Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 Next
Comments 33451 to 33500:
-
Tom Curtis at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
karly @298, let me first note how silly I think it for people who, having observed an effect that could alter the climate, then automatically assume it is more important than the enhanced greenhouse effect without comparison. In this case Steel concludes is essay for a hypothesis he has not presented for peer review, by saying:
"Ockham’s razor demands that the CSI theory be accepted as the working hypothesis for observed climate change, because it is the simplest explanation and is undoubtedly valid (unless someone can demonstrate that my calculations are wrong, along with those made using Berger’s software code) although the AGW mechanism is certainly a (smaller) contributing factor."
As it happens, he is claiming AGW is a smaller contributing factor because the difference in his calculation sprind insolation (on a particular day) over a 1000 years is greater than the radiative forcing over the last 250 years. The effect he calculates appears, however, to be linear over time. From his figures, the effect of the last 250 years is 0.6 W/m^2 on that particular day, ie, less than a third of the radiative forcing over that period. What is more, the effect is not an annual effect (as is the case with the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases). In fact, the total effect sums to zero over the course of the year so that the net forcing from his mechanism is in fact zero. Unless you wish to entertain a change in the laws of thermodynamics so that they only apply on the spring equinox, that alone refutes his conjecture.
Further, his theory does not even match the evidence. As noted, his theory predicts a near linear change over the last thousand years. Temperatures, however, have on average declined over the first 750 of those years - something AGW "skeptics" are famed for noting. The transition from the MWP to the LIA is a direct observational refutation of his theory. So also is the southern hemisphere warming which he is determined to neglect but which is certainly occurring.
That, however, may not be the worst part of his theory. He makes a very big point of the fact that Berger (1978), from whom he draws his algorithms, uses the equinoctial method to calculate daily insolation in preparing his daily insolation tables, often used by climate scientists. Berger, however, does not state that. He defines a method for determining the insolation using the equinoctial method, then provides formula to calculate the calendar day method (see section 3 of Berger 1978). That being the case, the majority of the effect Steel finds may simply be due to his using the wrong method, and therefore introducing a drift into his calendar. That is, he may be making the same error he accuses climate scientists of.
Regardless, his refusal to calculate a total year energy balance, inflation of the effect by using unequal comparison times, and neglecting of straightforward empirical disagreements with his theory render it an example of pseudo-science, not science. I would not waste my time on it.
-
Donny at 13:03 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Scaddenp@ 14.... and why do you think he was making that point after reading this article? It's not at all semantics. The EPA can only regulate pollutants.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar @23, the total heat generated by condensation of water vapour is matched by the total heat absorbed by the same water vapour evaporating in the first place. As the absolute humidity is rising with rising temperatures, that the atmospheric water vapour has been a net absorber of heat over the last few decades, slowing down the pace of global warming rather than accelerating it - at least as regards its heat capacity. (Obviously the increase in water vapour increases the water vapour greenhouse effect, an important feedback that means anthropogenic global warming will raise temperatures more overall than would otherwise have been the case.
-
scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny, I notice you havent taken my earlier challenge to say what mitigation measures you would entertain. I have little interest in arguing with someone whose position on climate is based on ideology rather than data.
-
scaddenp at 12:02 PM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
This is irrelevant to Longjohn's point. His point is that history is full of examples where it would have been cheaper to mitigate hazards (be it pollution or whatever) rather than clean up afterwards. Arguments about what is a pollutants is just semantics - something to entertain lawyers not scientists.
-
Donny at 11:07 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Asbestos is harmful in any dose. Heat and co2 are required to live. Should water be considered a pollutant since it too is harmful in huge amounts?
-
From Peru at 10:50 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Donny: Heat is not pollution? Think again:
"Globally, in 2005, this anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) was +0.028 W/m2, or only about 1% of the energy flux being added to Earth because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The spatial distribution of AHF, derived from national energy-use data and population density, is shown to the right. Although small globally, current AHF averaged over the continental United States and western Europe is, respectively, +0.39 and +0.68 W/m2, or up to 40% of the local forcing from carbon dioxide. A projection of 2040 AHF is shown in the bottom panel."
I short words: today this is a local pollution problem, but still is only a tiny part of the global warming problem. However, given our current energy consumption/production growth rate, in a few decades it will be serious regional problem and a moderate global one.
In a few centuries it may be worse than the greenhouse gas pollution, and eventually even endanger the habitability of the planet, because, unlike the enhanced greenhouse effect, there are no natural limits to how big it may become provided an abundant nonrenewable energy source (like nuclear fusion) becomes avaivable.
-
Ingvar at 10:44 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Thank you all. You have plugged a few holes for me and I am grateful for your comment. I had a brief look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html and although this is not in this forum, but interesting.
