Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 Next
Comments 32501 to 32550:
-
newairly at 20:20 PM on 16 December 2014Two degrees: The history of climate change’s ‘speed limit’
TThis graph sems to shaw what I was trying to point out. It shows that for a 66% chance of staying below 2C there is a 10% chance of exceeding 3C and a 90% chance of exceeding 11C The question still is, what probability is being talked about whenthe phrase "limit of 2C" is used.
Moderator Response:[RH] Resized image.
-
MartinG at 17:06 PM on 16 December 2014Two degrees: The history of climate change’s ‘speed limit’
The 2 degrees is rather like the donkey chasing after the carrot hanging in front of him on a pole that he himself carries. It’s a great trick to get him to move forward because he is not intelligent enough to see he himself is the reason he will never make the target. 2 degrees is a great signal – good to use in propaganda, but for me it deflects from the much broader mainstream issue that our whole materialistic livestyle, and economic system based on growth measured in money, is exploiting and polluting the earths resources at a rate which is unsustainable. Politicians and some scientists can focus on 2 degrees – fine – but if they tell their voters that they need to accept a downturn in their material wealth they wont be in office for long. We need to raise our sights from the narrow focus of 2 degrees and accept that the problem will not change or go away until we look much deeper at how we run our society.
-
newairly at 13:12 PM on 16 December 2014Two degrees: The history of climate change’s ‘speed limit’
What is actually meant by a two degree limit?
Is it a 50/50 chance of staying below, a 90% chance or an absolute limit which can not be exceeded. Given that the predictions can not be perfect, there has to be some uncertainty and we have probably long ago pased the point where it can be said with certainty that two degrees will never be exceeded.
-
tonyabalone at 12:19 PM on 16 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #50
In reply to scaddenp here in Australia we certainly wouldn't welcome an El Nino as it means severe dry weather and droughts. While "ever cloud has a silver lining" it is the lack of silver lined clouds that worry us!
-
Tom Curtis at 12:17 PM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
As an addendum to my comment @16, having looked at the NCEP v2 data available to me (1871-2010). Over the period of overlap (1948-2010), the v2 data is typically cooler than the NCEPv1 data (mean 0.023, St Dev 0.1). Over the last six years of overlap, it is consistently cooler (mean 0.14, st dev 0.017). If that difference is maintained for this year, that would indicate a temperature anomaly of 0.188 C for the v2 data. Why Ryan Maue's figure is 0.08 C below that I do not know. According to his figure, we are heading for the coolest year since 2011, even though there is no difference in temperature adjustment over the period and hence it is not a consequence of the homogeneity adjustment.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:45 AM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the NCEP data source. DB, Icecap and the image are loading for me just fine. If it does not for you, the only relevant information is the baseline period, and the anomaly for Jan 1 to Dec 4th of 0.108 C. The data is listed as NCEP CFSv2, and the graph was prepared by Ryan Maue of Weatherbell (ie, Barstardi and D'Aleo's company).
-
Tom Curtis at 10:16 AM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
michael sweet @14, D'Aleo's claim is based on this plot from NCEP, which indicates a 1981-2010 baseline:
The NOAA 2014 eleven month mean (Jan-Dec) is 0.263 C using a 1981-2010 baseline. That is 0.414 C less than the value using their standard baseline, so the difference in baseline accounts for most, but not all of the difference.
I downloaded the NCEP montly reanalysis to Nov 2014 from here (timeseries). Converting to anomaly data I found that 2014 to the end of Nov (0.328 C) is currently ranked 3rd warmest compared to other full years, behind 2005 (0.355 C) and 2010 (0.343 C). For Jan to Nov temperatures, 2014 is also ranked 3rd, behind 2010 and 2005. This is the NCEP reanalysis, not the version 2 reanalysis used in the graph by D'Aleo, for which I could not find the raw data past 2012.
One key difference between the NCEP product and the global temperature products is that the NCEP data is the 2 meter air temperature, whereas the global temperatures products show the 2 meter air temperature* over land, and the surface water temperature at sea. That will result in a lower global temperature anomaly for the NCEP product because the air is, on average cooler than the ocean (as fake skeptics never tire of telling us). That, by itself may account for the remaining discrepancy between the NOAA global temperature anomaly and the NCEP reanalysis. What does not account for it is the input data, which should be essentially the same between the NCEP reanalysis and the v2 (where the difference in rankings in negligible, and may be entirely accounted for by their not measuring the same things).
