Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 Next
Comments 35701 to 35750:
-
JARWillis at 23:23 PM on 5 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
We switched on our 4kW array 12 weeks ago and have generated more than 7 times the total power our house has used since then. All our hot water has come from otherwise unused power automatically fed to the immersion heater in our cylinder, so the only gas we have used is for the cooker hob.
The cost was half the estimate provided by an energy performance assessor less than a year ago. And our roofs face East and West (not the usually recommended South) - so with half the cells on each side we are often generating more than 1kW by 7am and after 7pm, peaking at over 3kW.
That's using only a third of our roof area and this is supposedly-cloudy-and-rainy England.
That's a long way of saying 'Yes, we've got a revolutionary technology here and it's accessible to ordinary people. '
-
Charliec65 at 23:21 PM on 5 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
This sounds too good to be true.
-
Phil at 23:19 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp @29
Jim, you state "My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there"
I am not even sure quite you mean.
My reading of Jim's comment was that he hoped that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could alter the specific heat capacity of water, and as such really didn't merit consideration.
But I could be wrong... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:23 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
jim
Some things to keep in mind when looking at the temperature records from the early 20th century and before. Station coverage wasn't global. We only had decent station coverage in the Antarctic starting in the late 50's. And most of the Arctic only really started having decent station coverage since the 1920's. So variations in station coverage are a confounding factor for the earlier records. And the Arctic did see a warmer period during the 20's/30's. Not as warm as today but warmer.
The problem with looking at just surface temperatures and expecting them to have a tight correlation with CO2 levels or any other forcing factor is that the surface temperatures alone don't capture what is happening to the system; they can also be significantly influenced by internal variability in addition to the CO2 driven warming. Surface temperature changes only represent about 2% of the total heat being added to the earth and are very much the tail that gets wagged by the dog - the oceans where over 90% of the extra heat is going.
So when we look at old records we don't have any data on what was happening inside the oceans so we shouldn't expect the record to tell us too much. In contrast we now have good data on the oceans as well and know that everything is warming.
You asked how much ocean warming is due to natural mechanisms. We can answer that substantially by asking where the heat that is accumulating in the oceans could have come from. It is the dominant heat accumulation in the climate system. And the answer is that it couldn't have come from anywhere here on Earth.
The largest heat source here on Earth is geothermal heat. And the geologists have been able to estimate how large the heat flow from inside the Earth is - 44.2 trillion watts. (see Pollack et al 1993 here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93RG01249/abstract).
In contrast the rate of heat accumulation in the oceans is over 250 trillion watts. 6 times greater. So the only possible conclusion is that the extra heat in the oceans has an extra-terrestrial source. Either more energy is arriving at the Earth from the Sun, or less energy is being radiated to space by the Earth.
And the Sun hasn't been getting warmer. If anything it is on a very, very slight cooling trend.
So this really limits the possibilities for what could account for the amount of heat being added to the oceans. An increase in the GH Effect is really the only explanation that fits the evidence.
-
scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, you state "My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there"
I am not even sure quite you mean. Personally I would ensure that I had an extremely deep understanding of the physics before I started thinking that there was a gap in the scientists understanding.
One to look at quantifying it is to look at the amount of radiation reaching the ocean surface (including backradiation) Check - do that. See for instance the Trenberth energy balance. Secondly, what portion of the radiation is heating it. Okay, emissivity is measured. If I were you, I would spend a bit of time at Science of Doom getting to grips with the text book physics.
-
MA Rodger at 05:50 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
jim @24.
On a point of detail, the concept of a "forcing" concerns a change in an energy flux rather than the size of an energy flux. Thus your first sentence @24 is either wrong or (more likely) you are using the word "forcing" incorrectly. And "increases" should probably be "maintains."
When you write "Now for their suggested reading........." are you preparing us denizens of this comment thread for some suggestions from you as to what to read? Or are you requesting some suggestions from us as to what you should read?
The subject of the role/mechanism of back-radiation in warming the oceans appears to be what interests you although I would suggest that you have probably fallen short of identifying here "an important gap in our understanding." Perhaps this SkS article 'How Increasing CO2 Heats The Ocean' will assist in identifying the part of the mechanism that puzzles you.
