Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 Next
Comments 39251 to 39300:
-
It's cooling
tkman0 - It's global. Here's a video demonstrating that. And here's Marcott et al 2013, who show that recent climate changes are unprecedented in the Holocene despite any possible Bond events.
I would suggest giving him a link to the Most Used Myths, and having him tell you what doesn't answer his questions and hypotheses. If he has to keep changing his argument he didn't have a solid one to start with.
-
tkman0 at 13:25 PM on 27 January 2014It's cooling
Another one from the peanut gallery.
"if you look at the temperature profiles I posted in the forums previously, you see that the equater is cooling, as is the antarctic.
Since we are predominantly seeing global warming in the arctic and northern temperate zones, how do you know the data isn't a more regional warming event - as opposed to global warming.”
-
tkman0 at 13:08 PM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
my thoughts exactly
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:05 PM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
tkman0... I think it would be a good idea to get this person to cite his references so people can see where he's getting his information.
This last comment is as bizarre as I've seen, and I've seen a lot.
-
tkman0 at 13:04 PM on 27 January 2014It's cooling
Another one from the guy:
"I agree that D-O events may not be global events. On the other hand, if you look at the temperature profiles I posted in the forums previously, you see that the equater is cooling, as is the antarctic.
Since we are predominantly seeing global warming in the arctic and northern temperate zones, how do you know the data isn't a more regional warming event - as opposed to global warming."
I was wondering if evidence could be supplied to help me prove this guy wrong?
-
tkman0 at 12:46 PM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
@Tom Dayton,
It's personally very entertaining as odd as that may be. But also I'm learning a LOT in the process, so I hardly see this endeavour as worthless. But thanks for the admice anyway :)
-
tkman0 at 12:42 PM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Thanks Tom, also the guy sent this back which I found more hilarious than frustrating:
Again this is a very sophisticated but deceptive argument.
What Mann has done is he has thousands of tree samples from the cold periods. He has 7 (or some other similar number) from the IGW period.
So yes, applying the samples from the IGW period doesn't change the results - because his his data is not valid or representative.
Do you get the point? I'll explain it more if you dont.
-
Climate's changed before
tkman0 - It's pretty simple. Increased CO2 causes less IR to go to space at any surface temperature (physics, in particular spectroscopy).
A bit of Milankovitch warming causes the oceans to release some CO2 (temperature/solubility relationship), and considerably more warming results - a release of perhaps 20ppm/degree C - acting as a feedback. Our use of fossil fuels releases a great deal of CO2, and entirely without surprise warming results from that - in this case as a first cause. It doesn't matter whether the cause of CO2 increase is a bit of previous warming and ocean release or the result of millions of SUVs - the spectroscopic result of increased CO2 is that the climate will warm.
Not just correlation, but rather causation from physical principles (Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius all over 100 years ago) - with the correlation observed later (now) just as predicted.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:51 AM on 27 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
tkman0 @36, de nada! I do need to correct a misapprehension. I am not a researcher, let alone a seasoned researcher.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:41 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
tkman0, regarding causation, your denier is (irrationally, of course) consciously ignoring the experimental evidence that was woven together to form the theory that was then supported and improved by more experimental and other empirical evidence, and used to build models that unquestionably accurately predicted Earth's temperature trajectory. Links to that evidence already was pointed out in replies to you. That behavior is common among deniers. So you might as well give up on your denier, unless dealing with him is educating or entertaining you.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:36 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
tkman0 @383 quotes his interlocuter as saying:
"Doesn't that just scream to you that something is involved other than Co2? Since CO2 distribution is fungible & normal? And indeed - something else IS involved - the ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of climate change."
I am not even sure what your interlocuter is saying when they say "...CO2 distribution is fungible...". Are they saying that any distribution will have equal effect on climate? That it doesn't matter whether you have a Venusian or a Martian atmosphere when it comes to climate, its all the same? That is the literal meaning of what they write.
As to "... CO2 distribution is ... normal", that is clearly false when "normal" defined by comparison to the last 10 thousand, or indeed the last 5 million years. That is, you have to go back to a time when the apes whose descendants are modern humans were just differentiating from the apes whose descendants are chimpanzees and gorillas to find a time when that claim is anywhere near correct.
My primary concern, however, is the last sentence. Given that ocean temperature is a part of climate, indeed, a major part of climate, that sentence reduces to:
"Ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of ocean water temperatures"
or possible:
"Change in climate is a huge driver in climate".
Your interlocuter can only avoid the evident circularity of the claim by assuming feedbacks are very large such that any change in ocean temperatures will result in further changes in ocean temperatures in the same direction, and of substantial magnitude. That is, they must assume climate sensitivity is very large. Far greater than IPCC values. Without that assumption, his claim is vacuous due to circularity, and therefore cannot represent a causal relationship.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:21 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
tkman0, I have little to add to KR's comments re Dansgaard-Oeschger events. I will, however, show this graph from wikipedia:
The original caption reads:
"Comparison of temperature proxies for ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland for 140,000 years. Greenland ice cores use delta 18O, while Antarctic ice cores use delta 2H. Note the en:Dansgaard-Oeschger events in the Greenland ice core between 20,000 and 110,000 years ago, which barely register (if at all) in the corresponding Antarctic record. GRIP and NGRIP data is on ss09sea timescale, Vostok uses GT4, and EPICA uses EDC2."
I, however, want to draw your attention to the radical difference in magnitude in the perturbations due to D-O events durring the last glacial, and those during the Holocene - even in Greenland. If your interlocuter knows enough to know about D-O events, he also knows about the minimal impact during the holocene of their (possible) equivalents, and that consequently that the current warming in not a D-O event, or a Bond Event.
-
tkman0 at 11:16 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
Thank you very much KR, I appreciate the assistance. Tbh ive spent the last little while debating him, and his typical method seems to be to throw as much misinformation out there so that it makes it extremely dificult to debunk each argument on a case by case basis.