Finally, a question. Am I alone in being struck by the irony of a fake skeptic preferring the product of a computer model (the NCEP reanalysis) over the observations?
(* The observations are for two meters above the actual land surface. The reanalysis may give the temperature that the air would be for 2 meters above sea level regardless of topography. This difference, if it exists, should not make any appreciable difference to the rankings.)
Moderator Response:[DB] ICECAP's website does not appear to be working, as the image will not load nor does the main site load.
[DB] Working now, it seems.
-
Stephen Baines at 09:17 AM on 16 December 2014There is no consensus
In short, the consensus is not about blind acceptance. The consensus has power precisely because scientists are challenging or have continually challenged it in various ways, and yet it has stood. The idea that there is a dichotomy between consensus and skeptical inquiry fails to appreciate how the process works..
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 16 December 2014There is no consensus
The consensus on stomach ulsers story you present is one that has little basis in fact. Here is what Dr Marshall said of their work:
Even after your self-experiment, the medical community remained sceptical that H. pylori was connected to stomach ulcers. How did you finally convince them?
We were keen to present our data and announce that we had discovered the cause of ulcers, so we submitted our paper to the Australian Gastroenterology meeting in 1983. It was rejected. Fortunately, my boss at the time had some experience with Campylobacter, which was becoming a popular explanation for infectious colitis, or inflammation of the colon. Helicobacter looked similar, so I spoke to a Campylobacter expert in Britain and we sent him some cultures. He grew them and became excited about it, too. Then, in 1984, we went to a meeting of microbiologists, who are always interested in any new microbe, and things really took off after that. It took a few more years to gain support from gastroenterologists.
[added emphasis]
As you can see, this was an idea that did not take long for the scientific community to accept.
-
Stephen Baines at 09:11 AM on 16 December 2014There is no consensus
"Concensus is always being proved wrong and science doesn't work and never has worked on the basis of concensus as I hope all the participants on this site well know."
This argument makes no sense. There is now a consensus that H. pylori is important in most ulcer cases. Your argument suggests should we ignore that consensus because it could be wrong. But that is the case with any proposition open to scientific questioning.
You are getting "faith" mixed up with "consensus." Consensus is about the current state of understanding given the information in front of us. It is critical to progress in science since it provides the methods, assumptions and questions needed to direct futher study. Without consensus, science would slow to a stand still because there would be no agreement about assumed knowledge to direct future research. In the case of H pylori, the question now becomes why 2/3s of people are infected, but relative few show any syptoms.
What consensus is not is unshakeable belief in a proposition. Consensus can be overturned because it is based on evidence. If evidence suggests the consensus should be overturned, a new consensus usually forms around a new proposition that is better supported by the evidence. Such paradigm shifts are extremely important in science, and come in all shapes and sizes. Much research can be seen as interesting because it challenges assumptions. But large scale revolutions, where a well established point of consensus that is central to many lines of research is overturned in favor of a new idea, is not the rule. That is why Kuhn referred to normal science in opposition to revolutionary science.
Climate science has settled on a consensus about current warming because the evidence points in a particular direction. At present there is no alternative hypothesis that fits the observations in front of us. Could there be an H. pylori we haven't seen in the climate that causes recent warming? Given that climate is governed by well established (by consensus) laws on transfer and conservation of energy, and we can measure most of the key flows and modifying factors, it seems unlikely. You would have to challenge the consensus on thermodynamics, or radiative transfer, or physical chemistry, because those agreed principles underlie this more specific consensus.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:08 AM on 16 December 2014There is no consensus
Peter Lloyd @638...
My first question for you would be: Have you read the Cook et al paper yet? I ask this because you seem to be operating under a number of assumptions that in error.
Firstly, the basis of the study was to evaluate whether research papers endorsed or rejected the IPCC position that human's are primarily responsible for warming of the past 50 years. The IPCC statement on this matter suggest that there is a >95% confidence level that human's are responsible for more than half of the warming. Part of the position the IPCC states is tha the most likely figure is that human's are responsible for 110% with a high end likelihood of 160%.
Even at >100% contribution no one is going to claim that human's are "solely" responsible for warming. There are always natural warming and cooling factors at work. Thus, your statement would be one that 100% of scientific researchers, and scientific research would reject.
Secondly, you appear to be under the incorrect assumption that Cook et al was attempting to infer whether the science was "correct." That is not the case. If you read the paper, the whole point is that most non-scientists do not understand what the actual level of scientific consensus is. The paper is quantifying the consensus and presenting that in juxaposition to what the general population thinks the consensus is.
