Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 Next
Comments 31801 to 31850:
-
scaddenp at 11:15 AM on 26 January 2015Temp record is unreliable
MEJ - see the post about this at ATTP and note also the comments there by Victor Venema. This is just echoing junk from Booker in the Telegraph. In short, laughable nonsense from the usual sources. And just as an aside, suppose temperature record really was junk - what then the explanation for the change in the long term integrators of climate change - sealevel and glacial mass?
-
MEJ at 10:58 AM on 26 January 2015Temp record is unreliable
Paul Homewood from 'notallpeopleknowthat' successfully? undermines the reliability of Temperature records.
"Massive Tampering with Temperature Records in South America"
He starts off with GISS Global Temperature Anomaly:
Then proceeds to show where gaps (grey areas) in the data are totally missing using NOAA /NCDC Map:
(Strangely he doesn't provide a Link to this Map)
So he has shown that the GISS Global Temperature Map is derived from data that simply does not exist.
He then goes on to hammer home his point of temperature data being falsified by highlighting three NOAA weather stations in Paraguay. I will just do the one at Puerto Casado.
Here is GISS graph for Temperatures taken from Puerto Casado:
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14
All good temperatures seem to be rising as expected in Global warming Earth.
THEN he states he takes the Raw Data and without ANY manipulation of the data produces a graph from that data:
data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1
There you go, without 'adjusting' the data it actually shows COOLING not warming.
He then goes on to present NOAA/NCDC GHCNM modelling for Peurto Casado weather station where the Quality Controlled Unadjusted Data shows COOLING and the Quality Controlled Adjusted Data shows warming.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30886086000.gif
He does the same for two other Paraguayan weather stations, Mariscal and San Juan.
So it is easy for Homewood to make the statement "Scientists just adjust the Temperatures to match their Global Warming agenda" Once again it is all just Scientific rubbish when you look at the 'real' data it clearly shows cooling not warming. Why do they 'adjust' the data? To ensure all the Modelling shows Global Warming not as it really is Global Cooling. For most of their so called 'modelling' they don't even have data!!!! It is just a 'best guess' scenario.
This has gone absolutely 'viral' with all Climate Denialist websites, bloggs and Newspapers quoting Paul Homewoods 'authoritative' study.
Responce from the Scientific community. So far none that I can find.
As a supporter of Global Warming / Climate Change I am hammered mercilessly and shown to be a total fraud.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Yes, just the latest example of cherry picking and conspiracy ideation from climate science contrarians. SkS will have a response soon enough.
[RH] Shortened links.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:37 AM on 26 January 2015Models are unreliable
Tom Dayton @788 correctly notes that "temperture" is a theoretical construct - one that has proved invaluable in uniting a whole host of observations. I will merely note that given that our sense are sound, visions, smell, taste and touch, even such objects as the sun, or even other people (given our lack of ESP) are theoretical constructs for us. We just do not notice because they are so good at uniting disparate phenomenon, and we are so used to them in practise, that unless we are of a philosophical bent, we don't think about it.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 26 January 2015Models are unreliable
Adding to Tom Dayton's excellent post @788, I want to note that a theory is of no practical use in science if it does not lead to mathematical predictions. Absent such mathematical predictions, comparison to observations can only be vague at best. And the way that theories lead to mathematical predictions is by being couched in mathematical models. Consequently, absent mathematical models, a theory can only give vague, qualitative predictions that constitute hand waving more than science. It is one of the outstanding features of climate science that they have taken such extensive efforts to couch their theories in mathematical models, and to check those models against observations across a wide range of observations (not just Global Mean Surface Temperature). Given the difficulties in so doing, both due to the complexity and chaotic nature of climate - it is a stirling effort.
Climate scientists are often criticized for making model based predictions. As the model is just the theory couched in the most mathematically precise way we are capable of at the moment (due to budgetary constraints and limitations of computer power), what else can you base your predictions on? By definition of "prediction", you cannot base it on observations because the observations go outside the current observations.
In fact, those who say we should not base predictions on models typically resort to predictions made on crude models that lack physics, and are constrained to just one or two climate variables. In effect, they want climate science to remain at the hand waving stage found around 11 pm in any bar room across the world.
This is not to say that models are perfect. They are not, and some of their imperfections may be due to flaws in the theory they embody. (Others are related to innacccurate initial or boundary conditions, and/or limitations of computational power.) But you can only find the flaws in the theory by putting them in mathematical form and comparing them to observations (ie, by using models), so that is no reason for not using models. And it is reasonable to make our predictions based on the currently best available theory. The complete lack of climate models developed by "skeptics" means by default that must be the conventional theory accepted by the IPCC.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:08 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Tom Dayton, I want to aplaud your excelent series of responses to Deon. In particular I liked your response regarding the theory/observation split in science (which many people do not understand). Deon, read carefully and learn.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 26 January 2015It's not us
dvaytw @89, first Phil's response is correct, and needs no further addition unless you want to get into the minutia of insolation at particular latitudes at particular times of day.
Second, Bob Loblaw's resonse is also correct, but may confuse at first blush given that insolation is normally calculated at given points using the zenith angle and latitude, such that at noon on the equator on the equinox (and thus ignoring seasons), the angle used is 0 degrees, and consequently the cosine rather than the sine is used:
The formula for declination, to partly take seasons into account is:
δ =23.45*cos(2*π*(JD-172)/365)
To fully take seasons into account, you also need to take into accoun the variations in the Sun/Earth distance. A partial formula for that, plus additional details can be found here.
