Recent Comments

Prev  804  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  Next

Comments 40551 to 40600:

40551. Philippe Chantreau at 03:39 AM on 25 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Steven Foster, as I recall, the lowest known tropopause height is about 8 km, which is approximately 26000 ft. Your tropopause height numbers are way off, where did you get them? In tropical regions, it can be as high as 17 km. The top of Greenland is not closer to the Stratosphere than to sea level, that can be verified with 2 minutes on Google. 

       As for this statement "the snow in Greenland all comes from the stratosphere" what do you have for substantiation? It is such a strong statement, and so contrary to all the research on air dehydration at/actross the tropopause that you should present some very serious backup.

        

40552. steven foster at 00:20 AM on 25 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Seventhly, the summit of Greenland is 10,000 feet in elevation, making it closer to the stratosphere that to sea level in terms of elevation, because the troposphere is much thinner at the poles than elsewhere, extending to maybe 15 or 20 thousand feet max and 30 or 40 k at the equator. And since snow falls downward, not upward, and the Arctic Ocean is at sea level, not much snow which precipitates from the Arctic Ocean would ever reach the summit. In terms of geographical distance, the summit is hundreds of miles from the Arctic Ocean and only 2 miles from the stratosphere. Therefore, in summary of all 7 of my points, most of the snow in Greenland comes from water that arose in the tropics, and therefore is a global or hemispheric proxy, not a local. This applies to MOST of the water vapor during the Holocene, and ALL of it during an ice age. Sorry, I don't mean to shout, but I've had a lot of coffee this morning.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] There's no need for you to apologize for your tone. It is quite reasonable.

       For future reference, it would be easier for people to follow your train of thought if you were to use (1), (2), (3), etc., rather than "firstly", "secondly", "thirdly", etc.

40553. steven foster at 23:00 PM on 24 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Fifthly, because the Arctic Ocean is always frigid and full of ice, it is always around the same temperature....that of ice water (ice seawater)....during the entire Holocene. Because of this, arctic easterlies would always be the same temperature every year and if the snow came from arctic seawater it would not show any difference in isotopes in the bands. But in both arctic and antarctic ice cores, we see similar bands, because the snow in Greenland all comes from the stratosphere, not the Arctic Ocean. Sixthly, during the ice age, which amounts to 80 or 90% of the time, there is no Arctic Ocean at all, the entire north pole covered in ice several miles thick. How do you explain Greenland ice cores from 30,000 years ago when there was no liquid water north of Chicago? (tongue in cheek on Chicago). Seventhly, next post.

40554. michael sweet at 22:28 PM on 24 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       Arrhenius predicted over 100 years ago that the high latitude Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. Models and explainations of this asymmetry are not post hoc explainations after it was observed, they are 100+ years old.  It seems to me that people who claim to be reading the science should be aware of this basic fact.  Arrhenius also predicted winter warming faster than summer, night warming faster than day, land warming faster than ocean and Northern Hemisphere warming faster than Southern.  For those who did not notice, all of these are falsifiable predictions, made long ago and confirmed by observation.  Arrhenius missed the stratosphere cooling as the troposphere warms.  That was because the stratosphere had not been  discovered yet.

40555. steven foster at 22:15 PM on 24 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       You are confused on several points. First, the surface wind patterns you describe are tropospheric, and have little to do with the transfer of mosture from equator to poles. I could cite a reference but that would just clutter this blog because I can simply use the illustrations you already provided. See in your post 37, the first illustration. Look at the Hadley cells in the tropical bands, blowing equatorial moisture into the temperate bands, and from there into the polar cells. Secondly, you state that equatorial moisture only reaches the troposhere and precipitates out in that band. Water vapor at the equator goes far higher into the stratosphere than at any other place on earth. Thirdly, you seem confused about the concept of dry air in desert bands. Air that may seem dry in a warm desert would be extremely moist at the poles. Warm desert air might have a dew point of +40F while the air in Greenland has a dew point of maybe -40 (C or F same).  The Rockey Mountains are covered in snow which came from desert air....just think of air in the Mohave Desert moving east and rising over Humphrey's Peak in Arizona. All the snow they get in Flagstaff comes from the desert air. Fourthly, you say snow in polar bands comes from moisture picked up by polar easterlies. This is impossible. In the antarctic polar band (60 and south) there is no ocean at all, all water vapor coming in from the stratospheric conveyor belt (Hadley cell to temperate cell to polar cell), and in the north, there is an icy ocean mostly covered with floes and fast ice. If you want to argue that an appreciable amount of water vapor comes from this icy northern ocean, you need to show that there's a difference in snow patterns between that pole and the other pole that doesn't have an ocean. There isn't. Fifthly, next post.

40556. william5331 at 20:22 PM on 24 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       As the Arctic ocean warms, it heats the air above it.  This leads to rising air more often than was previously the case or if you like, a reversal, or at least a weakening of the Polar Hadley cell.  This has been shown by the weakening and wobbling of the Arctic jet stream as the Arctic Hadley cell slows down. The speed of the Jet stream is dependent on the speed of rotation of the Hadley cells on either side of it. A strong conventional Polar Hadley cell keeps weather patterns, where most thermometers are located, pushed southward, keeping the heat of souther regions in the south.  As the cell weakens and reverses, more heat from the tropics shifts northward.  The corollary of more heat shifting north is heat being removed from the south and thus, perhaps, the apparent stalling of the rise in temperature since most thermometers are located below the Arctic circle.

