Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hmmmm....

 

BFTV,

 

I was referring to the global HadCru4,

 

HadCRUT4_small.png

 

And you'll note (omitting erroneous linear trend analysis - since the series isn't homogenous) that the trend is either flat or going down. I presume (you don't say specifically) that you are suggesting that climate affects the weather affects the sea-ice?

 

I'd go for oceans melting the ice - particularly, and thanks for the chart - the freezing point of sea is about -2C [1]; so given that average we've still got about 6C to go! Of course, salinity affects the freezing point ...

 

[1] http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/water/temp3.htm

 

But as an explanation as to why global temperatures haven't slowed Arctic sea ice loss, the ever increasing Arctic temperatures might play a role.

 

So we're now judging climatological trends with short time periods?

 

 

What's your thoughts on the influence of air temperatures then?

 

 

 

Indeed they are, but the majority of ice loss comes from underneath the ice and those warm currents are still not fully understood, for example how long does it take each cycle of warm water to flush through the oceanic systems. From the studies I've seen there appears to be little in the way of concrete evidence showing just how long these cycles last, suggesting to me that there could be cycles within cycles  that could take many years to flush there way out of the oceans. With this in mind we could be looking at volumes of warm currents taking many, many years before they disperse through this system.

 

 

 

What are these currents, SI? Have you any evidence for them or information on them?

[Crepuscular Ray]

Go on, then. What are you waiting for?

I think you'll find Knocker just did. And please stick to the rules.

[VillagePlank]

So we're now judging climatological trends with short time periods?

 

Precisely the opposite. This isn't the place to explain why linear regression isn't suitable for many of the climate data series. I'll write up a post and stick it somewhere sensible.

[Gray-Wolf]

D'ya know ? , no matter how you fight it when figures in authority label you as 'something' it is ever so hard to not find yourself saying " what the Hey! , this is what they think of me ,then  this is what they'll get!"

 

Just thought I'd put that out there .....oh! , and thanks for all the Fish........

[BornFromTheVoid]

This was posted on another forum I frequent, and seems dangerously logical...

If you understand numbers you may want to do some calculations and research yourself. I suggest the following:

1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature.

2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 /40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%.

3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water.

4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong.

5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator.

There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago. That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant.

 

 

1) CO2 is part of the climate system, and acts as a natural feedback. The slight warming initiated by the Milankovitch cycles during a glacial period results in CO2 being released which amplifies the warming, meaning that CO2 is both caused by warming, and causes subsequent warming.

 

2) The numbers are all wrong. The ppm difference doesn't equal the difference in radiative forcing. Point number two has no logic to it... it's just gibberish!

 

3) The oceans are not a static mass, so the thinking in that point (however inaccurate) doesn't apply.

 

4) The tropospheric hot spot was found in the models for both solar and anthropogenic warming scenarios. What seperates the the CO2 indiced warming from solar warming are things like a cooling stratosphere.

 

5) CO2 is a part of the air... anyway, that logic could be applied to all greenhouse gasses, in which case, why isn't water vapour causing cooling!? Or perhaps, rather than all the IR radiation going back out to space, when CO2 absorbs and re-emits it, in 360 degrees, the fraction being re-radiated back toward the Earth (which wouldn't have happened with the greenhouse gasses) results in the warming associated with the greenhouse effect?

 

As for your final point, CO2 isn't the only player when it comes to global temperatures. Warming on short time scales can be obscured by the natural variability or noise in the data, thus making a determination of any trend on short time scales difficult.

What is interesting about the last while, is that even though most natural divers appear to be in a cooling phase, they've merely slowed the rate of warming...

 

Applying some scepticism to the proclamations of self described "sceptics" would help in these scenarios

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm glad you posted all that BFTV , I'd have been banned for sure!

 

This is the thing though? Surely the crew who demand it to be natural cycles ( either terrestrial or off world) must see that the data demands the cool driver dip global temps for a number of years? Such a conflagration of 'cool drivers' should surely have had us in a mini ice age by now??? so what happens when the 'natural drivers' flip flop back to warming?