In the end, daily insolation at the top of the atmosphere, ploted for latitude and time of year looks like this:
The very high summer insolation at the poles surprises most people at first glance, but is due to having 24 hours rather than a mere 12 hours insolation.
Needless to say, this is too much information for most uses, and we can resort back to the annual average figure as calculated by Phil. Needless to say, however, climate models integrate everything based on their smallest time step (typically one to three hours, I believe). I mention that because I have seen a number of "skeptical" arguments based on assuming that climate models use the same simplifying assumptions used in simplified explanation (as if they use no physics more complex than taught in grade six).
-
Tom Dayton at 08:34 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
4) I have a number of questions regarding climate modeling:
a. How is “human activity” operationalized? In research, concepts have to be measurable. Data has to be obtained. That data must be accurate, valid, and reliable. It would appear that in Climate Science that this concept is largely imputed.Deon, the "human activity" that is the most important cause of anthropogenic global warming and the attendant other climate changes is increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and to a lesser degree reduction of natural greenhouse gas removal from the atmosphere. I am flabbergasted that you lack such fundamental knowledge yet are strident in your criticisms of the science, and implicitly, the scientists. You really need to stop criticizing until you've learned the basics. Start here at Skeptical Science with The Big Picture. Then to learn how that knowledge was built, read The History of Climate Science. Because you seem untrusting, you should then follow up by reading more details of the history in Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. After all that, if you have some specific questions please post them here on Skeptical Science but on the appropriate thread.
b. What dataset used in Climate Science dates back more than 100 years (do recall the long term cycle of 100,000 years) and:
i. Is continuous,
ii. Measured consistently (across the globe, using the same methodology), and
iii. Applied without extrapolation.Deon, there is a huge amount of data from a huge number of sources collected by a huge number of people over a huge number of years. Your criteria that you are presenting as absolute of course have not been met, but they are not met in any scientific field--not any. Period. Obviously you are not a working scientist in any field, because your misunderstanding of science is profound.
5) As a suggestion this question may be relevant: if there is a natural long term trend, what impact does human behavior have on raising global temperature above the natural trend? Please explain to me how you will answer this question. Even propose an alternative to it if you must.
Deon, the natural forcings have been teased out from the human forcings. One place to see a summary of that evidence is the Advanced tabbed pane in the post "It's Not Us." Just one example of detail is that the Sun's input to Earth has been stable (or even decreasing slightly) since at least 1960.
Please do ask questions here at Skeptical Science. But do so on the appropriate threads. If you're unable to find an appropriate thread despite making a sincere attempt to use the list of Arguments and the Search field (which is at the top left of every page), then comment on the most recent Weekly News Roundup.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:45 AM on 26 January 2015It's not us
dvaytv:
To completely muddle Phil's explanation, you need to keep in mind that the sun's rays (at the mean earth-sun distance) are measured at a right angle to the parallel beams. When those rays fall on a surface that is not at a right angle, the intensity is reduced. The mathematics of this is straightforward - the intensity is reduced by sin(angle) [when an angle of 90 is used for the case where the sun's rays are at a right angle to the surface, and 0 for the surface being parallel to the sun's rays].
To get a 24-hr total for the entire earth, you could then calculate the intensity for each point on the surface (including the dark side) for every time of day - accounting for the sun angle and its effect in intensity- and then integrate (sum) over the entire globe and day.
And then, after doing all that, you'd realize that the ratio is 4, and it would dawn on you that the size of the shadow cast by the earth is pi*r^2 and it doesn't matter whether the earth is a disk, or a sphere, or a cone, or any other shape. The size of the shadow tells you how much sunlight it intercepted. For emissions, the shape of the earth does matter, and a sphere is a close approximation.
It's sort of like the joke about the mathematician, who was asked to solve the following:
Two trains are 120km apart, travelling towards each other at 60km an hour. A really fast bird travelling at 120 km/hr takes off from one and flies to the other, then instantaneously turns around and flies back, repeating until the two trains meet. When the trains meet, how far has the bird travelled?
The mathematician quickly says "120 km". The fellow posing the questions says"
"That's right. You know, a lot of mathematicians try to answer that by solving for each successive the time and place that the bird reaches a train and turns around, and then integrating the infinite series over time to get the total. I see you took the fast solution."
The mathematician says:
"There is a faster way?"
[The trains travel for one hour until they meet. The bird travels 120 km in one hour.]
-
The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
jja #38:
Good point!
If the warming of SH oceans between 1970 and 2004 (pre Argo) has been underestimated, it would surely produce a too low estimate of the energy imbalance for that period. On the other hand, if the warming – and therefore energy imbalance – was faster before 2004 (as Durack et al 2014 implies), the energy imbalance cannot have grown that much in recent years unless the warming in the Argo era (2005 -->) has also been underestimated.
That doesn’t mean that future energy imbalance will not increase above the current level. Accelerated CO2 emissions, mitigation of Asian sulphates and positive feedbacks from albedo changes and the carbon cycle may well speed up the warming of both the surface and the oceans.It’s worth noting that the energy imbalance doesn’t depend on the net forcing itself, but how fast that forcing has changed recently. If the net forcing stabilized at the present level tomorrow (unfortunately not very likely!), the energy imbalance would decrease over time and approach zero as the warming Earth emitted more IR to space and closed the gap between incoming and outgoing energy, and the temperature would stabilize at a higher level.
-
Chris G at 06:52 AM on 26 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
OK, now I'm scared again.
Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability
-
ubrew12 at 05:46 AM on 26 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
'Concerned' is justified, 'terrified' is not. These ice shelves should give us plenty of time to move out of the house before it is inundated. The terror comes later when you realize your neighbors have a limited capacity for compassion.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:25 AM on 26 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
MA Rodger@20 and Tom Curtis@21,
Thank you for the explanations. They help clarify things for me. I have only fully read the IPCC summary for policy makers and parts of the more recent report regarding the impacts. I have tried to understand the more detailed supporting parts of the IPCC reports but do not find them to be easy to turn into a basic understanding of what is going on. I find the people on this site, and those presenting information on sites pointed to from this one, help me get a clearer basic understanding of what is going on (though I admit that much of what is presented here can still be tough for me to follow or grasp the basics of).
I have been thinking more about this ocean heat content (energy content), and realize that for the basics related to it to make sense to me I need to think about what happens in a balanced energy case before human forced changes of CO2 in the atmosphere, then consider what happens when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increased by human activity leading to the transition to a new balanced energy state.
I would like to know if the following is reasonably correct:
My basic understanding of the balanced energy case for our planet, no human impacts affecting CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Many randomly occurring or cyclical things would make the total heat content of the oceans vary but the averages of long periods of data, like 30 year averages, would be fairly constant. There would be no long term trend up or down.
- A temporary condition like El Nino would cause heat content to leave the oceans because the warm surface emits more infra-red up through the atmosphere and also warms surface air by contact with the warm water surface. This would temporarily result in a higher global average surface temperature and more energy leaving the planet's system than is coming in.
- A temporary condition like La Nina would cause heat content to be added the oceans because the cooler surface emits less infra-red up through the atmosphere and also takes in heat from the surface air that comes in contact with the cooler water surface. This would temporarily result in a lower global average surface temperature and less energy leaving the planet's system than is coming in.
The result of human activity that produces excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Burning buried hydrocarbons produces extra CO2 in the atmosphere which is a change from a balanced state . Other human activity that affects the atmospheric CO2 concentration includes reducing the amount of organic growth occurring on the planet or changing the type of organic growth. But the burning of fossil fuels is by far the dominant human impact.
- In the short term the approximate response of the global carbon cycle would be to have 45% of the extra CO2 remain in the atmosphere, 30% of the extra CO2 would be taken in by the oceans, and 25% would be absorbed into added growth of existing organics. (Question here: Is the 30% taken into the oceans including CO2 captured in fertilization of ocean based organic matter?)
- In the long term more atmospheric CO2 would go into the oceans. But the long term balanced case would still be a new higher CO2 atmospheric concentration than before the human impact.
The way the changes resulting from human impact affect ocean energy content.
- Increased CO2 in the atmosphere means that less incoming solar energy will leave the planet. The result is more energy being kept in the planet's environment in a new balanced energy case.
- The new balanced case will have a higher average surface temperature, because the higher surface temperature is the result of it being more difficult for energy to be emitted through the increased amount of atmospheric CO2 (CO2 absorbs infra-red. Very little incoming radiation is infra-red, a large amount of surface emitted radiation is infra-red).
- The requirement to have a higher surface temperature for the new energy balance case also means that the ocean energy content will increase since the surface will be warmer. The new balanced condition of ocean energy content with the warmer surface means that during the transition to the new balanced case all ocean surface conditions from La Nina through to El Nino will on average be gathering more energy into the oceans, with the rate of energy gain by the oceans being highest when the initial extra CO2 atmospheric concentration occurs, and reducing as the ocean becomes warmer.
I am still curious about the long term balanced case for ocean total energy as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. Is it correct to say that ultimately the oceans would be expected to warm through their entire depth by an amount similar to the expected increase of surface temperature (maintaining the relative temperatures with depth - not warming to one uniform temperature), or would the warming only need to be to a condition that has the near surface waters warmer by the same amount that the global average surface temperature is to rise by?
I understand that in the long term, after human activity stops producing excess CO2, some of the 45% of produced excess CO2 that stays in the atmosphere in the short term will be absorbed into the oceans. So there would be parallel changes happening. In the long term, the oceans would be accumulating more energy while at the same time the atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be reducing. Is it expected that after human impacts increasing CO2 are stopped the rates of ocean warming and reduction of CO2 concentrations would result in the oceans just eventually warming to be balanced with the lower long term new balanced CO2 atmospheric concentration? Or will the oceans warm a little above that level before CO2 concentrations have fully declined to the long term balanced case? This has little to do with the need to rapidly reduce the human CO2 impacts. It is more a matter of curiosity.
-
jja at 03:57 AM on 26 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
HK @37
Do you realize that Hansen and Sato relied on southern hemisphere OHC values that were underestimated by up to 50% as shown by Durack et. al. (2014) (so was Nuccitelli et. al (2012).
Yes, I recognize that there is the possiblity of severe increases in asian sulfate emissions or another stratospheric volcanic eruption (the ones that produced your dips in the Hansen graphic).
Those events do not matter. Also, there is the distinct possibility that we will engage in statospheric geoengineering sometime in the next 10 years, that will also severely affect TOA.
However, the trend that I shared is consistent with the TOA values over a 35 year trend. With future albedo changes in the arctic and tropical forests, as well as the potential for reductions in Chinese sulfate emissions, the TOA trend is a severe underestimation of future anthropogenic forcing (with feedbacks) As we will very soon discover.
FYI Caldeira & Cvijanovic (2014) showed that the removal of all sea ice produced a global forcing factor of 3 watts per meter squared. If we attain an ice free condition by June 1st we will experience a significant portion of this forcing. I expect this to occur sometime in the next 25 years (absent of geoengineering). -
Tom Dayton at 02:37 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
CO2 and temperature trend not directionally consistent: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
See "CO2 Lags Temperature--What Does It Mean?" Put comments on that topic on that thread, not this one. Off-topic comments on this thread will be deleted.