-
Peter Lloyd at 08:23 AM on 16 December 2014There is no consensus
If the question in the concensus sudy had been "Is recent climate warming solely due to human influences" then it would be interesting to know what the answers would have been.
Of course concensus doesn't mean right which is the implication of the video. Concensus is always being proved wrong and science doesn't work and never has worked on the basis of concensus as I hope all the participants on this site well know.
Thirty years ago there was an unshakeable concensus in medical science that the main group of stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid secretion. It took a new scientific discovery to prove that the concensus was wrong. The cause of an unpleasant condition that had affected more than 1 billion people and that affects around half the US population over 60 years old is a bacteria Heliobacter Pylori. New drugs were invented that treated it and the previous treatment was dropped.
Of course it is worth knowing that 97% of research papers and / or their authors attribute global warming to humans but as the video says, it's the science behind it that counts, and just because the papers are peer reviewed in itself proves nothing about whether the scientific proposal / theory is necessarily right. Some ability to falsify the theory must exist (as happened in the case of H.pylori) otherwise it's just the latest best estimate - no matter how great the concensus.
The fact that only half the public believes that it is proven that AGW is the sole or main cause of global warming says something to the idea that the proof is not necessarily there and publicising it (there has been a ton of that) can't alter the impression that there is a long way to go before we are remotely close to knowing for certain.
One reason for being confident about there being much more uncertaintly than the 97% concensus suggests is that there is nothing like a concensus, let alone proof, of what caused (and causes) the extreme natural variations in climate throughout geological time.This variation is well documented and almost certainly has a variety of underlying causes which are likely to be very different from C02 or other MM emissions even if higher greenhouse gases levels have often been present. For example we do know that glaciers existed at the poles when C02 levels were a hundred times the current concentrations.
-
Phil at 05:28 AM on 16 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
At the risk of incurring a "pilling on" Moderator comment, can I just add this for Gac73
The explanations that Michael and CBDunkerson have offers, include a kernel of information that explains why your use of the Laws of Thermodynamics is flawed. The key point is that, since the Ocean is warmed by the Sun (as indeed is the atmosphere to a lesser extent), the Ocean + Atmosphere are not an energetically isolated system. They may be stable, but they are only so with a constant flow of energy through the system, and so are not at equilibrium. If they were energetically isolated, then you would be correct: for the very simple reason that there is nothing to heat the ocean except the atmosphere, and it cannot do so because it is cooler.
Rigourously thermodynamics only applies to energtically isolated systems. We can treat the Earth as a "nearly" thermodynamic system but only if we include the Sun, and outer space as a heat sink
Hope that helps.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:13 AM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Michael Sweet... "Joe D'Aleo is smart enough to know this."
I wouldn't be too sure about this. He's certainly capable of knowing this, I'm not so sure, once he's found a point that he prefers, that he's capable of moving past it to actually admit an error. -
michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 16 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Gac73,
I like CBDunkersons reply. The energy goes: Sun, Ocean, Atmosphere, space. Do you have additional questions?
Be careful when you look up the citations. It is easy to take a quotation from someone like Dr. Trenberth out of context to suggest that his comment is incorrect. Try to find the context and the question being answered.
-
michael sweet at 02:09 AM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Sailingfree,
The forecast models undoubtedly use a different baseline than NOAA does. Joe D'Aleo is smart enough to know this. NOAA uses the average of the 20th century. Forecast models probably use the last decade (I could not find their baseline in a quick Google), although they might use a longer time period. Since the difference is so small that suggests they use a recent baseline.
-
sailingfree at 00:32 AM on 16 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
The skeptics are already reacting, by finding another data set.
On his site ICECAP, joe D'Aleo claims: "Using the actual data that goes into the forecast models used for the 7 day forecasts you see on TV and the internet, we find the global anomaly was a mere +0.07C in November and for the year to date a measly +0.11C, far short of the +0.68C warmest ever anomaly that NOAA claimed last month. One modeler told me “It was obvious to me since about April that NOAA had decided that 2014 was going to be the hottest year ever. The White House needed this for their political objectives.”"
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Resorting to conspiracy theory isn't a cogent argument. Don't worry, if 2014 does in fact end up the warmest year in surface temperature data sets we can expect a lot of lame excuses from the anti-science brigade.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:59 PM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
gac73, you seem to have been misinformed somewhere along the line.
