Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 Next
Comments 39851 to 39900:
-
barry1487 at 06:32 AM on 1 January 2014More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Thanks for the replies.
KR - you and I are making the same point. It was this statement from the article caught my attention.
"Their data set estimates the warming of the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere at 0.21°C over the past 15 years"
I would hesitate to describe that as 'making noise about noise', but it is odd to see a definitive trend value given at SkS when the uncertainty is greater than the trend. Seems out of place in an otherwise reasonable article.
-
rocketman at 05:40 AM on 1 January 2014Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
@garethman You are right that the climate is not cooling or staying the same, but you are wrong when you say there is no long term trend. We know with high confidence from paleoclimate research that from about 5000 years Before Present up until 100 BP that the global average temperature was slowly but steadily falling. Over that 4900 year period it fell about 0.7°C - not in a perfectly straight line of course, but probably never more than +/- 0.2°C away from it. Now, in the last 100 years or so the global average temperatue has suddenly risen by about 0.7°C. That is the other point regarding your up-down-sideways comment. There are infinitely more than three options. It could be going down slowly at a rate of 0.7°C per 5000 years or up suddenly at a rate of 0.7°C per 100 years.
Since it is not entirely clear (to me at least) what point you are trying to make, I will add that the above mentioned sudden rise in global average temperature was quantitatively predicted as early as 1938 on the basis of human emissions of CO2.
-
grindupBaker at 05:29 AM on 1 January 2014Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
garethman #5 Yes on the soft science of "explanation" but it's the Climate Sensitivity that's up for grabs if one pushes aside the large eclectic mix of babble. Needs many more thermometers in the oceans to reduce the interpolation needed because that can be an accurate measure of warming from year to year. The MST gets pushed around the planet a lot because of innumerable vagaries. It's more of a symptom than a prime indicator (of course, it's the symptoms that get discussed).
-
william5331 at 05:07 AM on 1 January 2014Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
Gaia is fighting back. Good luck to her. As the Arctic ocean becomes more and more open and more heat is accumulated, we should see more low pressure events (rising air) over the Arctic and a positive AO. This sucks air from the south and with it heat. It shifts climate zones northward. However, it cools the Arctic with cloud cover taking over the job from snow of reflecting energy back into space. In the mean time, heat sucked nortward, reduces the temperatures in mid latitudes where most of the thermometers are located. Gaia is doing her best. Pity we can't help her. Carbon dioxide emissions for 2013 are a tad above the worst case scenario suggested many years ago. As individuals we are so smart, as a species so dumb. Strange.
-
More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Barry - Looking at the UAH data set there has been no significant warming since last Tuesday. That statement, while true, is about as useful as yours; a lack of statistical significance for short time periods (15 years is quite short for atmospheric temperatures) indicates insufficient data, not a "pause" or for that matter a sudden acceleration. You need enough data to actually make a determination.
More complete data sets, such as those including ocean heat content, have sufficient data to discern trends from variation for shorter periods - and those show warming. As do all data sets if you look at enough data to make a distinction - warming.
Claims from insignificant time periods are simply making noise about noise.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:18 AM on 1 January 2014More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Barry @13, as you recognize @14, it is now 2014. The last 15 years, therefore, starts in January of 1999, from which date the trend calculator shows a trend of 0.146 +/- 0.215 C per decade. That misses the last one or two months data, including the December data which has not been released yet (and probably not yet calculated). Using WoodforTrees, and ensuring a full 15 years data from Dec 1998-Nov 2013, the trend is 0.135 C per decade.
Those figures are not the 0.21 C quoted in the OP, which appears to be a mistake. Never-the-less, it shows how precarious is the position of those who hang their "skepticism" on short "15 year" trends. No doubt it will be Christy's new year resolution to break that bad habit, and to now discuss only 16 year trends.
Having said which, Happy New Year.
-
babazaroni at 01:11 AM on 1 January 2014Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
The 'pause' is easily shown to be a sham, by noting that it starts well above the the trend line. The long term temp trend also increases when the pause is included Why aren't these facts stated every time someone claims there has been a pause? I've only seen Gavin Schmidt note this, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/
-
barry1487 at 00:33 AM on 1 January 2014More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Happy New Year to all.
