Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 Next
Comments 44151 to 44200:
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 00:10 AM on 27 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Tom Curtis @30: You’re everywhere on this site, yes? And I like your answers. They have the most detail and explanation. What is your background?
TC @30.1: I need to read your link to see what it says.
TC @30.2: Doh! My Homer Simpson moment. I triple checked my math as not to embarrass myself, but I computed cubic millimeters instead of centimeters. Still embarrassed myself, though. But it’s not like I mixed up English and metric units and crashed a probe into Mars. :-) Okay, I easily believe they can measure 0.1 C.
TC @ 30.2: I find the warming in the first 700m interesting as some light colors (mostly blue at 490nm) penetrate fairly deep (but not 700m). The average ocean surface temperature is about 22C and the average surface air temperature is 15C, so the ocean surface is much warmer than the air. If the air warms to 16C from CO2, then this would reduce the thermal gradient from the ocean to the air, reducing the cooling from the ocean. The question though, is this enough to warm the oceans this amount? Another explanation is that the oceans have been warmed by more light from reduced cloud cover – perhaps? The more sun light that hits the ocean the more energy that penetrates deep to warm the top 700m. It seems hard to figure out the components of ocean warming – is it more light from reduced clouds, or reduced cooling due to a warmer? If you assume the amount of solar energy hitting the ocean is constant (it can’t be because that would require clouds to be constant) then it all has to be reduced cooling due to reduce ocean/air thermal gradient. Perhaps your link above discusses this.
TC @ 30.3: “Energy balance”. I still want to see the numbers and discuss this. I think this is closely related to my above point about what is warming the oceans.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 23:13 PM on 26 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
An example from Jyllands Posten about falling sealevel around Maldives:
This picture is used as an argument for falling sea level around Maldives.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width that was breaking page formatting.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:04 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone asked, "Is the intention to apply a tax to the CO2 emissions or to actually reduce the said emissions?"
Probably fines for emissions in excess of amounts allowed. The EPA backed off issuing regulations on how much CO2 just new power plants could emit a few months ago... apparently because they were facing lawsuits holding that if these emission levels were harmful from new power plants then surely they must also be harmful from existing plants. Which, of course, is simple logic and thus likely to prevail at trial.
Thus, based on Obama's speech, they are now planning to set a limit for both new and existing plants. If it is the same limit that they were considering previously then it would basically outlaw all coal power in the US. Technically, power companies could continue operating coal plants and pay fines for violating the clean air act, but they would lose money doing so... and that kind of defeats the whole purpose.
It is also possible that they will set a higher 'allowed CO2 emissions level' or a transition plan where the allowed CO2 emissions decrease over time. Obama didn't give details so it is impossible to tell, but the phased approach seems most likely to me. That will allow existing coal plants to shut down at natural end of life, as they have been doing anyway since natural gas became cheaper in the US (and now solar and wind are doing so in some areas). Meanwhile it would also prevent new coal power plants from being built because they'd just have to shut down or start paying fines right around the time they'd be paying back the initial investment. Thus, end result is the same as the previous EPA regulations... no more new coal power plants but existing ones get to wind down to avoid a sudden drop in available power... but because of the way it is structured it would now be more resistant to legal challenges.
All speculative, but that's my guess.
-
Composer99 at 21:59 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Obama and the EPA are notallowed to impose a carbon tax or equivalent price, whether as a straight-up tax (e.g. as British Columbia has done), a fee-and-dividend system, or a cap-and-trade system (as the European Union has done): only Congress has that ability.
The advantages of a carbon pricing system are that it (a) internalises the externalities imposed by burning fossil fuels (that is, global warming, ocean acidification and their respective consequences), and (b) sends a clear price signal to markets.
-
Paul D at 18:25 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
voneschen@1
Given that you quoted quite complex figures (for many people) and estimates regarding the amount of different gases in the atmosphere. It suggests you know what the 'big deal' is.
eg. you know infra-red radiation doesn't 'see' Nitrogen and many other gases, so the fact that the gas is a large proportion of the atmosphere is irrelevant. At the simplistic level that you present your theory, Nitrogen may as well not be there as far as trapping/delaying IR goes.