40557. scaddenp at 16:54 PM on 24 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       Maybe against my better judgement, but I will answer why C&W use satellite despite the issues.(which of course SASM could have found by reading the paper).

       They use satellite only to fill the gaps - they are proposing a way to avoid the problems with coverage bias. They dont use the satellite temperature directly (how would combine an average over 4000m with surface temp?) but instead posit that the temperatures are related. The infill temperature is an estimate of surface temperature. They avoid the many problems with stability and drift in the satellite trends by recomputing the relationship monthly. ie no stability in satellite measurements is assumed.

       As to north/south assymetry, spot the big geographical differences between north and south. To substantiate a claim of "unexplained" assymetry, then you would need to show that such assymetry is not present in the models.

40558. One Planet Only Forever at 14:56 PM on 24 November 2013
       Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory
       

       Only accounting the CO2 emissions per nation is very misleading. And things like changing the accounting method, as the Conservatives in Canada did to try to claim they have reduced emissions (all they did was change the accounting method without going back and applying the revised accounting to previous years), is also mis-leading (deliberately).

       The benefit a nation's population receives from external CO2 emissions needs to be included in a nation's accounted impact. However, governments of nations that 'outsource their impacts' are not likely to 'be interested' in calculating and reporting things that way. With that type of calculation the US, Canada, Australia and even places like Germany would be shown to be far larger beneficiaries of (far more responsible for), the impacts than they wish to be able to claim. A lot of 'production that western investors and consumers benefit from' occurs in less developed nations that get tagged with the impacts.

       The simple truth is that the powers with the most wealth are not willing to give up any of the best present they can get for themselves just to develop a sustainable better future for all life on this one and only amazing planet we are sure can support life as we know it.

       If the US, Canada, and Australia actually cared about reduced global emissions they would not sell their coal or oil, and they would not consume it either. And they would only sell some of their natural gas.

40559. scaddenp at 14:52 PM on 24 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       SASM. Suggest you stick to one point at a time. Acknowledge responses and stick to the science. Above all moderators here apparently can stand only so much comment policy violation. Trolls are two a penny and totally unwelcome. If you want to discuss the science fine. If you are mostly interested in trolling and no data or argument could change your mind then perhaps another forum is more suited to you. (eg WUWT or CA).

40560. Tom Curtis at 12:11 PM on 24 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       steven foster @36, the low resolution thumbnail you linked to certainly is superior to the image from post 15.  I look forward to seeing the completed high resolution version.

       With regard to icecore temperature proxies, yes the temperature of the water from which the water in the snow originates does influence the isotope ratios, as also does the air temperature and distance travelled as the water vapour is transported to the site.  Lower air temperatures and longer travel distances resulting in a lower proportion of heavy isotopes.  As a result, ice cores are a regional (not hemispheric, and certainly not global) temperature proxy.

       The reason they are neither hemispheric nor global proxies relates to the pattern of wind circulation:

       

       As you can see, air near the equator is lifted high into the troposphere, effectively drying it by precipitating out nearly all of the water vapour.  The return to the surface of this very dry air is the cause of the bands of deserts at certain latitudes.  Air from the mid latitude cell, on the other hand procedes north at the surface (in the NH) before again rising to great altitude, drying it.  That air column allows mixture with air from the polar cell, but the water picked up will be precipitated out before the polar cell can cause it to circulate over greenland.  Consequently, the water vapour in air over Greenland predominantly is picked up from polar easterlies as they travel south.  This overall pattern means very little water vapour will reach Greenland from mid-latitude or tropical oceans.  At best Greenland ice cores would be an Arctic proxy.

       It is not even that, however, during the Holocene.  The local pattern of circulation means the watervapour precipitated out over Greenland comes almost entirely from the Atlantic north of Iceland and the Barents Sea:

       

       (Red arrow indicates wind pattern, red dots the location of Greenland ice cores)

       You will notice the large difference in circulation patterns between "Present day" and "Last Glacial Maximum".  That difference means that Greenland ice core data are not even proxies of the same region at different points of time.  It further means that they are far closer to Arctic proxies rather than Atlantic Arctic proxies durring glacials.  It should be noted that the AO and the AMO will also shift the winds over Greenland, slightly changing the region for which the ice core is a proxy over time.  That, however, does not make those ice cores proxies for a larger region.  Rather, it merely introduces noise, making the record more erratic and amplifying warming or cooling trends in the proxy record.  We have to accept that for Greenland, for we have no better proxies for Greenland temperatures.  But it is further reason to not treat the Greenland record as a global or hemispheric proxy.

40561. steven foster at 10:07 AM on 24 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Thank you. I'm going to use the NOAA GISP2 data which has a resolution of 40 data points for every 1000 years for the whole Holocene. It looks like (so far) that the GRIP data has a lower resolution. I will look into the Kobashi suggestion. I did a quick low resolution thumbnail of what it will look like:

       https://imageshack.com/i/5bv42dj

       I differ with you about Greenand ice core data being a local proxy only. The H and O isotopes in the water represent temperatures of the water from around the world that winds up in Greenland, and don't represent the temperatures on Greenland itself. Water in the oceans has H and O isotopes of a known concentration. But the boiling point of heavy water, as well as heavy oxygen water (H2O^18 rather than H2O^16) are higher than that of normal water, and are found in water vapor in the atmosphere at lower concentrations when the global temperature is low. When the global temperature is high, more heavy water evaporates around the world than when it's cold. But when the water vapor travels to Greenland, it is assumed that it all freezes, regardless of the temperature in Greenland. So the higher the temperatures around the world, the more O^18 and H^2 we find in the ice. So, it's a global proxy, more suggestive of northern hemisphere temperatures, of course, but water vapor doesn't always commit to one hemisphere. The other argument might be that the FREEZING point of heavy water is also higher than regular water, so more of it would snow out of the air before it gets to Greenland, so the temperature of Greenland matters. But snow crystals don't care what isotope of water....actually I need to think about this. Ok I thought about it. None of the water freezes in Greenland. It all freezes long before it gets there, probably as cirrus clouds in the stratosphere, which are already frozen long before. I don't know.

