Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Next
Comments 3751 to 3800:
-
OldHickory at 05:16 AM on 4 August 2022CO2 effect is saturated
As MA Rodger @638 points out, the CO2 greenhouse effect operates above the bulk of atmospheric water vapor, or atmospheric H20 in any phase. This is consistent with The Science of Doom website which states
The key point behind all the detail is that the top of atmosphere radiation change (as CO2 changes) is the important one. The surface change (forcing) from increasing CO2 is not important, is definitely much weaker and is often insignificant. Surface radiation changes from CO2 will, in many cases, be overwhelmed by water vapor.
Water vapor does not overwhelm CO2 high up in the atmosphere because there is very little water vapor there – and the radiative effect of water vapor is dramatically impacted by its concentration, due to the “water vapor continuum”.
So my question is if the CO2 greenhouse effect operates high in the atmosphere where there is very little H2O in any form, how is it possible for this greenhouse warming to cause further evaporation of condensed H2O (ie. liquid water or ice) in order to complete the water vapor feedback loop discussed in the debunking of Climate Myth 36? For this, it seems we do need the "single layer" model mentioned by BoB Loblaw @640. Otherwise, there is no correlation between the H20 and CO2 greenhouse warmings, and the controlling GHG would simply be the stronger of the two.
-
MA Rodger at 01:07 AM on 4 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @97,
I have replied to you off-topic comment on a more appropriate trhead.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please note that since moderation has been applied to Fixitsan's comment (to delete off-topic portions), regular readers can no longer see what he wrote.
-
MA Rodger at 01:06 AM on 4 August 2022CO2 is just a trace gas
Fixitsan @97 elsewhere,
You say "I struggle to find anyone who can offer a sensible explanation why it is, that if 0.04% of the atmosphere consisting of CO2 traps significant heat, enough to warm the planet an estimated 1 Celsius in 1 century, why is CO2 at higher concentrations not used more often (or even ever) in common or garden insulation."
99.95% of the Earth's dry atmosphere comprises N2, O2 or Ar but they are transparent to IR. It requires a more complicated molecule to absorb or emit IR at the temperatures found in the Earth's atmosphere. So any IR passing through the atmosphere will only be absorbed by those more-complicated molecules and IR will only be emitted these same molecules.And this is only at certain wavelengths which equate to the various wobbles that can be induced in those molecules. Of these, in the dry atmosphere, the big daddy of the IR-reacting molecules is CO2 which acts at 15 microns wavelength (666 cm^-1 wavenumber). This effect is responsible for a big bite seen in the spectrum of IR emitted out into space.
Thus about 20% of the Earthly IR has to negotiate the CO2 in the atmosphere and this mechanism directly provides perhaps 7ºC of the full 33ºC pre-ndustrial greenhouse effect.
The important variable is the altitude at which the CO2 emits the 15 micron IR out into space, and specifically the temperature of that altitude. The hotter it is, the more IR is lost to space, helping to cool the planet. But a colder gases emits less and that then insulates the planet better.
Now, if the upper atmosphere at the altitudes at which CO2 allows this 15 micron IR to escape into space were really really really cold, you could double that direct 7ºC CO2 effect by blocking all the IR in that band. But you need that really really really cold temperature to achieve it.
So if you;re after "common or garden insulation", if you want to keep something warm by half-a-dozen degrees or more, it is far easier covering it with a more conventional insulating barrier.As far as anthropogenic global warming goes, filling the atmosphere with extra CO2 concentrations results in the space-bound IR in the 15 micron waveband being emitted at higher altitudes and, because those higher altitudes have a lower temperature, less IR will this be emitted in the 15 micron waveband out into space adding to the insulating greenhouse effect.
-
Fixitsan at 22:32 PM on 3 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
""The relationship between temperature and CO2, and harmful consequences, is fairly obvious today"
I struggle to find anyone who can offer a sensible explanation why it is, that if 0.04% of the atmosphere consisting of CO2 traps significant heat, enough to warm the planet an estimated 1 Celsius in 1 century, why is CO2 at higher concentrations not used more often (or even ever) in common or garden insulation.
Could somebody explain the science about why we choose to fill double glazing cavities with argon, which has worse thermal conductivity and costs more than, CO2, when a change in concentration from 0.03% to 0.04% is considered to be significant.
Surely if we were to extrapolate further and suggest atmospheric CO2 were 0.1% then the theory holds the planet will be warmed much more than in the past during the period when the level rose from 0.03% to 0.04%, so I just wonder why, if CO2 is such a powerful heat trapping gas, it is not used anywhere at all in any way which makes use of that arguably excellent thermal property ?