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 18:09 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone @ 6
I'm not from the US either but from my understanding Obama made no mention at all about a carbon tax and his administration has flatly denied that one will be introduced as a result of this speech. I don't know how the regulation will be enforsed. What I do know is that many are saying that Mr Obama is doing too little too late.
This link is to an opinion piece. Obama's Fracked-up Climate Change Speech.
-
Rob Painting at 17:54 PM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
dvunkannon - yes, the deep ocean warming is occurring pretty much where we expect, given the behaviour of the wind-driven ocean circulation and the spin-up of the subtropical ocean gyres. The image below is from Levitus et al (2012) linked to in the article.
-
rockytom at 15:43 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Now you know one of the reasons we re-elected this President!
-
scaddenp at 14:40 PM on 26 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
I would second the SoD articles (and see the followup on the cool skin also). This is all the nitty-gritty textbook stuff that SoD does so well. For detail on the ocean measurement system and its limits, then I guess start with Von Schuckmann and La Treon.
Check you math. I get 6.12e17m3 of water give 6.12e20 kg (density at 1000kg/m3) and 6.12e23g (actually more like 7.23e23g using more accurate estimate of ocean area).
-
Tom Curtis at 14:29 PM on 26 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Stealth @28:
1) "Heat" is an active verb. The better term is "warm". The increased IR back radiation slows the cooling of the ocean by slowing the rate at which heat from below the first few millimeters comes to the surface. So, the Sun heats the ocean, but it heats it more because of the warming effect of the back radiation makes the ocean's cooling less efficient. (This is exactly analogous to the way CO2 "warms" the Earth.) Science of Doom has an excellent series of posts covering, and demonstrating the physics, if you want a more technical explanation. The starting point is "Does back radiation heat the ocean part 1".
2) You misplaced a decimal point. There are one million (100^3) cubic centimeters in a cubic meter, not one billion. Ergo there are 6.12x10^(17+6) cubic centimeters in the first 2000 meters of the ocean. Hence the average temperature increase is 0.1 C over the period. Note that the increase near the surface is significantly larger, with most of the warming being in the first 700 meters. Consequently, while the error is quite large, the measurement is statistically significant.
3) The TOA energy imbalance equals on average total forcing from all factors since 1750 (by convention) minus the increase radiation to space due to increased surface temperature. On top of that there are year to year fluctuation due to short term changes in humidity, cloud cover, surface temperature and change in temperature distribution which can be ignored for this discussion. Current climate models estimate that TOA imbalance to be 0.47 W/m^2 for the mean value between 2000-2010 inclusive (see figure 2a of Stevens et al). The TOA energy imbalance as measured by the 0-2000 meter change in OHC over the same period is 0.57 +/-0.4 W/m^2 (90% confidence interval). The 0-2000 meter OHC underestimates total TOA imbalance because, of course, there is additional warming at greater depths, heat used to melt ice, and heat used to warm land and atmosphere. That figure is greater than your estimate solely because the TOA energy imbalance was much smaller in the mid-twentieth century, and has been increasing since then.
-
DSL at 14:05 PM on 26 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Stealth, what JasonB said, and it was not meant to be demeaning. Your overall response moved the DK spectre well back into the forest.
As for thermal infrared warming the ocean, the ocean's thermal gradient starts at the skin of the ocean. That's one answer. SoD has more on this, and I think there's an SkS thread somewhere on it. The circumstantial evidence for this is enormous, but the actual physsical mechanism is not well-described or, perhaps more accurately, not well-observed (for obvious reasons). -
Paul Pukite at 13:47 PM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Definitely the OHC is the way to go. Also consider the realationship between land and ocean temperatures. I started an analysis on proportional ocean vs land warming here http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/proportional-landsea-global-warming.html
Isaac Held has done something similar on his blog “38. NH-SH differential warming and TCR « Isaac Held’s Blog.”