40562. StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 08:55 AM on 24 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       Why do you all keep deleting my questions?  Do you think you've answered them, or do you not like them?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Comments not adhering to the Comments Policy were removed due to sloganeering and trolling on your part.

40563. One Planet Only Forever at 06:56 AM on 24 November 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B
       

       Will,

       I believe the main reason 'diplomatic' solutions for this challenge fail to have 'imagination' is that many of the people doing the talking are mainly concerned about pursuing more for 'their population' so they can get re-election of leaders by showing what they got away with. That pursuit of re-election is particularly damaging when the ones wanting election can easily promote the 'popularity of getting away with unsustainable and damaging activities'.

       It is easy to understand why a person would chose unsustainable and damaging pursuits when they do not expect to be suffering any of the consequences. This issue, like so many others, pits "short term gains of employment, profit, convenience and comfort by getting away with benefiting from unsustainable and damaging pursuits' against 'less of that easy to get short-term stuff for yourself out of consideration for others and the future generations'

       One side is a really easy sell. The popularity of benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels is enormous. That activity clearly cannot be continued forever. The entire population can't even develop to live like the most fortunate. Yet, such clearly unacceptable unsustainable activity is 'very popular'.

       Almost all the troubles and challenges we face today, including conflicts and wars, are the result of our predecessors allowing people with that selfish attitude to be successful. Our global economy is now highly dependent on unsustainable activity with the most powerful people battling to get the most for themselves for as long as they can get away with.

       One way for 'diplomatic or democratic' solutions to have the required 'imagination' is for the majority of all the populations around the world to clearly understand what has been going on and refuse to participate in or promote the 'selfish pursuit of more for themselves any way they can get away with'. Unless that happens there really is no future for humanity, but even somethig as obvious as that may not be enough to get people to accept less benefit for themselves in their moment. It is possible that the promotion of the pursuit of 'a selfish good time' and 'freedom to do as you please' will mean there will be no Earth left for the meek to inherit.

40564. wili at 02:48 AM on 24 November 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B
       

       The last article, from Slate, seems to me to be a bit too harsh on developing countries. Of course, countries who have wronged others are always going to be reticent about owning up to that harm, much less payinig up. Why not instead point out all the creative ways reparations could be made that would be beneficial to both?

       We readily pour hundreds of billions of dollars (or more? I lose track of these enormous sums) into the coffers of banks just because they are big and because they have massively destabilized the world economy. We also pour similarly massive sums into building elaborite systems for killing massive numbers of people.

       Surely, redirecting some fraction of these massive sums into our renewable energy industry by guaranteeing steep discounts on their products to the poorest countries would provide the kind of win-win that the author claims is crucial to successful international negotiations. We historically have subsidized the ag industry in similar ways (though in that case mostly to the ultimate detriment of developing countries) dumping massive amounts of grain on their markets to prop up prices at home.

       It looks to me like a massive and utterly universally catastrophic failure of both imagination and diplomacy that the folks in Warsaw couldn't manage to come up with some such scheme along with carefully worded diplomatic language that would satisfy all sides.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The Warsaw talks have been extended to Sunday. The next issue of the news roundup will contain many stories about what was accomplished. 

40565. wili at 02:37 AM on 24 November 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #47B
       

       Thanks for another great batch of links. The first (and many of the others) really points out how far we are from even beginning to make serious progress toward even moving toward no new growth in our already-way-too-high annual emissions. The 36 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted last year, as noted in the article, puts us on the path toward a beyond-hellish  5 degrees C above pre-industrial temps.

       Even that may be understating things, since the International Energy Agency has noted that, if you count up all the ff burning infrastructure that is being built or is well into the planning stage and add the ffs that will be burnt by them we are more likely on a path to about 6 degrees C by about 2100.

       
       And of course, neither of those estimates fully figures in effects of feedbacks, such as permafrost melt so well covered here...Things are looking grim indeed.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thank you for the positive feedback about the News Roundup. Because I am not a climate science wonk like so many of my fellow SkS authors, I am pleased to contribute in my own way with this product. 

40566. michael sweet at 01:20 AM on 24 November 2013
       Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
       

       As I understand the issue that has been raised about ocean anoxia causing widespread extinction on Earth it is not that all the oxygen is used up.  This article (with 243 cites!) says that if the ocean becomes sufficiently anoxic at the bottom, it releases hydrogen sulfide (a poison gas) into the atmosphere at a high enough rate to cause extinction of vertebrates on land.  It is not necessary for all the oxygen to be used up to poison the vertebrates.  The release of hydrogen sulfide must be high enough to overcome the reaction with oxygen using up the hydrogen sulfide.  Data is provided asserting that past mass  extinctions have been caused by this effect.  There are locations in the current ocean that outgas H2S in sufficient quantities that if they expand enough this could become a problem.  It is believed that the H2S mechanism can start if the ocean becomes warm enough .  (a google search of "ocean releases hydrogen sulfide extinction" gets a lot of scholarly hits, I took the first interesting one).  This might make an interesting article for SkS, but it would take some research to write. 