However he does keep coming back to the fact that just because there is a correlation between CO2 and temp doesnt make it causational. I point to the fact that we have never seen this level of atmospheric CO2 before but he simply denies it. He's largely a lost cause, I'm simply humoring him because it's fun to watch him squirm with the facts thrown at him over and over. I'll try to keep to the articles themselves and only resort to comments when explicitely necessary. Thanks again.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:00 AM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
tkman0 @70, the following graph from the supplementary material of Mann 09 shows reconstructions using all data (red), excluding tree rings (blue), excluding seven particular proxies "skeptics" have objected to (brown), and excluding both all tree rings and the seven particular proxies (green):
You should note that excluding the tree rings, or excluding the 7 particular proxies makes virtually no difference to the reconstruction. Excluding both does, at various locations, but does not consistently do so in any particular direction. Sometimes it is warmer and sometimes colder. That may simply be a function of the low sample size. The fewer the proxies, the more erratic the signal both because regional temperatures vary more than global (or hemisperic) temperatures; and because the fewer the proxies, the greater the probability actual noise, ie, a non-temperature signal, will survive rather than being cancelled out by averaging. Despite this greater erraticness, however, even excluding both tree ring and the seven particular proxies does not result in any major change in recent reconstructions, nor lift the reconstructed temperature above that in the late twentieth century at any point. Its biggest change where there are enough proxies to consider the reconstruction informative (ie, where it has a solid line) appears to be an elimination of the cooling coincident with the Maunder Minimum, ie, a clear error.
This is not the only reconstruction without tree rings, and none of the reconstructions without tree rings show a significantly different story to that from other reconstructions. Ergo, whatever the merits of Cecile et al (the paper referred to above), it has little bearing on the overall picture of past temperatures.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:42 AM on 27 January 2014More global warming will be worse for the economy, says Copenhagen Consensus Center
It is important to keep the big picture in mind when you are looking into any detail.
There are many other impacts from the activities related to burning of fossil fuels that need to be understood and included in the evaluation, similar to the way that reducing the burning of fossil fuels would reduce other harmful emissions, not just excess CO2 emissions. The bigger picture must not be ignored when looking into a discrete consideration like this evaluation of Global Warming impacts on the future vs. GDP benefit obtained today.
Another important fundamental aspect of 'speculation about the future value of the economy' is that any unsustainable activity, like the consumption of non-renewable resources, simply cannot be continued let alone 'grow'. Any consumption of non-renewable resources that creates accumulating damage to the diversity or profusion of 'life' is even less able to continue, let alone 'grow'.
There are also many unacceptable social consequences of the pursuit of benefit from unsustainable damaging activities. The ‘limited opportunity for benefit’ from unsustainable and damaging activities leads to fighting over that limited opportunity. This creates horrible human tragedy as a direct result, or collateral damage, of attempts by powerful people to ‘get more benefit’ any way they can get away with. It even diverts human brilliance and effort into damaging military and ‘security’ actions. That ‘fighting for more’ has been the cause of things like wars, invasions, overthrown governments, buying elections, international financial punishment, and propping up horrible leaders. It has also led to some nations deliberately trying to get away with economic competitive advantage by fighting against measures that would meaningfully restrict them obtaining benefit from burning fossil fuels.
The USA, Canada and Australia have clearly tried to ‘prolong and maximize’ their national advantage by fighting against global restrictions that would meaningfully and properly reduce the ‘false unsustainable value’ they are able to get away with obtaining from the burning of fossil fuels (including their benefit from expanded unacceptable activities in places like China). But it isn’t ‘those nations’ that are the problem. The real problem is the people who will try to get benefit any way they can get away with, including using their wealth to obtain control of governments in those nations through the popular appeal of getting away with unacceptable and damaging activities.
Many European economies are stepping back from their progress toward sustainable activity because they are losing competitive advantage to those ‘winners’. The European’s stepping back is declared to prove that their progress was unsustainable. That is clearly absurd since the stepping back is what is clearly unsustainable, yet it is a very popular belief.
Also, the fighting over limited opportunity means that many people must never be fortunate. Only a limited percentage can be fortunate in a battle over limited opportunity. The lack of boundless (sustainable) opportunity ensures poverty. Global GDP has grown many times quicker than global population yet desperate poverty persists.
Just like reducing CO2 emissions would reduce other unacceptable emissions, there is far more benefit to be obtained from reducing the ability of people to benefit from burning fossil fuels than the reduced impacts of excess CO2.
-
Climate's changed before
tkman0 - Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events occur during glacial periods. The interglacial equivalent is that of Bond events, discussed here. When considering those against recent climate change, however, Bond events are regional (showing in regional records such as Greenland or Antarctic ice cores), and in fact often include warming in one hemisphere (North or South) and cooling in the other. Recent warming is global, which just doesn't match the signature of a Bond event.
If your previous posting is any example, your opponent is clearly attempting to throw everything in the 'skeptic' myths but the kitchen sink in the hopes that something will stick. I find that sort of scattershot approach, rather than explaining an objection in detail, to be a signpost of denial - since any individual myth quickly runs aground due to errors of fact....
-
scaddenp at 10:17 AM on 27 January 2014It's the sun
Perhaps you can explain why a weak sun doesnt make everywhere colder? The immediate reason for the cold eastern US winter (and the very warm winter weather elsewhere) is the pertubations on the jet stream. How does the sun slipping just below peak cause this?
Science works like this: you put forward your hypothesis. Assuming the hypothesis is true what observations would I expect to see. Check observations against predictions. Your hypothesis would seem to fail against such tests while the alternative hypothesis (reduction in pole/equator temperature difference affecting jet stream) seems to be holding well.
-
tkman0 at 10:09 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
Also these D-O periods dont seem to be referenced on the website, which is mainly why I'm asking in a comment, to send him a more specific answer.