The assertion is that the ocean will sink excess heat, thus preventing the SST from reaching the same temperature as the land. Over time, we can look at that gap vary. Right now, the gap appears to be widening, thus leading to a leveling of the global temperature.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 13:35 PM on 26 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
I have a question about ocean warming – how is that possible from increased CO2? From my understanding, increased CO2 reduces IR flux to space and the back IR radiation warms the surface and troposphere. Since water completely absorbs any IR within the first few centimeters, how can IR from CO2 heat the ocean at any meaningful depth?
Second, how can ocean temperature be measured to determine this? Assuming 2.5e23 extra joules (based on the chart of this thread) are dumped into the ocean from 1960 to today from 0 to 2000 meters of depth. Using 60% of the earth surface that has water to 2000m, I compute this is roughly 6.12e17 cubic meters of water, or 6.12e26 cubic centimeters, or 6.12e26 grams of water. Using 4.18 J/g/C for water I compute that 2.5e23 joules would heat this volume of the ocean only 0.0001 deg C, which has to be immeasurable. So, how have they figured out the ocean has warmed this miniscule amount? It doesn’t seem possible to make a direct measurement.
Third, assuming all this energy passed through the ocean surface, I compute that this is approximately 0.4 W/m^2 increased energy into the ocean. Again, I am only assuming 60% of the earth has water to 2000 meters, so this is about 3.06e14 square meters. 2.5e23 joules / 3.06e14 meters is 8.17e8 extra joules per square meter over 53 years. Divide that by the number of seconds in 53 years (~1.7e9 seconds) and I get 0.4 W/m^2 for the last 53 years. That doesn’t sound that impressive given the reduced IR flux due to CO2 is on the order of 1 W/m^2 over this same time period. Or, this could mean that 40% of the IR back radiation from CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, but how, given that IR doesn’t penetrate water?
-
Ken in Oz at 13:31 PM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Dana, I think you are pushing in the right direction with this; heat content is a much more direct measure of the underlying changes to the climate system than average air temperatures and climate science communicators should make heat content their first response to the suggestion that global warming is something that waxes and (allegedly, recently) wanes.
I think examining the scientific consensus and other efforts by contributors at this site all help. The Escalator is great. Foster and Rahmstorf style adjusted temperatures, that look at the known natural influences help.
I don't know where the best value for effort in communicating the seriousness and urgency of the climate problem lies but one thing that I would like to see is National Academies and the like increasing their role. Not that they've failed to step up, but the idea that they could (again) provide an independent assessment of the science comes to mind. It needs to be done with maximum publicity and video documentation (prime time Television in mind), demonstrating how they select the experts for the right combination of knowhow, independence and integrity. Not that I'm criticising what everyone has done to date but clearly the message is still not being communicated well enough in the face of ongoing, organised, deliberate and well communicated dis- and mis- information.
-
Jim Eager at 13:29 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Voneschen, the big deal is the first 999,600 feet has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, other than to act as a passive heat reservoir. It's the last 400 feet that absorbs enough energy to keep earth from being a frozen slush ball all the way to the equator.
Your argument is that of a child innocent of the knowledge of reality. -
JasonB at 13:29 PM on 26 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Stealth,
DK = Dunning Kruger, an unwarranted belief in one's own expertise (and an inability to recognise true expertise in others) due to lacking the expertise necessary to recognise that one's own expertise is limited. Note that it's not the same as "stupid", and it can apply to anyone, no matter how much of an expert they are in their own domain, when they venture outside of that domain — xkcd's "Physicists" comic is a good example of this.
Regarding energy balance, a quick Google search came up with this, although it's a few years old now. The basic point is that the difference between energy entering the system and energy leaving the system has not only been modelled, it's been empiracally observed. Basic physics dictates that if there is a difference, then due to conservation of energy, that energy must be going somewhere. You can work out the accumulation of energy in the earth by trying to physically measure it everywhere you can think of, or you can just integrate the energy imbalance measured by the satellites at the top of the atmosphere over time. This last point really puts all the arguments over thermometer placement and adjustments into context.
