Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
Comments 38551 to 38600:
-
Chandra at 09:47 AM on 14 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
Thanks for the comments and kind advice. I'm not sure I have anything that will have any effect on the skeptic in question. Anything that refers to models just gets the response that such models are "unvalidated" and incapable of being validated. Saying that the models have forecast past events successfully is likely to be rejected as just hind-casting (with models tuned for the purpose, of course) even if the forecast was actually performed before the event. Whether the skeptic is actually unaware of the empirical data, I'm not certain. I think it is more likely that he is well aware of it but rejects any that doesn't fit his preferred tune. The "Theory and Experiment--Atmospheric Radiation" page is a useful reference for me, if not for the skeptic. Thanks. -
Klapper at 08:58 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@ DSL #74:
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. I didn't throw an absurd number in the middle of anything. I'm doing linear regression, not point to point, of the SAT record. Pinatubo has no effect on the warming rate of a trend from 1978 to 2007, although I didn't think about that until Rob Painting (incorrectly) pointed out it was affecting the trend. Maybe for some periods, but not the trend I picked which was basically to show what the maximum warming rate had been in the late 20th, early 21st.
-
Concerned Citizen 60025 at 08:48 AM on 14 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Yes, it is a shame that the total amount of ocean energy increased by 0.001% since 1998. But what exactly does that mean when we're still emerging from the Little Ice Age?
Moderator Response:[PS] % is meaningless. You can discuss little ice age here.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:02 AM on 14 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
potvinj
If you contrast the density of a solid surface with the density of the air there is a difference of the order of 1000's of times. Add in the proportion of GH gases in the atmosphere and the difference becomes of the order of 10's of 1,000,000's.However IR radiation from a solid surface only originates from a very thin layer right at the surface, no more than microns thick. In contrast the atmosphere is kilometers thick. So this compensates so that there are ample GH molecules to potentially intercept IR photons. We need to contrast the number of molecules in a microns thick layer of a dense material with the number in a 1000's of meters thick layer of a diffuse material.
A different way of looking at this is to take how much energy is radiated from a solid surface at a given temperature based on Planck's Law and work out how many IR photons are radiated per second by dividing that by the average energy of the individual photons.
When we do that we get a result that says there is roughly the same number of CO2 molecules in a few cubic meters of air as there are photons being radiated from a square meter of a solid surface every second. When we then remember that a GH molecule is continuously transferring energy to all the other molecules around it through collisions - each molecule in the lower atmosphere collides with other molecules billions of times per second - and thus the GH molecule can potentially engage in an abroption event millions of times a second or more.
So there are actually millions of CO2 molecules available to potentially interact with each IR photon emitted from the surface in the first meter of that photons travel. If it were based just on the probability of them meeting all the IR radiation would be absorbed within the first meter of the atmosphere.
However just because a photon and a molecule encounter each other does not automatically mean that absorption occurs. There is actually only a modest probability of an absorption event occurring. It is this that extends the distance that it takes for most IR photons to be absorbed out to typically 100's of meters.
-
Tom Dayton at 07:12 AM on 14 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
Chandra, your skeptic has no idea how science works, as noted by some of the responses to your comment on Science of Doom--the responses about the role of models. A thermometer is a model, so when your skeptic wholly trusts the temperature measurement from a thermometer, he/she is wholly trusting a scientific model!
He/she is shockingly unaware of the existence of the massive empirical data, too. Since he/she reads Science of Doom, please point him/her to "Theory and Experiment--Atmospheric Radiation." That post covers only a sliver of a topic, but perhaps it will be enough to convince him/her to graduate to reading the Skeptical Science post Models are Unreliable to learn about other kinds of empirical validation; please point out there is an Intermediate tabbed pane there in addition to the Basic one.
-
funglestrumpet at 06:58 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
If anyone doubts that there is still the need for the science community to learn debating techniques on top of the science, one has only to listen to this morning's BBC R4 Today programme (available on podcast and on Iplayer - about ten minutes from the end, give or take five minutes)
There was a debate between Sir Brian Hoskins and Lord Nigel Lawson regarding whether climate change is having a bearing on the current extreme weather events that the U.K. is experienceing. It was a tour de force by Lawson. Never one to let the facts get in the way of winning an argument, he excelled himself, even using his knowledge of the regular timing pattern of the programme to get the last word in. And what a great last word it was! One guaranteed to win over those members of the public who might be in doubt, and one that was completely and utterly untrue.