Rain is measured and can be quantified because official raingauges are models of a template metre-square box in which a millimetre yields one litre. Thus over 1,000 sq metres you have one tonne of water that was water vapour. There is a lot of heat released into space with each mm.
Moderator Response:[DB] You comment is off-topic in this thread. As Tom Dayton notes, see the post Water Vapor Is the Most Powerful Greenhouse Gas, and make any further comments on that topic there, not here. Subsequent off-topic comments in this thread will be deleted.
-
scaddenp at 10:09 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Both are hazardous to human well-being, if in very different ways and concentrations.
While the links between changing climate and things like hurricanes and jetstream patterns are controversial, linking AGW to increased risk of drought, heatwaves and enhanced precipitation is certainly not. If you disagree, present some evidence.
-
karly at 09:55 AM on 29 October 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Physicist and space scientist Dr. Duncan Steel has recently discussed how well-known variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun result in variations in the solar flux received at different latitudes and at different times of year, which are in accord with observed climate changes, independent of effects due to anthropogenic global warming. Dr. Steel finds that the most substantial variations are occurring at high latitudes across spring: in the northern hemisphere the spring insolation is increasing markedly, while in the southern hemisphere the insolation across austral spring is reducing. In itself this might be anticipated to result in what is actually observed: record melting of ice and snow cover in the Arctic, while there is year-on-year growth of Antarctic sea ice. See: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/996. Dr. Steel seeks independent confirmation of his calculations, and welcomes comments, but only on the substantive subject of how Earth’s shifting orbit is affecting the insolation received at different latitudes and different times of year in the present epoch.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Moderator's comment @18, thankyou. I had found the earlier paper by Rothrock et al, 1999 who, based on submarine data from the late 50s to early 70s concluded that the ice draft at the end of the melt season had decreased by 1.3 meters over that period. That, of course, is direct evidence rebuting ingvaar's claim.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
scaddenp @20, it appears that you are correct. The history of the Skate compiled by J D Jensen prior to the Skate photos were used to generate fake controversy about ice thickness definitely identifies the 1959 surfacing as the first at the North Pole. That appears to be confirmed by the fact that in their summary of the accomplishments of Calvert (the Skate's commander), the US Navy mentions surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, but not an earlier (more significant had it existed) surfacing.
Further, in January, 1959, the US Navies "All Hands" magazine described the previous years polar operations as follows:
"Although Nautilus was the first to make the polar underseas transit, uss Skate, SS (N) 578, wasted no time in making a visit to the North Pole. In so doing, moreover, Skate became the first submarine to conduct extensive operations in the polar area. With CDR James Calvert, USN, as CO, Skate (with a crew of 10 officers, 87 enlisted men and nine civilian technicians aboard) reached the North Pole on 11 August, just eight days after Nautilus broke the ice."
An earlier report (October, 1958) read:
"uss Skate, SS(N)578, duplicated the feat of Nautilus 11 August by successfully crossing the North Pole while exploring under-sea routes beneath the polar ice cap. However, the boat did not reach the Pacific. Skate, second smallest of the Navy's four atomic submarines, left New London, Conn., 30 July, carrying a crew of 10 oficers, 87 enlisted men and nine civilian technicians. The sub crossed the Pole and surfaced at a break in the ice 40 miles away to report its success by radio."
For her 1959 voyage, however, it is reported (July, 1959) that:
"Just 10 days after leaving her home port, Skate went under the Arctic ice. Three days later-on 17 March-she surfaced in the ice for the third time, exactly at the North Pole."
Having conceded the point, however, I will note that surfacing just 40 miles from the pole rather than precisely at the pole makes no scientific difference, ie, if ingvaar's point were valid if the Skate surfaced precisely at the pole, it would be equally valid given that it surfaced a mere 40 miles from it.
-
Donny at 09:38 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Longjohn. .. there is a huge difference between co2 and asbestos. CO2 is not pollution. Neither is heat.
-
Old Mole at 07:33 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
No offense, Dana, but your article seems to give the impression that McConnell's Democratic opponent embraces the science, which is certainly not the case.
"President Obama’s new EPA rule is more proof that Washington isn’t working for Kentucky. Coal keeps the lights on in the Commonwealth, providing a way for thousands of Kentuckians to put food on their tables. When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the President’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.”
Any politician advocating for tougher EPA regulations in Kentucky couldn't get elected dogcatcher, and running briskly away from the President's position (which is pretty weak, sad to say ... he is still wedded to the fantasy of "clean coal") is the only reason that the election is close.
See also West Virginia, where Joe Manchin omitted to even endorse a sitting President of his own party to get elected.
As a side issue, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the message "receives funds from fossil-fuel interests" as if it was always pertinent. James Inhofe of Oklahoma recieves tons of money rom the energy companies ... but is it at all likely that all we need do is make him a better offer to have him change his position? Characterizing your political opponents as cynical and venal is something I expect of "skeptics", but I do expect better from you.