-
Poster9662 at 23:23 PM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
I think the argument from the sceptics is that the temperature trend line showss there has been no statistically significant warming for about 15+ years which they take as being a pause.
-
garethman at 21:17 PM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
Thanks GWS, it may be uniformed from a technical viewpoint, but from a logical perspective it seems that if we exclude cooling of the climate, or staying the same, we only have one thing left which is warming. It appears that the warming trend is demonstrated beyond doubt, we also know that there does not appear to be any other long term trend such as cooling or staying the same so what else do we have? So I don't really have a question, apart from to point out that if skeptics claim there is a pause in warming just does not appear to be very logical. It's not a question but a comment on the headline statement which states "The year 2013 is currently on course to be among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850" which will no doubt be challenged in some blogs. My initial comment seemed a straightforward stance to take which may be useful to lay persons who may not be familiar with the details and science of climate science (i.e. the vast majority of the public and press) Apologies in advance for any annoyance and a have great new year .Bwyddin Newydd Da.
-
barry1487 at 20:13 PM on 31 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
"John Christy and Roy Spencer compile satellite measurements of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Their data set estimates the warming of the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere at 0.21°C over the past 15 years, so Christy's opening statement is in direct contradiction with his own data."
I'm a bit confused here, too. I followed the link to the the trend calculator, and using UAH data ["their data set"], I got a trend of 0.054C/dec, with an uncertainy of +/- 0.25C for the last 15 years (1998 - 2012 inclusive). I used the last 15 full years, having read Tamino on annual cycle issues.
The trend is not statistically significant, therefore warming cannot be said to have occurred using just this data set, and the warming revealed is 0.081C for the last 15 full years ignoring uncertainty, not 0.21C. I get the same figure as the article if I calculate to the last calendar month, but the uncertainty larger than trend remains.
1) Have I misunderstood the uncertainty issue?
2) Am I over-cautious regarding the annual cycle problem?
Number 1) seems to undermine the definitive claim of warming for the last 15 years - using only the UAH data set.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 18:44 PM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
"The coldest years now are warmer than the hottest years before 1998"
Makes the contrarian claims of "no warming since [insert year here]" look as silly as they are. Of course, we can confidently predict that the contrarians will be telling us in 2014 that there has been no statistically significant warming since 2013. Sigh.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 18:37 PM on 31 December 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #52
chriskoz, that article about Abbott's adviser had me shaking my head in disbelief. That the country is being guided by such 'Looney Right' opinions only confirms my worst fears about where the current government is heading. The only light on the horizon is the increasing number of people I am meeting, who are starting to worry about Abbott & Co's blindness to scientific advice. The most unlikely people are starting to realise AGW is real and they don't like the government being so out of touch.
Will 2014 be the year when we brought the Liberals kicking and screaming into the 21st century? I can only hope so, but the auguries are bad.
-
MartinG at 17:35 PM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
I think this is an exceptionally good and balanced article. It states the facts as observations, without the usual overload of interpretations (we will see if others in the know dispute them and for what reasons). This is therefore an article which insites credibility. Others may argue the causes, but the observational facts are something we all should be able to agree on. This is the basis of science. Thank you.
-
chriskoz at 10:27 AM on 31 December 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #52
At the end of 2013, Tony Abbott (by his advisor) has given us the gift of revelation that he and his advisers are true anti-science nutters:
'Scientific delusion is crumbling'
Todate, I had some hope that current Oz govs are at least some sort of "luke-warmists", arguing the implications and policy responses, etc., but not denying the obvious logic of AGW. After that comment I have no doubt they have taken seriously John Howard's preaching that "scientists are religious zealots" and even extended it to the next level. That portrays them as absolute, uncurable nutters, like Jim Inhofe in US.
I wonder how far they are going to reach with such foolish agenda. Are australian electorate as silly as to believe it?
-
gws at 05:24 AM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
Not simplistic, but seemingly uninformed. Why don't you study the issue on these pages (or realclimate.org etc., or a textbook specific to your interests?) a bit more, and then come back with a more specific question or questions.
Moderator Response:gws, garethman's question was not particularly over-the-top, and in fact, his/her question was in support of what the science states. Please be more considferate, and less confrontational, in your remarks.
-
gws at 05:06 AM on 31 December 2013Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Skeptical Science
Except that there is no such thing as being "pro-AGW" ... nobody here advocates it to happen.