I urge anyone who might find themselves in a debate with Lawson, or those of a similar ilk, to listen to the podcast. They will then see just how easy it is to lose a debate despite having all the facts on your side.
We are never going to get meaningful action on this issue until the politicians are scared of losing their seats and that will only happen when the public are convinced of the dangers climate change poses.
Is there any chance of creating an A team for representing the science of climate change in media discussions and debates? I would be happy to contribute to a fund for them to get some media training. This morning, when Lawson tried to steer the discussion towards 'We have to keep the lights on' - a hot topic in the U.K. - and one guaranteed to burn more fossil fuels - Hoskins could have won the day by simply commenting that he would prefer the occasional blackout to having his children and grandchildren in body bags and what a pity it is that Lawson doesn't care as much for his family. But it needs training to come up with such ripostes (or 20/20 hindsigtht, as is the case with me.)
-
potvinj at 06:27 AM on 14 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
I understand and agree with this post. But I have a problem with the second bullet in the introduction. I always thought that there are a lot more emitters
of IR photons (and thus more IR photons) than there are greenhouse absorbers since the rock/ground molecules are packed to higher densities than the amospheric CO2 gas molecules. So even if all the CO2 molecules present at a given time were saturated (ie excited to higher energies via IR photon absorption), the new molecules entering the atmosphere via antropogenic means would capture more of the available IR photons. This would further reduce the net IR output at the top of the atmosphere
and further heat the atmosphere near the ground. Here the atmosphere is never in balance (ie in thermal equilibrium) and this cause the heat to accumulate near the ground. Another corrolary is that the atmosphere is never completely saturated: there are always more (new) CO2 molecules being introduced to capture the yet untapped IR photons available, and this further heats the atmosphere.Is this picture correct?
-
DSL at 06:19 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Not really, Klapper. I'm pointing out that you can throw an absurd number in the middle of a simple point-to-point linear analysis and get a conclusion that has absolutely no informational content with regards to physical reality. I should have made the series (1,1,1) and (1,4000,1).
-
Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper #61:
Sea level rise from thermal expansion is not an accurate proxy for ocean heat uptake without a more careful analysis.
Take a look at this graph in Wikipedia. (the water’s density for each degree from 0°C to 100°C is listed further down the page) If you convert density change to expansion you get this for some temperatures:4-5°C: +0.001%
6-7°C: +0.004%
10-11°C: +0.01%
15-16°C: +0.016%
20-21°C: +0.021%
Heating water from 10 to 11°C makes it expand ten times more than if you heat it from 4 to 5°C! So the amount of thermal expansion doesn’t only depend on how much heat is being added, but where it is added, since warm water expands more than cold. These numbers are for fresh water. Salt water continues to contract down to its freezing point, but the principle is the same.
And where has the ocean heating taken place?
If you study this and this and this graph thoroughly, you will find that a rising fraction of the heat is accumulated in the deeper and colder parts of the oceans.
With a caveat for quite uncertain pre Argo data I got this result for the fraction of the heating taking place deeper than 700 meters:1957-1994: 25%
1994-2011: 38%
2005-2013: 49%
The tendency is quite clear: More of the heat accumulation happens in the deeper, colder parts of the oceans where each unit of energy cause less thermal expansion than in the warmer, upper layers.
And finally, this graph shows that the warming in the upper 100 meters have been almost zero for the last ten years. Each unit of energy added here would produce at least 10-20 times more expansion than in the deep and cold parts of the oceans!
Conclusions:
1. You can’t translate thermal expansion to heat accumulation without knowing where the heating takes place.
2. Much of the SLR from increased melting of ice sheets in the 2000’s has been offset by decreased thermal expansion because more of the warming happens in colder water. That probably explains the apparent lack of acceleration seen here.