 

I would think that there is a natural 'End Time' for such non-sense as the growing AGW signal has already overpowered the 'Natural' ( to a greater extent) so as to allow the increased ocean warming and continued atmospheric warming whilst facilitating the Arctic crash so what do they expect when we see a set of complimentary 'Natural warm drivers'?

 

How long do they have?

 

You look at the recent PDO ( since 98') and have to wonder 'Where is the PDO-ve of Yore?' I expect us to be resurfacing from -ve PDO over the next few years and the Nino predominance that this will bring with it will be a stark reminder of what 400ppm really means ( years ahead of what it's full impact is?) but this is a nothing compared to the 'Natural' forced changes that the rapid disintegration of the Arctic brings with it? They ( Climate misleaders) thought they could ride the coat-tails of the slow uptake of the Greenhouse forcings ( seeing as we've dumped them into the atmosphere at record speeds) but they did not ( cause the models they both diss and cling to didn't warn them) see the speed of the changes now ongoing in the Arctic nor recognise that those impacts are instant.

 

I will try and cling onto my abilities to post here if only to see them all fall silent ( as they try and tell their mates that they WERE right........) .

 

Fun times for us so wounded by their shenanigans

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Precisely the opposite. This isn't the place to explain why linear regression isn't suitable for many of the climate data series. I'll write up a post and stick it somewhere sensible.

 

I remember you mentioning some homogenisation issue with the station temperature data and linking to a paper on it. Can you post that link up again?

[loafer]

I think you'll find Knocker just did. And please stick to the rules.

My post was directed at A Boy Named Sue. You will note that Knocker and I posted at exactly the same time. Apologies for any confusion...I find Knocker's posts as informative as everyone else does.

[knocker]

Richard Betts, 400ppm: 400ppm? We’re Lucky It’s Not 500 Already

 

Richard Betts, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter

 

Amongst all the hubbub about CO₂ concentrations at Mauna Loa reaching 400 parts per million, another important point is being overlooked—were it not for the fortuitous presence of natural carbon sinks, the CO₂ concentration would already have been much higher.  We are being buffered from the full impact of our CO₂ emissions, but this may not continue indefinitely.

 

http://societyandspace.com/material/richard-betts-400ppm-400ppm-were-lucky-its-not-500-already/

Edited July 27, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Makes you realise that our actions, but for the planet's carbon sinks, would mean CO2 had nigh on tripled in atmospheric conc by now.

[knocker]

Deleted

Edited July 27, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

My biggest worry is the ocean sinks esp the southern Ocean which already appears to be slowing down it's acceptance of CO2? Anyhow I thought the ocean was just a 'bank' for the CO2 and as temps rise it can't hold onto as much of the stuff?

[knocker]

As usual there is nothing simple regarding ocean-atmosphere exchange.I suspect rising SSTs may be more important in reducing invasion but so many factors come into play.

 

If it's of interest a snippet from "Oceanography", Summerhayes and Thorpe, Wiley.

 

The surface of the ocean undergoes gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. The direction of the exchange depends on the relative temperatures, and the difference in (CO2) between the water and the overlying air mass. If the sea surface waters have a lower partial pressure of C02 than that in the atmosphere, then the gas moves from the atmosphere into the sea. This gaseous invasion continues until either the partial pressures equalise (the position of normal atmospheric equilibrium concentration or the watermass sinks below the mixed layer before reaching equilibrium. The rates of invasion and escape (evasion) are influenced by meteorological conditions, surface waves and films, and contaminants in the sea surface. Diffusion of gases across the air-sea interface increases in stormy weather, and the dissolved gases are carried to deeper levels mainly by turbulent mixing. The seasonal or main thermocline that separates the upper and lower water columns provides an impediment to vertical mixing. The upper water column can freely exchange gases with the atmosphere. The equilibration steps involve a number of processes, mostly physical mixing of water masses, and some others, such as diffusion across the air-sea interface and hydration of the gas, which are slow and possibly rate-determining.