40567. DSL at 01:05 AM on 24 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       Oh - I guess we also need a new thread for the "It's God's fury" myth.

       Very few understand, WP?  And one of those few is undoubtedly you, yes?  The world-renowned tornado expert WP Sokeland, with his one floppy publication and general unwillingness to describe any actual physical mechanism.  Oh, and general unwillingness to address criticisms of his basic physical model (e.g. ocean-atmosphere energy transfer as spatial and temporal constant).

       I'm not just taking your word for it, WP. Expert schmexpert.  Cough up the physical theory and observational evidence.  Or is the whole thing simply you noticing that, sometimes, tornado outbreaks and solar flares occur in time near one another?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please dial down the sarcasm.

40568. wpsokeland at 00:05 AM on 24 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       Tom Curtis was kind enough to read my peer reviewed articles that state severe weather is incoming due to explosions on the sun and solar storms impacting earth.  It is very difficult to state that 50 years of PhD level research is wrong, but very few understand the physics of a tornado or a hurricane and experts are still looking for their Genesis or beginnings.  If you do not understand the physics of the storm, you cannot defeat its destructive power.  Recall project STORM FURY.  The hurricane experts who believed that energy release from the oceans fueled hurricanes tried to use that theory to reduce the power of Wilma.  They failed because their theory was incorrect.

       Matthew 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

       Check out thr solar storm that occurred a day and one half at the ACE spacecraft before our last tornado outbreak, if you know how.

40569. Tom Curtis at 17:08 PM on 23 November 2013
       How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
       

       barry @18, Richard Tol was certainly included, as he has himself confirmed.  Unfortunately self rating authors are entitled to anonymity and Cook and his co-authors have done their best to ensure it.  Therefore they cannot answer with regard to the others unless they voluntarilly permit their names and self ratings to be released; or themselves volunteer the information as to whether or not they respond, and if so how they responded.  I suspect they will not volunteer that information because, if they do, it will be obvious that their disagreement is unusual among respondents.  They are angling to be considered representative when they know full well from the self rating survey that they are not.

       I will add that there claims about their papers being incorrectly rated in the abstract ratings, are not, in all cases, what they are cracked up to be. 

40570. Tom Curtis at 17:00 PM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       fulvus & chriskoz, I have attempted to answer some of your questions on a more suitable thread.

40571. Tom Curtis at 16:59 PM on 23 November 2013
       Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
       

       fulvus raises the issue of whether global warming induced anoxic (low oxygen) conditions could suffocate land animals, thereby leading to a near total extinction of life on Earth, including all higher vertebrates (ie, in particular, us).  To set this question into context, it is estimated that 104.9 billion tonnes of carbon are fixed annually by photosynthesis, of which 46.2% (48.5 billion tonnes carbon) is fixed in the oceans, primarilly by phytoplankton, and 53.8% (56.4 billion tonnes carbon) is fixed by land plants, primarilly in tropical rainforests:

        

       For each carbon atom fixed by photosynthesis, one oxygen molecule (O2) is released into the atmosphere.  Conversely, and at approximately the same rate, O2 is converted to CO2 by respiration, decomposition and combustion.  For comparison, human emissions from transport, energy generation deforestation amount to about 9 billion tonnes of Carbon per annum or about 8.6% of net primary productivity.

       As indicated in the article above, increased warmth and ocean acidification have lead to extreme anoxic conditions in the past; and such conditions are also implicated as a major factor in the Permian mass extinction, again brought on by rising CO2 levels and temperatures.  It is not clear that this was from the reduction in massof phytoplanckton.  Rather, the primary mechanism is that warmer and more acidic waters simply hold more less gasses in solution, and hence less oxygen.  In other words, oxygen currently dissolved in the ocean will difuse into the atmosphere, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.  (The same will also happen to nitrogen and CO2.)  Indeed, Chavez et al (2011) indicate that oceanic primary productivity tends to increase with rising temperatures, so that more oxygen is produced even if it is not retained in the water as well:

        

       So on balance, I do not expect wide spread suffocation of land animals as a result of oceanic anoxic conditions.  Of course, the situation is quite different in the ocean.

       Finally, just for the fun of it, if all oxygen production ceased, it would take nearly 4000 years to use up all the Earth's atmospheric oxygen at current rates of consumption including by the combustion of fossil fuels.

40572. barry1487 at 16:25 PM on 23 November 2013
       How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming
       

       Question:

       Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

       I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

       Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

       Any leads appreciated.

       Barry.

40573. wili at 14:49 PM on 23 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       Ha! Thanks for the correction. I of course meant .85C.

40574. chriskoz at 14:44 PM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       fulvus@10, I appologise for a typo of your name in my post @11 - I cannot correct it now, unless mods can help me (thanks).

40575. chriskoz at 14:08 PM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       fulvus@10,

       Please provide the refeence suporitng your claim "that phytoplankton produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere".

       According to my knowledge, the amount of oxygen we are a currently having (21%) is the result of a Gy-long evolution of biosphere, in particular a balance between photosynthesis and fires. Entire plant kingdom contributes to the release of O2.

