Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 Next
Comments 44251 to 44300:
-
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...
-
Icarus at 20:43 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Tamino provides a nice simple graphic showing that global temperature remains within the projected range based on previous decades of warming:
<img width="450" src="http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/giss.jpg" alt="">
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/2012-updates-to-trend-observation-comparisons/
-
Esop at 20:37 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
A very timely article, Dana.
Just this morning, one of Norway's major newpapers, Finansavisen, ran an editorial perpetuating the very same myths.
No surprise, though. Norway has more outspoken deniers per capita than any other nation on earth. Humlum and Giæver are just two of many.
NRK (Norway's BBC) has a bad habit of inviting denialists, but no climate scientists when debating global warming. A well informed denier knows the talking points and will run over a representative from the Green Party andy day of the week.
This is just one tool in the state owned TV Channels quest to form public opinion and gather support for continued explotation of FF reserves in the North Sea and Arctic, securing continuation of major cash flow for the state owned oil company.
-
Icarus at 20:36 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Sea level rise continues unabated, which is surely another indication that there has been no slowdown in global warming, even without the OHC data.
-
Terranova at 20:29 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
John at.11
It's possible. Acceleration or deceleration ate inevitable.
-
Ken in Oz at 19:11 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Ned - you don't think humanity has the intelligence to foresee the consequences of our actions, sufficient ethics to act like it matters or the collective organisation capable of incorporating scientific foresight into effective government policies and regulations? You seem to be saying that even knowing that climate change makes bubonic plague seem inconsequential you think no government level efforts should even be attempted due to certainty of failure.
-
shoyemore at 17:40 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
Michael Tobis comments:
It’s tempting, then, to say “global warming has not stopped, it has just gone underwater”, but I think this is an opportunity to let go of the always poorly chosen name “global warming”.
I believe John Holdren coined the term “climate disruption”, and I think it is exactly right.
-
Paul D at 17:33 PM on 25 June 2013Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming
ajki@6
You might find this article useful:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
-
grindupBaker at 16:56 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
The period 1550 -1850 was known as "Little Ice Age", appears drop maybe 0.5 degrees C just eyeballing graphs. So, I do not see how finding that ocean heat was less ~1870 A.D. than previously thought leads to the conclusion of increased anthropogenic warming 1873–1955 unless the prior computations include a quantitative assessment of what the ocean heat change would have been during that period with no anthropogenic warming.
-
Donthaveone at 15:04 PM on 25 June 2013Is More Global Warming Hiding in the Oceans?
To scaddenp,
I read the paper you provided, it does detail potential errors in the readings from the Challenger and the authors appear to do thier best to take these errors into account.
They say all the errors add a warm bias to the measurements therefore the Challenger data is reduced in magnitude, obviously the larger the reduction the larger the trend over the 135 years becomes.
So i suppose it comes down to how much confidence you have in the data and according to the authors i would say that is not too much when they say
Obviously, these local differences may represent any timescale in the 135-year intervalfrom a transient meander of the Gulf Stream in 1873 to a long-term change in the current's latitude. Similarly, regional to ocean-scale differences may be affected by interannual to decadal15,16 variability, including in the deep ocean17, and hence our Challenger-to-Argo difference based on stations along the Challenger track must be viewed with caution.
That said i found it an interesting study and according to the authors the results show a warming on centenial time scales
The larger temperature change observed between the Challenger expedition and Argo Programme, both globally (0.33 C +/-0.14, 0-700 m) and separately in the Atlantic(0.58 C +/-0.12) and Pacific (0.22 C+/-0.11), therefore seems to be associated with the longer timescale of a century or more. The implications of centennial-scale warming of the subsurface oceans extend beyond the climate system's energy imbalance.
What the authors are saying is that the positive trend in OHC can be extended right back to the 1870's (Challenger data).
In summary, this paper uses data that cannot be considered accurate but if we were to accept these results as they are the trend shown in this data is similar to other studies and tthey show the trend extends back well before man could have started to change the climate through CO2 emissions. This paper is not a new discovery, this paper adds to what is already known and that is OHC and therfore SLR has been increasing at a steady rate for well over a century.
I believe the headline "Is more global warming hiding in the ocean" to be an inaccurate description of what the paper discusses and declares.
Thanks again for supplying the paper
Cheers
-
Tom Curtis at 14:25 PM on 25 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #25
DSL @4, it is the equivalent in energy content to two small nuclear weapons when averaged över the increase in OHC since the 1960s. Over the last decade, it has average near 4.6 times the energy release by the Little Boy bomb.
Personally I do not think the comparison is apt on two grounds. Firstly, in terms of physics, while the energy content is equivalent, the entropy of an atomic explosion is much less than that from the TOA energy imbalance. Because of this, a single small fission bomb has greater capacity to cause harm than does the TOA energy imbalance, even though the later is global in extent. Put another way, if some alien race were dropping four small fission bombs at random locations around the globe every second, we would be in no doubt as to the destructive effect of the energy release. In contrast, the greater energy release from the TOA energy imbalance can only, currently, be shown to be causing harm by statistical analysis.
Second, I do not consider it appropriate to use the tragedy of Hiroshima for merely illustrative purpose. Strictly speaking, John Cook referred to the bomb itself rather than its consequences for illustrative purposes, but I see no benefit in even coming close to that line.
Prev 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 Next