Best wishes,
Mole
-
ubrew12 at 07:19 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
We should imagine, perhaps, that 'I'm not a scientist' is a delaying strategy, to be held until the transition from Democracy to Dollarocracy is complete. Afterward, they won't have to pretend anymore to care what the 'voter' thinks, and can brush such pesky questions off.
-
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Tom, that first image is the Skate, but not at the pole. (See www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm). Best guess I think is Drift station Alpha in August 1958.
-
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 29 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
One Planet Only Forever @48
You ask what book Im referring to? I was referring to one of Gores speeches where he apparently said "the science is settled". This seemed too sweeping to me, as not all the science is settled, and it leaves Gore open to obvious attack. However it appears Gore was missquoted.
You are possibly being a little defensive, and are not reading what I said or undestanding my point. I'm not questioning the climate science. I have read all Gores books and completely agree with them.
Please also read my post 47 above. Im not questioning Gores conclusions on climate science and I have read all his books. I do wish people would please read what is actually written.
-
michael sweet at 06:24 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
A small bright side of this is that 5 years ago McConnell would have said that he did not think climate change was happening, or that it was a hoax. The current claim by deniers that they are not scientists is a step up from there.
I teach High School Chemistry. 5 years ago if we discussed climate change there were always two or three students in each class who insisted that scientists were liars and climate change was a hoax. I have not had one of those for two years and only one three years ago. People see the changes around them. After 2014 sets a new record for hottest year even McConnell and Inhofe will say they are concerned about AGW, they will just not want to do anything.
The question is how long will it take to get people excited. Hopefully it will not be too late.
-
Non-Scientist at 06:00 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Once one becomes a partisan, whether this week's flavor is labelled "democrat", "repblican" or "tiramisu", creditibility is lost.
Politics is about power, and altering the perception of truth among the 80% who are too busy, who don't care or are too young to see the lizard behind the curtain.
When McConnell does this:
"McConnell wouldn’t directly answer whether he believes in climate change."
he means roughly this:
He understands that his political survival depends on not acknowledging climate change, and almost certainly understands that it's happening. Thus he can't say anything of substance. Most likely, he is waiting for his constituents and a few donors to alter their position, at which point he can say "well, I'm no scientist, but y'know when I was a kid there were glaciers" etc etc
There are (many) politicians truly stupid enough to believe the denialist lines, but not all. But what all sucessful pols have in common is figuring out how to get elected and re-elected.
There's also the economic issue: someone whose job disapeared is not thinking about the climate in 2100 (which is when it will truly hit, if it continues). They are thinking that they'll lose their home, their family and the little bit of security they've managed to carve out. Demands to "end international trade", "end first world overconsumption" (compared to some Western blogger's perception of 3rd world lifestyle) sound like the guy with the "Word ends in 2012" sandwich board.
It would be smarter to engage with people like McConnell privately, explain what's going on and develop a working relationship. That way, we have a hope of getting economically viable ways to deal with CC in place, rather than fantasies. We certainly won't get far with train wrecks like creating a pump'n dump scam to produce solar panels at a higher unit production cost than the Chinese sell at retail. Curiously, a major campaign donor just happened to be a key investor, and this same investor was given priority over taxpayers when the balloon inevitabtly popped. That's politics in operation. -
C J at 05:21 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
McConnell is not an economist, yet he'll be more than happy to provide you with an enormous amount of economic opinion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:07 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton... This issue there, as I see it, comes when people are making sweeping claims about the science, in contradiction to the overwhelming body of climate science, without having any sort of background in the field.
It's one thing to not be a scientist, or have expertise in fields outside of climate science, and try to explain your understanding of the research. It becomes something completely different when you try to reject what 97% of the experts say.
-
DSL at 04:36 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Ashton, can you point me to an example?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:25 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
If I remember correctly, in Stephen Schneider's book, Science as a Contact Sport, he details out the rift between himself and Carl Sagan on the issue of nuclear winter. Of course, as Tom Curtis states, it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with soot and dust. But the rift between them was that Schneider's research pointed to the idea that it wouldn't exactly be nuclear winter, but rather more of a nuclear fall.