       Fossil fuels, even if all of them burned, cannot realisitcally take more than some say 0.1% of it (if CO2 increases by 1000ppm which is 1/1000 of total air volume). I don't know of any processes that would negatively alter the biosphere's photosynthetic ability in Anthropocene. Rather opposite is taking place - the terestrial biosphere is responsible of drawdown of about 20-30% of anthropogenic CO2, releasing some of that O2 that used to burn FF back to the atmosphere.

        

40576. YubeDude at 12:52 PM on 23 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       Tom @10
       I think you may have made some mistaken inferences regarding my message.
       I have long held that diagnosis and prognosis have to be separated to avoid any attempts at clouding the diagnosis with emotion or a fear of the cure. The science of the storm and AGW inputs that are suggested by the intensity of the storm are valid points to consider and investigate and fall within the guidelines of SKS; including the video and making the link to “human tragedy” as part of the message disrupts the flow of science and has no place when determining the diagnosis.
       I was lobbying for a removal of the video and did so by mentioning that if you are going to shed tears over the pain and suffering than a little perspective is required otherwise this connection of diagnosis and prognosis is low hanging fruit for the “blame the victim” crowd as you mentioned.
       I find that straight forward hard science does establish the realities and adding the “human” factor only muddies the waters and turns the discourse away from the metrics and PR and starts to introduce suffering as an offset that has to be taken into consideration when weighing the science.
       That was all I was saying about this post…

40577. Tom Curtis at 12:15 PM on 23 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       wpsokeland @34 draws attention to the "peer reviewed" article he had published in the "Journal of Meteorology", now the International Journal of Meteorology, an article so groundbreaking that it does not appear on Google Scholar save as a single cite.

       That is probably par for the course in the Journal of Meteorology.  In 2005, 18 of the 33 articles in the journal recieved no citation. Of those that were cited, 10 of the 16 citations recieved were self citations.  Doing the maths, only one article recieved more than one citation, and it recieved only 2.  This low citation rate and high self citation rate has led the Journal of Meteorology to recieve a very low impact factor.  Unsurprisingly, it lies in the bottom quartile atmospheric science journals.  As it happens, Sokeland's (almost certainly) single cite was almost certainly a self cite, given that he published SOLAR PILLARS OF FIRE: Part 2 the following year in the same journal.

       What is the point of this?  Getting a journal through peer review requires convincing (typically) just three people that the paper does not make an obvious blunder.  It does not mean it did not make an obvious blunder.  It only means the editor and peer reviewers of the paper did not spot it.  This very low bar is made easier if you submit multiple times.  The more often you submit, the more likely you will find an editor and peer reviewers who themselves blunder by not picking up your blunder.  It is made easier again if you submit to a low impact journal, which by its nature will not attract high quality editors and reveiwers, and will be more willing to accept low quality papers.

       This low standard is why I have a certain contempt for those who publicize their ground breaking discoveries on blogs, but never get around to submitting for peer review.  If they are afraid to face even that hurdle, just how confident in their argument can they be?

       In any event, congratulations are in order for Sokeland for having the courage of his convictions, and submitting his ideas and getting them published.  However, that is in no way an indication of quality in an argument.  At most it indicates a lack of obvious blunders - but in very low impact journals such as the International Journal of Meteorology or Energy and Environment (which appears to have a slightly higher impact rating than the Journal of Meteorology) it does not even indicate that.

       So, rather than being published, the true indication of quality in an article is the frequency with which it is cited by others - and the period over which they do so.  A poor quality paper might attract a small number of citations from refutations published shortly thereafter - but papers with many citations and which are cited years after publication have indeed been judged by the experts to be of high quality (which is not the same as being judged correct).

       Having pointed that out, what of the actual science in Sokeland's papers?

       I think his proposal of the existence of invisible tornadoes and hurricanes in his second paper sums it up.  It is nonsense, pure and simple.

40578. fulvus at 12:15 PM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       Tom Curtis, thank you for response and the reference to the article on the dire state of our oceans, and the implications for marine species survival and indirectly impacts on humans.

       However, this article does not answer my question. Nowhere does it mention phytoplankton and therefore doesn't address the fact that phytoplankton produces 60% of the oxygen in the atmosphere, and that combined with deforestation there is a real chance that terrestrial lifeforms too will suffocate.

       We talk a lot about rising sea levels, wild weather, drought and so forth, but no one seems to be addressing the primary issue that none of this will matter to us because we will be asphyxiated, dead, finis! The end of oxygen breathing life in the oceans is discussed in the article, but it doesn't address the end of oxygen breathing life on land as well. Even the cockroaches will die.

40579. DSL at 11:54 AM on 23 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       WP, did you just say that total solar irradiance was constant?  Did you just strongly suggest that the oceans transfer energy at a constant rate?  I looked for your paper on the internet.  Google found eight hits. 

       Why don't you take your argument to an appropriate thread.

       
       Regulars, wasn't there a "It's solar flares" myth once upon a time.  Can't find it.

40580. Tom Curtis at 11:43 AM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       fulvus @8, try this article.

40581. fulvus at 11:17 AM on 23 November 2013
       Global Warming Paws Fails to Materialise: Earth Still Warming and Global Sea Level Rising Like Gangbusters
       

       I continue to be mystified that in all the news I read, not necessarily in the MSM but also on sites like this one, I have never seen an article addressing the possibility that through deforestation, and acidification of the oceans, thereby killing phytoplankton, we are destroying the sources of our atmosphere's oxygen. There are two possible reasons for this that I can think of: 1) not being a climate scientist, I don't understand enough to realize that I'm overstating the problem or even creating a bogus scenario, and 2) I am on the right track but the scenario, which should be our #1 concern re climate change, is just too scary for people, even climate scientists, to look at. I would certainly appreciate feedback from anyone qualified to give it succinctly and clearly, or direction to another source where I could find this discussed.