For example, you seem to suggest that Trenberth's 'missing heat' has something to do with heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans. It doesn't. The 'missing heat' is simply the difference between the amount of additional heat satellite measurements suggest should be here (i.e. measured energy in minus measured energy out) and the amount of additional heat we have detected by measuring various parts of the climate system (i.e. increased air temperatures + increased water temperatures + heat to convert ice to water, et cetera). If satellite measurements show that energy came in and didn't go back out then logically it must still be here, yet all our measurements of the climate system come up with a smaller amount of heat... some of the heat is therefore 'missing'. Whether that is due to measurement errors, heat buildup in areas we are unable to measure (e.g. the deep oceans), or some combination of the two is still being worked out.
Likewise, this whole claim of massive heat transfers from the atmosphere to the oceans is a distorted/false representation. Greenhouse gases slow the release of heat from the atmosphere, which in turn slows the release of heat from the oceans. If you slow the release of heat while maintaining the addition of it (from the Sun) temperatures increase. No atmosphere to ocean heat transfer involved.
As to why most of the heat is in the oceans... the amount of heat required to raise the average temperature of the world's oceans 1 degree is much greater than the amount required to raise the average temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree. This is true both because of the size of the oceans and because water is simply a better heat sink than air. You can observe this yourself by putting two identical sealed containers in a freezer, one filled with air and the other with water. When you take them out (preferably before the water freezes) the container with the water will remain 'cold' long after the container with the air does.
-
Cedders at 22:07 PM on 15 December 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
There's a BBC story today about a paper by Rachel Tilling to be presented at the AGU. She mentions "a decline that looks a bit like a sawtooth, where we can lose volume but then recover some of it if there happens to be a shorter melt season one year". Unfortunately the news story doesn't make it clear what the period of this sawtooth would be. The minimum this year seems to have recovered nearly to 2009 levels, but the longer-term trend is still towards an ice-free Arctic summer by the 2020s, as shown in ArctischePinguin's graphs here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 21:55 PM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
If said academia are phrasing it this way, that is incorrect. Citation required, please.
As the moderator notes, rising levels of CO2 act (via back radiation) to reduce the temperature gradient across the cool skin layer boundary at the ocean:atmosphere interface. This occurs 24/7/365, and slows the rate of energy transfer (via longwave [IR] radiation) from the oceans to the air. With the ensuing result of the oceans retaining a greater level of thermal energy than they did in a lower atmospheric CO2 environment. With the added note that the energy retained by the ocean is already in it via absorption of shortwave radiation from the sun, directly.
Is that more clear? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:12 PM on 15 December 2014Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
CaptHillWalker
Firstly, the heat our bodies produce is actually stored energy from the sun, captured by photosynthesis in plants, perhaps also transferred to animals. We then eat the plants and animals to generate the heat that comes out of our bodies. And this by and large isn't ancient sunlight; it was captured over the previous year, maybe several years in the case of large food animals such a cattle. So we are energy neutral in terms of our metabolisms - we just store sunlight for short periods then release it again.
Similarly we are carbon neutral in terms of our metabolisms - we just store carbon captured from the atmosphere for short periods then release it again.
Our burning of fossil fuels is a different matter - that is releasing energy & carbon captured 100's of millions of years ago.
Some numbers to put these energy quantities into context:
The human body, on average, consumes energy at around 100 watts. More when we are exerting but that is the average. So 7 billion humans consume energy at around 0.7 trillion watts.
Worldwide energy consumption by our technologies in contrast is around 17 trillion watts. 24 times as much. Each human being has the equivalent of 24 slaves. For those in the developed world that figure is closer to 100 times; 100 slaves.
Next, total energy flow from within the Earth, all geothermal heat, is around 44 trillion watts. So all human energy generation is around 40% of this. If human energy generation continues to grow at its long term growth rate, irrespective of whether that is from fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, whatever, then by mid century human energy generation will have grown to match that.
Then if we look at the measured buildup of heat in the climate system, primarily in the oceans, due to climate change, we are seeing a rise at a rate of around 300-350 trillion watts.
- 7 to 8 times geothermal
- 20 times total human energy generation
- 500 times human metabolism which is energy neutral anyway.
So the impact of anything purely metabolic is much, much smaller. And it is energy neutral anyway even if it is small
-
gac73 at 20:47 PM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
@Michael
Thanks for your prompt reply, however I feel that I may not have clearly communicated my question as the process that you describe above is how the atmosphere can alter the temperature of the ocean.
What I was wanting to know is if someone here could assist me with the following :
I understand how c02 is absorbed into the oceans.
But how can 'heat' IN the atmosphere move FROM the atmosphere INTO the ocean?
The Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to two thermodynamic systems not in equilibrium with eachother (the atmosphere and the ocean), says that net sum energy TRANSFER can only ever be in one direction. Clouds are the observable evidence that net sum energy transfer is from the ocean TO the atmosphere. So atmospheric heat cannot move FROM the atmosphere INTO the ocean. This would be a violation of Thermodynamics.
Academia states that the 'missing' forecast atmospheric heat has moved from the atmosphere INTO the ocean. i.e the ocean is a heat sink for atmospheric heat Moving directly FROM the atmosphere INTO the ocean.
What I would like to know is how is such a position tenable? i.e Trenberth - the 'missing' heat is transmitted into the oceans ; Tim Flannery - 90% of the heat (atmospheric heat) ends up in the ocean.
(I have used capitals to clarify the question).
Hoping I can get some further feedback on this.
Thanks
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - I thought Michael Sweet did a great job of summarizing this, so am unlikely to make it any clearer - but I'll try.
Additional greenhouse gases cause more heat (longwave radiation) to be directed toward the oceans. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean proper, but it does warm the uppermost surface and thus lowers the thermal gradient through the cool-skin layer. The normal flow of heat from the warmer ocean to the cooler atmosphere is reduced. As the oceans are heated by shortwave radiation from the sun, a reduction in the rate of heat loss through the cool-skin layer causes the oceans to warm.
So the Laws of Thermodynamics are quite safe - the net flow of heat still moves from the warmer ocean to the cooler atmosphere.
-
gac73 at 20:21 PM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
@Rob Thanks for the post.
-
scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 15 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #50
Well I imagine California and Texas would welcome El Nino as drought-breaker, but I think South American fisherman would be the most fearful. Effects of El Nino on child health discussed here. Somewhat more scary than losing an argument.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:00 PM on 15 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #50
It seems a bit 'over the top' to claim that El NIno is much-feared.
There are some potentially significant regional weather consequences of an El Nino and people in those regions do need to be concerned, and everyone else should be concerned about their plight.
However, the people most-fearful of an El NIno are those who wish to dismiss the climate science and delay growth of popular support for the required global reduction of CO2 emissions. They know they will lose their ability to abuse the recent La Nina influenced global average surface temperatures to further their interests. And nobody who cares should shed any tears about the concerns of that group.
-
jimlj at 05:52 AM on 15 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
William, not to be piling on, but in your own comment you showed why the difference. NOAA is measuring 0-2000 meters, and you state
"the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably"
So by your own reference they are measuring different things.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:28 AM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Gac73... There's also a good site explaining ocean/atmosphere coupling here:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
-
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 15 December 2014Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Gac73,
I posted a response to your question here.
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 15 December 2014How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Gac73,
The simple answer to your question of how can a warmer atmosphere heat the oceans is this:
1) The ocean absorbs heat from the sun and is warmer than the atmosphere above.
2) According to the first law of thermodynamics, the ocean loses heat to the colder atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates the heat into space. The system is at equilibrium.
3) AGW causes the atmosphere to become warmer.
4) According to the first law of thermodynamics, the ocean now loses heat more slowly to the atmosphere, since the heat gradient is reduced.
5) The ocean is now losing heat more slowly than before, while still receiving heat from the sun at the same rate. The heat remaining in the ocean causes the ocean to warm until equilibrium is restored.
6) Winds and current affect where and how fast the additional heat is distributed through the ocean. Because the ocean is so huge, compared to the atmosphere, it retains the majority of heat from AGW.
-
Global warming continues despite continuous denial
william - The only issue here is semantic. There is a considerable increase in ocean heat content for 700-2000m (often referred to as deep) ocean, some warming in the 0-700m layer (increased transport to depth, apparently), and _so far_ only a small amount of warming in the >2000m ocean (abyssal).
There are significant regional differences; the Southern Ocean near Antarctica is showing a great deal of deep warming, right where the thermohaline circulation dives, for example. And the changes evident in the abyssal ocean are as one would expect given the time delays for circulation - you can actually see the decades or centuries delay for abyssal circulation in the observed temperature changes. The spread of warmth from the Antarctic downflow is quite evident. But there simply hasn't been time for much of the abyss to be affected, _yet_.
So the confusion seen (and pushed by some of the denial sites, I'll note) is due to confusing a warming deep ocean with the time capsule of the abyssal, where most AGW effects haven't quite reached yet.