-
JARWillis at 05:25 AM on 5 July 2014What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
Excellent idea for an article. Full of good sense. As you would expect. Thank you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:09 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, The way I visualize the impact of increased CO2 on increased OHC is that the increased CO2 leads to a warmer surface temperature because the emission of radiation from the surface, mainly infrared that CO2 absorbs, must increase to rebalance with the incoming radiation, mainly higher frequency that CO2 does not absorb, with the outgoing radiation.
And the temperature increase that has occurred the ocean is very small compared to the temperature increase in the surface atmosphere. Yet a huge amount of energy has been added in the oceans. So a huge amount of heat will be added in the ocean depths for the same amount of temperature increase that is occuring in the surface atmosphere.
Also, all of the ocean surfaces would be warmed by the warmer global surface atmosphere, not just the tropical Pacific. And there are warm and cool surface circulation changes in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.
So the CO2 capturing infrared emissions from the surface, but not blocking the higher ferquency incoming radiation, and reflecting some of that captured energy back down is like an insulating effect on the surface. And the warmer surface will lead to a warmer ocean. La Nina increases the rate of heat uptake in the Tropical Pacific while temporarily reducing the global average surface temperature. And El Nino temporarily increases the global average surface temperature and reduces the rate of heat uptake in the Tropical Pacific. But the oceans could eventually warm at depth the same amount that the surface is warming. Note that the temporary cooling effect of La Nina produces temporary surface temperatures that are warmer than previous comparable La Ninas because the extra CO2 is increasing the average surface temperature.
I found the World Meteorological Organization publication "Climate Into the 21st Century" to include a comprehensive though brief presentation on issues like this and so much more.
-
sauerj at 00:52 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
HK & scaddenp, Very helpful! ... and HK, thx for explaining the charts (column by column)! Hansen's top, middle chart was spot-on what I was dreaming of! And, yes, it shows cause & effect very well. Hansen's chart will be a great reference slide for future discussions & presentations. Thanks!
-
hdssh at 23:01 PM on 4 July 2014What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
And not a single inclusion solicited from a relevant developing nation scientist. Its frustrating when the world is perceived through the eys of the developed nations, as if the global majority does not exist.
-
HK at 22:25 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Sauerj, maybe this figure on page 20 in James Hansens Earth’s energy imbalance and implications (2011) is even better. It shows the total and each category of forcing (left column) and their estimated impact on temperature compared to the data (middle) and energy imbalance (right).
Most of the difference between estimated and measured temperature in the top middle graph is probably due to internal variations. -
jim7917 at 21:24 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp et al @ 20,21,22
I understand that insolation is the dominant forcing that increases OHC. I also understand that a prolonged ENSO Neutral/la Nina condition will lead to an increase in the OHC in the Equatorial Pacific region. My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there (Rob drew an analogy with it acting as an insulant via the down welling infra red radiation effect on the thin film layer). It seems to me that this is an important gap in our understanding.
I would like to thank contributors to this site for the courtesy and help in responding to my original post. Now for their suggested reading.........
-
timtak at 15:13 PM on 4 July 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
I like, or am scared by, the last two graphs. It would be nice to have them in a higher resolution.
According to these graphs, yes, and the theory there has been a haiatus but that is because the heat has been melting ice, with potentially scarier postive-feedback calamitous potential if Polar Ice has a damping mechanism.
> "The advantage with my hypothesis is that it can be proved wrong within the next four years - I hope!"
I confess to being a bit of a sceptic, but I think that we are reaching a watershed. I guess a lot of people feel the same way. When the hiatus ends, the temperature is going to up or down. If it starts going up again, then I am going to junk my turbo charged car, and become a "realist".
(I hardly ever drive my car, and I have had it for 16 years. I cycle and try to behave like a realist anyway.) -
scaddenp at 14:41 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
sauerj - try here. But also in the WG1 report.