       It's a matter of the demise of almost all lifeforms on the planet. How many organisms do not breathe oxygen besides anaerobic bacteria, tubeworms at ocean floor volcanic vents, etc.? PLEASE RESPOND!

40582. wpsokeland at 09:30 AM on 23 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       The average trmperature of our globe is varying over the past 30 years with swings of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees centigrade -- up and down.  The general overall trend is upward.  Since the solar constant, your only energy source ts constant and, if greenhouse gases were continually increasing via human input, the average temperature of our globe would be continually increasing.  There would be no temperature swings as seen in the data.  Any PhD in heat transfer would know that a different energy source is active in the real temperature variation.

       My published peer reviewed paper on the subject of incoming severe weather from outer space is:

       Sokeland, W. P. (2005) SOLAR PILLARS OF FIRE: Part 1: Tornadoes from the Sun, Journal of

       Meteorology, UK, 30, 298

       Energy is incoming via solar storms.  In the case of melting northern sea ice, tropical cyclones in the Atlantic know as hurricanes have been increasing and decreasing at various times over the last 30 years.  When the hurricane activity goes to a maximum, the North Atlantic Current convects increased temperatures by 1 degree centigrade to the Arctic seas due to the energy deposited in the tropics by the hurricanes and the sea ice melts.  The reverse is true when Hurricane activity is a minimum.  Hurricane activity hit a minimum in 2013 and the Arctic sea ice is increasing in area.  The changing global average temperatures has very little to do with the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

40583. Tom Curtis at 09:25 AM on 23 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       steven foster @34, where you to take the effort with the actual data, a very useful graph would be the full holocene record from Alley et al overlaid with the 100 year average from Kobashi et al for the last 4000 years, and with an inset or second panel showing the last 2000 years from Kobashi et al overlaid with the 10 averages from Box (2009).  That would display the full range of data with a minimum of visual clutter and with appropriate resolutions for comparison.  The first graph could also have modern temperatures marked on the graph for comparison with the full holocene record.

40584. Tom Curtis at 09:14 AM on 23 November 2013
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       

       Licorj @250, by "estimate", it is meant estimate based on empirical observations and predictions from models.  Both, separately, suggest that a small positive cloud feedback is more likely than not.  The uncertainty is large so that negative feedbacks are not excluded, but neither are large positive feedbacks excluded.  

       You say that to get the true cloud feedback, we need lots of measurements around the world.  Those measurements have been done.  Three examples of such measurements are linked to in the OP.  Unfortunately the measurements do not tightly constrain the result because the feedback is complicated and the observational data is noisy.

       Of course, it is always possible to avoid the whole issue by looking at empirical estimates of the net feedback from historical and paleo data.  These overwhelmingly suggest a large net positive feedback.  As these are estimates based on what has actually occured on the Earth, they of necessity include all feedbacks.  Therefore, if the cloud feedback does in fact turn out to be negative, that merely means that some other combination of feedbacks is more strongly positive than currenly estimated.

40585. danielc at 05:39 AM on 23 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       There's another factor of anthropogenic global warming that I have not seen mentioned, which is lapse rate, i.e. the temperature gradient between sea level and tropopause.

       One of the key factors identifying AGW as distinct from milankovitch or solar-flux-driven global climate change is the fact that the earth is warming "from the inside out" -- specifically, the troposphere is warming at the same time that the stratosphere is cooling.

       this change increases the gradient between warm floor (ocean and land) and cold ceiling (tropopause or base of stratosphere).

       That increased gradient should cause increased rates of updraft, lower surface pressures, higher/taller storms with greater lateral extent, and stronger surface winds as a result of all of the above.

       One thing I do not know is how well constrained are measurements (if any) of lapse rate change, specifically in the tropics.

       Anyone know?

40586. KR at 05:30 AM on 23 November 2013
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       

       Licorj - I would suggest following the links in the opening post; there is considerable evidence for a small positive cloud feedback based on observations, on constraints from other forcings and feedbacks, from paleo evidence, etc. 

       Not a "game", not a guess - a small positive feedback comes from the best estimates of the various evidence available. 

40587. steven foster at 05:12 AM on 23 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       Yeah the resolution is really low because all I did was capture Easterbrook's graph and use photoshop to clone the entire thing over by 50 years so it correctly ended at 1855, and then I added the modern part by plotting about 30 data points from GRIP, and then played connect the dots with photoshop. I'm thinking of redoing it by plotting all the data on a spread sheet, but there is a lot of work involved. 

       Yeah, the rise is so steep you can't really see the sawtooth pattern from the falling temps and rising again, which happens twice, first from around 1850 to 1910, then from 1942 to 1975 (steep rise 1780 to 1850, 1910 to 1942, and 1975 to 2000).

       To be useful and scientificaly rigorous I should replot all the data, with all the GRIP data in a different color, with the y axis marked on the right side with actual GRIP temperatures, and GISP2 temperatures marked on the left side, lined up so the 1855 data in both sets was the same on the y axis. For this discussion, I thought what I did was good enough, because everything is so compressed.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Duplicate post deleted. 

40588. Licorj at 04:48 AM on 23 November 2013
       Clouds provide negative feedback
       

       Dear KR,

       First, thank you by attention, even after long time past from publication of this post. I just have realized it, after my post was sent.