-
william5331 at 05:59 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
On other thing we know for sure from ice cores from Greenland and mud cores from El'gygytgyn is that climate has changed rather rapidly in the past and that these two sources most likely under-estimate the rapidity of the change. The Foen zone masks sudden changes in ice sheets and vegetation takes time to establish and leave pollen signals in mud cores. The deniers will be more than red faced and dispeptic if even a fraction of the predicted outcomes for climate change eventuate. We must keep being polite and calm but never holding back on the facts as they are known when explaining to them. Our demeanor is as much part of the argument as the facts. Unfortunately we need a few super Sandies to get the message across. We don't want to get the backs up of the deniers since it will just make it harder for them to back down as various disasters take place. Just as a reformed drunk is the strongest advocate against alcohol, a reformed denier will be the strongest advocate for climate change.
Moderator Response:[PS] in that spirit, please desist from terms like "denier" or "alarmist" which are inflammatory and counterproductive to a reasonable discussion. Thank you.
-
Klapper at 05:56 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@ Rob Painting #70:
@ DSL #71:
I think DSL is saying I am in fact correct about the trend with Pinatubo in the centre. It affects the intercept of the regression equation but not the slope.
-
DSL at 05:30 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Shorter Klapper: LINEST(1,2,3,4,5) = LINEST(1,2,-327,4,5)
-
Rob Painting at 05:01 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper - "My 30 year 0.18C/decade trend was from 1978 to 2007 inclusive. Because Pinatubo lies right in the middle of this period, it has no leverage on the trend either way"
Now you are descending into complete nonsense. This demonstrates you cannot be taken seriously.
-
howardlee at 04:38 AM on 14 February 2014The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph
Rob - that's helpful, thanks. I read the Keeling et al 1995 paper. It's probing the causes of variations in the Mauna Loa record, so it's really not getting to the issue of deep ocean storage as far as I can tell.
I'm really taking the longer view of this. As you say, in the long term the ocean is storing more (via acidification). Per the work of Zeebe and others, the amount and rate of CO2 absorbtion on a global scale depends, in the long term, on the feedbacks (fast, slow) that come into play.
I see very strong parallels with past global warming events and mass extinctions (Permian, Triassic, Toarcian, Cretaceous OAEs, PETM et al). They have all been associated with huge carbon emissions, from Large Igneous Provinces (Some debate on that regarding PETM). We are releasing comparable quantities of carbon at rates that exceed LIP rates (but increasingly the timeframes of those seem to be being revised shorter...).
Basically per the work of Zeebe and others, the idea is that in those times (and today) the rates of CO2 emissions, and temperature increases, overwhelmed the short term feedbacks (biosphere, surface ocean etc), before the long term feedbacks (deep ocean, weathering, etc) could cut in to process them. Hence CO2 ramped up ever faster in the atmosphere, further accelerating warming, until you have the same symptoms of a global-warming-mass-extinction like the end Triassic or even Permian (ocean acidification, jump in global temperatures, ocean anoxia,etc). There's evidence that immediately following the Permian emissions, it was lethally hot on land and in the oceans in equatorial to tropical regions for the very early Triassic.
That's why I'm wondering if the deep ocean is cutting in already as a feedback - absorbing both CO2 and temperature on a long-term net basis rather than on a multidiecadal oscillatory basis. The deep ocean in the latest IPCC report and in the work of many others including Zeebe, is not supposed to cut in until several centuries have passed. If it's really cutting in now, after a century or two, it would bring a much larger reservoir for CO2 and heat into the equation. I'm not for a moment suggesting this makes global warming go away, only it might slow the rate of change down - a bit - in the short term (perhaps the average transit time of deep currents). BUT ONLY IF the deep ocean reservoir is currently in active CO2 exchange with the atmosphere at meaningful rates.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:33 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
While even radical "skeptics" don't want to damage the environment, I would doubt that even radical "warmists" actually want to forgo the benefits of fossil fuels either. So at the end of the day, we have to reach a compromise that uses (and spreads) the benefits of fossil fuel use, while at the same time minimising the environmental damage this will cause. There is a spectrum of opinion on where this compromise should lie. One thing is for certain though, which is that torturing the science to provide support for a socio-politico-economic argument is not the way to reach agreement on a solution to the compromise!