-
sauerj at 13:37 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Kevin C., Re: Chart in #12 above. To fully resolve Jim's doubts, could someone provide a link that shows the combined "net" forcing. When I do this with my mind's eye: 1) with the early negative volcanic forcing, 2) including some time lag & 3) some 5-10 year averaging (for the give & take of ocean circulation variation), it appears that this "net" line may very well comparatively mimic the temp rise charts. This would be cool to see. ... Thx!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:16 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, Consider it possible that ocean circulation like La Nina conditions draw energy from the atmosphere into the deeper oceans thus increasing the heat content at a more rapid rate while the global average surface temperature does not rise as rapidly because of the energy being taken in by the cooler ocean surface.
Now consider it possible that the change of conditions to El Nino would result in heat energy from the larger area of warmer ocean surface being drawn into the atmosphere resulting in higher global average surface temperatures and a slower rate of deep ocean heat content gain.
Now look into the durations and intensities of El Nino and La Nina conditions provided by NOAA and compare them with global average surface temperatures (any set you wish including Spencer's Sattelite data). For added edification compare the variation of the Southern Oscillation. Then you could write your own paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
truthbtold @10:
1) When economists try to compare economic conditions between different years, they try to eliminate the effects of inflation to determine the real changes in economic activity. When they do so, they state the figures in "real dollars" relative to the most recent year under consideration. They do that because those are the terms that make sense for the people making the comparison. Likewise in temperature series, the adjustments are made relative to the most recent temperature record. For that reason, anytime adjustments are made they are made to past years, rather than the most recent record. That means anytime an error is found in previous adjustment procedures, past years will be adjusted again; and they will only cease to be adjusted once the temperature record is demonstrably perfect.
2) We do not have a temperature record using the same instruments, under the same conditions, at the same locations, using the same observation times and methods. Rather, all of those things have changed over time to a greater or lesser extent except for (in the US) a recently installed set of temperature stations (the Climate Refference Network). Our knowledge of the causes and effects of these changes is not perfect, and is revisited by scientists in order to improve the temperature record, and whenever that knowledge is improved, a further adjustment is in order.
3) So called "climate skeptics" have a very one sided view of climate adjustments, only being worried about adjustments that run counter to their narrative. The most telling example of this is their willingness to accept the UAH temperature series, which derives tropospheric temperatures from microwave emissions from the atmosphere. That series requires far more, and more complicated adjustments than does the surface temperature record but so called "climate skeptics" accept it without batting an eyelid, and and in preference to more straight forward measures.
4) A range of other measurements show the temperature record after adjustment better reflects the actual temperature record than the unadjusted record. In Maine, for example, there is a record of the first day without ice (the ice out day) of a number of lakes, eg:
Bear in mind that the unadjusted temperature series for the contiguous US shows 1940s temperatures equivalent to those over the last decade; but that is inconsistent with the ice out data shown above, or indeed the ice out days for all lakes in Maine (smoothed):
(Source)
Similar records show for the Great Lakes, and other natural climate indicators. These records are not, of course, able to tell us the validity of individual adjustments, but they do show the general tendency of the adjustments is to make the temperature record more accurate. Further, related but distinct instrumental records also show the same patterns as the instrumental record, as has been shown recently for global data by the UK Met Office:
-
scaddenp at 09:34 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Did you look at the detailed explanation linked to in the article? At the bottom there is also further reading. Why adjust? Well to take an example of just one adjustment, would you consider it valid to compare temperatures measured in the afternoon (past practise) with measurements taken morning (modern practise). How about when a stevenson screen was add to the station? Or a station moved? The science is trying to construct the best possible record of past temperature change from what data is available with all its flaws. Methods for detecting problems with station records and methods for correcting these problems are evolving all the time. You would expect then to see them applied to problem of extracting historical temperatures. The exact methodology is documented in published papers and as the article I linked to shows, it has been reproduced by many researchers (even ones sure that their superior methods would show reduced warming like the BEST group).
-
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, You expect OHC/climate to react, not just to CO2, but the sum of all forcing acting at the time. This is the standard for judging climate science. What you are looking for in reports is called attribution studies. Note that OHC is energy. I consider it laughable to suggest that OHC increases are unforced (what I think you mean by "natural") without identifying a source for that increased energy. ie conservation of energy must apply.