-
SeaHuck5891 at 13:24 PM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
I thought it was very apropos that President Obama kept wiping the sweat off his brow throughout the speach.
-
KR at 13:19 PM on 26 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Stealth - The 'go-to' reference for direct CO2 forcing is Myhre 1988, who estimates it at a simplified (curve-fit to the more complex radiative computations) expression of:
ΔF = 5.35*ln(C/C0) W/m2
This means that the radiative forcing increase from 310 to 400 ppm of CO2 would be 5.35*ln(400/310), or about 1.36 W/m2. A doubling of CO2 will produce a non-feedback ΔF of 3.7 W/m2.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:09 PM on 26 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
stealth @220, the version of Modtran available at the University of Chicago website is an early version (1987), which has been superceeded by 4 other versions since then. More importantly, no single atmospheric condition will effectively model the mean effect over the entire Earth. You need to take representative samples from a large number of conditions (tropical over forest, tropical over sand, tropical over ocean, various cloud conditions etc) and determine an average effect to get accurate values. Unfortunately the University of Chicago interface does not allow that level of flexibility in conditions. Nevertheless, Gunnar Myhre and associates did exactly that in 1998. There result was that over a broad range of values, the radiative forcing of CO2 was 5.35 * ln(CO2c/CO2i) where CO2c is the new value and CO2i is the initial value. The error given is +/-1%. This yields a forcing for the doubling of CO2 of 3.7 W/m^2, and a forcing of 1.36 W/m^2 for the CO2 increase from 310-400 ppmv.
NOAA maintains a usefull webpage showing the relevant formulas for the most significant GHG that do not condense at normal atmospheric pressures and temperatures, along with their estimated radiative forcing. For what it is worth, this is the aspect of climate science that even Spenser and Lindzen agree with, and which Anthony Watts feels insulted if you suggest he does not, even though he frequently publishes and publicly endorses articles which disagree with it.
Regarding your questions, it is hard to suggest an appropriate thread without knowing what they are. You could either use the search function on this site to find an appropriate topic, or ask the questions and we can switch topic for the answers if appropriate.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 12:28 PM on 26 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
DSL @ 219: what does “DK” mean? I’d guess “denialist knowledge”.
By the way, I am male, 52, with a BS in computer science and physics. And for the record, I do not blindly accept what you guys say, nor do I blindly accept what WUWT or Dr. Spencer’s website has to say. My natural inclination is to think that natural variability is a significant cause of recent warming, but I think CO2 may have a sizable role, hence the reason to discuss this with you guys. I figure you all are pro AGW, have access to the data, and can backup your position. I can be convinced with the right data and good arguments.
Since Tom Curtis appropriately moved my question to this thread, I wanted to read the whole thing to avoid rehashing the same stuff all over. Overall, good stuff and information in this thread. As for my conversation with you guys, I think Tom Curtis made an excellent point @213, namely that energy at the TOA is not 1366 W/m^2 over the entire globe. I knew this since the curvature of earth reduces the W/m^2 as a function of the incidence angle. I was going to compute this with integration, but I like the clever way to just divide by 4 to arrive at an average “effective” energy input over the whole globe. Therefore, I agree that the average effective energy at the TOA is, over a 24 hour period, 341.5 W/m^2. I also think that the solar variance over a solar cycle probably isn’t meaningful to this value. It may be 1.3 W/m^2, but when divided by 4 we get a relatively small 0.325 W/m^2. I’m good with that.
As for CO2 being fully saturated, I agree that it isn’t. The doubling of CO2 is probably on the order of 3 W/m^2 of reduced IR flux based on my computations with MODTRAN. What is the consensus value for the amount of reduced IR flux from the increase in CO2 from 1950 until now (CO2 increasing from 310 ppmv to 400 ppmv)? Running MODTRAN, I figure it is about 1 W/m^2.