-
tkman0 at 09:58 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
I apologise, they're honestly not my own opinions, despite the fact that I can see how it was mistaken that way. I'm personally debating this guy on a website and these are the points he has sent to me and I'm just seeking a more professional explanation. The "main point" I was trying to point out was his reference to these D-O periods which I have no previous knowledge about. I'm sorry for posting the entire message he sent my way, I'll try to cut it down to the more basic points next time. And the reason why I'm posting these on his behalf is because I'm informing him while learning a lot myself in the meantime.
-
Climate's changed before
tkman0 - 'This is a major point made repeatedly by my "opponent"...'
Actually, that's an entire series of bad denial myth points, a veritable Gish Gallop. If your 'opponent' has an actual point, please indicate what that is. As it stands you have mentioned the climate has changed before, CO2 lags temperature, the erroneous strawman of claiming that CO2 is the only driver of climate, it's cosmic rays, it's aerosols, and the questionable assertion of repeated D-O events - and I may have missed a few.
That is not 'a major point'. It's a shopping list.
I hate to say this, but your posts have increasingly taken on the appearance of presenting your own opinions, not those of an 'opponent', ramping up in absurdity as initial errors are pointed out. I would strongly suggest looking at the list of the Most Used Climate Myths on this website regarding your most recent, and future, posts - it may save some time.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:44 AM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
tkman0 @70, the following graph from the supplementary material of Mann 09 shows reconstructions using all data (red), excluding tree rings (blue), excluding seven particular proxies "skeptics" have objected to (brown), and excluding both all tree rings and the seven particular proxies (green):
You should note that excluding the tree rings, or excluding the 7 particular proxies makes virtually no difference to the reconstruction. Excluding both does, at various locations, but does not consistently do so in any particular direction. Sometimes it is warmer and sometimes colder. That may simply be a function of the low sample size. The fewer the proxies, the more erratic the signal both because regional temperatures vary more than global (or hemisperic) temperatures; and because the fewer the proxies, the greater the probability actual noise, ie, a non-temperature signal, will survive rather than being cancelled out by averaging. Despite this greater erraticness, however, even excluding both tree ring and the seven particular proxies does not result in any major change in recent reconstructions, nor lift the reconstructed temperature above that in the late twentieth century at any point. Its biggest change where there are enough proxies to consider the reconstruction informative (ie, where it has a solid line) appears to be an elimination of the cooling coincident with the Maunder Minimum, ie, a clear error.
This is not the only reconstruction without tree rings, and none of the reconstructions without tree rings show a significantly different story to that from other reconstructions. Ergo, whatever the merits of Cecile et al (the paper referred to above), it has little bearing on the overall picture of past temperatures.
-
tkman0 at 09:03 AM on 27 January 2014Climate's changed before
This is a major point made repeatedly by my "opponent" one which I'd like answered as well if at all possible. Thank you again for your time.
"The period that we were talking about is the Younger Drayas / Preboreal
Which in conjunction means that we are talking of the transition from the Younger Drayas to the Preboreal.
This is an example of a D-O event. (Everyone calls them that because the names of the original people Dangaard -Oestinger? are hard to say/remember).
The point of that is that there have been THOUSANDS of these transitions. They occur every 1100-1500 years.
Think with common sense for a minute. If these transitions have been occuring every roughly 1500 years for thousands and thousands of years.
If that is true - why do you think THIS temperature change is man caused? Especially since we are roughly due for a transition? Remember these temperature changes have been seen for more several tens of millions of years - and in none of them were men around to cause the change.
In all of them, the CO2 levels changed; the atlantic and the pacific oscillations occurred.
In addition to that, Al Gore (et.al) has basically said that the temperatures the earth is seeing now is unprecedented. This is just simply factually untrue. Look at the K. ice cores - where we have an unbroken temperature record for like 1,000,000 years. Temperatures *higher* than the ones we see now have been seen every 50,000 years or so.
Followed by steep plunges in temperature (ie, drops of 12oF). The period of life that we regard as normal is only the very tip of the mountain - most of the time the temperatures of the earth are much, much colder. Hence sabertooth tigers and mammoths.
Now, regarding the two skeptical science articles about correlation & lag.
I quite agree that there is a correlation between co2 and temperature. Where I differ is that I do not believe that Co2 is causal.
But I need to refine that statement again.
As the vostok cores show (and every other ice core) is that Co2 follows temperature change. Again, this is a simple reflection of Henry's Law - which climate scientists are trying very hard to ignore.
In that second skeptical science article, they cherry pick exactly *one* transition, that was known to have asymptomatic co2 event to prove therefore that ALL transitions are induced by carbon.
Thats flat out deceptive.
Look back to the Quaternary paper I quoted. It claims that it is clear that there are SIX main drivers of climate change - as opposed to AGW -which claims there is only one.
If you look at the Quaternary paper - as well as others - you will see they claim that the temperature difference attributable to the change in CO2 is between 1.1 and 2.0 degrees.
(Also many D-O events occur that have precisely that range of temperature changes; as well as the current temperature change).
The quaternary paper is nowhere near alone in claiming documenting D-O transitions - there are literally hundreds of papers saying the same thing.
Going back to the skeptical article you quoted (again, not a science paper, but I'll live). Look at the graph. Notice that the temperature change occurred differently in the arctic and the anarctic.
Doesn't that just scream to you that something is involved other than Co2? Since CO2 distribution is fungible & normal? And indeed - something else IS involved - the ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of climate change.
Again, even the hansen paper you quoted said that climate change could be caused by orbit shift.
So contrary to what you have thought, I do not disagree with the fundamental fact that CO2 absorbs in the infrared.
Contrary to what you may have thought, I do not necessarly believe that Co2 doesn't play some role in global warming. It may.
But if so, it is one of many drivers of climate forcing.
And what I said before is still true - the role of co2 outside the troposphere and the effects of carbon migration through the atmosphere are mostly unknown, and that nasa has documented that CO2 in the upper atmsphere cools the planet.
And the effects of aerosols - as one of your skeptical articles alludes too, plays a much larger role than the AGW accepts. This by the way is the nature of Svenmark's & Cern's & others research."