The only time CO2 seems to have any ability to trap heat is in the upper atmosphere apparently, so why is that, specifically ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
MA Rodger at 22:04 PM on 3 August 2022It's the sun
cgfree59 @1301,
The best initial assessment of any work by the Connolly brothers or Willie Soon is to assume it is yet another pile of their usual nonsense (I was much surprised recently seeing an NSIDC blog actually citing one of their papers for real!!) and given the lengths they go in obfuscating and misdirecting folk, this is not entirely a falacious use of an ad hominem argument.There are responses to this particular serving of nonsense Connolly et al (2021) 'How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate' (thus a layman's efforts or a reply from the numpties themselves to a criticism of press coverage of their paper) but I do not see anything here at SkS.
The conculsions of Connolly et al (2021) are to assert that the IPCC is premature with its conclusions as it ignores certain estimates of TSI and thus solar forcing which provide radically different results to the global warming attribution reached by the IPCC.
"Different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural)."
You could expend time and effort trawling though Connolly et al (2021), picking out the obfuscation and misdirection they employ but the crux of it is the crazy method they use. That is they the employ blind curve-fitting of their preferred solar-caused climate forcing onto some crazy NH temperature estimates and only after this first-step into the lunatic asylum do they then get to attributing the left-overs of any temperature trends to anthropogenic forcings.
So the results are pure nonsense.
Further a rather telling observation is that of these TSI estimates which they claim are being ignored (TSI High Variability Estimates all plotted out in their Fig 3), only two would allow any naive correlation between rising global temperature with TSI through the all-important "recent decades."
One of these two exceptional TSI estimates was scaled from a postage-stamp-size graphic in Ammann et al (2007), a paper which contradicts the muppets in that it concludes:-"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.
The second is cherry-picked TSI estimate is from yet another tiny graphic (Fig 5b of Egorova et al 2018) in turn the trace being based on Muscheler et at (2016) which employs proxy data to create estimates of TSI, so not a precise method you would want to put much faith in.
The numpties offer no comment on such an obvious problem with their grand thesis, that it has such a narrow and less-than-reliable basis for the singularly important calculation within their account. Such an omission is a sign that you have strayed from reasonable analysis and entered the lunatic asylum. -
Jim Hunt at 21:00 PM on 3 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Not that it will actually come to pass, but in recent related news:
For the first time in history, a deterministic model simulates 40 degrees over Denmark.
https://twitter.com/SebastianTV2dk/status/1554360935246094336 -
Fixitsan at 19:13 PM on 3 August 2022Record rain in St. Louis is what climate change looks like
I was just looking at the very beautiful 'live' GPM model by NASA showing where precipitation is most likely to occur on earth.
It seems to me that somewhere on the planet potentially record rainfall arrives every day.
If there is no rain guage at that location to measure it's accumulation then sadly it is not entered into 'record books'.
And it seems just as likely to me that this has always been the case.
If you have no instrumentation present then the record level cannot be officially observed, no matter how extreme the new record is, or, has been in the past.
But, regardless of that the tenacity of Galveston residents is something to be admired. The worst weather catastrophe in US history took place during flooding at Galveston in September 1900, killing 8000, people.
The geographical location of Galveston is plainly a key issue. Storms last year, storms in 2017, many storms and floods since 1900, seem to point to one thing - If you build a city on a low level island by the sea, in a storm prone area, then you need to be thankful for the subsidised flood insurance you get, as a result of the area being a well known heightened flood risk zone.
I was talking to my friend in New York a couple of days ago about this, he just said, "well, it's Galveston, what do they expect". Harsh, but probably fair
Moderator Response:[BL] Throwing around statements like "it seems", "potentially", "if there is no", "it seems just as likely", "If you have no instrumentation present", etc. is just adding noise.
You went through this sort of behaviour on other threads. You are making an argument from incredulity.
Your misguided attempts to look at single events in isolation is as worthless here as it was on the UK temperature threads. Your statements prove nothing.
-
cgfree59 at 14:15 PM on 3 August 2022It's the sun
Trying to find responses to Connolly et al 2021 in RAA on solar contribution to GW.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:14 AM on 3 August 2022From the eMail Bag: a review of a paper by Ziskin and Shaviv
Hello, yanirdz. Welcome to Skeptical Science, and I hope that this is a useful resource.
The short story is that the model used by Ziskin and Shaviv introduces an "indirect solar effect" that is based on an index (the AA index) that starts positive and grows over time (figure 4). All other forcings (direct solar, CO2, aerosols, etc.) represent a departure from equlibrium - i.e., they would have a value of zero in a stable climate, and a non-zero value would push temperatures away from that equilibrium (warmer, or colder, depending on whether the value is positive or negative).
Since the AA index is always positive, it is always "causing" a warming trend in the model output of temperature. And since the AA index increases over time, it pushes the temperature warmer and warmer. The AA index never has a value of zero, so it can never not contribute to warming in the model.
...and as a result, the observed warming over the past century gets "explained" by the "indirect solar effect", because the model is created in such a way that the "indirect solar effect" absolutely must cause warming. And since the "indirect solar effect" must cause warming, the fitting of the model to actual observations must reduce the warming effect of anything else (e.g., CO2).