-
Ashton at 04:19 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Perhaps the politicians have stolen the rmantra of "I'm not a scientist" from the many commenters on blogs such as this where, if a view with which they do not agree is given, it is dismissed with the comment "he/she is not a climate scientist"
-
Tom Curtis at 03:46 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Returning to Ingvar @8:
1) With regards to hydrogen bombs and CO2, Ingvar is probably referring to Alexandrov, V. V. and G. I. Stenchikov (1983): "On the modeling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war" which I cannot find on the internet, or "Numerical simulation of the climactic consequences of nulear war" by the same authors (1984). The abstract of the later indicates, unsurprisingly, that it models the impact of dust and soot injected into the stratosphere by nuclear explosions. That is unsurprising, of course, because that was the primary climate related concern of nuclear weapons which do not generate CO2 except incidentally by causing fires. The incidental fires do not generate anywhere near the amount of CO2 as that emitted from a single years fossil fuel use. They certainly did not suggest that increased CO2 cools the troposphere.
2) The Nautilus navigated past the North Pole but never surfaced. It was able to do this because the sea is 4 kilometers deep at the North Pole. The trans-arctic voyage of the Nautilus is therefore irrelevant to climate change.
Slightly better informed pseudo-skeptics draw attention to the USS Skate, the first submarine to surface at the North Pole on August 11th, 1958 and again on March 17, 1959. The following are images of the Skate at the North Pole in 1958 and then in 1959:
You will notice the ice still on the hull in the first image, showing the Skate surfaced through very thin ice, not open water.
In both cases the Skate surfaced through areas of thin ice caused by wind opening up gaps in the ice (called polynas or leads), which then refreeze. The refrozen surface is thinner than the multiyear ice typically found in the area. Consequently thin ice in a polyna (all that is shown by the submarine surfacing) is no evidence of thiner ice in the 1950s than exists today.
Moderator Response:[PS] Submarine traverses under the arctic did obtain ice thickness data which show ice thickness has sharply declined since 1958. See http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Kwok.2009.GRL.pdf which uses data from these very submarines.
-
longjohn119 at 03:11 AM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
Once again it is proven there is no such a thing as a Climate Change Denier, only Climate Change Liars .... They don't deny, they lie
There is a HUGE difference here folks .....
-
longjohn119 at 02:58 AM on 29 October 2014Republican politicians aren't climate scientists or responsible leaders
Republicans always have been Penny Wise and Dollar Foolish ..... They'll spend 10 future dollars just to save a single penny today
It is always, always ALWAYS cheaper to mitigate pollution than it is to pay for the health and environmental damges later. I have yet to find a single example or have anyone point out an example of this not being true
You would think that after the trillions Society has spent cleaning up just lead andf asbestos pollution they'd have learned their lesson but apparnently not ....
-
Tom Curtis at 02:42 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
knaugle @15, you may want to add to the list of papers that purportedly ignore water vapour, Schmidt et al (2010) (Open access), which quantifies the water vapour plus cloud contribution to the "total greenhouse effect" as 75%, and that of CO2 at 20%. I should add for knaugle's benefit that the "total greenhouse effect" is the difference between upward IR radation at the surface and upward IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It includes many factors which are feedbacks in that their concentration in the atmosphere is primarilly controlled by temperature, and which as a result would not be able to maintain their effect without more stable atmospheric components such as CO2.
-
knaugle at 02:20 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
... just another case of going up the down escallator. Interesting that the excallator link is nearly beside the chart of this article.
-
knaugle at 02:18 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Speaking of 30 seconds on Google (or Yahoo! in my case)
The "ever accurate" Wikipedia page on greenhouse gases has for years stated that water vapor is about 55% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 about 17%, both with a fair uncertainty band.
Given 45 seconds I found a 2006 paper:
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, by J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.
which gave a 60% Water Vapor and 26% CO2 contribution on a sunny day.IF as Ingvar claims, water vapor has been excluded from the research, hidden if you will, it seems the "conspiracy minded climate scientists" have done a mighty poor job of keeping it out of the hands of lay scientists such as myself. I rather think this is one of many red herring arguments I see from those who seek to diminish the science.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:49 AM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
BojanD @4, the " fast warming during 1992-2006 period" is primarilly an artifact of the effects of the Mount Pinatubo erruption. Absent that eruption, there would still be a reduction in recent global warming trends. That, however, is an artifact of the very large El Nino even in 1998, and the very large La Nina events in 2008 and 20011/12. In fact, there is no evidence of the purported "pause" if you only use data sets extending to 2007, showing clearly that the slow down is an artifact of a cherry picked start year along with the two large La Nina's after 2007.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 29 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
rkrolph @1, part of the reason for the small differences in slope between the two trend lines is the choice of data set. Richard Allen uses Cowtan and Way (2014) which uses one of two methods to correct for biases in the HadCRUT4 data set that arise due to (among other reasons) limited coverage of Arctic regions where much of recent warming has occurred. "Skeptics" tend to use HadCRUT4 because those very biases accentuate the apparent reduction in the global warming trend. They also like using satellite data sets which, because they show an enhanced responce to ENSO variations, also show an enhanced apparent reduction in the trend (which is yet more evidence that much of the reduction in trend is simply a response to changing ENSO states). Using other data sets which do not have the "no arctic" bias such as GISS or BEST would show similar effects to using Cowtan and Way.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:36 AM on 29 October 2014Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
unspecial @107, the lapse rate refers only to the change in atmospheric temperature with altitude. Of necessity, it has the same magnituderegardless of whether you measure it going up or going down. The lapse rate is the response to decreased pressure with altitude based on the ideal gas law as modulated by the addition of more heat either by differential absorption of sunlight with altitude (as in the stratosphere) or by the release of latent heat from condensing water vapour. The geothermal gradient is the change of temperature with depth of the Earth's rocks and soil. It is a function of the temperature difference between the core and surface as modulated by the thermal conductivity of the rocks. Other than determining the rate at which geothermal energy reaches the surface, the geothermal gradient has very little impact on climate.