-
thepoodlebites at 08:59 AM on 27 January 2014It's the sun
I think we are starting to see the effect of a weak cycle 24 with the unusually cold winter in the eastern U.S., and the strong rebound in the Arctic sea ice extent, escpecially the 3-4+ year ice.
-
2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4B
villabolo - Indeed. Here's the map for 2013.
-
tkman0 at 08:48 AM on 27 January 2014Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Me again, my opponent sent me this message and was wondering if I could recieve a proper answer to it. I know tree rings dont ONLY respond to cold temperatures, but I dont have everything I need to make a compelling case.
What he said:
"if you look at the tree ring proxies, they are only effective during "cold periods. They chose to exclude MWP because the data model breaks down."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/oh-mann-paper-demonstrates-that-tree-ring-proxy-temperature-data-is-seriously-compromised/
-
villabolo at 08:24 AM on 27 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4B
The most intuitively obvious response to members of the public is the temperature anomaly image from GISS which shows that most of the earth is warmer than average with only a small portion of it - the US and canada - being colder than average for the month of December.
Like the old saying goes: One picture is worth a thousand words
-
tkman0 at 02:33 AM on 27 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Thank you very much for your assistance Tom, I'm an 2nd year Environmental Science major in university right now and while climate and resource management is my focus, it helps to have a seasoned researcher assist me in dealing with this denier.
-
GRLCowan at 01:51 AM on 27 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4B
Stranger, money is said to be needed to continue updating the Keeling curve. There is a donation button at http://rabett.blogspot.ca/ .
-
barry1487 at 18:16 PM on 26 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Tom, thanks for doing a more in-depth analysis. I wasn't sure how to convert Mj/sq M to W/sq M over a year.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:33 PM on 26 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Bruiser, it seems to me you are misunderstanding a key point in the OP. It is shown in this figure:
The idea is that there are many short term factors that influence annual temperatures. As a result temperatures may be warmer, or colder from year to year - but always within a limited range. Long term factors, such as increased atmospheric forcing from CO2, however, can shift the mean of that range, allowing temperatures that we would never have seen otherwise. That is clearly seen in the figure above. 2013 is a warm year for the "human plus natural" distribution, but an extreme year for the "natural only" distribution.
That distribution pattern is born out by comparing the distributions for Australia's annual temperatures for 1910-1939 (our "natural" sample), and those for 1990-2013. The former has a mean of -0.339 C, and a standard deviation of 0.323 C. Relative to that period, 2013's temperature was 4.76 standard deviations above the mean. Assuming a normal distribution (which is close enough for a rough estimate), that indicates the 2013 temperature had a return interval of less than once in every 300,000 years. A full statistical analysis of all available data may well reduce that return period, but it will not stop it from being an extraordinary event ... assuming natural forcings only.
In contrast, relative to the 1990-2013 mean, 2013 is only 2.3 standard deviations above the mean. That yields a return interval of more than 1 in a hundred. It is a little unusual that we should have so warm an event in just 24 years on that account, but not particularly so.
Note that the logic of the case for attribution assumes that 2013 is unusually warm, even for recent years. If it were not, it would only be a couple of standard deviations above the early twentieth century mean. In that case we could have little confidence that there had been a shift in that mean, and hence a cause of that shift. This means that we expect the unusual warmth of 2013 to not have been caused just by global warming, but by other factors as well.
So, you have provided evidence that 2013 is unusual, even for recent years. But that is a necessary condition for the argument for attribution. If no such unusual factor existed, the theory of global warming would be embarassed by underpredicting the actual temperature. So, while it is interesting that you have found that factor, it is not particularly germaine unless you show it to be a more significant factor in 2013's unusual heat than anthropogenic forcing.
To try and resolve that question, I determined the difference between the mean solar exposure over the period 1990-2013, and the 2013 solar exposure for all towns shown in the map of average solar exposure @28 above. Out of interest, that is a total of 61 towns, out of which just 2 (Burnie and Cairns) did not set a record. Overall, the mean 2013 solar exposure anomaly for those 61 towns was 1.88 MJ/annum per meter squared. Averaged over the whole year, that is just 0.06 W/m^2.
That differs slightly from the actual mean Australian solar exposure anomaly of 2013. I know that because there are more towns listed in eastern and moist areas than in western and dry areas. As Western Australia had the third lowest, and below average, solar exposure anomaly, this has probably (and unusually) biased the result towards a higher anomaly value. More importantly, the eastern and moist areas are also the areas with the lowest albedo, so the bias probably also means the mean of the 61 towns better matches the actual mean effect of increased solar exposure than would a true mean of solar exposure. Whatever, the difference, however, we can be confident that the solar exposure anomaly lies between 0.03 and 0.09 W/m^2 (ie, +/- 2 SD of the 61 towns).
It is important to note that this is a figure for solar exposure, not for the forcing anomaly. To obtain the later, we would need to multiply for, each region of Australia, the solar exposure anomaly by (1 minus the albedo) for that region. As I do not have the albedo data, I will content myself with the solar exposure data. I will note, however, that Australia is mostly desert, and deserts have high albedos. The correction for an actual forcing anomaly is, therefore, likely to be substantial.
Having dealt with preliminaries, how does the solar exposure anomaly for 2013 compare to anthropogenic radiative forcing? The IPCC gives a figure of 2.3 W/m^2 as the Effective Anthropogenic Radiative forcing as of two years ago. It has, of course, increased slightly since then. Here then is a comparison of the solar exposure anomaly to the anthropogenic effective radiative forcing:
Note, the orange bars are solar exposure in annual terms. The blue bars are the same figures averaged over the year in terms of W/m^2, and are the most directly comparable figures for the anthropogenic Effective Radiative Forcing.
