording devices would be key to determining whether changes in the atmosphere were acting upon that heat loss and to what extent.
Moderator Response:[PS] I am quite sure that if you do not want to accept GHG theory, then nothing will change you mind. However, if you can show an example of increased irradiation of a surface not increasing its temperature, then line up for a Nobel prize. Furthermore you seem to postualating that the earth can warm or cool without a cause (ie a violation of 1st law). Please cite the "the statements by climatologists" - otherwise this is sloganneering and prohibited. Since most of the earth is covered by ocean, most of heat goes there. How to explain this energy build up with your "natural cycles"?
-
chriskoz at 20:17 PM on 19 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Interesting summary Howard.
Do you think the remineralization depth changes during ice ages may explin the phenomenon of strong CO2 feedback of the initial orbital forcings?
Oceanographers have been saying that the CO2 feedback responsible for the magnification of orbital forcings comes from the ocean degassing. But they don't know or are unsure of the mechanism responsible for such degassing and regassing cycles that dominated climate cycles of the last 1My.
-
Rob Painting at 17:43 PM on 19 May 2016It's cooling
Sam your comment reminds me of this:
It is extraordinarily unlikely that ten of thousands of scientists are wrong about global warming. Especially when the Earth continues to accumulate heat, ice continues to melt, and sea level continues to rise as expected.
-
sam13501 at 16:40 PM on 19 May 2016It's cooling
well ok i appreciate you replies.. I also appreciate that there can be this cherry-picking on both sides of an argument and in different ways, when something 'appears' to show something basic, like Ice-accumulation on antarctica, it can be 'viewed' in a different light. But things like snow in the tropics, first time ever snow in tropical area's-it is what it is.. and what snow in the tropics is-is typical 'mini-ice age' conditions. Do an image search 'gtemps' and you will see a diagram that shows the 'roman warm period' etc. You can see that the roman empire existed during a warm period between 400AD & 500AD the solar minimums came along with their volcanic activity and there was the natural shift to a cold period..It was also about that time that their civilization collapsed. In fact every chinese dynasty collapsed during solar minimums, these things come, agricultural production suffers-next thing you know, famine- death, the emperor's head is on a platter.
After the 70s,early 80's ice age scare-where scientists like George Kukla and Leona Woods Libby mapped out the natural cycles, and then onto the global warming greenhouse gas movement.. what facinates me about the global warming movement is on the one hand they claim to fear the environmental destruction that (man-made) global warming can create, but in talking to the followers of this movement, they also claim that this man-made warming will 'protect' us from mini-ice ages-which have repeatedly ravaged civilizations throught the previous 10,000 year inter-glacial. There can be this sort of 'mitigation' of a MIA. So far the weather patterns are showing this is not the case-notice the cold related crop failures have already started. no one can deny from a historical standpoint: global warming=good times, global cooling=bad times (despite all the wars and conquest that these good times go along with). I believe that history will later see the GW movement as a 'collective psycosis'. It starts with a realistic fear-fear of ice ages; from this fear a group creates a defense mechanism, a 'wrong' ideology that they think will save them, they then collectivly re-inforce it, when one doubts, the others set him strait, when others tell them that their logic is flawed-they insist that these people are evil; in this case a derogotory word is used; "deniers" Deniers are people who secretly work for fossil fuel energy polluters and all they care about is corporate profits-that's their motive so everything they say is evil. But all that aside, this thing (MIA) is coming, it can't be stopped, it can't be mitigated, and there is no escape. Perhaps it could have been mitigated if these western countries had put their resources into protecting their agricultural sectors instead of middle eastern wars; but with 2019 only a few years away, i guess it's too late.
Moderator Response:[RH] You're becoming completely nonsensical and that's far from the intent on this website. If you wish to continue posting here you're going to have to come up with substantive scientific research to support your position. Continued speculation and supposition will not suffice.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 19 May 2016It's cooling
Someone believing what they read on Tony "CO2 could fall as snow in Antarctica" Heller's blog has their critical faculties turned off completely.
-
JIm Steele at 10:58 AM on 19 May 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Coral Bleaching is the Legacy of a Marvelous Adaptation Mechanism
http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bleaching-debate.html
Observations of increased bleaching have happened for both warm and cold events
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Note the text on the post you have commented on:
"Because reef-coral have adapted tolerance to a narrow band of environmental conditions, bleaching can occur for a number of reasons, such as ocean acidification, pollution, excess nutrients from run-off, high UV radiation levels, exposure at extremely low tides and cooling or warming of the waters in which the coral reside. Typically these events are very localized in scale and if bleaching is mild, the coral can survive long enough to re-acquire new algal partners. So bleaching in itself is not something new, but mass coral bleaching on the huge scale being observed certainly appears to be, and represents a whole new level of coral reef decline."
Coral reefs globally are in dramatic decline and the worldwide bleaching event currently underway is likely to kill quite a few more coral reefs. When one steps back to look at the 'big picture' it's pretty clear why coral reefs in the ancient ocean suffered crises and extinctions - a too-warm and acidified ocean was just too inhospitable for them to survive. -
Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 19 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
billev:
Your "fact" that temperature rise has not been continuous even though CO2 rise has been "constant" would only be a reasonable conclusion if CO2 was the only thing that affected global temperatures. It is not, and there are lots of posts on this site that will educate you if you bother to look. Although many factors affect short-term trends (and some longer-term), the current rise in temperatures cannot be explained by those other factors and it is entirely consistent with the known physics of CO2 and radiation transfer.
Your logic is like saying that your long-term increase in your bank balance is not caused by your regular paycheck because the bank balance drops sometimes (when you pay bills) - even though you have no other source of income.
-
pattimer at 03:03 AM on 19 May 2016What Sir David King gets wrong about carbon pricing
I am 100% in favour of a carbon tax to take into account, as far as possible, external costs but when David King says "“It needs to go hand in hand with other regulatory systems.” I cannot find fault with that opinion either. We neeed surely to use every tool at our disposal, carbon tax, government planning and regulation. If on the other hand he argues that regulation should be used instead of carbon tax I would say he was in error for excluding an important strategy.
-
billev at 02:31 AM on 19 May 2016The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
The referenced papers, in my opinion, do not prove that the increase in radiative forcing has been sufficient to have any measureable effect on temperature change as recorded since 1880. The fact that atmospheric CO2 rise has been constant but temperature rise has not been continuous does not support a finding that CO2 levels are influencing temperature.
Moderator Response:[PS] These papers show that energy radiating to earth surface increase precisely in line with predictions. Unless you want to revoke Plancks Law and conservation of energy, this must increase temperature. To discuss correlation with temperature, please see the myth "There is correlation with temperature". Please note that nowhere does science claim a linear correlation with temperature - CO2 is not the only factor in surface temperature, especially on scales less than a couple of decade. This site is not the place for rhetorical tricks like strawman arguments.
You might find the "Arguments" item on the top menu bar helpful for finding resources about your apparent beliefs. Please read the article carefully before commenting and if you want to dispute the science, please ensure that you have understood what the science claims first, not taking some misinformation site's word for it.
-
mitch at 01:29 AM on 19 May 2016Ocean Oxygen – another climate shoe dropping
Very nice presentation.One of the best summaries I have seen.
Important point to make is that the expanded anoxic zone is a transient, because the ocean is heated from the top but mixed by winds and tides. The density gradient across the thermocline strengthens as global temperatures go up, making it more difficult to mix water and oxygen down.
Eventually as the ocean warms and the gradient drops, there will be more exchange. However, warm temperatures still cause organic matter degradation shallow and maintain higher atmospheric CO2.
Prev 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 Next