Next, I have some questions about energy balance, which related to TC’s @218 comments, but I don’t think those belong in the CO2 saturation thread. John Cook commented @132 of this thread to the moderators about starting a thread on the energy budget. Is there such a thread for that? If so, please post a link here.
-
Donthaveone at 12:07 PM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Skywatcher,
The year 2013 was mentioned numerous times however that was not the point i was trying to make. Esop (14) claimed that "deniers" would use 2013 as evidence of a recovery plus coming ice age etc (if in fact the ice loss ends up less than 2012). Esop then made the unsubstantiated claim that 2014/15 will be lower than 2012 and the "deniers" would then claim this is all part of a natural cycle.
I supplied the link to show that even "experts" can get things wrong and to subtly show Esop that the way they where behaving was the same as those they mock. The artcile i link to clearly states Professor Wieslaw Maslowski claims the the Arctic "could" be ice free in the next 5 - 6 years (from 2007) no mention of a 6 year tolerance. Do you have a link to support the =/- 3 years?
This is the problem with the subject of AGW there are a lot of claims made based on computer models which generally dont pan out but yet according to Esop it is only the deniers that shift the goal posts.
Cheers
Moderator Response:[DB] You illustrate the fallacy of relying on news articles instead of primary sources.
In reality, Maslowski's prediction, based on a proprietary model he runs on a US Navy supercomputer at the US Navy Postgraduate School, is 2016 ± 3 years. He originally made this prediction, based on data through the 2005 melt season, in May of 2006.
Maslowski formalized that prediction in January of 2007, here. Maslowski provides more details on his model, and the future of the Arctic sea ice, here.
To sum: you are very much incorrect. In this forum, credibility comes from referencing reputable sources, preferably the primary literature published in reputable journals. Continuing on in the approach you have taken will get you nowhere, here.
Lastly, posts at SkS have a narrow focus. Your reference to models is an unsupported assertion and indicates an unfamiliarity with models. Please read the Models Are Unreliable rebuttal in its entirety before commenting further on them.
-
dvunkannon at 11:51 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
The way I am reading this, the effect of changes in the IPO is _not_ that heat buried in the deep ocean resurfaces, it is simply that less heat gets buried than otherwise.
Does ARGO float data from the area of these gyres confirm that heat is descending near their centers? I would expect that floats near the gyre centers would show higher temperatures at depth than floats in other locations.
-
Donthaveone at 11:49 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Composer99 @ 5
This is an issue worthy of more discussion, i should say i am not from the US so am not sure where the EPA sits in all this regarding energy policy etc so i cannot comment on political issues one comment by Obama has spiked my interest.
This statement
Agency (EPA) will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, in addition to the rules already in draft form that are set to regulate emissions from new power plants.
Is the intention to apply a tax to the CO2 emissions or to actually reduce the said emissions?
Cheers
-
skywatcher at 11:36 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
@Donthaveone : you do know that Maslowski's prediction was 2016 +/- 3 years don't you? What is your reasoning for thinking such a prediction would be falsified in 2013, when the uncertainty bound is in the range 2013-2019? Do you think the prediction is unreasonable, given the acceleration in ice volume loss?And yes, climate scientists know full well that climate's changed before (#20). Evidence of that is one of the powerful reasons we know that the Earth is sensitive to change in forcing, including changing CO2 levels- approximately 3C per doubling from palaeoclimate data. For me, global warming is what is happening, climate change and climate disruption are the consequences of our increasing the heat content of the Earth system. -
Composer99 at 11:12 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
(On topic:)
While I am hardly either anti-government nor an unqualified booster of markets, I certainly feel that fee-and-dividend, by sending clear price signals and relying on decentralised decision-making, is more likely to gain traction with political conservatives, and takes advantage of, instead of trying to fight, human nature. (And, for those who don't like government, it also means money goes straight into people's pockets.)
So I certainly hope that Congress can get its act together and get on with passing some fee-and-dividend legislation.
However, I suspect that will (a) have to wait for Congressional midterms in 2014, and (b) the Democratic Party will either have to do much better or moderate Republicans will have to win primaries against the Tea Party caucus.