-
william11409 at 02:18 AM on 15 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
The findings in the NOAA paper discussed above do not agree with findings from scientists at NASA published in Nature Climate Change in October 2014. NOAA consider "When you look at the oceans, the so-called pause is simply a redistribution, a burying of heat to deeper waters" while NASA states "NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed" (http://tinyurl.com/ou66qzo).
The report states"Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably". The leading author of the study states: "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much."
-
gac73 at 22:10 PM on 14 December 2014Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Hi All,
I'm new here and hope, although this question is indirectly related, that it is not too far off topic to not be answered.
I understand how the oceans absorb c02 and the forces at play.
What I would like to know is how does c02 absorbed 'heat' from the atmosphere get into the ocean itself. What are the mechanisms at work that makes it possible for the ocean to be a 'heat sink' for atmospheric heat?
i.e "90% of the atmospheric heat ends up in the ocean" - Tim Flannery.
This assertion on face value appears to be in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
i.e Two thermodynamic systems that are not in equilibrium with each other must have net sum energy transfer move in one direction only.
Because clouds are the observable evidence that net sum energy transfer occurs from the ocean to the atmosphere, and that net sum energy transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean can only be in one direction, how can the ocean be a heat sink for atmospheric heat as it would have to be a net sum value, which would be a violation of thermodynamics?
Any assistance here would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Moderator Response:[DB] This post explains how increasing levels of CO2 heat the ocean. For continued questions on that mechanism, place those questions there, not here. Thanks!
-
CaptHillWalker at 20:00 PM on 14 December 2014Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Many of the above statements make sense within their own context.
But just to ask a few more questions while making one or 2 Vital observations
ALL C02 was here at some point thats how the fossil fuels were created by absorbing C02 - creating Oxygen, becoming fossil fuels and the massive population now burns them in every activity we do to keep the population increasing feeding a flawed econimic model that requires continual growth.
The average tempeture is not the real issue, its the return to climate extreme´s that are causing panic amongst political powerhouses as it will impact on the their Economic gravy train.
All C02 - Oxygen - organic matter, fossil fuels etc are part of the Carbon cycle over geological time.. nothing is exempt...
Question...has any calculation or consideration been taken regarding the effect on temp that 7 Billion people and the remaining living creatures have on recorded or calulated temp.. we carry a lot of heat.
Humans we ...
Store a lot of water in our bodys and plastic bottles
We are mobile heat cells that are warm blooded
we displace a lot of air while creating hotspots.
Unless we find a economic model that can work with natural population shrinkage we will never reduce the effect we have on the carbon cycle...
The Climate will change as it always has and always will. with or without us.
We need to adapt to a new way of living with each other and the planet we are guests on...
-
michael sweet at 10:00 AM on 14 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
Denisaf:
Here is the Skeptical Science response to the Skeptic myth the carbon dioxide has a short half-life. The individual molecules have about a five year lifetime. The increase in concentration caused by the release of those molecules lasts for hundreds of years.
-
scaddenp at 19:33 PM on 13 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
Not entirely true. Fossil fuels have no C14 and a different C13/C12 ratio.
See this article.
-
denisaf at 19:04 PM on 13 December 2014Cutting carbon pollution is the key to curbing global warming
That comment about carbon dioxide stays aloft for centuries is contrary to the reality that carbon dioxide has always circulated. Industrial emissions has just increased the rate of generation of carbon dioxide to couple with respiration and other sources to more than counter the rate of absorption by photosynthesis. There is no possible way of identifying the source (fossil fuel or respiration) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, measurements have established that the concentarion level has increased rapidly in the past century and is continuing to increase rapidly, largely due to the high rate of emissions from fossil fuels.
-
michael sweet at 06:07 AM on 13 December 2014Skeptical Science at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
Nine presentation from people at SkS!! This demonstrates the strength of the site that John Cook has built.
-
BaerbelW at 04:28 AM on 13 December 2014Skeptical Science at the 2014 AGU Fall Meeting
For those who cannot be at AGU: Sou from HotWhopper.com explains how to "Get ready to (virtually) attend AGU Fall Meeting 2014 "
-
knaugle at 00:24 AM on 13 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
The blog link pointed to a graphing tool at the University of York, Chemistry Dept of all things, that is a useful addition to the woodfortrees site I usually visit for charts. It is interesting that most of the warming in the datasets appears to be from ocean temperatures, since land only data is a bit flatter.
As for the moderator's comment that 1998 was a hot monster year, that is true. However, plots show that its El Nino effect was mostly from Jan through Aug 1998. Also NOAA says 1998 was only 3rd warmest, soon to be 4th. So it may be that WRyan did in fact mean 1998 will soon fall out of the top 10. That's a rather sobering thought.