Shorter cycles have an impact: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279?pg=13
See "It's a 1,500 Year Cycle." Put comments on that topic on that thread, not this one.
3) The dominant opinion in Climate Science appears to ignore the above, or to acknowledge this with qualification. The most worrying element in this is the propaganda: human activities are causing climate change. Causality. If, at this moment you are not slightly uncomfortable, you might be practicing in the wrong field. [At the same time the statement can be so ambiguous as to allow the bigot to claim correlation.]
See "It's Not Us." And comment there, not here.
I don't have time to answer Deon's #4 and #5 right now. If nobody else has done so after a few hours, I will.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:26 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
2) Geology as an empirical Science has demonstrated a long term trend in global climate. On average, every 100,000 years temperature peaks accompanied with a high in CO2 levels. Yet, the relationship is not consistent, nor does it explain the effect of shorter cycles - more precisly our current placement within all the cycles: long, medium, and short.
Milankovitch in brief: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
Deon, climatologists are well aware of Milankovitch cycles. Indeed, there is an excellent post here on Skeptical Science about them. For more details including math, see Tamino's "Wobbles, Part 1," then "Wobbles, Part 2." Then Tamino's "Milankovitch Cycles" that mentions that currently and for the past really long time Milankovitch Cycles have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. For that last point, details are in the Hansen and Sato paper "Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change." If you want to discuss orbital cycles more, do so on the Skeptical Science post "Milankovitch Cycles," not on this thread. Off-topic comments on this thread will be deleted.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:05 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Deon, I have responded to your assertion #1 on the post that is the counterargument to the myth "Models are Unreliable." If you want to comment further on that topic, do so on that thread, not this one. That topic is off-topic for this thread you are reading now.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:00 AM on 26 January 2015Models are unreliable
Deon van Zyl commented on another thread:
Climate modeling is a political issue. No, it is not a Scientific issue, because it is not Scientific. Science relies upon direct observation – not extrapolation. Empiricism underpins Science. Modeling is an aid to Science. Theory is not Science. At best a theory is a guess at the consistency of Reality. Climate modeling is an exercise in Mathematics. Models are based on assumptions. Assumptions prove nothing.
Deon, in fact science is just as much extrapolation via theory into models, as it is observation. In fact, "direct observation" is only the first step. For example, you probably think that looking at a mercury column thermometer and noting the number that the column reaches is "direct observation" of temperature. But it's not. Instead your temperature observation relies on your model of the relationship of the mercury's height to the temperature. The very notion of temperature is theoretical. When an apple comes loose from a tree and you predict that it will fall to the ground, you are using a model. All those models are based on observations. All theory is generalized observation. Models are instantiations of theories.
Perhaps you think climate models are poor models because you think they are merely statistical models that assume the future will be the same as the past. But that is incorrect. Climate models are models of physical processes, whose elements are constructed to match empirical observations of fundamental physical phenomena such as how much water vapor air can hold at a given temperature. The models are then run so that all those individual elements interact, yielding the climate projections.
To learn about how climate models are built and run, click the links in the "Further Reading" green box below the original post on this page (right before the comments section).
-
Tom Dayton at 01:44 AM on 26 January 2015It's the sun
HK also commented on energy imbalance, with material that might be used in the new section I requested be added to "It's the Sun."
-
The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
jja #32:
The graph in your link gives the impression that the top of atmosphere energy imbalance has risen and will continue to rise more or less linearly, but that is not the case.
This graph from James Hansen’s Earth’s energy imbalance and implications shows several estimates of how the energy imbalance changed from 1980 to 2007.
As you see, there have been large ups and downs, but the overall trend seems to be positive. Interestingly, the energy balance was negative after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 and possibly also after El Chichón in 1982.
If I should try to estimate the energy imbalance for the last 5 years (2009-2014), it would be something like this:
Change in OHC upper 2000 meters: +6.68 x 1022 J (Source)Assuming non-ocean components make up 5% of the total and ignoring OHC deeper than 2000 meters, which is very uncertain, gives this change of global heat content:
6.68 x 1022 J / 0.95 = 7.03 x 1022 J
Dividing this by the number of seconds in 5 years and square meters of the Earth’s surface gives an average energy imbalance of +0.87 W/m2.
So the rate of warming seems to have increased since Hansen’s estimate of +0.58 W/m2 between 2005 and 2010, however I admit that the numbers in my calculation are far from certain. -
PhilippeChantreau at 00:26 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Deon you make broad statements that indicate only your lack of true familiarity with the body of knowledge you pretend to criticize. There is plenty of information available here and links to NASA, NOAA and yoher sites, where an abundance of data is available. Assessment reports of the IPCC are also recommended reading.
-
DSL at 00:12 AM on 26 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
Deon, I hope you'll continue to engage, but on the appropriate threads. The answers you seek are on this site, all linked to the published science. Use the search feature. I could make a series of links to the appropriate threads, but you've galloped so wide and far that I'd basically have to link the entire site.
-
Deon van Zyl at 22:17 PM on 25 January 2015Roy Spencer finds negative feedback
I have read the comments posted here and have a few of my own to make.
1) There is a great desire to discredit Spencer as a junk scientist. Allow me to advance the following argument. Even though the elitism of Science and its direct disconnect from the majority of the people on this planet has resulted in a large number of geniuses playing with mathematical models largely irrelevant to daily existence, the impact of guesswork is not minute. The entire exercise witnessed here strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. Climate modeling is a political issue. No, it is not a Scientific issue, because it is not Scientific. Science relies upon direct observation – not extrapolation. Empiricism underpins Science. Modeling is an aid to Science. Theory is not Science. At best a theory is a guess at the consistency of Reality. Climate modeling is an exercise in Mathematics. Models are based on assumptions. Assumptions prove nothing.