With regard to your three questions:
1) Yes it does, although its effect in that regard is minor relative to that of H2O. Further, it reduces the daily temperature range (diurnal temperature range) by increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere as well as by the absorption of outgoing IR radiation.
2) In hypothetical situations, water is not always a part of the equation. Because its concentration in the atmosphere depends on atmospheric temperature, and also the extent of exposed liquid water, at very cold temperatures, its effect is negligible. Absent CO2, the atmospheric temperatures fall to levels where the effect of H2O is near negligible, and is certainly much reduced from its current effect.
Clouds rise or fall for a variety of reasons, none of which are related to age. The most common cause of the rise and fall of clouds would be updrafts or downdrafts in the atmosphere. Further the condensing of water releases heat within clouds, often generating powerful updrafts. That is what causes the formation of cumulo-nimbus clouds in which the base is not raised, but the upper level of the cloud is lifted to the tropopause. Clearly the evaporation of water droplets in clouds will have the reverse effect, but because the water is evaporating, the cloud diminishes in size so and may disappear, so the effect is not as noticable.
3) As explained in the OP, the greenhouse effect is not a function of where IR radiation is first absorbed when it leaves the Earth's surface, but of the altitude from which it is radiated to space. Chris Colose shows the following graph:
The graph plots temperature (x-axis) versus altitude (y-axis), with the diagonal lines representing the lapse rate. The horizontal line at H represents an initial "effective altitude of radiation to space" which is a sort of average of the altitudes from which the various IR photons actually reaching space are emitted. (Technically, it is that altitude in the troposphere with the such that a black body at that temperature would emit as much power to space as IR radiation as is actually observed.)
If you increase the CO2 concentration, some of the IR radiation emitted going upward from H would be absorbed by that additional CO2, then re-emitted at a higher, cooler location in the atmosphere. The effect is to raise the effective altitude of radiation to space to ΛH (pronounced "lambda H". Because the energy balance between incoming SW radiation and outgoing IR radiation must be preserved, that will result in changes that raise the temperature a ΛH to the previous temperature of H. Those temperature changes will then propogate to the Earth's surface due to the constant lapse rate, raising the surface temperature by the same as the rise in temperature at ΛH relative to its previous value. The rise in temperature equals (ΛH-H) x Γ, where "Γ" (the capital greek letter gamma) represents the lapse rate.
If the change in CO2 concentration at the surface results in an increase of back radiation that would otherwise cause a greater change in temperature than (ΛH-H) x Γ, it will result in increased convection, reducing the temperature change back to that value. If it would have resulted in less of a temperature change than (ΛH-H) x Γ, it will result in reduced convection, increasing the temperature to that value. Consequently, to a reasonable estimate (and you will not do better without a full fledged climate model) the change in absorption at the surface can be ignored. It is the change of emission height that matters.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:30 AM on 29 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
I'm always astounded that people actually make such absurd claims as the effects of water vapor are "kept out" of the research. It's a blatantly made-up and completely false claim stated with absolute certainty. Yet, 30 seconds on google would show the statement to be incorrect.
It truly boggles the mind.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:23 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar, see the post Water Vapor Is the Most Powerful Greenhouse Gas, and make any further comments on that topic there, not here.
-
BojanD at 23:08 PM on 28 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
@johncl meant this post, for uninitiated.
And this is a different approach to convey the same thing, but addressing 'hasn't warmed since 2002'. Note that both trends are almost aligned. In essence, the pause is an artifact of fast warming during 1992-2006 period. -
johncl at 22:29 PM on 28 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
When discussing a chart like the one on the top of the article, I generally do as Tamino did on his blog - count the number of temperature points after 1998 above the full length (red) trendline and compare that to the number of points under it. Statistically there is no decline in warming. I'd rather say there evidence points to the contrary. 2014 will very likely be very close to the red trendline.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:54 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar wrote: "I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour. Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?"