-
Donthaveone at 11:12 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Esop in 14,
You raise some interesting points re Arctic ice however you need to be careful with what you say. For example Professor Wieslaw Maslowski made a rather bold prediction when he stated according to his model the Arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2013 (see link below)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Now if we look at the current state of Arctic sea ice we can see it is a long way from being ice free, granted we are a few months away from "peak melt" but the Arctic will not be ice free (see link below)
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Obviously Professor Wieslaw Maslowski got his prediction/projection wrong i will be interested in hearing what his reasonings are.
Moderator Response:[DB] See my response to you below.
-
JasonB at 11:03 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Ah, the feeling that if something is tiny it would surely have a tiny effect — what Peter Hadfield calls the "Feelie Method of Scientific Enquiry".
Yes, let's put that into perspective:
He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).
Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).
Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.
That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).
The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.
Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).
Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.
A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.
All from the appropriately-named "CO2 is just a trace gas" page right here at SkS.
No idea why you thought converting it into feet would help. How big do you think an influenza virus is compared to a person? Ebola? I guess "Feelies" aren't the best method of scientific enquiry after all.
-
Dave123 at 11:02 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
@1
Your myth is covered in this Skeptical Science write-up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
-
Composer99 at 11:02 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
voneschen:
Assuming for the sake of argument that your comment survives moderation, given it is (a) off-topic for this thread and (b) practically constitutes sloganeering, your simplistic analogy, put bluntly, has no basis in the reality of what is going on.
There are many resources, online and in textbooks that are presumably available at public libraries in your general area, which explain the radiative physics of atmospheric gases, and precisely why only the gases identified as greenhouse gases (namely CO2, H2O, and a few others) are important for modulating the outgoing flux of infrared from the Earth's surface, resulting in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Please avail yourself of, say, David Archer's online materials at the University of Chicago before continuing with further, similar analogies which have no bearing on the applicable physics. Certainly you will be in a far better position to ask more interesting and perhaps even incisive questions.
-
Donthaveone at 10:58 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I think AGW is the best title as it states clearly that the globe may warm from mans actions, climate change is not a very good title because the climate changes all the time with or without us. Climate extremes, well we already have that think the poles winter/summer etc.
-
voneschen at 10:38 AM on 26 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
CO2 is now 400 parts per million. Lets put that in a new perspective. Lets use "feet per million". Therefore air is 78% nitrogen or about 780,000 feet per million or about 140 miles. Oxygen is about 21% or about 40 miles and that leaves 1% of other gases, mostly Argon, or not quite 2 miles. Then CO2 is 400 parts per million or 400 feet. So all the gases except CO2 will reach 999,600 feet or just about the distance across Minnesota's midsection from SD to Wisc. and the CO2 will reach from home plate to the fence at Target Field. So What the hell"s the big deal?
-
Skeptical Still at 10:17 AM on 26 June 2013Climate's changed before
Thanks to those that responded to my post- I will look through the references and continue to visit this site; it’s the best representation I’ve found for the pro-manmade argument. I am open to the idea and willing to review more data but I remain unconvinced. Thanks again.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
I would also say that paper is interesting for what it doesn’t find. While the authors are correctly cautious about their findings, and point to alternative explanations, they do indeed find significant ocean warming and not a “same as” picture that the “its just a natural cycle” crowd would have expected. By itself the comparison doesn’t “prove” anything but the findings are consistent with current climate theory.
-
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
Donthaveone, the paper I linked included the discussion of the errors and raises a number of issues. The article however is about a followup pape which further delves into those questions and uses combination of both data and ocean thermodynamic modelling to look at spatiala and temporal variability. It is unfortunate that no freely accessible version exists yet but you could follow up with the authors as suggested above.
-
Zen69 at 06:11 AM on 26 June 2013It's the sun
I have recently had a conversation with a 'sceptic' friend who believes 'it's the sun' . Showed him figure 1 to which he appeared slightly aggitated and suggested that whoever produced the chart was being misleading as it is based on the 11 year average, and this is not as reliable as the 'smooth' average. Apparantly the smooth average shows much less of a divegency between solar avtivity in temps from 1980 onwards. Can anyone enlighten me as to what he is on about? Thanks.