       I have read the post, and a lot of very interesting comments. "Clouds are estimated be small positive feedback". Ok. Estimated to be, but could be estimated to not to be... It is a game.

       Excuse me by error on "INFINITE WARMING". It is clear that is not possible, otherwise, we would have free energy generation.

       Backing to the clouds: I believe, of course, with less scientific based knowledge than you, that the choice on small positive feedback for cloud, taken by climate scientists was just a choice, with high level of uncertainty. So high, that choice would be NEUTRAL, or small negative feedback. In order to get the true cloud feedback, it would be need a lot of measures taken around the world, on entire troposphere, entire world, during long time. Of course it is very expensive and hard to do, maybe impossible.

       Even assuming my mistake on INIFINITE WARMING, I still believe that oceans would be expected to dry, because of positive feedback, in any level.

       Other expected result from feedbacks for, aerossols, cloud, water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc, would be the accuracy of models on recreating paste climates. They are all wrong, on this task. Somethings are very wron with them, and nedd to be fixed, before can tell us how will be the climate after 100 years from present day.

       Why we see tomorrow's weather forecasts, and believe on it ?

       Because they are correct on vaste majority of times. It is not the same case for climate models, at least, untill now.

       But, this is off-topic.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Since you have provided absolutely no specific evidence to substantiate your sweeping assertions about global climate models, your assertions are merely your opinion - which carries virtually no weight on this site.

       If you post similar comments in the future, they will be summarily dismissed for violating the SkS Comments Policy re sloganeering.  

       Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it. 

40589. rocketeer at 03:19 AM on 23 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       @will  If we were at 8.5C above pre-industrial half the planet would be dead.  We are about 0.8C above pre-industrial so 0.07C is a pretty significant (additional) increase over a 15 year period.

40590. Tom Curtis at 23:33 PM on 22 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       steven foster @32, the problem is that the GRIP temperature you plotted onto GISP2 is that from Box (2009) as displayed by Kobashi et al.  So, when we compare Box (2009) in Kobashi et al (middle panel, black) with your extension of GISP2 we see the uniform rise in temperature is not a feature of the data, but only a consequence of the very low resolution of your graph.  The data clearly shows a rise in temperature to mid twentieth century, a fall, then a rise again, details that are missing from your graph.  Therefore your extension does not show the details significantly better than the straight line, and the supposition that it might is deceptive.

       And that is why there is no substitute for showing the "chicken scratch graphics".  They actually show the data accurately.  If you want to trim it down, show only the middle panel, but don't pretend that showing a less accurate ice core temperature series together with an instremental based series at two low a resolution to show relevant detail is a substitute for showing an accurate graph.  It isn't.  

40591. steven foster at 21:32 PM on 22 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       I see a significant difference in that in my chart, we can see the slope of the line in the 1700s and 1800s is equal to that in the 2000's. Your chart merely connects 2 points and has a straight line from 1855 to 2009, the slope in each century not being discernible.

       I already addressed Kobashi et all in post 30, when I mentioned useless chicken scratch graphics.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please lose the snark.

40592. Dikran Marsupial at 19:35 PM on 22 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       SASM wrote "Dikran @54: What are the “other issues” with UAH and RSS?" Thes issues are well documented, for example see the ReadMe file provided with the dataset.  If you look at the Wikipedia page for the UAH dataset you will find a section on the corrections that have been made.  There comes a point where you need to take some time to investigate these issues for yourself after they have been pointed out to you (as I did here), Google is a useful research tool (especially Google Scholar).

       SASM then goes on to write "...I’ve researched the difference between UAH, RSS, GIS, HADCRUT, and for the most part the plots are all very similar..." in which case why should C&W just use satellite data? 

       SASM wrote "You mention surface temperatures versus lower troposphere air temps, but what about ocean temperatures (surface and deep) -- which one is most important or the most meaning with respect to AGW?"

       This is evasion.  You asked why satellite data is not used, and I answered your question, yet rather than acknowledge your question had been answered you change the topic.  This is trolling.

       
       As to why near surface air temperatures are important, well that is where most of us tend to live, and our crops etc.  Again this is just another example of goal-post shifting that we have seen rather too much of from you.

       Lastly SASM writes " But clearly, the Artic has warmed way more than the Antarctica region. I just find that very curious. I wouldn’t expect CO2 to cause such asymmetrical warming, so it seems to me that something natural phenomenon is occurring. Perhaps this is support for Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave theory?"

       So you completely ignored the reason for the assymetry that I explained in my posts.  Frankly that is pretty shabby behaviour on your part, and I will continue the discussion no further and I suggest others do likewise.

40593. Tom Curtis at 18:30 PM on 22 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       steven foster @30, I did not suggest you counted pixels.  Rather, I did, and by doing so showed the difference to not be appreciable.  For those unsure on that point, here is the graph with the data misplaced on the x-axis as noted by Foster @27:

       

       And here is Foster's version:

       

       Can you see a significant difference?

       That aside, you (Foster) do not address my point (2) above, ie, that we should be using Kobashi et al (2011) for investigating north central greenland temperatures.

40594. ajki at 18:19 PM on 22 November 2013
       Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
       

       "Issues" /wrt satellites:

       A good starting point to explore issues with satellite data is provided right here on SkS:

       Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere (last update 24 March 2011 by Glenn Tamblyn)

       The sections named "Further reading" should be noted.