As Tom and Glenn have shown, you misunderstood the research you cite from 1949 and your belief that water vapor is "kept out" of climate research is completely incorrect. One point they didn't cover is that it is also misleading to call it the "prime motor" of warming.
The water vapor content of the atmosphere cannot change significantly on its own... and thus it is not the 'motor' of anything. If some magical force were to double the water vapor content of the atmosphere tomorrow, while keeping everything else the same, we'd have a few days of heavy dew and rainfall and then everything would be back to normal. The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is directly correlated to temperature. The warmer the atmosphere in a given location the more water vapor the air can hold (though if little / no water is available you can still have a warm area with low water vapor... deserts for instance). Thus, the warmer the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere the greater the amount of water vapor it can hold. Yes, that additional water vapor then causes additional warming, but without some other warming or cooling factor you don't get a change in atmospheric water vapor levles. It is not a 'motor' which drives climate change at all. Rather, it is a feedback when something else is forcing a change. The actual 'prime motor' / forcing of warming is carbon dioxide. Unlike water vapor it doesn't rapidly 'drop out' of the atmosphere based on temperature (or anything else). The warming from CO2 is roughly doubled by the resulting increase in water vapor, but the water vapor level can't change without the warming. CO2 level changes can be triggered by either temperatue shifts (e.g. Milankovitch cycle warming causing ice melt and release of previously frozen organic carbon) or release of carbon previously trapped underground. In the past this has happened when massive volcanic events have released large amounts of CO2. Currently it is happening because of human burning of fossil fuels.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:29 PM on 28 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
rkrolph, that's the point. The orange line is not merely "like something you would typically show as how 'skeptics' view global warming"... that's exactly what it is. The standard 'skeptic' meme of 'no warming for the past 17 years' is constructed by cherry-picking the anomalously hot year of 1998 as the starting point (and looking only at surface temperatures). As you note, starting from 1999 or 2000 (or 1997) yields results more in line with the long term trend. You have successfully demonstrated why this 'skeptic' talking point is wrong from a statistical standpoint.
However, there is also a larger picture to consider. While the 'change in warming rate' for surface temperatures is not statistically significant, we can still identify likely underlying causes for fluctuations like this. That's what this article is really about... how fluxes in the much larger heat reservoir of the oceans can impact surface temperatures on short time scales.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:26 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar
" I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour. Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?"
Simple answer Ingvar, it isn't.
The role of water vapour in the atmosphere in its contribution to the Greenhouse Effect, cloud formation, its contribution to setting the observed value for the atmospheric Lapse Rate (its cooling effect), its role in the stratosphere, the rules governing it's concentration in the atmosphere and why it can't accumulate or decline on it's own without some other factor driving it are all well considered in very great detail.
For example the research in the early 1960's investigating whether Specific or Relative Humidity was more likely to remain constant as the atmosphere warms.
Do we know everything about everything? No. But we know a very, very great deal
Water has been included as a major part of climate science ever since the renaissance in inquiries into the subject in the 1950's.
So a question for you, and I am intrigued to understand your answer. Where did you get the idea that water isn't considered?
-
rkrolph at 19:17 PM on 28 October 2014The role of the ocean in tempering global surface warming
Looking at figure 1, the orange line looks like cherry picking, by using a short time frame starting with a hot year, 1998. It seems like if you started from 1999 or 2000, the orange line would probably match the red line slope much closer. The red line seems to fit the total data set very nicely, with no significant roll-off obvious in the recent years. But I have seen other charts where the warming rate "pause" seems much more apparent. At least from the figure 1 alone, it seems the orange line is not necessary, and even misleading, like something you would typically show as how "skeptics" view global warming.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:16 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Ingvar @9 and @10, the abstract of Goody (1949) states:
"Further considerations along the lines of Emden's methods lead to continuity of temperature at the tropopause as a condition for a stable transition from a state of convective to radiative equilibrium. This explains the characteristic appearance of the temperature distribution near the tropopause. Application of this condition leads to a simple explanation of the latitude variation of stratosphere temperature, mainly in terms of the effects of water vapour and carbon dioxide. The variation of stratosphere temperature with ozone concentration may be calculated, which confirms Dobson's hypothesis that anomalous seasonal variations in stratosphere temperature are due to seasonal variations of ozone concentration. Reasons for the approximately isothermal character of the lower stratosphere are also discussed."
This, firstly, confirms (as I had begun to suspect) that you were mistaking results about the stratosphere (where increased CO2 cools the atmosphere) with those for the troposphere, and in particular the near surface atmospheric temperature, where increased CO2 warms the atmosphere. As Goody is discussing stratospheric temperatures, his is in no way a contradictory result to those which show that increased greenhouse gases will warm near surface temperatures. Indeed, the cooling stratosphere along with a warming troposphere is one of the signatures of a greenhouse related warming of the troposphere, and the observed cooling of the stratosphere along with the observed warming of the troposphere is a major result confirming the theory of the greenhouse effect.