-
jim7917 at 08:27 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp @18. Thank you for the links. I am familiar with the Levitus paper, but of course it does not attempt to assess the extent to which the increase in OHC is caused by CO2 or natural mechanisms. The article on the thin film layer looks very informative and I look forward to digesting it, along with WG1.
-
truthbtold at 08:07 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
The claim by Steve Goddard that 40% of the dataset is estimated (denoted by E on the each datapoint), is interesting. The great thing is all of us can easily experiement with the datasets (current and historical).
I understand scientists need to adjust data for bias, but this post didn't do a lot to educate on:
Why so many adjustments? Why adjust so often? When will the need for adjustments end? How many times does/did a single datapoint get adjusted? Is there a change log for each adjusted datapoint? Is there a changelog between each published datset which tells how many datapoints were adjusted?
In general this post is a good read. But I found this a bit hyperbolic, "The USA represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface." This is a quasi marketing type statement designed to contrast 98% vs. 2% and make readers jump to conclusions.
Beisdes that, Steve Goddard's accustation of data tampering is about a land based temperature network.
The USA may be less than 2% of the Earth's surface. However it is 6.26% of total land area and ranks 4 of 256 countries. (Russia, Antartica and China are bigger.)
-
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, You might like to look at this article here. This is so much about paper but textbook stuff as physics established nearly a century ago.
For historical OHC with error bars, see here. You do realize that hiding heat in deep ocean is constrained by sealevel? I would strongly recommend that you read the appropriate chapters of the IPCC WG1 report to get a summay of science to date on this subject.
I've seen some wacky stuff on denial sites around this but "hypotheses" that violate Conservation of Energy dont cut it with me. I'll go with explanation that fits the data and the known physics thanks.
-
dhogaza at 06:27 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim - in other words, I have identified the reason.
-
jim7917 at 06:13 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
dhogaza @ 15 If you are saying that a paper exists that quantifies the effect on the thin film layer of down welling radiation from CO2 and shows that this is capable of causing the current increases in OHC, then please provide the link.
-
dhogaza at 03:27 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim:
"My concern is simply that the huge sums currently being spent in the UK and elsewhere on mitigating global warming through carbon reduction may be better spent on adaptation if there are significant, natural, causes of the warming that we have seen over the last century."
Is there any particular reason - other than your concern about spending - that you believe you may be thinking of things that have been ignored for decades by the very large body of professional scientists who work on this subject full-time?
-
jim7917 at 00:36 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Kevin C. @ 12 Thank you for the info on the different forcings from 1880, fascinating stuff. Clearly GHG played a role throughout the twentieth century but, very crudely, the rate at which GHG rose from 1910 to 1940, is less than half that of 1960 onwards and yet the rate of rise in temperature anomalies was simlar in both periods. Thus, my concern remains that there may be other significant factors in play.
It would be interesting to see if OHC has followed a similar pattern over the same period, but I guess the data is not available. I do not question that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate, but I am concerned that the effect may be overstated. Could natural causes such as an increase in ocean heat uptake due to circulation changes be a contributor to the radiatve imbalance measured at TOA, not just CO2. ?
Rob posted some interesting articles some time ago about the 24/7 effect of downwelling radiation affecting the heat gradient in the thin film surface layer and thus preventing ocean heat loss, but I haven't seen any attempt to quantify this that confirms that this mechanism is capable of increasing OHC at depth in the way it appears to have increased in recent years.
My concern is simply that the huge sums currently being spent in the UK and elsewhere on mitigating global warming through carbon reduction may be better spent on adaptation if there are significant, natural, causes of the warming that we have seen over the last century.
-
HK at 21:58 PM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
@10:
Agree!It’s worth noting that the GISS-temp anomaly for the first five months of 2014 (0.66°C) is the same as for the whole year 2010, and so far this year ENSO has been close to neutral on average.