-
Rob Nicholls at 02:38 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
'Even the radicals don't want to pollute the planet. Can you imagine James Inhofe sitting around the dinner table asking his family to find more ways he can pollute the air and water of this planet? I can't; it just doesn't happen.' I think this is really important, and it ties in with something I've been trying (and failing) to say in various comments on various websites for some time now.
I think the positions taken by climate "skeptics" are contradicted by overwhelming evidence, but I don't get the sense that these people are setting out deliberately to do harm or to deceive. In fact I think generally they are really trying to do the right thing, and in many cases they are trying very hard to get at the truth, it's just that the very normal human trait of confirmation bias gets in the way. I suspect that Anthony Watts truly believes he's exposing "damaging AGW fraud" and trying to protect humanity from unnecessarily cutting fossil fuel use. I don't know why anyone would put so much effort into a website unless they really believed in what they are doing. I often hear accusations of "bad faith" made against climate "skeptics" e.g. because they twist arguments, cherry pick, fail to back down when proven wrong, fail to back up their claims when challenged, and behave in other frustrating ways. But I really think this is generally all driven by confirmation bias and not by malice or "bad faith". (also, obviously I'm not claiming that behaviour is necessarily perfect on the side of those who broadly agree with the IPCC's overall conclusions, or that any of us is immune to confirmation bias).
I think it's important to remember that climate "skeptics" may not have much control over how they see the world and the tactics they use to defend their worldviews. Why does this matter? Remembering it may at least help me to be civil in engaging with climate "skeptics". Personally I think civility is constructive and I would prefer to be civil, although I find it very difficult to achieve consistently. By the way, I don't have an issue with those who choose to employ a more "robust" style in their blog posts.
-
Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Addendum to my previous post - 'secular' is used in many papers, and is valid in it's less common definition of "existing or continuing through ages or centuries". However, in most cases 'long-term' would be more appropriate for the durations discussed, and the the religous linkage is by far the most common usage.
Just my personal opinion - I dislike the use of that term in science.
-
Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper - Variations overlying an underlying trend signal? Certainly, and in fact that is exactly what this particular thread is about. So are papers such as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, which look at identifying just how much influence different variations have on the global temperature trends.
However, statements such as "...there is a climate cycle overprinting a secular warming trend, and the warm phase of that cycle has confused the tuning of feedbacks in the AOCGCMs" are neither correct nor helpful. There is no single climate cycle overlying anthropogenic influences, rather there are many sources of variation, global circulation models are not tuned to their overall outputs but rather are composed of multiple components driven bottom up by physics constrained by observations, and incidentally the word 'secular' is inappropriate as there is no religion involved.
If as you say your major point is that you feel climate models are mistuned, I would suggest taking that to an appropriate thread, rather than hopping from influence to influence looking for a significant factor - as you have (solar, IPO) in this one.
-
Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
barry - On a global scale it appears that relative humidity is quite constant over warming, closely following the Clausius–Clapeyron relation with constant relative humidity. For example, Dai 2006 reviewed observations from some 15,000 weather stations and ships finding that "During 1976–2004, global changes in surface RH are small (within 0.6% for absolute values)...". Clouds are tied to that relative humidity; globally changes in RH are small.
There are, however, significant regional variations - the wet getting wetter, the dry getting drier, as increased absolute humidity and climate energy amplify the hydrological cycle. And the vertical structure of the atmosphere, affecting the balance of high (warming) and low (cooling) clouds is changing regionally as well. And regional changes such as the ones bruiser has raised could quite possibly be tied to those.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:01 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
Just to be clear, the point I was making in the above post was critcism/comment is fine, but it needs to be made in a sifficiently specific manner that it is possible to address the criticism, either by refuting it, or (better still) by seeing its value and updating beliefs (which is what scientists do). Making vague critcicisms does nobody any good, and just comes across as a smear.
Really, do post comments on specific posts where you disagree with the content, it is what the site of about, but do make sure you read the comments policy first.
-
Klapper at 00:58 AM on 14 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@Rob Painting #65:
My 30 year 0.18C/decade trend was from 1978 to 2007 inclusive. Because Pinatubo lies right in the middle of this period, it has no leverage on the trend either way. El Chichon does have an effect on this trend however, making it stronger than it would be otherwise by introducing a cold deflection at the beginning of the record.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:53 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
just, I wouldn't worry about minor typos, the meaning was clear.