Really short version: they assumed continuous warming due to the "indirect solar effect" when they built the model, and therefore their "conclusion" is not a conclusion, it is their original assumption.
Minor point: they have a multiplier (fudge factor) for the "indirect solar forcing" that hypothetically could have a zero value, making the AA index always zero, or even negative (see the last row in table 2 in their paper). The fitting process, though, finds it easier to use the always-positive AA index to "explain" the warming, instead of CO2 or direct solar, etc.
Feel free to ask any further questions.
-
yanirdz at 09:15 AM on 3 August 2022From the eMail Bag: a review of a paper by Ziskin and Shaviv
Hi, In Israel Saviv is getting popolarity. This post is very important, but it is hard for non sceintifc person to understand it
If I want to summerize this post in simple language, few sentences so I could use for example in twitter - how do you suggest to do it? -
Bob Loblaw at 05:23 AM on 3 August 2022Record rain in St. Louis is what climate change looks like
macquigg:
"Atmosphere holds more water" is too simplistic to evaluate water cycle changes. It's true that warmer air hold more water vapour, which is likely to lead to increased evaporation, but that also means that somewhere, at some time, there will be more precipitation, too. Globally, evaporation = precipitation on any reasonably long time scale (months), and the question becomes one of "how does the local balance change?".
Most land areas receive more precipitation than they lose in evaporation. Oceans are the opposite. Proof? Rivers draining from land to ocean. A lot of global variations in vegetation are explained by climate classifications that include some sort of water balance considerations (precipitation minus evaporation). The classic is the Koppen system.
Soil moisture for agriculture can decrease even if local precipitation increases - if local evaporation increases even more. So "more precipitation" does not necessarily mean "wetter" from a soil perspective. And for agriculture without irrigation, when rain falls is critical. As the old story goes, farmers always complain about rain. Too much; not enough; not at the right time.
For municipal uses, storage can help with seasonal and annual variability, but it can't make up for long-term expectations that want to use more water than is available from the long-term average.
Very local predictions from global climate models are hard to do, but Michael Sweet has pointed you to some possible sources of information.
-
michael sweet at 02:45 AM on 3 August 2022Record rain in St. Louis is what climate change looks like
The 4th National Climate Assessment (2018) is located here. It is a good start and is easy to read. They have a Southwest section. Googling climate models Arizona also gets several useful hits. The 5th assessment is due next year.
The first rule of thumb is wet places will get wetter and dry places will get dryer. In addition, when rain arrives more will come in big days with longer dry periods in between. The US Southwest is expected to get dryer. When the land drys out the temperatures go up since evaporating water cools the ground.
Water from the Colorado river was allocated during a particularly wet period. The future flow is expected to be a lot lower than it was in the past.
-
macquigg at 01:08 AM on 3 August 2022Record rain in St. Louis is what climate change looks like
I live in Southeast Arizona, at the edge of an expanding drought area affecting the entire Southwest. I have been trying to understand how global warming might make this better or worse. It could go either way - more rain because the atmosphere holds more water, or less because climate change is always bad. Are there any reliable predictions, based on climate models or other scientific reasoning?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:15 AM on 2 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
fixitsan's comment @88 included the following enlightening bit: "I did not indicate any relationship between temperature and CO2 levels at all" That appears to indicate a powerful 'need' to deny that there is any relationship between increasing CO2 levels and global average surface temperature (and the related harmful regional/local impacts).
The relationship between temperature and CO2, and harmful consequences, is fairly obvious today. It was pretty clear in the rigorous evaluation of evidence at the time of the 1990 IPCC report. And it has become increasingly obvious since then.
The CO2-temperature relationship was particularly well displayed by the image in Bob Loblaw's comment @47 (which I referred to in my comment @51 that opens with the bit that fixitsan chose to take exception to @88).
-
Jim Hunt at 01:42 AM on 2 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Mod @93 - Sorry, my bad.
I'll try to avoid clicking helpful links in future! -
michael sweet at 23:28 PM on 1 August 2022Sea level rise is exaggerated
Fixitsan,
Unfortunately, you are completely misinformed on the subject of long term sea level rise.
Fortunately, Skeptical Science has a post that describes the science and facts of long term sea level rise. Your claim that sea level has been rising for the psat 20,000 years is simply incorrect.
The fact is that sea level increased from about 24,000 years ago until about 4-5,000 years ago. Then the Earth started cooling (!!!). The sea level dropped slowly until about 200 years ago. Then global warming caused the decline to reverrse and sea level rise has been increasing since then.
I note that you have provided no linkis to support your wild claims. Wild, unsupported claims by anonymous internet persons do not haol much weight in scientific discussion. I look forward to your references that show sea level rise for the past 4,000 years ws increasing.