2) Geology as an empirical Science has demonstrated a long term trend in global climate. On average, every 100,000 years temperature peaks accompanied with a high in CO2 levels. Yet, the relationship is not consistent, nor does it explain the effect of shorter cycles - more precisly our current placement within all the cycles: long, medium, and short.Milankovitch in brief: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
CO2 and temperature trend not directionally consistent: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
Shorter cycles have an impact: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279?pg=13
3) The dominant opinion in Climate Science appears to ignore the above, or to acknowledge this with qualification. The most worrying element in this is the propaganda: human activities are causing climate change. Causality. If, at this moment you are not slightly uncomfortable, you might be practicing in the wrong field. [At the same time the statement can be so ambiguous as to allow the bigot to claim correlation.]
4) I have a number of questions regarding climate modeling:
a. How is “human activity” operationalized? In research, concepts have to be measurable. Data has to be obtained. That data must be accurate, valid, and reliable. It would appear that in Climate Science that this concept is largely imputed.
b. What dataset used in Climate Science dates back more than 100 years (do recall the long term cycle of 100,000 years) and:
i. Is continuous,
ii. Measured consistently (across the globe, using the same methodology), and
iii. Applied without extrapolation.
5) As a suggestion this question may be relevant: if there is a natural long term trend, what impact does human behavior have on raising global temperature above the natural trend? Please explain to me how you will answer this question. Even propose an alternative to it if you must.Moderator Response:[RH] This post probably should be deleted for a multitude of reasons. But since several regular commenters seem eager to engage we'll let it stand as is.
Deon... Before continuing to post, you need to read the commenting policy document that is linked right above the text box. Please, try to stay on topic and keep your individual points limited to the appropriate threads. Discussing the science is a healthy thing. We just require that you follow certain rules in order to keep the discussions productive.
-
Phil at 21:55 PM on 25 January 2015It's not us
dvaytw @89
Imagine the Earth as a dinner plate, which as it rotates around the Sun always presenting its "face" towards the Sun. The surface area that the Sun irradiates is pi * r**2 where r = radius of the "earth". The "back" side is never irradiated.
Now imagine that the plate is replaced by a ball of the same radius; the surface area has consequently increased. If the ball is not rotating on its own axis, then the surface area that the Sun irradiates is 2 * pi * r ** 2 (the surface area of a hemisphere). If the ball does rotate then (over the period of rotation) then each hemisphere spends half the time irradiated and half the time is dark. So the total area irradiated = 4 * pi * r**2.
So the factor by which the Suns irradiance is diluted by the fact that the Earth is a rotating sphere, rather than a static diskworld is
4*pi*r**2/(pi*r**2) = 4
-
billthefrog at 21:39 PM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
sgbotsford @28
It has been pointed out several times that your calculations omit any feedbacks, so there is no need to labour that point further.
However, it may be worth your while to note that NASA give a best estimate of 14 degrees C as the global average taken over the 1951-80 period. (See here, at the bottom of the page.) Theis would equate now to a global average of around 288 K, rather than your...
"But the planet averages about 300K"
Unless, of course, you think that 12 degrees is nothing to worry about?
;)
Cheers Bill F
-
billthefrog at 20:25 PM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
wehappyfew @29
Solar irradiance at our mean orbital distance of around 149.6 million kms, or the so-called "Solar Constant", is usually taken to be about 1,366 (+/- 0.5) watts/metre2
Therefore sgbotsford's quoted figure of approx 1,000 w/m2 at TOA does already account for an albedo value of ~ 0.3
PS I like the Henry V reference, did you do anything special on the 25th October?
Cheers Bill F
-
dvaytw at 17:41 PM on 25 January 2015It's not us
Thanks fellows for the info. May I know a good source for a novice's understanding of the "disk vs. sphere question"?
-
jja at 16:23 PM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
Tom @33
That is an excellent analysis but you should be clear, your 4.3C result is an intermediate step to the finale equilibruim temperature, the ESS value.
Your 4.3C value is a 2100 value that is a waypoint to a global temperature that will be reached in 2500 that has not been seen on this earth in 4.5 million years. -
Chris G at 15:09 PM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Well, OK, concerned, but not terrified. Last time I was terrified was when I read Hansen's paper on the increasing 3-sigma heat wave events. There is a strong signal of food production reductions where these events occur. I suspect food (in)security will hit us harder, faster than sea level rise.
-
Tom Dayton at 12:30 PM on 25 January 2015It's the sun
Will somebody please add to the "It's the Sun" rebuttal, a section explicitly focused on addressing the sub-myth that the Earth's temperature still is catching up to the TSI increase that peaked around 1960?
At the least, that section should show that TOA energy imbalance has continued to grow since then, in contrast to its shrinkage that would be required if insulation was constant, since input has been constant (or even decreasing) and increasing temperature requires increasing output. For example, a good graph of imbalance was pointed to by jja in a comment.
It would be nice if that new section also explained that temperature response lag to increased TSI was taken into account by the many regression analyses.