The comment about propaganda appears to me to be itself propaganda. If you have concerns about some particular article being propaganda, then do feel free to point out your concerns on the relevant article. Likewise the following paragraph seems to be a rather transparent way of saying SkS is not balanced. Here is a challenge, pick an article that you think is not balanced and make a comment explaining why and I'm sure there are plenty that would be willing to discuss it with you. If you think climate change is a young field, I suggest you get a copy of the warming papers, you will find it isn't that young at all.
Now if you want to see people arguing the world is flat, try going to some of the more popular skeptic blogs and try explaining how it is we know that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. Sadly, you will find that there is still lots of communication that needs to be done on issues as basic as that.
-
John Hartz at 00:50 AM on 14 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
Chandra:
Be sure to check out the SkS rebuttal article, How reliable are climate models?
-
just at 00:44 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
How do I edit my post?
The last lines should read;
"Give it some thought
Cheers"
-
just at 00:39 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
well done guys, I must concur with Russ R that it is refreshing to see an attempt towards a more objective and rational view on the topic. should be more of it: I am convinced you will attract more 'quality' attention for the 'right' reasons.
So what kind of site do you want this to be? A site that continues to concentrate on experimenting with communication strategies/propaganda:(that by now should be clear to you) that has done more to damage your credibilty than most anything else?
Or would you like this site to be a "go to" site for credible, objective; balanced information on the state and development related to such a young and undeveloped topic as climate change?
I see very few people discussing if the earth is flat, the topic is settled enough. Most reasonable people do know very little is settled in the area of climate/climate change/finite fossil fuels and how to do what needs to be done about it.
So,.... how many more people do you truly want to inform well? Just imagine how many more people could visit this site and stay for the right reasons.
Give some thought.
Cheers
-
Jubble at 00:26 AM on 14 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
I think it is unlikely that people can be as rational as this post. I don't think people are weighing up the risks. I think they are burying their heads, avoiding the problem, thinking of something else. They are in denial, part of the process of accepting change. Trouble is, in this case, that the world keeps moving, so denial is not passive.
-
kmalpede at 23:59 PM on 13 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
I had a long, heated, even angry, argument with a businessman from Ghana over dinner--it's the sun, he kept on saying, and we "don't know" etc. Everyone finally got invovled. By the end of the meal, everyone, including him, was offering possible "solutions"--things we can do now, and things governments can do now, and he was agreeing, at least, that coal is a major problem. And, at the end of the dinner, everyone said they felt oddly refreshed that they had had a meaningful conversation--for a change. Of course, I live in Brooklyn, but I think my point is that people are frightened to speak and to share and if "pushed to" and I was pushing, they might end up grateful.
-
John Hartz at 23:50 PM on 13 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
Chandra's request for assistance was originally posted on the comment thread of the article, "The 'pause' that isn’t" posted on the And Then There's Physics (ATTP) website. I encouraged Chandra to repost her request here which see obviously did.
Subsequent to her posting the above, a number of high quality responses to her request have been posted on the ATTP website by some very well informed individuals. You can access those by going to "The 'pause' that isn’t" on the ATTP website.
-
barry1487 at 22:55 PM on 13 February 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
On a global scale I have been assuming that the increased atmospheric water vapour would lead to more clouds in general (and more precipitation). Is that incorrect? I did point out that effects would be different regionally, and was thinking of evaporative potential.
And "more water vapour means more cloud" is not necessarily true, either. To form cloud, you need to take moist air and cool it to the condensation point. If the air is both more moist and warmer, it may be further from the condensation point (dew point temperature) rather than closer.
How does this work in the tropics? I have spent a lot of time in very hot places like Malaysia, and the air is very warm day and night with lots of cloudiness.
There are many confounding factors. If high clouds tend to augment the greenhouse effect, and low clouds tend to feedback negatively by reflecting solar energy, then a reduction of one more than the other has different consequences for surface temperatures. A change in solar exposure largely due to fewer high clouds would have an effect inverse to what we've been assuming. I don't know to what degree solar exposure is determined by high/low cloud changes.