I have visited many of the islands described in the linked article at Skeptical Science. They are low islands formed when coral grew to the surface during the high stand 4,000 years ago. The decrease in sea level for the past 4,000 years made them islands. If you insist that sea level has consistently risen for the past 20,000 years, how did coral atolls form?
-
Jim Hunt at 21:30 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan@87
Gotta link to the CET data you recall downloading? Remember the bit about "individual time series of all UK stations contributing to CET".
And please take the SLR "debate" elsewhere.Moderator Response:[BL] The link to the processed CET time series has been provided previously within this thread. The phrase "individual time series of all UK stations contributing to CET". is only visible to people that actually follow the link given in comment #84, and read the original. It's the second sentence in that comment, though, so a reader has to have the patience/willingness to read past the first line.
-
Eclectic at 21:07 PM on 1 August 2022Sea level rise is exaggerated
Thank you, MA Rodger. I had better follow your example, and transfer my reply to Fixitsan into this thread, from his (incorrect) thread "elsewhere".
To repeat :-
Curiouser and curiouser, Fixitsan. While I appreciate your desire to emulate the White Queen in believing six impossible climate things before breakfast ~ I do confess to being intrigued by your statement that "sea level rise is undeniably normal". Mr Milankovitch and his cycle would suggest (strongly) that the planet is in its natural cooling stage for about the last 4,000 years (minus the last couple of centuries of AGW, of course).
So why would the sea level be rising recently, without cause? Or do you define AGW as "normal" ? (With another five impossible things yet to be enumerated by you.)
-
MA Rodger at 20:30 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @87,
-
MA Rodger at 20:28 PM on 1 August 2022Sea level rise is exaggerated
Responding to Fixitsan @84 elsewhere.
The NTSLF provides tidal gauge data around UK. The UK shows on average 150mm of SLR You say "the tide guages around the UK show some decline in sea level rise. One guage measuring the Thames estuary shows a decline, several Scottish ones too."
The Sheerness gauge (the gauge in the Thames estury) shows positive SLR. As for Scotland, Kinlochbervie, Portpatrick & Aberdeen show none of this "decline" you talk of.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the post by Fixitsan linked to here has had its contents deleted due to repeated off-topic posts by Fixitsan.
-
Eclectic at 20:20 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Curiouser and curiouser, Fixitsan @89. While I appreciate your desire to emulate the White Queen in believing six impossible climate things before breakfast ~ I do confess to being intrigued by your statement that "sea level rise is undeniably normal". Mr Milankovitch and his cycle would suggest (strongly) that the planet is in its natural cooling stage for about the last 4,000 years (minus the last couple of centuries of AGW, of course).
So why would the sea level be rising recently, without cause? Or do you define AGW as "normal" ? (With another five impossible things yet to be enumerated by you.)
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
-
John Mason at 19:05 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
For future reference, the Ed Hawkins graphic in the post uses HadCRUT5 data with the baseline being 1960-1990.
-
Fixitsan at 18:49 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Michael Sweet.
Coarse sea level rise since the start of the ice age melt, approx 20,000 years.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.nUK9Ty2xjWQgiVLRcDeFngHaE9%26pid%3DApi&f=1
Alternatively
https://kartverket.no/contentassets/ed899aa3266245028d9e9b502ba5930b/global-sea-level-change-past-20000-years.jpg?width=1104&height=621&quality=85&mode=crop&scale=both
If these are at all disagreeable please feel free to post a corrected version
Clearly, sea level is not changing around a middling value, it has only really risen continuously, for 20,000 years and therefore I feel safe in my position to say sea level decline is probably impossible given the massivity of the system and almost uncountable variables which affect it which currently trend upwards in their output effects.
My issue, again probably focussed more towards the media misreporting, which few climate scientists seem to contest, centres around the lack of context of reporting of sea level rise as a distinct topic, but instead it is bundled into one topic of climate change.
If more people were more aware that sea level rise is 'normal', as opposed to sea level decline or even sea level stability, then much fear could be taken out of the subject and less anxiety induced in young and influential minds who sometimes feel the need to take their own lives due to feelings of hopelessness about the future of the planet.
Sea level rise is undeniably normal, it is all we have really seen for 20,000 years, only the rate has varied over that time and the current rate is much less than it was previously
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted.
-
Fixitsan at 18:40 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
ONE PLANET
"Thank you for accepting that averaging larger amounts of data provides a clearer indication of long-term trends like the impacts of increasing CO2 levels.""
That is a deliberate misrepresentation of my words. I did not indicate any relationship between temperature and CO2 levels at all
Moderator Response:[BL] More from the Comments Policy that you are so eager to ignore:
No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Fixitsan at 18:39 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Bob...
""Bindidon states that he's been trying to get the data for the CET record, but has not yet succeeded.""
CET data can be downloaded by the public can it not ?