-
william5331 at 04:55 AM on 31 December 2013Southern sea ice is increasing
One connection is missing here. As the westerly winds increase, increasing the push on the sea ice, it increases the speed with which the ice is moving clockwise around the Antarctic. In the southern hemisphere, moving objects veer to the left. In a clockwise rotating system, left is away from the centre. This may be part of the explanation of why the ice is spreading outwards. We see this in the Bearfort gyre. It normally rotates clockwise and in the norther hemisphere, moving objects veer to the right. In a clockwise rotating system in the northern hemisphere, right is toward the centre and indeed, the centre of the Beaufort gyre, contary to one would think at first thought, is higer than the edges. Ocean garbage patches are also an example of this phenomenon.
-
garethman at 04:32 AM on 31 December 2013Provisional Statement on Status of Climate in 2013
I am not a scientist, an academic or well qualified to judge the validity of climate science, but if the long term temperature trend is up, and we know climate never stays the same, and the data does not show any cooling, what is left apart from the fact that it has warmed and continues to do so. Or I am being too simplistic?
-
grindupBaker at 13:44 PM on 30 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
I agree with chriskoz @#1 and don't see how Doug @#2 explained his misunderstanding. Unless I'm missing something, it's a bit like I see from the Skeptic side with its non-sequitor. As scientists discover some of the detrimental side effects of messing around with the ecosystem even more than the present +CO2 they should be reported as such, not as something else.
-
DavidBird at 11:30 AM on 30 December 2013Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering
There's something disturbing about the perspective in this animation. The blocks of ice are foreshortened or something, which creates a misleading impression about the relative decline. The block on the left does not align itself with its value on the axis, and the final volume on the right is not 30% as tall as the one on the right, either by eye or by screen capture followed by measurement. I like the idea, the data are horrifying, but the animation has exaggerated the loss by the manner in which it has been constructed.
-
CBDunkerson at 07:32 AM on 30 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
joeygoze, the usual measurement is "accumulated cyclone energy".
Basically, hurricane Sandy was much larger than most storms. Category 1 winds covering nearly the entire US east coast is a much more powerful storm than Category 1 winds covering a few hundred square miles. The amount of rainfall, size of the storm surge, duration of high winds, et cetera, are all increased.
-
william5331 at 06:06 AM on 30 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
We mustn't be tempted to use artificial methods to remove Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While we are pumping ever increasing masses of Carbon into the atmosphere, it is obviously an insane idea but even if our output of carbon ceased tomorrow it is a not starter. Natural processes are so much more powerful as shown by our annual 7ppm variation (8up, 6 down) in atmospheric carbon dioxide. We must, rather restore these natual systems.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html
-
joeygoze9259 at 02:46 AM on 30 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Question on statement above. "While Sandy was technically a Category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, it was also more energetic than Hurricane Katrina at landfall, and inflicted about $50bn in damages." The Categories are based on windspeed, right? What is the "more energetic" assertion based on?
Additionally, level of property damage is not a good value to utilize in arguing about increases in storm intensities as that value very dependant on population growth in geographic areas and community preparedness for storms. If Sandy had hit an unpopulated, undeveloped area or hit an area that was very well prepared for storm surge and the resulting $ value of damage was very low, it would certainly NOT be evidence that climate change is not causing increased storm intensities.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 11:43 AM on 29 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
chriskoz, you didn't quote the last part of the article:
'The authors say: “An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.”'
We can't simply cool the Earth that way, because it would cause a catastrope. In this case, the sense of "can't" is "we can't do it because it is a stupid idea", not "we can't do it because it's impossible". So, I would say the heading is valid, although it could have been phrased differently..
-
Doug Hutcheson at 11:22 AM on 29 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Now is the Winter1 of our discontent, to misquote the Bard. You have replied to the unimportant part of Tom Curtis's post, so have clearly read and understood it. The important part is this:
"the presence of IR active molecules in the atmosphere warms the surface relative to what its temperature would have been in their absence"
What do you have to say about the science backing Tom's statement? Is your new persona more amenable to examining the evidence and following where it leads, as a true sceptic would?