-
Kevin C at 19:24 PM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim@7:
What you are seeing in the first half of the 20thC is a combination of factors - not just CO2. Here's an estimate of the climate 'forcing' from 1880 according to Meinhausen:
The two biggest factors from 1880 are greenhouse gasses and volcanoes: What you are seeing in the early 20thC is a combination of greenhouse warming and recovery from a series of major volcanic cooling events (the first one on the left is Karakatoa). Solar also plays a role.
The plateau mid century is a combination of a slowdown in GHG emissions in the 40's followed by an increase in aerosol (particulate) cooling in the 50's. The aerosols continue to hold temperatures down until the GHGs really take off. The temperature impact lags the forcings by a few years.
The size of the aerosol cooling term is uncertain, and there are some uncertainties in the size of the solar and volcanic terms and the lag, but that's the basic picture.
-
rkrolph at 16:32 PM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
One Planet Only Forever,
I think Jim@7 was referring (at least partly), to the first half of the figures (blue section), where from 1880 to 1910 there was a definite cooling trend, and then a fairly abrupt change to a warming trend starting at 1910. Is that consistent with CO2 levels, or is there some other explanation for that?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:47 PM on 3 July 2014'Reform conservatism' is not enough reform on global warming
I agree with the concerns about hoping for technological breakthroughs. The breakthroughs that have developed significantly in the current socioeconomic system have been "popular or profitable". And there has been little need to be concerned about the decency of what is popular or profitable. In fact, the most damaging activity that can be gotten away with wins the competion for profit and can easily win the battle for popularity among a population focused on maximum personal benefit.
A socioeconomic breakthrough is needed to end the pretend game of claiming that a current generation's desires can be weighed against the future problems that will be created. The other breakthrough needed is to end the belief that something that is popular or profitable must be acceptable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:54 AM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
HK@9,
What you are pointing out may happen more rapidly thath you have suggested.
The best fit to the data since 1966 would appear to be slightly steeper in the more recent years. And the global average for the 12 months ending in May 2014 is 0.05 degrees warmer than the 12 months ending in Dec 2013 (based on the NASA/GISTEMP data set), so even if the weak/potential El Nino continues, without getting stronger, the warmer neutral condition than last year could produce a global average for 2014 that is near the previous highest global average.
For Jim@7., My assessement may address your observation, though it is not a formal statistical evaluation of the data. The straight line trends being shown are likely just the best straight line fit through the data. The trend is probably steeper in recent years, especially if 1998 is considered to be an outlier. However, the preponderance of La Nina and neutral ENSO influence since the strong 1997/98 El Nino could also be creating the appearance that the trend line is not as steep since 1998. There is a lot of noise in the annual data. If you look at the trend of rolling 5 year averages of the NASA/GISTEMP data you will see that the rate of increase has been significantly higher since 1980 except for some leveling in recent years. However, if you were to look at the trend of rolling averages longer than 5 years there would be no noticeable leveling, just a continuing higher rate of increase since the 1980s. If, however, through the next 15 years the global average should hold steady at 0.6 C above the baseline then it would appear that some unanticipated things were delaying or blocking the formation of strong El Ninos. Those unanticipated things appear unlikely to need to be investigated.
-
MA Rodger at 10:18 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tuerqas @229.
Are you having a laugh? How many maps with a southern projection do you need?
And you ask "Are you maintaining that the map above is accurate in size and that the Antarctic plate is actually larger than the pacific plate?" Are you entirely unfamiliar with the Mercator Projection?
Indeed, do you find Wikipedia difficult to cope with? It is hardily an obscure source and it says of the Antarctic tectonic plate "The Antarctic plate is roughly 60,900,000 square kilometers. It is the fifth biggest plate in the world." and of the Pacific Plate "At 103 million square kilometres, it is the largest tectonic plate."
<Snip> Inflammatory toneModerator Response:[PS] Can everyone please cool it and stick to the science.
-
scaddenp at 10:02 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tuerquas - Yes you are correct about volcanic influence lasting more than decade. You did not provide a link but I assume you refer to an article where Highfield (a science editor) reports on a paper by Gleick et al. While the aerosol influence last less than a decade, the influence on surface temperatures continues because of the slow mixing of cooled waters on the ocean surface.