I guess it must be near impossible to isolate and tally attributing components to global, and especially regional temperature on annual and decadal periods. The long-term probability estimate seems to be a more robust way of estimating the impact of natural and anthroopogenic factors. But bruiser raised an interesting point on solar exposure.
-
Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
ubrew12 @ 5 and 12
The sea level rise for the last 22 years looks to be occurring in a fairly straight line: the slope in the 90s has continued since - so far (see link below). There doesn't seem to be a 10 mm upturn during the 2000s decade or since. If the Greenland and Antarctic melt is a new and growing contributor and as significant as your link in 12 indicates then it's got to show itself soon. In fact why haven't we see it already? (My comments are based on eyeballing a graph I know but it does seem to be legitimate or am I mistaken?)
-
mgardner at 21:16 PM on 13 February 2014Discussing global warming: why does this have to be so hard?
ubrew12@19
An interesting analysis, but don't geographical demographics contradict your premise? Mostly urban areas are 'liberal', and mostly rural areas are 'conservative'. Maybe it has more to do with who is exploiting the natural environment rather than appreciating it in the abstract.
Urban dwellers can romanticize about wilderness, and experience it as a sometime adventure. For those who make their living in extraction of one form or another, there is an adversarial and dependent relationship.
Since we're being all psycho-sociological, I would agree that conservatives are more concerned with the 'human environment', but in the sense of us v them, group identity, hierarchical structure, and so on. Again, look at the urban dweller, tending to be far more of an 'individual' following her own path. Isn't that one of the reasons people leave their small town environments, stop attending church, and so on?
Which leads me also to agree that "it's hard", but not necessarily for the rational reason that you suggest. We're all motivated by economic interests, but clinging to the team position is more important for some than others.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:45 PM on 13 February 2014Greenhouse effect has been falsified
rugbyguy59, that argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect. The Earths energy budget is determined at the top of the atmosphere by the temperature of the atmosphere at the height at which outbound IR is no longer absorbed by CO2. The lapse rate means this is much colder than the surface. As we add more CO2 the height of this layer rises, which means that the radiating layer is colder and hence radiates less energy. The Earth as a whole then gains heat until the temperature of the radiating layer warms enough for the radiated energy to be high enough for the energy budget to be balanced.
Now, as the atmosphere as a whole warms, it will radiate heat at a range of frequencies, because it is due to the heat of the atmosphere as a whole, not just the IR radiated from CO2. So of course it isn't all at the absorption bands for CO2.
Gilbert Plass worked out the details of this back in the 1950s.
-
jyyh at 18:16 PM on 13 February 2014How we know the greenhouse effect isn't saturated
atmosphere isn't full of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, thus the greenhouse effect isn't saturated.
-
scaddenp at 17:40 PM on 13 February 2014Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Sigh, it is pretty hard to take Steve "Co2 falls as snow in Antarctica" Goddard seriously. Now its conservation of energy is wrong? It pretty hard to make sense of what he is saying - I dont think he knows. However, there is excellent series taking you through the text book details at Science of Doom.
-
Klapper at 17:13 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@KR #60:
"As others have noted, you appear to be jumping around from thread to thread, topic to topic..."
My motives are irrelevant to whether my arguments have merit or not. The facts determine that. Read my post number 61, which ties my thinking together somewhat. The the IPO, ENSO, models, solar etc are not disconnected arguments, they are components of an overarching idea, namely that there is a climate cycle overprinting a secular warming trend, and the warm phase of that cycle has confused the tuning of feedbacks in the AOCGCMs. Not really my idea though is it?
Indirect solar effects may be a factor in driving this cycle, I don't know. What do you think it is? Roy Spencer just treats it as an oscillation, nothing more. Whatever drives it, saying it doesn't exist because you don't know the mechanism doesn't make logical sense.
-
Elmwood at 17:12 PM on 13 February 2014A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
The first well to start the hydrualic fracturing boom in the Bakken was in 2006 if I remember correctly. I believe that is basically when it started everywhere and that is about when the methane concentrations shown in post #2 start to increase. But then again, it may have nothing to do with fracing if most of the methane is biogenic rather than thermogenic in origin.
-
rugbyguy59 at 17:09 PM on 13 February 2014Greenhouse effect has been falsified
A new variant of this has appeared on Goddard's blog. A guy, recently retired and so now "free to talk" (although he still writes under a pseudonym), who claims to be an infrared astronomer is saying that IR at the CO2 wavelength can't warm the Earth.