I recall several occassions in the past decade I have downloaded it, has it been taken offline ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Clear evidence that Fixitsan has not actually bothered to follow a link and read what it says.
-
Fixitsan at 18:36 PM on 1 August 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
MA Rodger,regarding tide guages, the tide guages around the UK show some decline in sea level rise.
One guage measuring the Thames estuary shows a decline, several Scottish ones too.
We're back to the topic of local evaluations not being representative of global trends I guess.
'Bendy sea'
Moderator Response:[BL] Off-topic deleted
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:48 PM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
And Tamino has a post today that also shows how hand waving assertions of "no trend in [insert choice] temperature" are debunked by proper analysis. In this case, it is Seattle summer maximum temperature, but it is of interest in this thread because it illustrates how to do things properly.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:31 PM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
For what it is worth, there is an example on Tamino's blog of what it is like when someone posts a comment that actually includes analysis, rather than just hand-waving.
Tamino's post on the recent UK heat wave has already been mentioned here in this thread:
...and yesterday a participant using the name bindidon posted a comment with links to two graphs that examine the frequency of record highs or lows for the last 125 years. One is for continental US stations:
and an equivalent one for global temperatures.
Bindidon states that he's been trying to get the data for the CET record, but has not yet succeeded.
The two graphs for US and global records clearly show that record cold events used to happen as frequently as (or more frequently than) record warm events, but now they are much less frequent. Exactly what is expected in a warming world.
...and showing that occasional record cold events can still happen, and are not evidence that climate science has failed. Analysis of extremes needs to be done properly - not by hand waving.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
To recap (a term used by fixitsan @2).
Fixitsan @67 claims “I made it5 clear in my first response that I was aware of a difference between local and regional and global terminologies”.
Their responses have clearly indicated something, but not what they hope to indicate.
Fixitsan @2 ends with the following para. I provide a response to each part in brackets:
So to recap, lets recall the amount of serious messaging about climate change which probably dates back to 1989, when Mrs Thatcher addressed the UN and stressed the importance of a worldwide commitment to reducing CO2 [Many global leaders spoke more strongly on the issue and did it years before Thatcher did. They had been learning since the 1972 Stockholm Conference which led to the 1987 Montreal Protocol about Ozone and formed the IPCC which issued its first report in 1990].
Anything since then is a year in an era when it has been fine to suggest we might only have ten years left to live, or only a few days left before doomsday due to climate change, [The correct understanding based on increased awareness and improved understanding since 1990 is undeniable. Avoiding the creation of significant harm to the future of humanity requires dramatic reduction of fossil fuel use by 2030. Many other dramatic corrections of harmful ways of living developed by humans are also required]
and recall how most of the CO2 was produced before 1989, [wrong, and shown to be wrong by other comments]
so how come that of the 12 months in every year, only 5 of those months have been hottest since 1989, [wrong – and proven by subsequent comments to be an incorrect claim, a gross misunderstanding about the meaning of bits of data found in the record of temperature in a small part of the planet. A ‘hottest date does not make a ‘hottest month’, or a ‘hottest year’. And finding a ‘hottest ’ in a region of the planet does not indicate a hottest global condition]
and 2 were hottest before the start of the industrial revolution (which apparently causes global warming, except not in April or May) [repeatedly proven to be a grossly incorrect way to think about the issue]
Further early evidence of fixitsan’s incorrect understanding is provided by fixitsan @8: ”Be honest you don't know if it was hotter 20 years ago in a place where there was no thermometer. Statictiscally possibl;e, as thermometers are located on such a small amount of area of the UK” [Nonsense belief that some actually collected temperature information indicates nothing meaningful ‘because everything hasn’t been measured rigorously everywhere all the time’. That nonsense appears to be the reason they refuse to learn about Sea Level rise or any other matter they do not want to learn about.]
That type of nonsensical thinking can be understood to be related to conspiracy type thinking - thinking that will not be a sustainable 'common sense' in any sub-set of humanity unless the subset is permanently isolated for all others. Review the following brief (about 6 minutes each) BBC Reel videos (I referred to the first one in my comment @51:
And that awareness and understanding makes sense of the success of the efforts to mislead people about climate science I refer to in my comment @39 pointing to my comment on the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29 2022.
My comment on New Research for Week #29 links to The following BBC News item:
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change
That BBC story includes the following concise summary point:
"What the geniuses of the PR firms who work for these big fossil fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
A concluding Note:
It appears likely that the massive efforts to mislead regarding climate science were a response to the way that global leaders collectively agreed to meddle in the marketplace to limit the harm done to the Ozone layer. That type of global leadership effort appeared to be working towards a similar action on climate impacts, which would focus of ending fossil fuel impacts – and some harmful misleading people believed that that ‘helpful harm reduction action’ had to be delayed any way that could be gotten away with.
People like fixitsan appear to have allowed themselves to be so deeply misled into conspiracy belief that they cannot easily be helped to learn what is really going on and what needs to happen to limit the harm being done.