However, as to effect in the antarctic, a better representation of volcanic record is from ice core. Ie from this paper. Interesting the major impacts on Antarctic ice have been mostly from tropical volcanoes rather than local ones which does not support your thesis.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:27 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tuerqas @227, in no particular order:
1)
"I do know that geothermal heat activity has kept a place like Iceland free of ice and livable since long before the industrial age. it shows to me that volcanic heat is capable of affecting glaciers on a significant scale."
In fact Iceland is one of the few areas at its latitude to have icecaps, which are largely absent at that latitude in Eurasia, and found futher north in Canada. Greenland has ice sheets further south, and hence represents the unusual case. Further, there is no correlation between volcanism in Iceland and the lack of ice caps:
This does not mean that geothermal activity is not a factor in keeping parts of Iceland ice free. However, it is not the major factor, even in Iceland.
2)
"What I can do is point out that if you look up a list of volcanoes in Antarctica with eruption history, there were 9 with listed dates or approximate guesses of dates going back to 5550 BC. Four of the have been in the last 50 years. That seems like pretty significant evidence to me that there is increased activity. "
Comparing with Iceland again, since 900 AD there have been more than 205 eruptions in Iceland. More than, because 13 of the "eruptive events" have been "fires", the most recent of which (Kraffla 1975-84) contained 9 distinct erruptions. Over that period there has been an "...An apparent stepwise increase in eruption frequency is observed over the last 1100 years...", but that merely "... reflects improved documentation of eruptive events with time". Given that exploration of Antarctica has been exlusively restricted to the last 150 years, with significant observations restricted to the establishment of Antarctic bases in 1958 and later, an increased observation of erruptions in the 20th century proves no more than an increased frequency of observation in the 20th century.
3)
" It is evident in your picture above that the Antarctic plate splits nearly in half as it approaches the Scotia plate."
That is not obvious to me at all. What is obvious is that the map only shows some of the coastal regions of Antarctica and so gives no true indication of its width. This map will give you some indication, with the Scotia Plate lying just north east of the Antarctic Peninsula (60 degrees West):
4)
"I could not find a map that shows both this plate picture and the placement of the Seal Nunatak volcanic range. I did read that the range splits the Antarctic plate and that it was on plate fault line, but it was from a skeptic author so I won't bother pushing it."
The Seal Nunataks are near the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula, and hence most certainly do not split Antarctica. Indeed, as can be seen from the map above, observed volcanism in Antarctica is largely restricted to a coastal band south of the Pacific Ocean.
-
DSL at 08:45 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tuerqas:
"Non-theoretic studies are relatively sparse on many topics concerning Antarctica."
No kidding?
"What I can do is point out that if you look up a list of volcanoes in Antarctica with eruption history, there were 9 with listed dates or approximate guesses of dates going back to 5550 BC. Four of the have been in the last 50 years. That seems like pretty significant evidence to me that there is increased activity."
Does it? And you say nothing about the increased observation of Antarctica in the last fifty years? But that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about generally increased volcanic activity that would result in the kind of general net decline in Antarctic land ice. Am I correct in assuming you've picked up the meme going around concerning Antarctic geothermal flux in the Thwaites region.
Can I get an acknowledgment that this part of your original claim is baseless: "one can even get an admission that volcanic activity has been steadily increasing in the antarctic." -
HK at 08:05 AM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
I find it very interesting and somewhat disturbing that if we extrapolate the trend lines in figure 3, we find that an average neutral year now will match the record year 2010. And even worse, within about 5 years we can expect an average La Niña year to do the same!
So, I think it’s safe to say that a new annual record within the next few years is nearly inevitable no matter what happens to El Niño during the next 12 months!
-
Tuerqas at 06:22 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
To the editor, I understand that ad hominem attacks will be deleted and am delighted. How about blatant misrepresentations, like taking part of a commentary quote out of context for badly scored 'gotcha' attempts? Are they deleted?
Moderator Response:[RH] Roger has asked you to substantiate the fundamental position you've put forth. That's hardly a "gotcha." Everyone who comments at SkS, regardless of their position on AGW, is expected to be able to cite sources for their claims.
