But then there is this recent news.
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2015/03/19/climate-more-melting-ahead-for-east-antarctica-glaciers/
Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
Pat Cassen: (The fact that they use model output should not be an issue as long as one focuses on internal consistency.)
I don’t think it is a good idea to ignore the fact that the models are running hot. If the result you quote from Lu and Cai is accurate, then the result from Romps et al can not be accurate. I think that people working from different assumptions (and subsets of model space, so to speak) get different results. Much more follows from the equilibrium assumption than that input and output are always in balance everywhere — indeed, that is steady-state, and the equilibrium assumption is that flows have stopped.
2. Would you care to share any of the reactions that you have received from the scientists you have contacted – perhaps those you regard as most constructive?
I put it to a statistician that half of me feels like I have a really good approach, and half of me feels like I am a crank. He assured me that I am not a crank. Another scientist averred that this was a good approach.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
popesclimatetheory commented
Earth temperature is regulated using clouds and rain and snow. The set point for the thermostats is the temperature that polar oceans freeze and thaw.
Might I be so bold to suggest the rest of waters state changes matter as well.
Boiling point, melting point, vapor pressure, heat capacity and entropy.
This applies over the tropical oceans limiting surface temps to ~31C, at night as rel humidity limits radiative cooling, with clouds acting as a radiative blanket, cooling rain (and where does that heat go?). As well as ocean warm spots what feed evaporated water over land masses.
Water is that’s controlling the fundamental profile of earths temps.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by cerescokid
Jim D
I went to page 1152 of WGI and it clearly shows the data for Antarctica goes to 2011 and the studies and calculations are from papers as late as 2012. Every table in those sections keep coming up with the same SLR referenced for Antarctica. What ever time period one wants to use and what ever estimates are used, the magnitude is small compared to the other components.
Another matter on Antarctica. I dont know how any discussion about West Antarctica can leave out the 2 studies from 2014 centering on findings of geothermal activity that is more extensive and hotter than previously known. Until that element of the possible outcomes is studied with more specificity, all the other assumptions about influence from AGW and the overall effect on SLR from Antarctica seem premature.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by matthewrmarler
Pat Cassen: You continue to assume a simple proportionality between the change in latent heat transport and the change in sensible heat transport.
Not so.
Romps et al (actually, their references) assume that the fraction of each kg of air that is water vapor is constant. That way the upward air flow rate can be approximated by the precipitation rate. Latent heat change is not included in their calculation.
For latent heat change I use only the survey of precipitation rate change (O’Gorman et al) and the evapotranspirative heat flow rate (Stephens et al.)
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by climatereason
JimD
You said;
‘The AGW theory, like any other, is falsifiable with evidence of other factors dominating the warming we have had. Based on the amount observed, it is verifying AGW at this time, so it needs some kind of reversal or a different idea for the 0.8 C warming so far. None are forthcoming, so it looks good for AGW as the leading theory for this going forwards.’
That presupposes then that the temperature in say 1880 was ‘normal.’ What evidence do you have to support a proposition that the colder than today temperatures of the LIA are the norm?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
JimD,
I have sufficent evidence that there has been continual warming since at least 1700. My understanding of IPCC is that it states the words to the effect that “most of the warming seen since +/- 1950 is man caused” but offers no explaination of what stopped whatever natural warming which was occurring or indeed may have led to “masked” cooling (that ice age from the ’70’s?). IPCC is a quasi governmental organization of which I’m frankly suspicious due to the leaders statements along the lines of “it doesn’t matter if the GW theory is invalid we need to reorganize the worlds economy anyway”. This is from my own “lying eyes” and does not come from a “skeptical” playbook of any kind as I don’t subscribe to that publication. I have evidence that it’s warming I just want to know why. It has been warming for a long time and that warming may still be occurring concurrent with CO2 increasing levels. But I cannot find it (and I ask you for it again if you have direct, non IPCC source). If not, please understand and respect my skepticism. I respect your AGW leanings (I have them too, but they’re just different than yours). I’m happy to support environmental causes for the sake of not living in a trash dump; to reduce, reuse, recycle; to beautify; to create alternative energy out of need for FF replacement; to benefit wildlife;. But until you address the individual specific comments even leaving out the ‘linear temp increase to CO2′ (which I rephrased so please acknowledge) and even Antarctica if you wish, there a many other issues in the climate conversation and IPCC/AGW is still down – 3 and needs to get to +/- a positive 10.
Based on this answer:”When accounting for the rise in the last 60 years, solar appears to be going in the wrong direction and volcanic effects were more in the second half of the period than the beginning, which also trends down. What else is there? The IPCC has all these.” Based on this, we don’t know what causes warming naturally (as there is no discussion as requested back to 1700 but only the past 60 years) how can that natural warming be eliminated? This, I do not comprehend (amongst many things). I appreciate the discussion, your continued patience/tolerance, and have saved this thread to review all your references, but I still take note of no comment on the entirety of my list.
One of the strongest comments I read somewhere is to ask one the “weakness” in their argument as an indication of how hard it’s been evaluated. AGW has never offered this to me and that leads to a lack of comfort. And I can find nothing concrete removing mother nature, only that it must soley be GHG’s. Continuing to ask for proof of removal of nature.
And I talk too much. Regards.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by stevefitzpatrick
Carrick,
I think we are pretty close on this issue. I agree that there are multiple motivations for circling the wagons, and defending your pals is probably one of them.