I think it is very clear from this that while the record solar exposure contributed to the warmth, and is a major factor in 2013 being a warm year relative to recent years - it is not as important a factor in the warmth of 2013 as is anthropogenic forcings. That is, 2013 was indeed warm relative to recent years due to high solar exposure. But recent years are warm relative to the early twentieth century due to anthropogenic global warming. Further, the attribution study got it right. It shows that a warm year relative to recent years allows us to show conclusively that recent warmth is not just an accident of natural variability.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:45 PM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
tkman0 @31:
"If you take an atom of CO2 in the lower atmosphere and it absorbs energy and reradiates it - molecules can be modelled as radiating energy in all 360 degrees. Part of that energy gets radiated back to the earth (around 36% in the lower troposphere) and part gets radiated to space. (I'm simplifying, ignoring the convective, conductive etc elements of energy transfer between atoms, reradiation etc)."
Your interlocuter is ignoring absorption and reradiation of emitted energy. Therefore his claim purports to be based purely on geometry. For only 36% of the sphere to be occupied by the Earth's surface, the angle from the closest point of the surface to the limb of the planet as seen from the point of emission must be 64.8 degrees. Given that the radius of the Earth is 6,371 km, it follows that the point of emission must be 670 km above the Earth's surface. Given that the troposphere only extends from 10-20 km above the Earths surface, your interlocuter's definition of the "lower atmosphere" is bizarre to say the least. Indeed, it only just avoids being in the exosphere, the layer of atmosphere from "700 km to the Moon's surface", a layer higher than most satellites.
The later 1% claim is even more outrageous. It requires an altitude of 196,458 km, approximately half way to the moon.
In fact, as you rise in the atmosphere, more and more radiation does escape to space - but that is entirely due to the decreasing atmospheric concentration rather than to changes in the subtended arc of the Earth's surface. Further, the proportions he quotes are pure fictions.
"So, by the time you get to the outer atmospheres ..."
Does your interlocuter think the Earth has more than one atmosphere? Given the absurdity of some of their other errors, it is hard to be sure what is mistyped, and what is another fallacy.
What your interlocuter says from there on is reasonably close to true. It is only true of the Thermosphere, however, ie, the atmosphere from 50 to 800 km in altitude. At that altitude temperatures vary rapidly as the result of energy being dumped into the atmosphere from solar flares. That energy is then rapidly reradiated away, primarilly by CO2, with about 90% going to space and 10% to Earth. The effect is to buffer the Earth, reducing the increase in temperature at the Earth's surface from increased solar activity.
The effect has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, which occurs in the first 30 km of the atmosphere. Above that, atmospheric concentration is to low to have much of an effect. It certainly does not falsify the greenhouse effect which has been experimentally observed and shown to exist in no uncertain terms.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:13 PM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
tkman0 @30:
"...you should not make the assumption that I know nothing about climate warming..."
From what follows, the assumption seems well warranted.
"... Such as, for example the importance of aerosol formation on clouds. The importance of ionizing radiation for aerosol formation."
Your interlocuter here refers to Svensmark's hypothesis that cosmic rays cause clouds. He is definitely wrong about the IPCC being mistaken about this hypothesis. In AR4 all they had to say was:
"Whether ... solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous."
What the IPCC AR5 actually says on the effects of cosmic rays on climate is:
"Changes in solar activity affect the cosmic ray flux impinging upon the Earth’s atmosphere, which has been hypothesized to affect climate through changes in cloudiness. Cosmic rays enhance aerosol nucleation and thus may affect cloud condensation nuclei production in the free troposphere, but the effect is too weak to have any climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement) . No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the event that such an association exists, it is very unlikely to be due to cosmic ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles."
(My emphasis)
Now, either your interlocuter thinks Svensmark's hypothesis is falsified, and was falsified as of AR4 (in which case they have indeed corrected an "error"), or he is completely misrepresenting the IPCC, presenting a stronger rejection of the hypothesis as being a correction of prior rejection of the hypothesis (which does not exist).
"... This causes the oceans - when they get warmer - to release massive quantities of CO2 (and O2 etc)."
Absolutely it is a known fact. What is uncertain is the exact ratio of increase in atmospheric CO2 per degree C increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), as other factors are involved. We can quantify it approximately, however, by the 100 ppmv increase in CO2 for an approximately 5 degree C increase in GMST between the last glacial and the Holocene. That gives an expected increase of 20 ppmv in atmospheric CO2 per degree C. Alternatively we could quantify it from the 10 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 during the MWP, although a massive human cause deforestation may interfere with that calculation. In either case, it is clear that this effect is not adequate to explain even half of the increase in CO2. Deniers hide that fact by referring to Boyle's law, but never quantifying the details. It is as though they have something to hide, and know it.
Even worse for your interlocuters argument is the fact that CO2 concentration in the ocean has been increasing. His theory predicts that it would be decreasing. Further, the decrease in proportion of C14 in the atmosphere indicates the source of the CO2 is C14 free, ie, like fossil fuels, and unlike oceanic CO2. Indeed, six out of 10 lines of empirical evidence preclude oceanic outgassing as being the source of the excess atmospheric CO2, with another two lines of evidence providing contrary evidence, but not decisively so.
-
barry1487 at 13:05 PM on 26 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Bruiser,
the solar exposure data is only 24 years long. It's possible that there have been previous years with more solar exposure (but lower national average temperature). So in order to test your hypothesis I did a state by state comparison. Using your methods (spatially similar), most states experienced the warmest years when solar exposure was not at the highest, and some states were warmest in a year when solar exposure was about average.
I agree that solar exposure should have some influence and that other factors are at play. But I think positing that solar exposure is the 'dominant' factor based on such a cursory analysis isn't convincing, particularly when belied by a slightly more granular look. We must admit that what we have attempted is a tiny fraction of the work done for formal studies, like the one mentioned in the article above, so neither of us should be jumping to conclusions.
There are way too many variables in our climate to settle on a single cause for any particular year.
Strongly agreed. The same point is made in the article above.What caused these extreme temperatures? Climate scientists have a problem: because climate deals with averages and trends, we can’t attribute specific records to a particular cause.