Possibly relevant existing posts: "Has Earth Warmed As Much As Expected?" and "How We Know Global Warming Is Happening: Part 2." I recall that John wrote another relevant post that included energy imbalance, but I can't find it now.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
sgbotsford @28, the 1 Watt/m^2 is the energy imbalance after 2.3 W/m^2 (natural plus anthropogenic) of forcing has been partially offset by a 1 C increase in temperatures. That means 1.4 W/m^2 has resulted in a 1 C temperature increase. Ergo we have an expected temperature increase of 0.71 C per Watt/m^2 (or 2.64 C per doubling of CO2). That means we can expect an additional 0.67 C increase in temperature from the current energy imbalance assuming there is no further increase in radiative forcing. With the conservative BAU scenario of RCP 6, that indicates an eventual temperature increase of 4.3 C.
The difference between your and my calculated temperatures arises because my empirically based figure allows for the operation of feedbacks, which yours tacitly excludes. That is important, because some feedbacks are slower than others, and empiricaly data will be biased towards a low climate response because it will not include the full effect of those slow feedbacks. The result is that while uncertainty is large, such that the temperature increase could be larger or smaller than that projected by my simple calculation, it is more likely to be larger than smaller.
-
jja at 10:14 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
This graphic shows a collection of Top of Atmosphere energy assessments derived from Hansen & Sato (2010), Nuccitelli et. al (2012), Allen et. al. (2014), Durack et. al (2014) and a simple average analysis of 2010-2014 OHC from the NODC.
http://postimg.org/image/iv4cty0df/ -
denisaf at 08:30 AM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
This work adds to the understanding that authorities have on the unintended consequences of technological systems using fossil fuels. It helps them to make responsible decisions about implemetation of adaption measures to cope with expectations. For example, authorities in New York, London and the Netherlands are planning to use appreciable resources to provide a degree of protection from sea level rise and storm surges.
-
jja at 07:27 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
even more to the point: the 1 watt per meter squared Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance is a permanent feature that will not go away until the earth reaches a new, warmer, equilibrium.
In addition, the cumulative work of Nuccitelli, Hansen & Sato, Levitus, and Duack all point to the fact that this energy imbalance is DOUBLING double at a period of every 6-9 years.
Finally, the fact that significant reductions in south-east asian aerosol emissions and arctic albedo conditions are looming, we will likely experience a rate of heat accumulation in the near future (5-7 years) that is nearly TRIPLE triple what we are currently experiencing.
Welcome to the new era.Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
Stephen Baines at 07:08 AM on 25 January 2015Five bits of research that shaped climate science in 2014
"I take it you were angry that I was trying to falsify something ?"
No, they are annoyed because you are falsifying straw men and distorting the OP's message.
First, in the absence of increasing CO2 the air temperatures would go through decades of warming and cooling naturally, because of factors like those explained in the OP. The warming caused by increasing CO2 is simply superimposed on that variation. So the fact that rates of atmospheric warming vary over decadal scales does not run counter to projections of the effects of CO2 on climate. In fact, heat has been building up as espected based on CO2, given what we know of the forcings.
Second, Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent despite the fact that air and sea temperatures are also increasing and land ice on antarctica is shrinking. Clearly other factors affect Southern Ocean sea ice extent in the austral winter, and the OP suggests there may be measurement artifacts as well (you failed to mention this despite it being the main point of that section of the OP!).
Third, the OP says nothing about warming in the Arctic being "offset" by mid latitude cooling. That is your invention, disproven by the global temperature trends shown above. The OP simply states that colder winters in some temperate areas are being linked to declining sea ice and warmer temperatures in the Arctic because of the effects on position and motion of the Jetstream.
-
jimlj at 07:00 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
sgbotsford: to add to wehappyfew's content, this is the warming we can expect without feedback if all GHG emissions stopped today. I hope we can agree, that's not going to happen.
-
wehappyfew at 05:28 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
sgbotsford @ 28
For a 1st order calculation, I would say you have it mostly right. You forgot to include the albedo of the Earth, which reduces the SW radiation absorbed.
Re-doing your calculations, I get
dT = 0.43degK
The much bigger problem is: you seem to think the climate is easily modeled by a first order physics equation.
Do you think it is possible that the albedo might change after a 0.4K average temperature change? Global snow cover has already declined quite a lot, especially in late spring and early summer when the albedo effect is largest.
Ice sheets and sea ice might melt a bit more at higher temps, don't you think?
Higher air and sea surface temps mean more water vapor... more greenhouse effect.
Maybe these kind of effects are why we don't treat the climate as a 1st order physics problem.
Another way to look at it... you have essentially calculated the warming due to current net forcings without any feedbacks at all. I think your number is pretty close to the accepted no-feedback value, so we are all in violent agreement about the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Once you include the feedbacks, you should be much closer to the actual expected warming.
-
dagold at 05:19 AM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
sgbotsford - god points you make. I wrote a Huffington Post/Common Dreams article about our human propensity not to be responsive to danger until it has reached a certain point of immediacy and suffering. In my personal experience through multiple serious illnesses, I did not begin to respond BEFORE tipping points were triggered until I'd learned through hard and repeated experience. Given the relatively "slowly" developing effects of climate change...it puts us in a very tough spot. Here is the article, if you are interested: www.commondreams.org/views/2014/02/28/through-climate-portal-humanitys-tragic-flaw
-
Tom Curtis at 04:14 AM on 25 January 2015Five bits of research that shaped climate science in 2014
I'm pretty sure I don't protest too much. I am, however, tired of a constant stream of ingoramuses repeating denier myth after denier myth with no apparent connection between their synapses.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:00 AM on 25 January 2015Just when did humans first start affecting the climate?
william @8, 250 ppmv would correspond to temperatures similar to those in the LIA, and would definitely be disadvantageous compared to current levels. Nor is it automatically true, or even particularly probable that the pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv corresponds to the ideal average temperature conditions across the globe. To the extent that there is such an ideal condition, it probably lies somewhere between 280 and 360 ppmv (given current solar activity and relative position in the milankovich cycle). More important than the exact level, however, is the rate of change which should be kept low.