Moderator Response:[BL} Please let's stop rehashing Fixitsan's earlier posts. Until he has something new to say (that will be on topic and survive application of the Comments Policy), let's all try to end this circular discussion.
-
John Mason at 01:27 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Initial figures are in on the estimated excess deaths in England and Wales on July 17-19 2022. 948 people (844 of them on July 18-19) according to a London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine researcher. The work is summarised in New Scientist. See:
-
michael sweet at 01:12 AM on 31 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan,
You need to read my last post at 69. Most of your questions are answered in my post. If you read the linked posts by Tamino that would answer the rest of your questions. It is not my problem that you do not do your homework.
The reason that Tamino's sea level rise rate is differrent than NASA is because Tamino uses a 10 year average and NASA uses a 30 year average. Simply looking at the graph in post 69 it is obvious that sea level rise is accelerating. Therefor a 30 year average underestimates current sea level rise.
The data I referenced only considers sea level rise, ground water extraction is a separate issue more important in other areas. Florida gets so much rain that ground water extraction is not an issue here.
All the rates that I quoted are from Tamino who is a professional statistician who specializes in time series analysis like looking at sea level rise. Your suggestion that I used three different sources is simply false.
Sea level rise is different in different places, as you have been told repeatedly on this thread. You claim that sea level rise is zero in the Maldives. I state that sea level rise is 11 mm.year in Florida. Since I live in Florida, along with 21 million other Americans, I care more about sea level rise in Florida. It turns out that sea level rise now and in the future on the US East coast will exceed the global average by a lot.
You are certainly well informed about deniers claims that sea level rise will not be too bad. Unfortunately, sunny day flooding has become a big ptoblem on the entire East coast of the USA. It is particularly bad in flat areas like Florida.
Path: pModerator Response:[BL] Note that Fixitsan's most recent ramblings on sea level have largely been snipped from his comment. This will continue until Fixitsan takes the time to find one of several sea level posts here at SkS where the discussion will not be a violation of the comments policy. MA Rodger has suggested one.
This post will be left as-is, because it contains general advice that Fixitsan needs to follow: read the responses to his comments, read the links presented (where he can obtain additional information), and stop repeating claims that others have debunked with actual analysis.
-
EddieEvans at 21:37 PM on 30 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #30 2022
This is an impressive page!
-
Jim Hunt at 21:29 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Getting back on the topic of UK "heat waves", the GEFS mid range forecast for sunny South West England is heating up again:
https://Davidstow.info/2022/07/drought-for-cornwall-later-in-2022/#comment-2627
This is one of the more extreme ensemble members:
-
Jim Hunt at 21:24 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan@77 - I heartily recommend that you read the attribution study I linked to @75 from cover to cover.
After that there are also numerous references the document links to.
I also feel compelled to point out that John's original post makes no mention of SLR. See also MAR@78. -
MA Rodger at 21:12 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan @76,
You blather is entirely off-topic but if you were to examine the comment of michael sweet @69, you may perhaps see where the value of 5mm/year for global SLR is sourced. And you will possibly then note that the data used is from tidal gauges which measure the sea level round the coasts while the NASA data is satellite data that measures the level of the entire ocean. You may wish to consider which measure is more important for humanity.
The method of calculating SLR is also different.
But if you have anything sensible to say on this subject of SLR, I would suggest a different SkS thread, perhaps this one -'How much is sea level rising?' -
Fixitsan at 20:11 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Jim Hunt, if the temperature in one month is outside 'normal' parameters you get to say it is abnormal.
If I point out previous one day temperature highs or lows I'm called a denier and taken to task for only choosing one particular day with a follow up insult of being a data cherry picker.
You can argue the CET covers just one region of the planet, as indeed I have acknowledged myself, but can the area covered by CET which showed no overall warming for 70% of 1900-2000 be easily rejected on the grounds that it only covers one region.
I understand the basics of weather patterns and I know weathermen struggle to predict further ahead than three days, in our climate. If it was Saudi Arabia things might be different but the UK is in a very dynamic part of the world makign weather unpredictable.
This large variability suggests to me that we will see a fair share of lots of different active weather patterns as they pass over us and to that end it seems unreasonable to suggest that the UK is in a bubble and is less likely to experience the ffects of global variability. The importance of this fact is that it suggests we get a fair share of the effects of global climate change.
Therefore we get a lot of the effects of global climate change, influencing the CET long term average which began to be recorded in 1659. So why, if CET represents it's fair share of the effects of climate change, do we dismiss it on the grounds that it is one location, when it holds the records of hundreds of years.
I find it so unlilkely to believe that a place on the planet which shows no net warming for 70% of 1900-2000 can be easily dismissed on one hand because it is just a small region, yet is included in virtually every climate because of it's reliability. It can't cut both ways, or can it ?