WRT a more variable climate being more dangerous: I think that is true if the variation is “internal” and especially if the causal factors are unidentified, since that could mean very small shifts in energy balance lead to big shifts in surface temperature. However, as the temperature history of the Holocene becomes more clear (and Steve McIntyre has many posts that shed light on this) there is evidence emerging of a gradual but significant and (perhaps) accelerating downward trend in temperatures from ~8,000 years ago until the Little Ice Age. One might be tempted, in light of ice core records of earlier interglacials, to think that by the Little Ice Age the Holocene was nearing its natural end, and increases in atmospheric methane, CO2, and land use changes (deforestation/farming/soot) helped to reverse the long term downward trend. My guess is that increases in albedo from growth in glaciers and snow cover likely accelerate the descent into ice ages, and that albedo effect ‘amplifies’ other changes in forcing near the (dare I say it?) ice age tipping point. The fall in CO2 and methane at the end of the previous interglacial (from Antarctic ice cores) trailed the global average temperature drop by many thousands of years, suggesting those GHG’s were not directly driving the temperature change. IOW, sensitivity to GHG forcing may indeed be different (and lower) now than near the Little Ice Age.
I agree that efforts to use ‘the market’ to control CO2 emissions presents serious potential economic harm, especially if draconian in scale and poorly implemented, as those efforts almost certainly would be. The law of unintended consequences certainly applies to all grand schemes, and that scheme would be the grandest. If I were a young poor person in a developing country, rather than an old person in a developed country, I would be very worried about such schemes.
The graphic of CO2 emissions would be more impressive if it showed the CO2 emission per unit of economic output (inflation corrected), where the fall in developed economies has been huge. Growing wealth always seems to reduce energy intensity.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Salvatore del Prete
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
All of the latest research supporting solar/climate connections. Great study
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
Jim D,
I wanna save the world too! But first I want to be like a doctor and “do no harm”. So I prescribe the least toxic medicine for the known symptoms and if they have side benefits, all the better. Just my perspective.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by ...and Then There's Physics
cerescokid,
<blockquote>
I dont know how any discussion about West Antarctica can leave out the 2 studies from 2014 centering on findings of geothermal activity that is more extensive and hotter than previously known.
</blockquote>
Maybe you should try reading <a href="http://mallemaroking.org/amundsen-sea-embayment/" rel="nofollow">this</a>. With regards to basal melt, the key point is
<blockquote>
So 100 metres per year from the ocean verses 6.3 millimetres per year from the geothermal heat.
</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
ATTP,
“well the issue is indirect solar effects; some of which are unknown and others not included in climate models.
Well, expect that there is little evidence (if any) that these have some kind of significant impact on our climate.”
Try not to be too surprised should that thought change. ENSO and the Stratosphere have more correlation with solar variability than is normally mentioned on blogs. The Brewer-Dobson circulation, Sudden Stratospheric Warming Events and Arctic Winter Warming events are all coupled with solar and ENSO to a degree. When solar has a better correlation with stratospheric cooling than CO2 equivalent forcing plus ou have a missing tropical troposphere hot spot, there are some substantial holes in the conventional wisdom.
I believe these are starting to be called adjustments instead of feedback because they go a bit beyond the standard forcing/feedback model based on Ts.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by kim
And Then There’s Biology. Hey, what’s the albedo change for the greening? I’d guess that would track more reliably with rising CO2 than any temperature guessed up by the latest zillion dollar machine.
===============
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by ...and Then There's Physics
Capt,
ENSO and the Stratosphere have more correlation with solar variability than is normally mentioned on blogs.
Why would I be surprised by that? I’m certainly not suggesting that solar variability does not influence our climate, I’m suggesting that there isn’t much evidence for a significant sensitivity to other solar effects.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by swood1000
Jim D –
With respect to Totten Glacier, it looks like a polynya is involved. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html Is such a thing attributable to human activity? The Antarctic temperature seems pretty stable: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by kim
What’s stark and blue and red all over?
=============================
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by stevefitzpatrick
Captain Dallas,
May I suggest a 2 year or 3 year centered moving average on both those trends?
Are you still in the Keys?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by popesclimatetheory
All the water makes a difference.
The Set Point Temperature that Polar Oceans freeze and thaw is the most important. That does change the area of water that is exposed to the atmosphere rapidly in response to what ever causes warming or cooling. That does change clouds and rain and snow immediately, as needed to maintain the temperature. Ice builds up and advances and and melts and retreats slowly and acts as a huge capacitor, inductor, voltage system to smooth out the cycles. http://popesclimatetheory.com/page50.html
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
kim commented on
Hey, what’s the albedo change for the greening?
While albedo matters during the day, grass/vegetation also has a very different cooling profile at night compared to dirt and or concrete.
The IR temp of grass in the morning prior to Sunrise is 10-20F colder than dirt and concrete.
BTW, where exactly does the LW IR that Co2 returns to the surface actually come from?
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D
OK, 0.8 C since 1880, and nearly 0.7 C since 1950 means something like 0.1-0.2 C between 1880 and 1950. This is within the range of natural variability (solar and volcanic), but what has happened after 1950, coincidentally when 2/3 of the CO2 forcing effect was added, is completely different. If you divide the record into before and after 1950, you see what CO2 may be doing in the contrast. Sure, there were ups and downs before 1950, but nothing like the fairly continuous up after.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