-
Posthocpropterhoc at 03:27 AM on 25 January 2015Five bits of research that shaped climate science in 2014
I wasn't making a case for anything , I was just repeating what the first line of case #1 said : " surface temperatures have risen more slowly over the last 15 years or so than in previous decades , even though we're emitting greenhouse gasses faster than ever before ." Are you saying that that is not true. ? I'm just going by what the article says . I take it you were angry that I was trying to falsify something ? It was hard to tell as your syntax was a bit hard to wade through . theres's no doubt we are in a warming period . It's just hard to sort through all the hyperbole on both sides , separate instrument data from proxy data , apples from oranges , conflicting ideologies And arrive at objective views . Your comments about chutzpah and " falsified " anything are quite over the top , IMHO . As one wise fellow noted , methinks he doth protest too much .
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on the thin ice of concern trolling. Future posts of this nature will be summarily deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
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.
-
sgbotsford at 02:48 AM on 25 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
In reading this article and the one about measuring ocean temps, a number that has come up a couple times is the approximate value of 1 watt per square meter. That in effect 1 watt less per square meter was radiated back to space than was being received.
This is another dangerous stat to use. First order analysis:
"Sunlight shines with 1000 w/m2. How big is 1 watt? Things will only have to warm a bit to make it balance."
Answer: The 1 watt is everywhere. Sunlight is on only half the planet, and for a good part of that it's slantwise. Consider a circle the size of the earth. It has 1/4 the area of the earth. That is the diameter of the chunk of sunlight being intercepted. So it's *really* 250 w/m2 if we are going to compare apples to apples. So it's not .1% it's .4% increase.
#2 Ok. But radiation increases with the 4th power of temperature.
So (T + dT)4/T4 =1.004
(T +dT)/T = 1.001 (pretty close)
dT = .001T
But the planet averages about 300K
So dT = .3 degrees.
Have I goofed up? It's hard to get worked up about this.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Yes, it is hard to get worked up by a simple calculation that bears little resemblance to the world on which we live. Climate scientists understand that there are feedbacks in the climate system, and that the real world is much more complex - hence the design of climate models.
But changes in temperature, or ocean acidity, don't really tell us a great deal by themselves. How will this change in temperature (or acidity) affect precipitation patterns? The growing of agricultural crops? Glacier-fed rivers such as the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Mekong rivers? The ability of marine calcifiers to build their shells? The persistence of coral reefs with the strong warming of the surface ocean?
When one delves into scientific research in these areas, the prognosis is not good. Whether that's something to get worked up about is a judgement call. IMO it's ample motivation to rapidly decarbonize the global economy.
-
sgbotsford at 02:28 AM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Sorry. I'm not terrified. Concerned, yes. But the use of 'terrified' is hyperbolic.
Terror requires more immediacy. In South Africa if your neighbor is executed with a burning tire, you can be terrified. In WWII when you woke up to find that the Ghurkas had come in and slit the throat of the soldier sleeping one bunk over, you can be terrified. When the tail of the plane you are in falls off you can be terrified. I don't think that anyone is terrified by an event that is decades from affecting their life in a significant way. The rationists will be concerned. But they are, what, 10% of the population as a whole.
In this battle for people's minds, as rationalists we have to use language rationally. If we speak in continuous hyperboly we get caught in the Suzuki syndrome. (David Suzuki has made enough exaggerated forecasts of doom that didn't come to pass that I no longer give him any credance whatever.)
***
A second part of this battle for mindshare is the general lack of immediacy. Most people won't make a money saving home improvement unless it will pay for itself in 3-5 years. (The flurry of PV installs appears to contradict this, but the percentage of houses with PV is still small, and correlates well to areas where they pay off quickly; are in regions that have suffered rolling outages; and have a high percentage of high tech jobs)
To get mindshare, you need immediacy. Remember that meme for task management about categorizing things as unimportnant versus important, and also as non-urgent vs urgent. People tend to do those things that are urgent requiring reactive immediate action, over things that are important but whether you do something this week or next week isn't as critical.
(It's hard to remember when you are up to your ass in alligators that your objective is to drain the swamp.)
To be succesful you need to increase the urgency generally in people's minds.
Locally (Alberta) the biggest event has been the Moutain Pine Beetle outbreak. (While the rest of the province lives on oil revenue...)
If you live in a coastal city, draw a map of the new coast line with a 20 cm sea rise. Get city planners to start thinking about this.
It doesn't help that apart from the generalities the boffins with the computers aren't very good at at making specific predictions. Will my climate in central Alberta get warmer? Highly probable. Wetter? Maybe. But the extra warmth will make the climate in effect drier. That's the current best guess, but the associated numbers are rife with uncertainty. It's hard enough to gamble with known probabilities.
(In passing, as a tree farmer, I make a point of planting trees that are 'out of zone'. Trees that would normally not grow here but rather in a warmer, drier climate. )
With rising temperatures we should get larger patches of ocean that are above the critical temperature to power the heat engine that is a hurricane. We should be getting more frequent tornadoes in a longer season. I haven't checked recently, neither are forms of weather that have any immediacy.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - The inability to recognize future threats, as opposed to immediate ones, is arguably the largest contributor to inaction on climate policy. But misinformation propagated by the mainstream media probably doesn't help either.