But our research has made significant headway in identifying the causes of climate events, by calculating how much various factors increase the risk of extreme climate events occurring.
This is probability analysis. The authors state,
We found that human influence increased the odds of setting this new record by at least 100 times.
Your approach is different. You are looking at attribution. Strange then, that you, me and the authors all agree that that is not possible for a specific year.
-
michael sweet at 11:28 AM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
tkman0,
Your description seems about right to me. At the surface (where we live) CO2 causes warming. In addition to the angle of emission, energy emitted upward is usually reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule at a higher altitude. This enhances the warming. Since the troposphere is cooler the higher you go, the higher molecule emitts less energy. As CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, the hight in the troposphere where the energy can escape to space becomes cooler. This is the basis of the greenhouse effect. This post on hte greenhouse effect might help a little.
The stratosphere is also cooled as you describe. This is one of the key predictions of greenhouse theory and demonstrates that the warming is caused by increased greenhouse gases and not the sun. There is no significant transfer of energy from the stratosphere to the troposphere so the cooling effect in the stratosphere has no significant temperature effect at the surface of the Earth. This effect was predicted decades ago.
Most of the energy that reaches the outer edge of the atmosphere reaches the troposphere. Half of the difference between the 1347 and the about 270 w/m2 at the surface is caused by the fact that half the Earth is in darkness all the time (the night side) so you have to devide 1347 by 2. Much of the rest of the difference is due to the fact that the remaining 675 W/m2 is a square meter perpendicular to the sun and the surface of the Earth is round so most does not receive the light directly. About 1/3 of the light is reflected by clouds. Scientists studying climate (the IPCC) have measured all this. While some energy is emitted from the upper atmosphere by CO2, the net effect on the surface of the Earth is warming. Much of the reflected energy and the energy emitted from the stratosphere has always been emitted. It is the changes in energy flux casued by changes in CO2 that we are interested in. Those energy fluxes cause the surface warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:03 AM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
tkman0... It sounds like your denier-guy has a bunch of accurate facts but is interpreting entirely the wrong way.
For one, the IPCC isn't getting things "spectaculary wrong." They're merely putting out a report on the current science. If he wants to claim the IPCC is misinterpreting the research, I would have to say, I don't hear a lot of climate researchers jumping up and down about these supposed errors.
Your denier-guy correctly states that there are many forcings that act on the climate system. I'd have him watch Richard Alley's lecture "The Biggest Control Knob" which explains the science of why CO2 is the biggest (but not only) factor controling global temperature.
Another weird one here: "This causes the oceans - when they get warmer - to release massive quantities of CO2 (and O2 etc)." Etc, etc.
He's getting his knickers in a knot merely because he doesn't understand that CO2 can act as a feedback (as with ocean warming/glacial-interglacial cycles) but can also act as a forcing (as with burning fossil fuels).
-
bruiser at 11:00 AM on 26 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Barry - Hi Barry, I have not looked too closely at other years. My original point was and remains that the average temperatures across Australia should have been a new record based on levels of solar radiation alone. The major climate influences, IOD, ENSO and SAM all favour a drier South-eastern Australia. There are way too many variables in our climate to settle on a single cause for any particular year. Blaming the Australian 2013 record temperatures on AGW flies in the face of a very obvious and dominant natural cause.
Cheers,
Bruiser
-
tkman0 at 08:54 AM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Also have another one I'd like answered:
"If you take an atom of CO2 in the lower atmosphere and it absorbs energy and reradiates it - molecules can be modelled as radiating energy in all 360 degrees. Part of that energy gets radiated back to the earth (around 36% in the lower troposphere) and part gets radiated to space. (I'm simplifying, ignoring the convective, conductive etc elements of energy transfer between atoms, reradiation etc).
As you ascend the atmospheric column ipast the troposphere, several things happen.
a). The arc of reradiation to the earths atmosphere decreases (to a very small number - less than 1%). And the amount reradiated to space increases. (Virtually all).
b). The contribution of convection, conduction decrease as well to almost zero, and the contribution by radiation dominates (due to concentration of molecules, primarily).
So, by the time you get to the outer atmospheres, CO2 is no longer acting to warm the planet. In fact in the outer atmosphere, the amount of energy absorbed from IR emitted from the eart is for all intents and purposes - zero. Instead, in the outer atmospher, CO2 is energized (and in fact is almost always a plasma in some strata) by much more energetic radiation. And CO2 serves to reradiate this energy back into outer space.
This is proven born out by the fact that the energy density of solar radiation at the outer edge of the atmosphere is roughtly 1347 per meter square. And the aereal density at the earth's surface is much less than a quarter - the rest of the energy (simplification) is reradiated to space.
So in fact, by the outer atmosphere, CO2 is acting to COOL the planet.
In the previous thread, I provided links to the study by Nasa that confirmed this finding, and confirmed that they would have to reconsider the NET effect of CO2 on global warming (warming in the low atmosphere, cooling in the high atmosphere)."
Moderator Response:[TD] First, he needs to revisit his geometry; CO2 molecules would have be to pretty darn high for "nearly all" of their emitted radiation to go to space. Here is one explanation of how CO2 cools the stratosphere while warming the troposphere: "Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming."
-
tkman0 at 08:50 AM on 26 January 2014There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Ive been debating a climate change denier for a while on a website, and he stated this and I was looking for a fair rebuttal:
"
I return to the fact that you should not make the assumption that I know nothing about climate warming - and you would learn more if you asked questions about what my beliefts are.
Carbon is only one of MANY forcing elements in climate. And the IPCC has been spectacularly wrong on many of them - and even admitted the same. Such as, for example the importance of aerosol formation on clouds. The importance of ionizing radiation for aerosol formation.
Finally, I return to a question I asked several weeks ago.
When the temperature of the ocean increases, the solubility of gasses decrease - something known as Henry's law or Boyles law. This causes the oceans - when they get warmer - to release massive quantities of CO2 (and O2 etc).