 

Air-sea exchange tends to be a kinetically limited process compared to other processes that affect the partial pressure of C02 in the surface waters. The upper 100 m mixed layer of the ocean reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere in approximately one year. At high latitudes, warm water from the equator carried north by the oceanic circulation becomes undersaturated in C02 upon cooling, and absorbs C02 from the atmosphere. The rate of invasion is enhanced through photosynthetic reduction of C02, especially in sub-polar waters, where nutrients are generally high and productivity is stimulated. It is therefore rare for surface waters to be at equilibrium with the equatorial waters tend to be supersaturated, and polar waters undersaturated. Indeed, it is even possible to stimulate photosynthetic activity to increase the 'draw-down' of C02

Edited July 28, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Leaked IPCC report doesn't let us off the hook

Can we all stop worrying about global warming? According to a recent rash of stories in the media, the "climate sensitivity" – the extent to which temperatures respond to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – is lower than expected, and thus that the world won't get as hot as predicted. One story, in The Economist, based on leaked information from a draft of the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claims the IPCC will revise its sensitivity estimate downwards when they release their official report this September.

 

The sceptics have mounted a concerted campaign to persuade journalists and politicians that climate scientists now think that climate sensitivity is lower, says Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London. But is there any truth to the claims?

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23950-leaked-ipcc-report-doesnt-let-us-off-the-hook.html#.UfU696xNapD

Edited July 28, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Steve Easterbrook

Here's a powerful idiot at Reuters, systematically skewing media reporting on climate change.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/23/reuters-climate-change-coverage-declined-signif/195015

[knocker]

Part of a collection on 400ppm

 

400ppm: Exit Holocene, Enter Anthropocene

On 10 May 2013, 400 parts per million of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. This seemingly innocuous number failed to grab the attention of mainstream media, but it inadvertently signaled a quiet earth revolution – a geohistoric moment of “wild destratificationâ€, as Deleuze and Guattari would have it. At the start of the Industrial Revolution (and the designated origins of the Anthropocene), atmospheric CO2 was at 280 ppm. The last time CO2 levels hit 400 ppm was in the Pilocene (between 2.6-5.3 million years ago). In light of these potentially seismic changes in the atmosphere and society, Society and Space invited some interdisciplinary reflections on 400 ppm.

 

 

http://societyandspace.com/2013/07/26/400ppm-exit-holocene-enter-anthropocene/

[knocker]

Global Climate Change

 

Vital Signs of the Planet

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958#.UffkOw__FfQ.twitter

[Interitus]

The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade

 

Almost no one in America has heard of the Alaskan village of Kivalina. It clings to a narrow spit of sand on the edge of the Bering Sea, far too small to feature on maps of Alaska, never mind the United States.

 

Which is perhaps just as well, because within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered - if at all - as the birthplace of America's first climate change refugees.

 

Four hundred indigenous Inuit people currently live in Kivalina's collection of single-storey cabins. Their livelihoods depend on hunting and fishing.

 

The sea has sustained them for countless generations but in the last two decades the dramatic retreat of the Arctic ice has left them desperately vulnerable to coastal erosion. No longer does thick ice protect their shoreline from the destructive power of autumn and winter storms. Kivalina's spit of sand has been dramatically narrowed.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23346370

[knocker]

In discussing their views on impacts of rapid shrinking of Arctic sea ice, two leading scientists provide witness to the kinds of evidence-based exchanges of views characteristic of top researchers in the climate field.

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

More WUWT misinformation, nonsense, babble, whatever you want to call it, thoroughly debunked by Tamino

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/observe-closely/

[knocker]

A Republican Case for Climate Action

 

EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?emc=edit_tnt_20130801&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Edited August 2, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just remember, fracking is completely safe...

 

‘Frack Gag’ Bans Children From Talking About Fracking, Forever

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/02/2401591/frack-gag-for-kids/

[knocker]

Gavin Schmidt wrote this a while back but worth repeating. And he is a climate scientist.

 

Unusually, I’m in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page:

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settledâ€

The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes, but the headline is correct. The WSJ seems to think that the headline is some terribly important pronouncement that in some way undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change but they are simply using an old rhetorical ‘trick’.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

Edited August 2, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Strategies of Communication on Climate Change

 

Three kinds of denial

http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/three-kinds-of-denial.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[knocker]

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to release its latest report, Pilita Clark meets some of the key scientists behind it

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2awemkmz0