-
HK at 04:30 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Esop #11:
Let me guess.
You are referring to the climate "realist" Ole Henrik Ellestad in the program Debatten that aired on June 6th. I didn’t even bother to watch the whole program because I was almost certain about the result, and I was right.Ellestad got a chance to deliver his "climate’s changed before" and "CO2 lags temperature" arguments and nobody present were qualified or got the chance to argue against him.
I wonder when NRK will actually let a real climate scientist thoroughly and without interruptions debunk some of the specific arguments that the deniers are promoting. It hasn’t happened yet.
-
KR at 04:30 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
HK - Quite right, in that a continuing radiative imbalance coupled with a "hiatus" period means that the oceans are accumulating heat faster during that time. Thus a hiatus period essentially acts to speed (or in a warmer atmosphere period, slow) the climates response to any imbalance, changing the settling time to equilibrium.
In fact, a hiatus period (accompanied by accelerated circulation of warmed water into the deeper ocean) actually increases any existing imbalance - and again warms the climate faster. A period of radiative imbalance with a hiatus period will in sum result in a greater number of joules accumulated over that period.
-
heb0 at 04:07 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Whenever I talk about Global Warming, I generally try to stress that "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" describe different parts of an overall effect that we tend to lump together. So, while it may be a mouthful, I'll use phrases like "Climate Change as a result of human-caused Global Warming."
No matter what, I'm also hesitant to use "Climate Change" more frequently than "Global Warming." Global Warming is an effect much closer to the source: our GHG emissions. Climate Change is simply the response to that and, to me, it's so far down the line that it doesn't "click" for people.
As for other terms (climate disruption), I think they're even further down the wrong path. The ideas they convey have only very minor differences, and they do nothing but lead people to believe the myth that the nomenclature is some sort of worldwide scientific conspiracy because one or more of the words is "no longer happening."
The only improvement over "Global Warming" (or, better yet, the incredibly wordy phrase I like to use) that I could think of would perhaps be "Global Heating," simply because it stresses energy rather than temperature changes. But that's getting pretty pedantic, and not really worth it in my opinion. -
BillEverett at 03:42 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
I agree with CBDunkerson regarding terms. "Global warming" is the best term for the current human-caused climate change because it is the main characteristic feature of the change.
I would use the term "climate disruption" for relatively short-term deviations from the long-term climate. Major volcanic eruptions typically cause a climate disruption lasting for several years. Other singular events might cause a climate disruption lasting for several decades or centuries (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Younger Dryas).
Imagining a miracle, I would call what happened a human-caused climate disruption if we quickly stopped burning fossil fuels and reduced greenhouse gases to something close to the pre-industrial concentrations, resulting in a reversal of the warming and a return to a congenial climate over the next century.
-
HK at 03:25 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
I have noticed something interesting:
The top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance (left columns in figure 3) barely changes from hiatus decades to decades with accelerated warming.
Shouldn’t the climate system as a whole accumulate more heat during hiatus decades because the colder surface loses less heat through radiation and evaporation? Shouldn’t heat that is stored in the deep oceans be much "safer" from being lost to space than heat in the upper oceans and atmosphere?
Can this apparent contradiction be explained by positive feedbacks?
After all, feedbacks like the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere only respond to surface warming, not the warming in the deep oceans. Could it be that the increasing feedbacks cancel out the amplified heat loss during decades with accelerated warming, keeping the TOA energy imbalance more or less stable as long as the forcing is steadily growing?
-
grindupBaker at 03:12 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
A good assembly of information to study but I have a quibble with the title. Has a question that's rhetorical as phrased - I would not think it possible that warmer oceans over centuries have no effect in the atmosphere and just sit quietly down there (more energy for more weather). I don't quite agree with "Come Back" as the descriptive phrase. Sun heat will in general keep moving through into ocean. So, I'm adding "...in next few years" in my mind to your title to clarify that you are theorizing that we might fairly soon get the 1st of the larger weather events that will become increasingly standard over the coming centuries/millenia.