This is known fact.
The opposite is in fact, not proven. In other words given increased CO2, AGW says that ocean temperatures increase.
The observable fact is that increasing temperatures correlates with increased CO2 concentration. But it doesn't say a damn thing about causation.
Can you restate my point here so that I can confirm you understand it?"
Moderator Response:[TD] See the post "CO2 is Not the Only Driver of Climate," noticing the relative contributions of various forcings. By "ionizing radiation" I'm guessing that he/she means cosmic ray influence on clouds; see "It's Cosmic Rays." Notice there are multiple tabs--Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced.
Regarding oceans: Of course climatologists know that the CO2 absorbing capacity of the oceans decreases as the oceans warm. However, oceans continue absorbing until they reach a fairly high temperature. And a counterforce is that the oceans also absorb more CO2 as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Climatologists figure all that into their calculations. We know that currently the oceans continue to absorb, not emit, CO2, because (a) the oceans continue to acidify (i.e., become less alkaline) as a consequence of their CO2 absorption, and (b) the oceans absorb the bulk of CO2 from human activities, along with all the natural emissions of CO2: See here and here.
Causality of CO2 versus temperature was established when the mechanisms were understood (via experimentation) back in the 19th through mid 20th centuries. Observations of global temperatures confirming those theoretical projections were made decades later, when global observations were sufficiently capable. The exact mechanism by which CO2 warms the oceans was determined later, but again with experimentation.
The fact that temperature increase causes CO2 increase in no way undermines the fact that CO2 increase causes temperature increase; see "CO2 Lags Temperature" and also "Warming Causes CO2 Rise."
-
Stranger8170 at 08:40 AM on 26 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4B
It's very upsetting when you realize that certain vested interests keep alive bogus ideas because of their deep pockets and nothing else.
Where can I send a donation to help promote the AGW message? I've spent a lot of time at blogs making the same repeated general defenses against their zombie science. Since I’m a mile wide and a foot deep when it comes to the science, I think I might serve the cause more by helping in financial ways.
-
It’s all a Question of Balance
#4, Kiwiiano:
Interesting question!
Let’s assume that all types of coal have an average energy content of roughly 25 megajoules per kg.
To release 300 trillion watts of heat from coal burning would therefore take 3 x 1014 / 2.5 x 107 = 12,000,000 kg or 12,000 tons of coal every second.
That equals about 1 billion tons per day or 365 billion tons per year, about 50 times more than the actual global coal consumption! And that’s just the energy imbalance. The net anthropogenic forcing is 3 or 4 times higher.
Needless to say that the sceptical argument "It’s waste heat" is hard to take seriously for anyone who have bothered to learn a little about the subject!
-
william5331 at 04:46 AM on 26 January 2014More global warming will be worse for the economy, says Copenhagen Consensus Center
As dire as these predictions are, they may be highly optomistic. Over the past few years we have had little rumbles in the agricultural production of Northern Hemisphere countries (and Australia, this year, by the way). The Jet stream reminds me of a top that is slowing down and wobbling, just before it falls over. In the past with the continents, basically in the same positions that they are now, there were trees right up to the shores of the Arctic ocean. If our climate shifts rapidly or even worse, if it flickers back and forth between the present situation and the new one, with climate zones radically shifted northward in the new one, we will have massive crop failures. You can fill in the rest of the scenario following even one year of crop failure.
-
Phil at 00:53 AM on 26 January 2014Newcomers, Start Here
Zinckidd @236.
Coming to this a bit late, sorry - hope you're still reading ...One point that follows on from DSL's is why, if your friend is right, is there no Climate Change equivalent of Edward Snowden ? Now whatever you think of him, you cannot deny that the CIA and NSA managed to employ someone who, through the courage of their convictions, eventually blew the whistle on what he saw as a wrongdoing (at considerable personal cost). How come, given the size that the "Climate Change grant funding conspiracy" would have to be (and the number of years it would have to have been in action) why has no-one blown the whistle ?
Another point concerns the "ClimateGate" emails. Deniers trawled those email for evidence of wrongdoing and found only a few instances of anything of interest, all of which, under closer examination turned out to nothing more than unfortunate turns of phrase that sounded damming only when taken out of context. But there was nothing at all in the entire archive to suggest a link (either real or imagined by the researchers themselves) between funding and the results they obtained. -
barry1487 at 00:06 AM on 26 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Bruiser, I rechecked the 2013 solar exposue map against annual values for various locations again and you are quite right. The colour bands do not match the local values. I will email BOM about it.
2Mj/sq M/day is an enormous amount of additional energy if you accept the calculation that just 0.4 W/sq M is sufficient to cause the decline in arctic ice. (energy required to melt 290 cubic Km of ice).
How then would you explain that 4 out of 7 states had warmest years when before 2013, when solar exposure was not highest (in the capitals)?Following are the warmest years by state, and solar exposure data value (Mj/sq M/day) for that year, ranked from highest, per single locational in the capitals, then record solar exposure (2013) in bold. Period is 1990 - 2013 incl. which is all the solar exposure data we have.
NSW/ACT - 2009
Sydney (Botanic Gardens) - 16.3 (15th) - 18.8
Canberra (Botanic Gardens) - 17.6 (10th) - 19.3
TAS - 2007
Hobart (Botanical Gardens) - 14.1 (11th) - 15.0
VIC - 2007
Melbourne (Botanical Gardens) - 16.1 (4th) - 16.9
QLD - 2005
Brisbane (Botanic Gardens) - 19.4* (3rd) - 20.1
* 2005 is missing December solar exposure data for all locations, but it is very high the other 11 months.If solar exposure is the dominant influence, and you are happy to extrapolate by single locations at the capitals, then why do these results not correlate? Why is annual solar exposure 2 Mj/sq M lower than the record for Sydney and Canberra during NSW/ACT warmest year? Why did Hobart's annual solar exposure rank 11th during Tasmania's warmest year?