Moderator Response:[BL] Assertions must be supported by evidence. You have been requested to actually show analysis of the CET temperatures, not just hand-waving. You are simply repeating previous assertions without providing any actual analysis.
More from the Comments Policy:
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
- No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
-
Fixitsan at 19:56 PM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Michael Sweet
Regarding see level rise you assert is 5mm/year.
NASA today reports 3.4mm/yr
What is a layperson supposed to think is the rate of sea level rise ?
Where did your 5mm/year come from and why is it about a third higher than the rate NASA says ?
It's very interesting that if someone who for want of better expression is known as a 'denier' disagrees with NASA they're called fools, yet right off the bat you're ignoring NASA ?
Breathtaking stuff, really.
Regarding Floridian rates of rise, easily explained by excessive groundwater removal. Of course someone clever might have found a way to rewrite that part too, but yet we can't say groundwater extraction has had zero effect at all, because it almost always does affect land level.
Reporters and commentators on this matter often find themselves satisfied in terms of quoting fearsome sea level rise by turnign tot he Pacific ring of fire, because the sea bed is rising and falling in accodance with underground volcanic activity.
In fact it is extremely difficult to measure not only sea level, but sea level rise, because what we're actually talking abotu with sea level rise is sea volume increase. It would be better if science would standardise on that, and explain why the changes in earths gravity field are changing sea levels in various regions.
I note in your message you not only say that today the sea level rate of rise is 5mm, you quotte another person who says it exceeded 4mm/year by 2010 (Tomino quote)
Back to NASA, sea level rise is 3.4mm/yr
Why are you bouncing about on different sources, quoting 3 different rates of rise I wonder ?
Could it be because you can't actually decide which data source is reliable either ?
Is NASA wrong
Moderator Response:[BL] From the Comments Policy, which you either have not read, have not understood, or refuse to follow:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
- Make comments in the most appropriate thread. Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread. Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed. Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Jim Hunt at 01:42 AM on 30 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
It seems that John Kennedy, who recently left UKMO, isn't entirely happy with the MSM coverage of the "this month's extreme heat in the UK" either:
https://twitter.com/micefearboggis/status/1552888125562781697There’s an attribution of the record breaking UK heat but of the three articles I read (Guardian, AP, Carbon Briefs), not one linked to the actual study. I can’t even find a link to it on the WWA web site, just a summary.
Here's the missing link to the World Weather Attribution study that Robert Rohde dug up:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/UK-heat-scientific-report.pdf[BW - comment updated per request]
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:34 PM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
The sort-of-on-topic aspect of it is that a common error in looking at greenhouse gas absorption is to think of the atmosphere as a monolithic single layer. By only considering fluxes at the bottom (surface) and top (loss to space), people tend to lead themselves down many paths of misunderstanding. This is the most common error in most "saturated" arguments, and it plays a part in the "water vapour..." arguments as well.
Although simplified versions of radiative transfer can be useful in early learning stages, those simplified versions are not what drives climate models. You will see frequent references to MODTRAN in this forum. With the online version in the link I just gave, you can try various assumptions you wish to explore and see how a full radiative transfer model actually responds.
As well as absoprtion, the changes in emission are also important - and also need more than a "single layer" approach.
-
John Mason at 20:43 PM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Disturbing but unsurprising, Jim. There can be few things harder to cope with than buying wholeheartedly into a myth (climate change denialism, brexit, trump etc) then witnessing its disintegration.
-
MA Rodger at 19:55 PM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
Likeitwarm @638,
While your "canard" is off-topic on this thread, a direct response to it is not.
The 15 micron absorption band of CO2 is about 3 microns of the spectrum (roughly 13.5µm to 16.5µm). While this waveband does sit in the edge of the big H2O radiation 'window' which stretches from 6µm to 16.5µm (termed a 'window' as it allows incoming radation in from space) and thus CO2 narrows that 'window', this is not the essential part of the operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
The essential mechanism is that the CO2 greenhouse effect operates higher up in the atmosphere, above the bulk of of the atmospheric water vapour. Thus it is CO2 which determines the altitude from which the IR in this band is emitted into space, thus the amount of this IR emitted into space (determined by the atmospheric temperature of the point of emission) and thus it is CO2 which determines the amount of greenhouse warming from this waveband.
-
Jim Hunt at 19:02 PM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Some pertinent news from the BBC this morning (BST):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62323048
Weather forecasters faced unprecedented levels of trolling during this month's extreme heat in the UK, according to leading figures in the industry.The BBC's team received hundreds of abusive tweets or emails questioning their reports and telling them to "get a grip", as temperatures hit 40C.
BBC meteorologist Matt Taylor said he had never experienced anything like it in nearly 25 years working in weather.
The Royal Meteorological Society condemned the trolling.
Most of the abuse seems to have been prompted as links were made between the heatwave and climate change.