Edit: Just to clarify. When you state something as clear as "geological studies clearly show" that should be accompanied by references to the actual geological studies (plural in this case) that are clearly showing what you are saying.
-
Tuerqas at 06:16 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Roger D, please read more carefully. I could find no maps with a polar oriented view. Need I explain to you that a flat map makes the north and south pole areas look bigger than they really are? The only tectonic plate map I could find was the same one Tom Curtis linked and if it were accurate, the Antarctic plate is larger than the Pacific plate. Are you maintaining that the map above is accurate in size and that the Antarctic plate is actually larger than the pacific plate? If you are, I know how seriously to take you. If you now understand my point and can provide a tectonic plate picture as seen with the south pole at the center so that the Antarctic plate is not vastly distorted, it would be greatly appreciated.
-
ajki at 05:29 AM on 3 July 2014'Reform conservatism' is not enough reform on global warming
re: "... technological breakthroughs .... not a remotely sufficient ..."
Not sure about that. While I second the general notion that a lot of effort on other fields should have been in effect by now and being as frustrated as anybody else that there is not even something to come in sight, technological improvements have their valuable place - everywhere. Better batteries, better power lines, better power plants, better insulation, better anything will sure help.
-
Roger D at 04:55 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
Tuerqas, you wrote @ 227: "I could find no maps that show the plates..."
So what did you base your contention @ 223 on that: "... geological studies clearly show that the tectonic plates between the eastern and western antarctic ice sheets have been moving (away from each other causing volcanic emission) at an increasing rate."
-
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:29 AM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
It's probably worth mentioning that there is usually a lag between peak El Nino and peak global temperatures due to themal inertia. I find it quite disurbing that we are already seeing record monthly temperatures and we are still several months away from an El Nino officially being declared.
-
Tuerqas at 03:27 AM on 3 July 2014Antarctica is gaining ice
One at a time, DSL: Non-theoretic studies are relatively sparse on many
topics concerning Antarctica. What I can do is point out that if you look up a list of volcanoes in Antarctica with eruption history, there were 9 with listed dates or approximate guesses of dates going back to 5550 BC. Four of the have been in the last 50 years. That seems like pretty significant evidence to me that there is increased activity.scaddenp: Roger Highfield an AGW proponent wrote an article in Feb 2006 about how Krakatoa is still cooling the earth today. I said decades. An expert who fully believes in AGW said a century. What is your evidence for 'a couple of years'? I agree there have been no eruptions of this type in the Antarctic region, yet there have been at the very least 4 in the last 50 years that have not spewed tons of debris in to the stratosphere. Is the heat, contained under ice, insignificant? As DSL obliquely points out, there is little interest in doing studies in Antarctica that minimize AGW, so we don't know. I do know that geothermal heat activity has kept a place like Iceland free of ice and livable since long before the industrial age. it shows to me that volcanic heat is capable of affecting glaciers on a significant scale.
Tom Curtis: I could find no maps that show the plates from either of the pole sides so you may be 100% correct. It is evident in your picture above that the Antarctic plate splits nearly in half as it approaches the Scotia plate. I could not find a map that shows both this plate picture and the placement of the Seal Nunatak volcanic range. I did read that the range splits the Antarctic plate and that it was on plate fault line, but it was from a skeptic author so I won't bother pushing it.
<Snip> (removed accusations of fraud and inflammatory political comment)
Moderator Response:[PS] Please read the comments policy. Compliance is not optional. Note particularly political rants and accusations of fraud etc. This is a site for discussing the science. There are other places which welcome commentary of this type.
-
jim7917 at 02:44 AM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Rob, I am a layman nearing eighty years of age of an admittedly sceptical bent in most matters. Your figures 1&2 show an almost uniform rise in anomalies since 1910, but surely CO2 was unlikely to have been a major player in the rise during the first half of the last century, or was it?