He says "In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2."
So obviously I'm not buying into the overturning of years of well tested science by some anonimous conspiracy theorist on a blog and ask those who mention it to tell me when he's publishing his paper or for a scientific reference where I can check his claims. On the other hand I wouldn't appreciate if someone could give me a more scientific understanding of why he is wrong. Always looking to learn.
-
Rob Painting at 17:07 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper - you made this comment @61 - "The problem is that 0.18C/decade trend was boosted by the +phase of the IPO. The underlying anthropogenic signal is not that strong."
You neglected to account for the strong cooling of both the ocean and global surface from the light-blocking effects of sulfate aerosols ejected into the atmosphere by the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption. It goes to the heart of your claim highlighted above.
-
Klapper at 16:47 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@Rob Painting #63:
Pinatubo would affect my 30 year trend, but not the 10 year (2000 to 2010). Mind the 10 year trends get a bit wobbly as opposed to the 30 year. However, looking at 10 year trends which avoid the Pinatubo problem, I can see that the current rate of sea level rise from tide guages is comparable to the rate of rise from '43 to '53. The complicating factor is net runoff/meltwater input into sea level rise during the recent and mid 20th periods. Because the planet is warmer over the last 10 years than in 1950, one would expect a higher rate of sea level rise from net melt runoff. What that means is there must have been a very large heat gain post mid '40's. Unfortunately the heat content data is pretty sparse back then and even into the '50's.
-
Sea level rise is decelerating
jsmith - I believe the issue of concern is statistical significance. "Since 2004" is a very short time period, including the 2010 dip in sea level associated with La Nina, or "pot hole".
You really need to look at multi-decadal time periods to determine trends, as in Church and White 2011 who found "1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm/year and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm/year" and "For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm/year from the in situ data". They also note that "There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm/year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm/year2, respectively." (Emphasis added)
Short time periods, such as a single decade, are only going to show noise, not trends. While I don't subscribe to that particular journal and have not read the entire article, I fear that the paper is not properly evaluating the statistical significance of their results. If they can clearly support their hypotheses it will be interesting - but as it stands I see little support for such claims.
-
Rob Painting at 15:57 PM on 13 February 2014Sea level rise is decelerating
jsmith - that paper has been doing the rounds on contrarian blogs, so you probably 'stumbled' across a contrarian blog.
I haven't looked at the research paper in detail, but the general slowing of sea level rise after 2004-2005 fits in with the sharp acceleration of heat uptake into the ocean during 2000-2005, and a slower rate of heat uptake thereafter. This 'slowdown' is perhaps the most striking feature of the Hiroshima widget.
The recent trend in sea level rise is consistent with ocean heat uptake, so we shouldn't be surprised that the recent trend in sea level rise has slowed somewhat too. A similar pattern seems to have occurred during the 20th century too - short-term accelerations and decelerations against a background of long-term acceleration in sea level rise.
There are a few other factors to consider too (decadal variations in continental storage of water mass, for example), but land-ice melt is accelerating and thermal expansion is not really going to be a factor throughout 21st Century - the disintegration of the vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will be.
-
Rob Painting at 15:35 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper - 1976-1999, the last positive phase of the IPO, was interrupted by the large tropical volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991. - which cooled the Earth for several years and made an enormous impact on heat uptake by the ocean. See the graph below from Balmaseda (2013). This would have to be taken into consideration.
-
DSL at 15:04 PM on 13 February 2014Sea level rise is decelerating
jsmith, take a look at why SLR might seem to be decelerating between 2004 and 2012. Between 2011 and 2013, SLR was rising at ~7mm per year. You'd do better to ask what caused that trough.
-
jsmith at 14:36 PM on 13 February 2014Sea level rise is decelerating
Hello all. I recently stumbled upon a paper which states, in the abstract, that global mean sea level "rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012." This seems to indicate that sea level rise is decelerating globally (not just locally as was the case with Houston and Dean's paper). The paper can be viewed here. I would like to get some feedback on whether or not this does any damage to the apparently "consensus" view that sea level rise is accelerating.