-
Winter1 at 10:02 AM on 29 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
re Ahuramazda. Thanks for drawing my attention to the inference which I was inviting by choosing the early Zoarastrian god as a user name. That was not the intention and certainly does not reflect my opinion on the subject of gods or superstitions generally. I have now chosen another user name, as can be seen.
-
chriskoz at 09:39 AM on 29 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
The title "Reducing sunlight ‘will not cool Earth’" is wrong and misleading. Simple energy preservation law implies the opposite: less energy in - the planetary temperature must drop to restore the energy balance.
Even worse than that, the author implies: "two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight". In fact, the researchers said nothing alike. They said, as quoted at the end:
...traffic of water vapour around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences
and that's quite different.
I understand and share the author's dislike of geo-engineering, reinforced by the results of the quoted study. However in reporting it, one must take care to cite the correct news only. Bloating the headlines into bogus/irrational claims is unacceptable and only gives the "sceptics" an argument that "warmists exaggerate the reality".
-
scaddenp at 09:03 AM on 29 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
Please provide an example of inappropriate use of the term greenhouse gas. Your objection is extremely unclear.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:14 AM on 29 December 2013Climate Change: Years of Living Dangerously
@54, I, if others do not, appreciate the irony of somebody, who, having taken the name of God, prattles on about so-called religious traits in others. I also understand and detest the arrogance of those who so name themselves. That arrogance shows in your framing of the discussion. The simple fact is that the term "green house gas" arose from historical usage. That usage is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no benefit gained to counter the confusion that would result from a concerted effort to change terminology. The use of the term no more implies acceptance of a green house model of the "greenhouse effect" than does saying you are in good humour, or find something humourous, implies you accept the greek theory of the four humours.
On a more substantive issue, that the presence of IR active molecules in the atmosphere warms the surface relative to what its temperature would have been in their absence is established beyond any reasonable doubt by direct observations. That climate models predict the approximate magnitude of that effect is also well established. If those climate models then go on to confirm the expected increase in temperature derived from simple consideration of the theory, that gives me far more reason to trust that expectation than do the comments of a person who seeks false authority by giving themselves the name of a god, and who demonstrates by their comment that they do not understand the basic science.
-
DMarshall at 08:14 AM on 29 December 2013Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round
@william at 04:38 AM on 29 December, 2013
No, the amount of melted water would contribute only a very small rise globally.
21 feet would be for the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet.
"In the unlikely event that all the water retained in the ice sheet melted, it is estimated that the global sea level would rise about 21 feet"
-
scaddenp at 06:08 AM on 29 December 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
bvt123, did you also read the advanced version of the article? Why less <1? Well you do the maths on the physical system (or do an experiment) and that is the number that comes out...
When you say "average temperature of Earth was stable", what temperature range do you consider "stable"? The risk from climate change is when it happens too fast for adaptation, and having a temperature change of the order that you get from glacial to interglacial happening over say 500 years instead of 10,000 is too fast.
Over long time scales, chemical weathering of silicates (which in turn control CO2 absorption in the ocean) act as a crude thermostat. See for example Archer 2008.
-
dana1981 at 06:08 AM on 29 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Yeah, what Kevin said :-)
-
bvt123 at 05:21 AM on 29 December 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
of course I read that article, and of course I don't catch the idea. There are nothing said why the gain is less than one. There are no arguments about positive feedback of water wapor and the gain for it.
Nothing said about negative feedback factors, but just proposed some not proved diagrams in very wide temperature range. The average tempereture of Earth was stable (d=10C) for the last millios years, and we need a clear answer of cause of such stability. Not a model, but some good theory.
Moderator Response:[TD] You seem to be assuming that positive feedback must run away unless there is some special, unusual, magical factor to make the gain less than one. You are wrong. As scaddenp now has explained to you, feedbacks are what they are. Positive feedbacks of various phenomena in the wide universe are no more common than negative feedbacks. To determine the signs and values of feedbacks we must measure. Just one example is in the post on water vapor feedback.
-
scaddenp at 05:15 AM on 29 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
Old Mole - I agree it could be phrased a lot better.
As to distributed climate models, Climateprediction.net is already doing that.Sign up.