-
Riduna at 10:31 AM on 12 December 2014Global warming continues despite continuous denial
We seem to discuss this topic ad nausea while studiously ignoring where ocean heat goes to and what its effects on the cryosphere are. Pity. Is it too scary?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please enter the the term "ocean heat" into the SkS Search box. You will see that your claim is entirely unfounded with respect to this website.
-
Jim Eager at 09:06 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
And best of all, Tamino simply does not suffer run of the mill false-skeptic fools. At all.
-
gws at 07:03 AM on 12 December 2014More research confirming large methane leakage from shale boom
UT released the next installment of their larger study with EDF, this time in ES&T; Press release here. One main finding: few large sources dominate the overall source sector (here: pneumatic controllers, liquid unloadings), aka non-normal distribution of sources, consistent with other findings presented in this series.
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, please spell out names rather than use "naked acronyms" which many of our readers may not be familiar with.
In this particular case:
UT = University of Texas
EDF = Environmnetal Defense Fund
ES&T = Environmental Science & Technology
-
michael sweet at 03:34 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
For those who are not familiar with Tamino (who wrote this post), he is a statistician. These analysis are his specialty. He accounts for the autocorrelation (the modified dice calculation mentioned above) in the OP by:
"I’ll also take into account that the noise doesn’t even follow the simplest form of autocorrelation usually applied, what’s called “AR(1)” noise, but it can be well approximated by a somewhat more complex form referred to as “ARMA(1,1)”
95% confidence is the normal choice in science (discussed in the OP just under the spoiler alert). If you do not understand the jargon ask a question.
I am not a statistician so I do not question Tamino when he does an analysis. I have seen a lot of people question Tamino's choices, mostly people who are not statisticians, and he always has a good rational for his choices.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:13 AM on 12 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
CBDunkerson,
My pursuit is not impossible. It is only challenging because the current socioeconomic system grossly promotes the temptation to be inconsiderate and intolerant. That pairing of support can be seen as the core vote support target group of all political groups wanting to get away with unacceptable actions and attiitudes, from the vicious dictatorial and military controlled styles of leadership in developing nations to the vicious pursuers of financial gain any way they can get away with in developed 'democratic' nations.
Altruism is also a fundamental human nature. It is naturally evident in young children (see a report here). And the beauty is that once an adult 'indoctrinated in a selfish consumerism society' realized that they actually have the choice regarding how they behave and they choose to be more altruistic and helpful to others, no amount of deceptive misleading marketing will change their mind again.
I am only sharing the attitude I have learned from others. There are many people striving to develop a sustainable civil society and socioeconomic system. And this is nothing new. It was what Charles Dicken's was pushing for in his time.
Admittedly mass-marketed comsumerism with its power of temptation increases the number of people who initially grow up to be selfish pursuers of their personal interest. But they can grow out of that attitude if they care to.
Eventually those who don't care won't matter. As the problems their actions and attitudes create become unacceptably obvious they lose popular support.
Hopefully this current spurt of successful bad behaviour won't be able to create too much damage before the 'unjustified success' is ended. And hopefully humanity learns how to keep future generations from ever again allowing the incosiderate and intolerant to succeed. That would be the way to ensure a constantly improved development of sustainable better future for all.
-
Joel_Huberman at 00:15 AM on 12 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Very nice post! That said, I want to repeat Rocketman's concern about the dice analogy. Adjacent years are not independent of each other. But there's probably a way to take that partial annual interdependence into account when calculating the statistical implications of the whole series of years not exceeding the significance limit--a modified dice calculation.
I also have one question. In the second graph, why are data points shown for years after 2008?
-
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 11 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
One Planet, I wish you the best of luck in your quest to make fundamental changes to human nature. I think you are basically beating your head against a wall, but I'd be more than thrilled if you somehow achieved the impossible.
John Hartz, I've never really gotten the 'artificial intelligence' thing. Why would we even want to make an artificial intelligence? If there is one thing we don't have in short supply (just ask the 'overpopulation' people) it is natural intelligences. There are billions of natural human intelligences out there... many of them barely being used (especially if they watch Fox News). So why would we want to make even more artificial ones?