-
scaddenp at 14:10 PM on 13 February 2014A methane mystery: Scientists probe unanswered questions about methane and climate change
What the summary above misses but the linked article states is:
"since 2007, atmospheric methane has become more depleted in 13C (14), an indication that growth is dominated by 12C-richer wetland and ruminant emissions"
That kind of lets FF and methane hydrates off the hook to some extent.
-
dr2chase at 14:04 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
How much does this extra heat dumped into the ocean affect sea level rise?
-
Klapper at 13:20 PM on 13 February 2014Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
@ HK #55:
"Of course a +IPO can enhance surface warming...."
I think you're starting to understand my argument. I accept there is an anthropogenic signal underlying the IPO cycle. However, the models have trouble with the IPO. They can't duplicate it so they ignore it and project that it should be warming right now at 0.20C/decade. After all, it's already warmed at over 0.18C/decade on a 30 year timescale and the CO2 level is higher then ever so it should be warming even faster than 0.18C decade, right?
The problem is that 0.18C/decade trend was boosted by the +phase of the IPO. The underlying anthropogenic signal is not that strong.
"...likely unprecedented heat uptake..."
That statement is probably not true since a rolling 30 year trend on the Church & White tide level sea level dataset shows an early peak of 2.13mm/year in the period 1933 to 1963 and 2.09 mm/year in the period 1980 to 2010. So if there was unprecedented heat uptake there should have been unprecedented sea level rise, unless you believe that the sea level rise before 1963 had higher levels of glacier melt than in the period 1980 to 2010.
Obviously those rates of sea level rise span both + and - phases of the IPO. However, if you look at shorter time spans (10 years) you will also find that current heat level gain is likely unprecedented, or not by much if it is. The sea level gain 1943 to 1953 was at 3.5mm/yr. 2000 to 2010 was 3.2 mm/yr., so there is nothing unprecedented about the last decade (Church & White ends at 2010 so I can't compare trends later than that to the '50s).
-
scaddenp at 13:11 PM on 13 February 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #6
0.5 to 0.6W/m2 would be a better estimate. Forcings are recalculated to TOA for reasons outlined in I think the 2nd IPCC report. That does not mean you can make more or less direct measurements on which base that recalculation. However, with respect to TOA imbalance, he is right that the instrumentation cannot give a direct absolute measurement. However, the Argo network provides another way to do estimate it. Conservation of Energy dictates that you cannot have OHC increasing without an energy imbalance, and furthermore it gives a good way to estimate the imbalance in absolute terms.
-
Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
Klapper - The IPO is generally considered to be strongly driven by (among other things) teleconnections to the long term ENSO variations, as per Newman et al 2003.
Given a strong influence such as that, the IPO may wll be an add-on effect to the ENSO variations. And since over the long term ENSO variations cancel out, reddened ENSO teleconnections will too. Remember that correlation is not causation - variations in the IPO may very well be longer term lagged ENSO effects, rather than causes of atmospheric temperature variation in and of themselves.
As others have noted, you appear to be jumping around from thread to thread, topic to topic, in search of support for pre-existing convictions - rather than following the physical evidence to see where it leads. Once a particular unsupported assertion is shown not to hold (it's the sun!, the models are bad!, ENSO, now IPO) you jump to something else that might give your views support. The term for this behavior is confirmation bias.
I would recommend applying some of your skepticism to your own views, rather than making additional unsupported assertions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:40 PM on 13 February 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Something nopbody has mentioned is that solar radiation reaching the surface is only one factor in how much energy is available to heat the overlying air (which is where air temperature comes from).
Nobody has mentioned the role of soil moisture, which plays a critical role in the division between thermal transfer to the atmosphere and evaporation (latent heat) transfer to the atmosphere. Dry soil means less evaporation means more thermal transfer means hotter air.
An less evaporation combined with warmer air often means less cloud, which lets more solar radiation through to the surface. HIgher solar radiation could be the result of the hot, dry conditions, not the cause of it.
And "more water vapour means more cloud" is not necessarily true, either. To form cloud, you need to take moist air and cool it to the condensation point. If the air is both more moist and warmer, it may be further from the condensation point (dew point temperature) rather than closer.
Prev 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 Next