-
william5331 at 04:38 AM on 29 December 2013Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round
If we were to calculate the amount of ice that could melt due to either incoming radiation or a walker cell, linking the warming ocean with the Greenland ice sheet, we would come up with a certain amount based on the latent heat of ice as it converts to water. However, with all this water already melted, the melt of ice only has to breach this aquafer to release much of this water. By the by, I thought that the whole of Greenland would have to melt to raise sea level 20 feet. Am I misreading or does this article suggest that just this amount of fern water, if released, would raise sea level 21 feet.
-
Old Mole at 04:25 AM on 29 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
"Another limit to the accuracy of climate models deals with processes that do not obey basic laws of the universe (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy)."
Perhaps this might be more elegantly phrased. I sincerely doubt that even in the most chaotic systems, matter, energy and momentum are getting created or destroyed, even if it seems that way in the macro perspective of a climate model.
This article does raise a question in my mind, though ... if most models are being run on (very expensive) supercomputers 24/7 based on one small grid square at a time, it seems to me that this would be an ideal candidate for massively parallel distributed computing, if you could find programmers clever enough to write the software for it. I for one would be willing to volunteer the use of any spare cycles in a good cause, and I think most of the denizens of SkS feel the same way.
Best wishes,
Mole
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:59 AM on 29 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Hokeith... The paradox would be merely the fact that we have increasing sea ice in the Antarctic (for now) in response to warming. Guy Williams has listed what are believed to be the primary influences causing this effect.
Not sure what you have to be disappointed about.
-
Hokeith at 01:33 AM on 29 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Disappointing article. Sorry. I expected more of the "paradox of Antarctic sea ice” being explained than a less than exhaustive list of hypotheses (plausible though some may be) and "take aways" of: "while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic ...." (that's irrelevant) and ".... this is not unexpected" (when is a paradox expected?!).
-
bvt123 at 23:35 PM on 28 December 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
yes, we can't see a positive feedback. But the theory of greenhouse gases predict it. So it's something wrong with theory itself or some other factors give more influence then predictions of greenhouse theory. So my Q is - Which factors stabilize the climat in the relatively low temperature range for a long time frame? I can't find any powerfull enough factors by visiting a link "several influences on the Earth's temperature".
That's why I'm asking here for critics or comments of Biotic Regulation Theory of Prof. Gorshkov
Moderator Response:[TD] bvt123, you either did not read or did not understand the first post I pointed you to, which explains that positive feedback can and does exist without it being runaway positive feedback. As long as the gain is less than one, positive feedback limits itself, progressively reducing in each of its feedback cycles until it reaches zero feedback. You are incorrect in saying "we can't see a positive feedback"; we do indeed see multiple positive feedbacks.
-
Kevin C at 20:53 PM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Dana's figure of 0.21C over 15 years is a trend of 0.14C/decade. This figure comes from the new monthly updates to our hybrid data, using the period Nov 98-Oct 13. We're hoping to release the monthly updates in the next couple of weeks, but bearing in mind people may use this in papers we're being very careful.
(I've already made and fixed one mistake in reconstructing the Hadley land ensemble. Trying to maintain professional QA labels in your spare time is really hard.)
-
Muzz at 18:25 PM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
Approx 2 billion hiroshima bombs of heat added since 1998. That sounds frightening. It would be informative to know the heat content of the oceans in hiroshima bombs in 1998?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:45 PM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
TonyW @6.
There can be many evaluations of the rate of change. Trend lines through the data sets can take many forms, as can the 'rate of change' of any portion of the data set.
Very simple evaluations of The NASA/GISS temperature data set show the following change has occurred over the past 15 years (from 1997 to 2012):
- Annual average 1997 is 0.46, 2012 is 0.57 which is 0.11 increase
- Average of 2 years ending in 97 is 0.395 vs. 0.56 = 0.165 increase
- Average of 5 years ending in 97 is 0.344 vs. 0.576 = 0.232 increase
- Average of 10 years ending in 97 is 0.327 vs. 0.587 = 0.260 increase
Just for fun, the same comparison can be done for 1998 to 2013 using te December to November Annual averages presented on NASA/GISS:
- Annual average 1998 is 0.62, 2013 is 0.59 which is 0.03 decrease (the magic decline or cooling that some hope many among the population will accept as a valid assessment)
- Average of 2 years ending in 98 is 0.53 vs. 0.58 = 0.05 increase (the very small warming that some desperately want the general population to believe if they will not believe the 1998 to 2013 cooling scam)
- Average of 5 years ending in 98 is 0.418 vs. 0.596 = 0.178 increase (a comparison from 1998 that would never be made by those trying to fool others)
- Average of 10 years ending in 98 is 0.389 vs. 0.589 = 0.20 increase (A comparison from 1998 that would definitely never be reported by those trying to fool others)
Similar results will be found in the other data sets, including the satellite data sets developed by Christy and Spencer.