Second, from the abstract (I have not purchased the paper) it appears that Goody attributes variation in stratospheric CO2 and H2O concentrations by latitude as the primary driver variations by latitude of stratospheric temperatures. That is a very different thing from determining that H2O and CO2 are more important than O3 in the overall temperature budget. You will note that Goody confirms Dobson's theory that seasonal variation in O3 is the major source of seasonal variations in temperature. If we follow the logic that the major source of a variation in temperature is the major source of the temperature mean, then we would equally be required to affirm O3 as the main source of the mean stratospheric temperature, thus seperately affirming that O3 is a more important contributor to that temperature than CO2 and H2O, and the reverse (ie, contradicting ourselves). It is better to stay rational (ie, not believe contradictions) and reject the mistaken inference which you apply to Goody's results.
-
Ingvar at 17:44 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
Reference to Goode 1949 as follows:
Page 11 A Course in Elementary Meteorology HMSO ISBN 0 11 04000090 3. Text: In 1946 Dobson, Brewer and Cwilong pointed out the importance of ozone as an absorber and emitter of radiation, but Goody, in 1949, suggested that water vapour and carbon dioxide are more important, the first constituent tending to cause a heating of the atmosphere and the second a cooling. It cannot be said that a full explanation has yet been obtained.
I am polite. I only point out that since 1949 we have not learned anymore about this secret gas called water vapour. Why is it kept out of all climate and climate change research papers when the gas is the prime motor of warming?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj@43,
Are you referring to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", "Earth in the Balance", "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis" or "The Future: 6 Drivers of Global Change"?
I think his book "The Assault on Reason" provides a very good presentation of why there are so many people who still prefer to believe "the science isn't settled" or "climate scientists are wrong" or "the IPCC cannot be trusted" or "any other attempt to discredit or dismiss the science without any substantive basis for doing so".
I agree with the assertions made in many of the comments here that the science and other avenues of investigation and consideration of what is discovered and observed will always continue to improve the best understanding of what is going. And the discussion of the science needs to focus on the science.
And I agree that policy should be based on the best understanding of what is going on, meaning it must change as more is learned. It should not delay action to limit activity that is contrary to the development of a sustainable better future for all, no matter how popular or profitable that activity may be among the more fortunate, or those who want to develop to be like the more fortunate (therefore, all the wealthiest should be required to be competing to live the most sustainable life, to set the example to be aspired to by all others).
It is important to add that leadership toward the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet is the only leadership that has a viable future.
Any other type of leadership will have to fight against the growing better understanding of what is going on. It will ultimately fail, as will the societies and economic activities such leadership attempt to promote and prolong.
The problem is the way that popularity and profitability can empower unsustainable leadership, creating as much damage as can be gotten away with in the pursuit of short-term popularity and profitability that is ultimately unsustainable.
Humanity failing to rapidly develop to be a sustainable part of the diversity of life on this amazing planet should not be considered to be an acceptable option by any leaders. The constantly increased understanding of what is going on will ultimately make any other type of leader unsuccessful.
This leads to the rational conclusion that any unsustainable and damaging activity should be curtailed when its unacceptability is discovered. And when enough of the population actually better understands what is going on the curtailing could be swift. Which leads to "The Assault on Reason" to try to delay the necessary curtailing of popular and profitable developed activities that are harmful and ultimately unsustainable.
-
nigelj at 14:03 PM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Tom Curtis @ 44, 46. Well I didnt realise Gore was being missquoted. In my country we get the mainstream media saying things like "climate scientists claim the science is settled", and the media dont go into specifics like "settled in respect of". Seems like the media are twisting things. This is half the problem and it causes confusion.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
nigelj @40, I am having difficulty finding examples of the phrase "the science is settled" by climate scientists (or anyone supporting mitigation of global warming) in a way that is not clear from context. Wikipedia has a list of such "quotes", but they notably consist of either unverified claims by "skeptics", or are clearly restricted (as in the case of the Al Gore example discussed above). I am uncertain as to the identities of the various people quoted. One is just a newspaper columnist (which shows how rare examples are). One (by Cuffey) is definitely by a noted scientist, but not a climate scientist and the claim is very clear in context.
In this case I think Dikran Marsupial @33 and scaddenp @42 are correct (except for scaddenp's misattribution of the purported Gore quote). Climate scientists make nuanced statements that are clear from context. Deniers misattribute or invent quotes without the nuance or context and try to morph "Not everything is completely certain" into "Everything is completely uncertain" by rhetoric.
It is the attempt to finagle uncertainty about a small issue into near complete uncertainty about major points by Donny that I resisted earlier in this discussion. I am certainly not defending the idea that "the science is settled" except as nuanced statements about particular aspects of the science.