-
Ger at 02:23 AM on 26 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
Isn't the escalator graph not showing this phenomena in a perfect way?
-
CBDunkerson at 02:14 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Actually, I prefer 'global warming' to 'climate change' or 'climate disruption'. It is more precise in that it explains the primary underlying shift. Yes, the climate is changing and being disrupted... because the planet is getting warmer. Leaving out that the issue is warming would be like having a daily weather report stating, 'big weather changes tomorrow - be prepared!'. Prepared for what, exactly?
How do we prove that 'climate change' hasn't stopped? By showing that warming has continued.
Yes, the simple term 'global warming' doesn't convey all the complexities of what can happen as that warming causes air and ocean currents to shift, but climate change/disruption provides even less information.
-
David Kirtley at 01:48 AM on 26 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
If you're interested in helping out with on-going, crowd-source research using old ship logs you can "hop aboard" one of these vessels and help transcribe the data at OldWeather. I'm aboard the US Concord which sailed all over the world in the late 1800s.
-
Composer99 at 00:56 AM on 26 June 2013There is no consensus
PeterBCourt:
Even if one does not feed the trolls, misinformation must still be examined and addressed.
So your unveiling of Schollenberger's straw-grasp is IMO a very useful exercise.
-
angliss at 00:52 AM on 26 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
shoyemore@8 - MT's idea to drop "global warming" is a good one. He's incorrect, however, that Holdren coined the term "climate disruption" - it's been in use since well beore Holdren came along, and I started using it at S&R before Holdren started working for President Obama. That said, however, Holdren did popularize "climate disruption."
-
Dumb Scientist at 00:36 AM on 26 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Sorry for the delay. I now think more than 10,000 Monte Carlo runs are necessary for stable statistics, but I'm traveling now and only have access to my netbook. When I return home next Monday I'll try 1,000,000 runs on my desktop and reply as soon as possible.
-
PeterBCourt at 22:43 PM on 25 June 2013There is no consensus
I've waded into some discussions recently and have presented some of the points here on the consensus. This to me is a very key issue, because if one cant discredit it, then the only option is looney conspiracy theories involving very large numbers of scientists over decades. Lets face it, the average (and even not so average) person is not going to be able to comphrehend and judge the detail of any scientific discussions. Its all about who you are willing to trust.
I came across a rebuttal quoting Andrew Montford at bishop hill quoting Brandon Shollenberger. Now I know many feel that Shollenberger is an extreme wingnut, and Troll who is best not fed, but he is all excited about finding a hole in theconsensus project.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/ 17May2013.
It took me a little to understand what he is on about. His statements on the relative numbers of each Endorsement levels. A reminder that these levels are:
1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4. No Position
5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
8. UndecidedHis incorrect claim is that the top rating 1 - (only 65 papers) is smaller than the "Oppose AGW" numbers at 77 rejects. But he is comparing Level 1 alone with the bottom 3 levels 5,6 and 7.
The correct comparison of course is top 3 with bottom 3, which is 3898 Endorses vrs 77 rejects, and 7976 that state no opinion.
Amazing at how they are grasping at straws to overcome a mountain of evidence. Well .. disgusting actually.
-
Esop at 20:55 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
The funny thing is that when we hit a new record in the surface temps in 2010, the deniers make a lot of noise that the surface measurements only represented a tiny 2% of the whole system. How things change. I will bet that once the next Nino hits and we get a new surface record, it will be back to the same tune.
Just like Arctic sea ice. If 2013 does not go lower than 2012, they will scream recovery and coming ice age, but when 2014 or 2015 smashes the 2012 record, they will claim that it is all natural and they knew it would happen all along. Denial is easy when you can make up your own facts and reality, and the press never questions it, but call upon you as an expert on the topic.
-
Icarus at 20:46 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Hmmm...
Prev 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 Next