It is something that has puzzled me whenever I see these curves and associated claims that CO2 is the cause of what has been a fairly uniform rate of increase in anomalies more or less throughout the twentieth century, until now. I would welcome an explanation as it seems on the surface of it to be a weakness in the argument that the increase in anomalies is primarily due to rising CO2 concentration.
-
jetfuel at 02:31 AM on 3 July 2014Greenland ice sheet won't collapse
(continued repetition of cherry picking)
Moderator Response:[PS] Jetfuel, you made essentially the same point earlier which was answered by Tom here. I asked you to respond whether you understood. Instead of responding to Tom you have continued to simply repeat the nonsense in other threads against comments policy. If you dont agree with Tom and cant understand the difference between trend and point to point comparison, then please respond to Tom on that thread. Any further breach like this will be simply deleted.
-
JoeT at 02:26 AM on 3 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Rob P
I really liked your April 23 post explaining the basics of El Nino. Following the SOI link you just gave above, it is clear that SOI is not simply the difference between the Tahiti and Darwin pressures. The web site specifically states,
"Daily values are not the SOI but contribute to the calculation of the monthly SOI. Daily values are presented for research purposes only. 30 day (or larger) average SOI values are the key indices for forecast purposes."
Can you give an explanation of how the pressure difference relates to the SOI value? Thanks.Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Joe, what they're basically saying is that the SOI daily values aren't necessarily indicative of the state of ENSO because of short-term fluctuations in weather - hence the columns showing the 30-day & 90-day calculations. Which is fair enough - for El Nino to form (i.e. sea surface temperature anomalies above 0.5°C in the Nino 3.4 region for 3 months) the trade winds will have to die down and remain persistently weak.
But the strong negative daily SOI values for the last week indicate that another series of Kelvin waves are headed east - which will move warm subsurface water eastward too. Furthermore, the last week has seen the warm water at the surface in the west get pushed out into the central Pacific. The GFS model is predicting that strong convection is going to set up in the middle of the Pacific next week - all of which should nudge the Pacific closer to conditions which lock in El Nino.
They're just predictions at this stage - we'll have to wait and see.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:37 PM on 2 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
rkrolph wrote: "It appears that May is showing an upward trend over time, but April is not quite so clear on that."
It isn't? Umm... what graph are you looking at? 'cuz the one in the article above shows an undeniable upward trend. See how roughly the first half of the graph is below the baseline and the second half above it? That's 'upward'.
As to whether 2011-2020 will continue the trend of each decade being warmer than the last, thus far the average monthly anomaly from January 2011 thru May 2014 has been 0.587 C while the average for 2001-2010 was 0.597 C. Given that this decade started off with a La Nina period, the fact that the anomaly is already nearly the same as last decade makes the prediction of another record warm decade seem fairly safe. Indeed, if the El Nino driven anomalies seen the last few months (> 0.7 C) continue, the running average will exceed the past decade before the end of this year.
-
rkrolph at 15:16 PM on 2 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
It appears that May is showing an upward trend over time, but April is not quite so clear on that. Where can you find the data for all months? Also, I saw on a different site that there were wagers placed on whether this current decade will end up warmer than the last (2001-2010). Does anyone know how they compare so far? I know this decade has a long ways to go, but I am just curious.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - click on the NOAA hyperlinks provided in the text under the first two images. Select a month/year in the boxes provided then, below that, click on the temperature anomaly time series. This will give anomalies displayed in the same manner as above.
-
scaddenp at 15:03 PM on 2 July 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Hatterasman - please read the comment policy. Compliance is not optional. Particularly note the items on sloganeering and commenting on topic. Use the search function on top left to find an appropriate topic. You might like to start with this one. By all means disagree, but back your arguments with references and data. Rhetoric will be deleted.
-
dagold at 14:47 PM on 2 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
sorry - here it is with the hyperlink inserted: www.huffingtonpost.com/davidgoldstein/interview-with-a-climate-change_b_5325343.html
-
dagold at 14:46 PM on 2 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
One Planet Only Forever: You may enjoy my recent Huffington Post article, a parody of how climate deniers will respond to a liekly new record hot year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidgoldstein/interview-with-a-climate-change_b_5325343.html
Prev 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 Next