Those who want to claim there has been no warming or little warming or cooling can find ways to 'show what they want people to believe', but they have to keep people unaware of all the rest of the information and what it shows.
That 'keeping people less aware' is the game played by everyone who is a cheater and knows they are a cheater (most of the Republicans, and even some of the Democrats). And on this issue it is very easy to 'fool many people'. Many people have been made greedy by the socioeconomic system. And they have also been made desperate by the same system. The greedy desperate ones are the most easily impressed by claims that the unsustainable and damaging activities they are familiar with getting benefit from cannot be blocked and must be allowed to increase. The easily fooled believe that is their best and only hope. They do not care that what they want to pursue is unsustainable and damaging. They are desperate and greedy.
-
TonyW at 14:32 PM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
I was confused by the statement that the bottom of the atmosphere has warmed by 0.21°C over the last 15 years. The paper by Cowtan and Way shows 0.11°C-0.12°C warming per decade, according to the story linked to. Doesn't that make about 0.18°C warming over the last 15 years? The data set from UAH, would appear to show even more rapid warming of the surface than Cowtan and Way. -
Doug Hutcheson at 14:23 PM on 28 December 2013Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round
Water is curious, in that it can exist in solid and liquid forms at ~ the same temperature. Who'd have thought liquid water lurked beneath the Greenland snows? Not me. It seems counterintuitive, until the insulating property of a snow blanket is explained. What a fascinating world: let's hope we don't wreck it too soon.
-
michael sweet at 11:33 AM on 28 December 2013Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round
Tcflood,
Since this aquifer has just been discovered its importance may not yet be known. However, it is well known that the area of melting ice is rapidly expanding upward on Greenland. Part of the area of the aquifer likely was too cold to retain liquid water in the past. How much? It takes a lot of energy to raise the previously cold ice to the melting point (if liquid water exists the ice has been raised to the melting point). This could result in much more melting in the future as the warm ice melts and the aquifer, now full, flows into the sea. We will have to wait a few years to learn more about the possible importance of this discovery.
A few mm here and a few mm there and pretty soon it looks like real sea level rise.
-
chriskoz at 09:25 AM on 28 December 2013Greenland ice sheet stores liquid water year-round
tcflood@1,
I think Forster et al 2013 is talking about SLR potential in case of a sudden release of waters from the aquafier like this. At 27,000 sqare miles, it is just ~ few times smaller than lake Agassiz.
We know from paleo that SLR due to icesheet melt is a non-linear process, punctuated by sudden rises, for example the release of lake Agassiz is thought to contribute 1-3m of SLR during 8,200 yr climate event. This may also account for various flood myths of prehistoric cultures, including the Biblical flood myth.
The aquafier just discovered may not be the only one existing within the GIS or AIS. Understanding their properties and the mechanisms of their release may hold a clue to the understanding the non-linearities of icesheet contribution to SLR.
-
bjchip at 08:28 AM on 28 December 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #51
That cartoon needs a sequel. or two... about the prizes for winning and losing.
-
kmalpede at 08:12 AM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
And so it goes: "Extreme Whether" tells this story from our side! And we just received at $5000 matching grant from an angel who believes this play has to be widely seen. Any donation you now give is doubled! http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/extreme-whether
-
william5331 at 06:13 AM on 28 December 2013More misleading Congressional climate testimony
What else did you expect from a bunch of antidiluvian old fossils who prefer to wreck their own country rather than allow a black man who far exceeds them in intelligence, humanity and vision to succeed in pulling America out of the hole it has dug for itself. They have zero concern for the good of their country of of their citizens and even less (minus) for the good of the world we share with them.
Moderator Response:[PS]. Please note the "No Politics" part of the Comments Policy. While this might be difficult on this topic, no more rants please.
Prev 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 Next