40595. ajki at 17:55 PM on 22 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       re: "Media ignore study...", Media Matters, Nov 18, 2013

       I don't think this is true. In a way it is "faux news" as in "Faux pause: Media ignore study..." (as the complete title of that article tells). John Hartz wrote in a comment: "The [cited] articles contained in this bulletin are only the tip of the iceberg..." and he is more than just right on that one. In Germany, mainstream media (including Radio/TV features) did report about the findings of the study - e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung Nov 15, Der Spiegel Nov 15, Berliner Morgenpost Nov 14, T-Online News Nov 16, Telepolis Nov 20 and many, many more (not even mentioned are Blogs). As it needs just one (big) News Agency (Reuters, AFP or the like) and one short news snippet there to get a news item into the worldwide news flow, it is highly unlikely that US media did not cover this.

       One part of the general problem regarding AGW is that it is just so easy today to get a message into the media and this is a well known and heavily (mis)used fact from the Denialistas. Media outlets are quite happy to push any news in "controversial" areas (that is, content generating furious reactions from readers) and they will not let down on that.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The Media Matters analysis focused on the MSM coverage of Cowtan and Way (203) within the U.S.   

40596. steven foster at 16:55 PM on 22 November 2013
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       I assure you I didn't count pixels or use a graphics program. I plotted GISP2 for the whole Holocene and plotted GRIP on a uniform timeline from 1855 to 2009 by simply starting with the 1857 GRIP temp which was quite a bit warmer than the 1855 GISP2 temp, and plotted from there. I generally don't like to splice different data sets together but this is only a blog so who can it harm? The resolution is low and this is not publishable but gives us something better than the useless chicken scratch graphics I've seen elsewhere. This differs little from what you did on post 15.  My attempt at doing the same thing.

       https://imageshack.com/i/05m9hzj

40597. One Planet Only Forever at 15:56 PM on 22 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       This 'better understanding' has prompted new attempts to discredit the science and anyone who tries to more fully present it. These attempts to discredit also help 'better understand' who is genuinely interested in 'better understanding this issue' and who would prefer to have people 'maintain certain popular beliefs so that gambles on damaging and unsustainable pursuits can get maximum payout'.

       The popularity of benefiting from burning fossil fuels, something that clearly can't be continued by future generations for the few billion years humanity could enjoy life on this planet, makes this a significant public perception battle ground issue. There are many other pursuits that are similarly damaging or not sustainable. If this incredibly popular unsustainable and damaging pursuit, burning fossil fuels, actually loses the public opinion war among those who benefit most from it, then the rest of the unsustianable and damaging pursuits that many among the most fortunate have gambled on getting away with would likely fall as well.

       The result would be a massive change of the global socioeconomic system. It would be a change for the better, except for those who only care about getting the most benefit they can for themselves. There would be massive 'disappearances of unjustified wealth related to unsustainable and damaging pursuits'. That is the clear motivation of the attacks on the science's implications that the burning of fossil fuel must be dramatically reduced.

       Keep up the good work that helps everyone better understand this issue. It makes it harder for the uncaring to excuse their attitudes and actions. However, the will to fight against the required change is clearly very strong. Some people will never accept a 'better understanding if it means they can't benefit as much as they wish to'.

40598. KR at 14:53 PM on 22 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       The total change in temperature is very small - the Cowtan and Way data remains within the 95% uncertainty range of HadCRUT4. Changes in yearly variations, though, do affect extremely short term trends. 

       All of the 'skeptic' noise about the "hiatus", discussions of "16 years", and in fact any trends derived from start points in the 1998 El Nino, deliberate selections of periods just short of statistical significance - are simply noise about noise. Trends over that time, as the authors of this paper point out, are just not statistically significant and don't have enough data to separate between short term variations and any change in climate trends.

       That said, the Cowtan and Way paper makes the various skeptic/denier claims about slowdowns even less sensible. Which is why the 'skeptics' are up in arms (WUWT has something like 8-9 posts on the subject) - the paper removes one of their favorite misleading rhetorical points. 

40599. Tom Curtis at 14:36 PM on 22 November 2013
       2013 SkS News Bulletin #17: Cowtan and Way (2013)
       

       wili @1, you have it exactly right.  This is, at most, a minor adjustment on the long term surface temperature trend.  It only appears consequential when you look at very short term trends, such as that from 1998.  Looking at such short trends is largely meaningless in science because the trends do not statistically differ from the long term trend, and any adjustment that makes a noticable difference only to those short term trends will be largely inconsequential to the overall science.

       The problem is, in order to avoid the implications of the science, AGW deniers have been focusing heavily just such short term trends.  That focus of theirs is shown by C&W to be misguided in that the phenoman they purportedly draw attention to largely disappears with just a minor correction.  Indeed, they are in a cleft stick if looked at logically.  If they draw attention to the minor nature of the correction, they at the same time draw attention to the unscientific nature of their focus on short term trends.  Alternatively, if they draw attention to the short term trend, C&W shows their argument to be based on using only restricted data.

       Of course, AGW deniers are not logical.  So, whether C&W punctures their rhetorical bubble remains to be seen.  

40600. scaddenp at 14:34 PM on 22 November 2013
       Will extreme weather like super typhoon Haiyan become the new norm?
       

       CSIRO researchers Church and White have long publishing history from analysis of worldwide tide gauge and satellite sealevel.  See for instance here for "Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century". I would imagine it comes from that group.

Prev  804  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  813  814  815  816  817  818  819  Next