The UK saw record high temperatures on 19 July, with 40C exceeded for the first time. Dozens of locations saw temperatures above the previous UK record of 38.7C and 15 fire services declared a state of emergency because of a surge in blazes.
The Met Office estimated the heatwave had been made 10 times more likely because of climate change.
The BBC's Matt Taylor said: "It's a more abusive tone than I've ever received. I switched off a bit from it all as it became too depressing to read some of the responses."
etc.
-
GwsB at 15:54 PM on 29 July 2022The volcanic eruption in Alaska that rocked ancient Egypt
The pivotal sentence is: "And in Egypt, the Nile failed to flood for several years in a row." Unfortunately it is not clear on what evidence this statement is based.
Moderator Response:[PS] I believe the evidence is detailed in the peer reviewed paper referenced in the article
-
Jim Hunt at 07:46 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Thanks for the heads up John.
Ditto for the new record in Wales. The UKMO announcement:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2022/record-high-temperatures-verified -
John Mason at 07:23 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
You're welcome, Jim.
I heard today that the Coningsby 40.3C reading has passed the UKMO ratification procedure, BTW.
-
Likeitwarm at 05:52 AM on 29 July 2022CO2 effect is saturated
After much reading, it occurs to me that because H2O absorbs IR in such a wide array of wavelengths, including 15µm, and is so overwhelmingly prevalent being 95% of all "Greenhouse Gases", might it absorb almost all of the 15µm radiation available, leaving an insignificant amount to be absorbed directly by CO2 and other IR sensitive gases. Could this render CO2 just another molecule in the air and make it virtually impossible to measure any effect of CO2 related to atmospheric temperature making the "CO2 greenhouse effect" an unprovable theory? Isn't H2O the primary reason we have such a moderate climate?
Moderator Response:This cannard is off-topic here. Please see the myth "Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas". Read the article and if you have further doubts, please raise them there but only after studying the resources supplied.
And see also https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014287
-
Jim Hunt at 02:25 AM on 29 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
I hesitate to dip my toe in this evidently warm water, since things seem to have wandered a long way away from the recent UK heat wave!
However having been blogging about the UKMO forecasts since July 10th I can report that here in North Cornwall outside temperatures peaked at a record 36 ºC in Bude and inside temperatures reached 32 ºC in my home office on the edge of Bodmin Moor.
Here's a Carbon Brief explainer about those forecasts which may be of interest?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-uks-insane-40c-heat-was-forecast-weeks-in-advance/
The article quotes Dr. Simon Lee, who more recently has been taking the Express to task for misrepresenting his work. Believe it or not allegedly "Strange Pacific events to trigger MONTH of heatwaves as 40C hits"!
https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1552060364300455936 -
Bob Loblaw at 10:07 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Note that the equation dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), provided by GrindupBaker in comment 1515, is a simple approximation of radiative forcing due to changing CO2, based on more complex radiative transfer models. The original source is Myhre, 1998.
More information is available on this SkS page:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
-
grindupBaker at 09:34 AM on 28 July 20222nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Frankamungus @1512 One interpretation of your question is that you simply want to see a formula such as:
f = 5.35 * ln (CO2<now>/CO2<before>) w / m**2 for the heater of a CO2 increase in Earth's atmosphere from CO2<before> to CO2<now>.
If so, that's the one on NASA Web site and I've vague recollections of seeing assertions of values other than the 5.35 over the years.
-
michael sweet at 02:41 AM on 28 July 2022Taking the Temperature: a dispatch from the UK
Fixitsan,
In post 67 you say:
"I made it5 clear in my first response that I was aware of a difference between local and regional and global terminologies"
Then you refer to your claim that the sea level is not rising in the Maldives. We are not talking about a single location when we discuss sea level rise, we are talking about Global Sea level Rise. When you describe sea level rise at a single location and then claim that global sea level rise is not a problem it appears that you do not understand the difference between the Maldives and the entire world.
Fortunately Tamino has done an article on Global Sea level Rise (that is the average sea level rise for the entire globe, not just the Maldives).
We see that the global sea level rise is about 200 mm from 1900 to 2020. The current rate of Global sea level rise is 5 mm/yr. From year 0 (zero) to year 2000 we know that sea level rise was about zero siince Roman ports on the Med sea are still usable (as are major ports all around the world). If sea level rise was even 1 mm/yr that would have been 2 meters of sea level rise over a 2000 year period.
I look forward to your link to a site that shows current Global Sea level rise is comparable to the rise from 0 to 2000 CE.
I note that sea level rise is accelerating. According to Tamino, before 2010 the sea level rise rate was less than 4 mm/yr.
Where I live in Florida, Tamino shows that the current rate of sea level rise is 11 mm/yr. That is "scarily high". 21 million people live in Florida. Real estate in Florida near the ocean is increasing in value at a slower rate than inland since sunny day flooding is already a problem in most of the state near the ocean.