(I used different locations in the cities for this post. It was usually airports for my previous post, which is why some values are different. Selected Botanic Gardens this time because that was a common location that had full data in each city, and this time counted 2005 as 3rd highest solar exposure for each capital. That estimate and location changes make no difference to the point.)
-
kanspaugh at 23:42 PM on 25 January 2014Answering questions about consensus in a MOOC webinar
The question about the authors surveying only climate science journals kills me. Should fossil fuel trade magazines have been included? How about "Crackpot Quarterly"? / / When it comes to this question of whose opinion about climate change is worth considering, one might reflect upon the implications of the recent survey that discovered, among those who self-identify as Republican, almost twenty percent more believe in demonic possession than believe in anthropogenic global warming. Millions believe that Hell exists, that Satan lives there, that He periodically sends evil demons to earth to displace our souls from our bodies, THAT they believe. But the idea that dumping billions of tons of heat-retaining gas into the atmosphere will eventually warm that atmosphere? I mean come on, that's really far fetched . . .
-
Micawber at 22:37 PM on 25 January 2014It’s all a Question of Balance
The analysis of heat balance is fine. However, the ocean does not boil dry because it is heated from the top.
Ocean surface buoyancy is pulled in two directions. Seawater density decreases with increasing temperature but decreasing salinity. Tropical evaporation takes heat from incoming radiation, puts water vapour into the atmosphere, and produces brine that sinks and carries heat downwards.
Zonal Walker and meridional Hadley cells carry water vapour away from the equator. The result is that the ocean surface has a buoyant brackish layer increasing to tropical warm pools, and polewards. The Arctic Ocean has more freshwater from runoff and icemelt than any other Ocean per unit volume. Moreover, evaporation increases by 7% per degC temperature increase while precipitation increases by 2-3% per degree. There is therefore a positive feedback through atmospheric humidity.
Ocean heat trapping, poleward transport of heat and nutrients has been buffered until recently by basal icemelt according to a recent paper:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/11/47/2014/osd-11-47-2014-print.pdf
I take this paper very seriously because it is based on actual fieldwork observations to oceanographic standards. It also shows that heat in the oceans is very hard to extract. The prognosis is that ocean warming will continue to accelerate.
The problem should properly be addressed by extensive near-surface fieldwork particularly on meridional transects. This cannot be done by satellite observations. They cannot do plankton tows by satellite.
There has been a well-funded denier lobby to convince the public that AGW is a scam.
The result is that field research is being discontinued everywhere as SKS readers know well.
US, Australia, UK have all reduced budgets. UK ocean research budget was slashed a year ago.
Canada is only the latest casualty. This alarming video should be widely read and discussed:
Silence of the Labs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45N_mc50Y -
bruiser at 21:03 PM on 25 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Hi Barry, My check of values against the map found only one where the actual record was within the correct colour band; some were over 2MJ above the displayed range. 2Mj/sq M/day is an enormous amount of additional energy if you accept the calculation that just 0.4 W/sq M is sufficient to cause the decline in arctic ice. (energy required to melt 290 cubic Km of ice).
Diurnal variation has interested me for a few years. For example, if you plot the data for Melbourne, you get a steady decline. However, the Melbourne weather station is situated at a busy city intersection. I plotted the data for Laverton on the same graph and there is a great correlation until about 1964 when there is a steady roll-off in the Melbourne values. No such decline occurrs for Laverton - suggesting that the Melbourne site was affected by some form of development.
-
michael sweet at 19:41 PM on 25 January 2014More global warming will be worse for the economy, says Copenhagen Consensus Center
My understanding is that in addition to the economic injustices described above, economic bean counters often count damage from AGW as enhancing economic activity. Say Hurricane Katrina causes $100 billion in damage to houses. This is not counted as part of GDP. People come in and rebuild half the houses destroyed at a cost of $50 billion. This is counted as an increase in GDP. People end up with houses worth $50 billion less than they started with and GDP increases $50 billion. If damage from AGW counted against GDP we would already see measurable affects to lower GDP. Is this understanding correct?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:25 PM on 25 January 2014It’s all a Question of Balance
HK
Interesting analogy. This is also why I used the Sydney Harbour analogy. Something visual, visceral and imaginable.This could be extended to your body-of-water of choice.
Here is another one, Take this heat and imagine it was all going into just the air - I know that is unphysical but it is still informative.. 4 Hiroshima bonbs per second equals a temperature rise for the atmosphere of 1.6 Deg C/year.
-
adamski5807 at 15:52 PM on 25 January 2014More global warming will be worse for the economy, says Copenhagen Consensus Center
what do we exactly mean when we say economic growth? Growth of what? The problem with capitalism' is that short term profits always out trumps long term outcomes, as externalities are never factored into"free market" calculations.
here are some suggestions to begin the long path in address this that you wont see discused in our media or implemented by our so called leaders and "captains of industry" unless we force them.
five-economic-policy-changes-for-2014-that-could-boost-employment-and-reduce-climate-disruption
-
jja at 15:39 PM on 25 January 2014More global warming will be worse for the economy, says Copenhagen Consensus Center
Tom@4
Agreed. on almost all points.
when you say "we" you are referring to a large body of individuals, some of whom are type-1 error avoidance biased and others are type-2 error avoidance biased.This is the origin of the conflict of the discussion.
Anyone of reputation in the field of economics or evnironmental studies who believes that a 4C rise in temperatures in the next 60 years won't cause negative economic growth should be disregarded as an ideological actor and not worth listening to.
This, of course, assumes we aren't taking fault with the concept of GDP as a measure of prosperity nor of the abject failure of assigning value as one attempts to substitute for massively expanding desertification, the collapse of the amazon rainforest, the burning of the boreal forests, global-scale extinction events of niche species, fishery collapses and the probability that these feedbacks herald at tipping-point mechanism that will result in a 350 year feedback loop that will eventually result in a p-tr event global extinction.
Prev 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 Next