Societal change, when it does happen, can happen awfully fast though. Witness gay marriage for instance. After years of banging their heads against a brick wall, gay rights activists saw rapid change occur around the world. We'll need something of even larger scale to prevent the worst consequences of global warming and ocean acidification from taking place.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:53 AM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
GRL paper here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062255/abstract
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:52 AM on 25 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
Perhaps this should be added to the list of scary papers:
Arctic ice shelves aren't faring any better. The loss observed is nothing short of staggering.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
[RH] Link shortened.
-
billthefrog at 22:20 PM on 24 January 2015The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts
sgbotsford @ 23
In his moderator comment, Rob Painting pointed out that excess heat has not even come close to being evenly distributed across the vastness of the ocean. (I seem to recall reading somewhere that the estimated timescale for full scale abyssal mixing was >1,000 years.)
However, leaving aside Rob's very valid point...
In your comment, you state that the mass of the top 2,000 metres of ocean is ~ 7.2 x 1020 kg and that its specific heat is 4,187 Jkg-1K-1
Now consider the lily, sorry, consider the atmosphere:
Given the planetary surface area is about 511 million sq kms, standard pressure at sea level is 1013.25 hectoPascals and that gravitational acceleration at sea level is 9.81 metres/sec2, it's pretty straightforward to show that the mass of the entire atmosphere is about 5.27 x 1018 kg.
The specific heat for air (across a fair range of temperatures centred around 280 Kelvin) is somewhere about 1,010 Jkg-1K-1. Combining these numbers (and forgetting about the Clausius Clapeyron relationship) would give a figure of roughly 5.32 x 1021 joules to bring about a 1 degree change.
As you quote a figure of 3.015 x 1024 joules to effect the same change in the top 2,000 metres of the ocean, then, still omitting Clausius Clapeyron, we are talking about a thermal capacity difference of 567 times! Are you seriously trying to compare these two things?
One is reminded of the glee of a Young Earth Creationist upon hearing that an intermediate fossil form had recently been unearthed. The rationale? There now existed two gaps in the fossil record where there had only been one before.
Cheers Bill F
-
MA Rodger at 20:48 PM on 24 January 2015Just when did humans first start affecting the climate?
Posthocpropterhoc @7.
The origin of the proxy data is referenced in the caption of the figure your ask about. It is even titled "Marcott 2013" although it should properly be Marcott et al. (2013) as Marcott had three co-authors. The full paper is available here.
Concerning the graphical representation itself, the period you describe as "...it represents a what ? 25 year period on a graph representing 10,000 years" scales at either 100 years long (to the lowest point on of the HadCRUT4 data) or 270 years (to the lowest point on the Marcott proxy data). You are way off with 25 years.
I'm always myself amused by pseudonyms deriving from Latin. Without the "ergo", doesn't the meaning of "Post hoc, propter hoc" translate to something like 'learn from past events'?
-
MA Rodger at 20:33 PM on 24 January 2015Just when did humans first start affecting the climate?
Although not entirely convinced, I always have a lot of time for Ruddiman's theory as buring down a forest is quite a simple task, something that is occasionally demonstrated today by misguided children equiped with a box of matches. Also the effect of a small human population in diminishing populations of large herbivore could have very large follow-on effects in vegetation levels. So the ability of quite small populations to have a significant impact did exist.
One point I feel the post is a little too vague on is the differences between slash-&-burn and sedentary agriculture. The first difference is that the former is not concerned about trashing its environment, burning down a forest for a couple of crops of cereals. The latter would never do that. The second difference is that it was the rise of sedentary agriculture as we understand it today that allowed the dramatic rise in population. The post says:-
"Domestication of crops began in the Middle East around 12,000 years ago and by 8,000 years ago people there had become dependent on agriculture for most of their food."
There is a time of transition when populations decided that sticking around to looking after a field of food crop was better than scattering a few seeds over a hillside and leaving them to grow while you packed up to go hunting wild goats or whatever. This transition is seemingly associated with irrigation which soon allowed a massive rise in population. It was the massive population that made "people ... dependent on agriculture for their food" and with time, the spread of that sedentary agriculture to rain-watered lands added yet more to population who slowly de-forested the land the hard way.
-
william5331 at 20:12 PM on 24 January 2015Just when did humans first start affecting the climate?
So it seems that we have to reduce atmospheric Carbon dioxide, say to around 250ppm but not let it fall much below that. A new ice age would be as destructive as what we seem to be heading toward now.
-
william5331 at 19:55 PM on 24 January 2015The Most Terrifying Papers I Read Last Year
There may be another factor at play here. As the underside of the sloping ice sheet melts, it mixes with the adjacent sea water. This less salty water will rise up the underside of the upsloping ice and debouch on the surface of the sea, and be kept there by its lesser density. This will suck sea water in to replace it with the sea water carrying its burden of calories. The deeper the grounding line, the greater this effect should be just as an air lift is more effective, the deeper its mouth. It should be possible to get a handle on the metrick of this process by putting in place current measuring and salinity measuring instruments on the underside of the ice shelves.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:11 PM on 24 January 2015Five bits of research that shaped climate science in 2014
Posthocergopropterhoc @2, courtesy of Tamino, here is the global temperature trend up to 1999:
And here is that trend, with the additional years since added in:
You will notice that 2014 lies almost exactly on the trend line. It takes chutzpah to argue that, because the most recent annual temperature, for an ENSO neutral year, lies on the continuation of the trend, therefore the trend has been refuted. Even more chutzpah to argue the trend is falsified when every selection of period long enough to statistically distinguish between the model predicted trend and zero lies very close to the model predicted trend, and excludes zero.
Prev 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 Next