At this point people usually start talking about computing power and repetitive tasks and yadda yadda... but none of that is intelligence. Rather, that is processing speed and automation... which indeed could be vastly improved if guided directly by an intelligence rather than indirectly by a programmer or system user. So, why not give existing natural intelligences direct access to computer processing and automation? Same result, but no artificial intelligence required. Technology to transfer data to and from the human brain already exists, and will almost certainly be perfected long before true artificial intelligence. By the time we can create a true AI it shouldn't be any danger to us because much of the human race should be able to operate on a level playing field. Adding direct human decision making to existing computer automation yields the same results as full AI. Take automated vehicles for instance. Right now the state of the art can handle stop signs, pedestrians, traffic lights, and the vast majority of other situations which a car might encounter... but every so often they run into something they aren't programmed for (e.g. another car coming the wrong way down a one way street). Why would we need to wait for true AI to resolve that? Send the situation to an operator (in the car or remotely), they decide what to do (e.g. back out to let the police car going the wrong way pass) and then the automation software carries out that decision. Yes, it might take a human a second or two to make a decision like that while a computer could do so much faster, but we're talking about the difference between automating 99.99% vs 100% of most tasks. Both would fundamentally transform everything we do and create a world where 7 billion intelligences would be vastly more than we would ever need to make the requisite remaining decisions. The question then becoming... what will all those people do?
-
rocketman at 13:28 PM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Very interesting analysis. Statistics is not my forte but I have a few observations and comments.
The test seems to be set of as a two tailed test determining whether the later period is different, not slower. I think this is justified on a purely impartial scientific basis but may not be as convincing if one is biased to believe in the slowdown.
I don't think the dice analogy is valid. Whether the dice are loaded or not, each roll is independent of the others. However, in your analysis, 1999 shares 94% of its data with 2000. That is why the plots have a smooth curve instead of the jagged pattern you would see if you plotted throws of an honest die.
It would be expected that the probabilities drop off as time approches the present becasue ther is less and less data. If tomorrow were the coldest day globally on record by a full degree, it wouldn't constitute a significant trend.
My thoughts on the 95% confidence standard are that, in a lot of areas, being right 90% of the time is pretty darn good. The NOAA graph gets close to that but that is just cherry picking from the data sets. (Hate to give the deniers ideas).
Looking at the curves, the most striking thing is the similarity of the three surface data sets, the RSS satellite data(!) and the Berkely land data. These are also the sets showing the highest probability of a slow down. Doing an eyeball average of these five, it may be as high as 80% in 2006. Not terrible, but not too convincing either.
Interesting that the C&W and the land-only CRUTEM curves are so similar. I think C&W made a good case for their improved handling of missing data and it is no surprise (based on the trend they demonstrated when it was published) that this data set shows the probability of a slowdown at 60% or less.
UAH? Ironic that it shows essentially zero probability since it is the denier's darling data set. Of course what it really shows is that this data is just noise. If the lower atmosphere caught fire, would UAH notice?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:23 PM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
WRyan,
I agree. The unusually warm for its time 1998 will be cooler than most years in the near future and possibly all years after 2020. In the not too distant future even an extreme La Nina event won't temporarily produce an annual average as low as the 'high' of 1998.
-
WRyan at 10:45 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
According to NOAA and GISS datasets, the temperature trend since the mid-70s has been about 0.165C increase per decade. if that conitnues we can expect the temp at 2050 to be about 0.57C warmer than now, which will be about 1.5C warmer than the 1880's values.
On the topic of the 1998 temp, it was about 0.175C higher than the trend value for that year. So that equals the trend value for 2009. By 2020, on its current trajectory, the trend value will be 0.175C higher than the 1998 temp. So if the current trend continues, after 2020 we are unlikely to see a temperature as cool as 1998 again during our lifetime (unless you are currently very young and live a long life). If there are no La Nina events or large volcanic eruptions over the next few years, we won't see a temp as cool as the 1998 temp again this decade either.
Moderator Response:[PS] I suspect you mean 1997. 1998 was a hot monster El Nino year.
-
wili at 10:04 AM on 11 December 2014Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?
Thanks, KR, for the pointers, and for this:
we appear to be near the bottom of possible short term variations right now with a combination of ENSO, low insolation, and (relatively) high volcanic aerosol injections into the stratosphere. As these variations regress to the mean I fully expect any sign of a short term (and statistically insignificant) 'hiatus' to vanish as a fairly sharp upward variation.
That's pretty much what I was thinking, plus perhaps some feedbacks kicking in.
Don't worry about denialists ability to deny, though. If the data doesn't do what they want it to, they just make stuff up or reinterpret it in ways so insane it will make your head spin.
Prev 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 Next