-
scaddenp at 12:54 PM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
Thanks Tom. Further evidence of "skeptics" attacking a straw man.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:43 PM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
scaddenp @42, nigelj @43:
"The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."
It may be an unfortunate statement, but Gore never made it! What he did say, in response to questioning by Joe Barton was:
"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem."
That comment was made after listing the scientific organizations that supported the concensus. It was glossed by NPR's reporter, Andrea Seabrook. From the transcript:
"Vice President AL GORE: The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.
SEABROOK: In other words, the science is settled, Gore said. Carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources are heating up the Earth's atmosphere. If left unchecked, this global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and to other aspects of the environment. And Gore pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue."
It has been subsequently misattributed as a direct quote of Gore rather than a reporters (incorrect) opinion of what Gore was getting at by numerous "skeptics".
On another occasion, Gore said that "the debate is over", but that was on one point only (attribution). That it was a limited claim was not only mentioned but emphasized by Gore:
"VICE PRESIDENT GORE: On the fact that there is a human factor in causing this? Yes. And not only in the administration, in the international panel on climate change, which has, what, 2,500 scientists from every country in the world, they have studied this for several years now. And just a couple of years ago they found what they call ''the smoking gun'' and came out with this consensus statement that there is now a discernible impact from human causes. Now, one of the other obstacles to broadening the consensus on that is that as you all know better than everybody, the noise level in the system is so profound that there are going to be very, very big changes just in the natural course of events. You take hurricanes. Back in the 1930s, as y'all can say better than me, there was a string of powerful hurricanes, more frequent, more powerful than what we're experiencing now. And there are other extremes that are natural. But out of that noise level, this consensus international scientific process has now said that they believe that debate is over, that yes, the human cause is now discernible. And as these concentrations grow it will become more profound and a much more significant part of the cause.
Q And the administration accepts that fact that that debate is over.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. On that one point, yes, sir. Here, and then there."
And speaking of which, here is the estimated IPCC Anthropogenic attribution PDF:
And the IPCC's conclusion:
"Overall, given that the anthropogenic increase in GHGs likely caused
0.5°C to 1.3°C warming over 1951–2010, with other anthropogenic forcings probably contributing counteracting cooling, that the effects of natural forcings and natural internal variability are estimated to be small, and that well-constrained and robust estimates of net anthropogenic warming are substantially more than half the observed warming (Figure 10.4) we conclude that it is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010."IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapt 10 p 887
Gore's claim, with its limited scope, was true in 1997 when he made it, and is certainly true now.
-
Ingvar at 12:01 PM on 28 October 20142014 Arctic sea ice extent - 6th lowest in millennia
When you dealing with such sensitive commodities as water on earth and in the atmosphere you need a benchmark. Total water, whether as solid, liquid or gas, is a constant. How nature deals with this we can theorise. We are not the master, because if we are, where is the operating manual, with is FAQ and trouble shooting chapter. (I get the wrath of the Moderator for this.)
Following the atmospheric hydrogen bomb experiments in the 1960-70s the Soviet Academy of Scientists released a document in 1984(?) warning of a new ice age if the heavy release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as experienced in those tests was to be continued.
That correlates with Goode's finding in 1949 that adding water vapour to the atmosphere tends to warm it (sauna principle), but adding carbon dioxide tends to cool the atmosphere. (Elementary Meteorology HMSO 1975).
Back to ice. In 1958 as part of an exercise the USS Nautilus navigated to the North Pole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ08GY8RJdU
The pictures reveal a quite this layer of ice. Ice in water melts. But following the nuclear experiments, it ice cover go thicker by an unnatural way that has not been explained. Over the years since then we have experience a gradual decrease in ice cover. My experience, practical that is, is that we are seing a long resettling of what should have been there years ago. Thus research on ice in water, being loss/gain in areas where you have 6 moths daylight and 6 months night is not enhancing our knowledge of Nature.
For the Moderator: You can scratch me off if you like. I am an un-educated individual, but I have learned a lot. please contact my on 2ingvar@gmail.com an I will add some more to your woes. It is embarrassing to learn the truth. Cheers
Moderator Response:[PS] Comments are moderated only for conformance with the comments policy, which is designed to encourage informed and polite debate. If you are not interested in such a discussion, then go elsewhere.
You are making claims above which are "surprising" to put it mildly. Please accurately source your material so others can ascertain your claim.
-
nigelj at 11:20 AM on 28 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #43B
"The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."
A most unfortunate statement by Gore. The words "The science is settled" have been quoted out of context a million times, (without your carbon dioxide part) providing easy ammunition for sceptics. I see this all the time, and it is very frustrating. It also undermines Gores book, which is very good.
Prev 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 Next
