I suppose noise could be covering up what appears to be about a 0.5 C warming deficit between land and ocean. You would think that would create a fairly firm trend. There has been noise in the system before but the noise has gotten quite loud lately and even exceeds that of the earliest records. You seem quite sure the bulk of the oceans have continued to warm. The boyancy gradient says no if hasn’t if the surface hasn’t. Which is more likely to be noise?
Comment on Open thread weekend by steven
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
And for those who follow things in the Antarctic…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Antarctic sea ice continues to grow and this year is 2 million square kilometers above the 1979-2000 average.
Questions:
1. I thought CO2 was “well mixed” in the atmosphere. Why isn’t warming from it well mixed too?
2. Why is the sea located close to the most highly industrialized, highly populated parts of the world shrinking while the sea ice located the farthest from human industry is growing?
3. Can you spell “soot”? I knew you could. ;-)
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Manacker asserts “[Hansen groupies] know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there could not have been accelerated sea level rise prior to industrial human CO2c emissions.”
Climate Etc readers are invited to peruse the recent survey article by Hansen, Sato, Russell, and Kharecha , titled
Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2, for the assertions that Manacker ascribes to it! Instead Climate Etc readers will find the following, sobering, scientific analysis and conclusions:
Introduction and Conclusion “Humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition and climate.The largest climate forcing today, i.e., the greatest imposed perturbation of the planet’s energy balance, is the human-made increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially CO2 from burning of fossil fuels.
Already at 16×CO2 Earth is a different, essentially uninhabitable, planet, with global mean warming of 30°C the tropopause eliminated, the stratosphere filled with water vapor, and the ozone layer destroyed.
Burning all fossil fuels would create a different planet, one on which humans would find it difficult to survive.
For our descendants the key question is simple: what is that probability that Hansen’s scientific reasoning is correct?
The world wonders, eh Manacker?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=eeffee&fg=00aa44&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
I visit Neven’s every day. awesome graphics and animations, mostly intelligent commentary. Before seeing the cracks I would have bet that 2013 would not beat 2012 given the current state of things not so sure.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker
Some might point out to the “cwazy wabbit” that the discussion above between lolwot and manacker has been about past Greenland temperatures, not global averages.
But, then again, “wabbits” are known for myopia (despite all the carrots they eat). And very limited reading skills…
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker
Jim D
To use central Greenland temperature proxies to prove a global MWP that was warmer than today would indeed be silly.
To cite central Greenland temperature proxies as evidence of a MWP in Greenland that was slightly warmer than today is a bit less silly.
However, to cite physical remains of medieval farms buried in the coastal Greenland permafrost as evidence of a MWP in Greenland that was warmer than today is pretty solid.
Physical evidence trumps paleo proxy data every time, Jim.
But Greenland is not “global”, I’ll agree (don’t think lolwot was making this claim, and I certainly wasn’t)
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
1. I thought CO2 was “well mixed” in the atmosphere. Why isn’t warming from it well mixed too?
a) duh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zPefpBLrPQ
b) recall that H2O is a GHG, and see how dry the air
over antarctica is.
c) if it warms 4C in the arctic whats the temperature? If it warms 4C in antartica whats the temperature? what does temperature have to do
with ice melting.
d) compare SST.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates
steven said to webby:
“You seem quite sure the bulk of the oceans have continued to warm.”
_____
Direct measurement and indirect observation of effects would indicate so. Certainly there is great differences between ocean basins with regions like the Atlantic and Indian oceans warming more down to 2000m, but within a reasonable margin of error, one can be quite confident that the oceans have been warming, with greater warming at deeper levels over the past 40+ years. Around 0.5 x 10^22 Joules per year on average is a good estimate.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim D
manacker, you must be confusing me with Girma. I have not shown this curve with a CO2 curve, but admittedly it looks a lot like one.
Since empirical means measured, we are going to have to wait a few more decades for your empirical evidence. Do you have any credible projections while we wait, or should we just wait to see it unfold and react to things as they happen, assuming a no-change climate for planning purposes?
This is a hockey-stick thread, and given the 20-millennium “wheelchair” we see Fan keep posting, is it fair to assume that vertical back will go horizontal today (a wheelchair handle, I suppose)? Some might argue that the vertical back is empirical evidence already.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope
Hansen predicted that the temperature difference between land and ocean surface would diverge back in 1981:
http://imageshack.us/a/img802/3918/hansen1981.gif
Projecting toward the year 2000, he plotted that the divergence was already nearing 0.5 degrees C.
Add in noise and what exactly did you expect?
Is this some sort of eye-opener? If you are a realist and have been following the science, not really.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
Max_OK | March 24, 2013 at 10:44 am |
“Plastic for siding, soffits, and facia boards is good. Plastic doesn’t rot, would does.”
Some types of wood are highly rot resistant. Plastics get brittle and break after too much UV exposure and it’s considered not as aesthetically pleasing as wood. You’d use the right wood if the cost was right but because extremely durable woods like teak, white and red cedar, eucalyptus, and white oak are beautiful, highly desired, and don’t grow as fast or as ubiquitously as pine it’s too pricey for most people in larger applications like outdoor decks, roofs, and siding. A great many wooden homes are centuries old and in perfect repair. American Chestnut will last for 200 years and was once a staple for construction in America until circa 1900 Chestnut Blight almost made them extinct. Boats that last many generations are built from good woods.
Wood is the best looking most flexible and forgiving construction material you can hope to find but selecting the right wood for the right job cannot be ignored.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R
climatereason | March 24, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
Is there a difference between hackers and international cyber terrorists now?
As for Carrington events.. do you not know how much preparation has gone into planning for CME’s, nuclear attacks, comet collisions, election of non-US born US presidents, and other events with a total of two or fewer historically documented occurrences?
The idea that these unicorns are underfunded is amusing.
Are you also concerned about plans dealing with invasions by aliens from outer space?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by maksimovich
“Antarctic sea ice continues to grow and this year is 2 million square kilometers above the 1979-2000 average.”
Antarctic sea ice and the behavior is poorly understood,and the responses of the models are sensitive to the tuning forks ie start a trend in the 19th century and extrapolate it can get you into trouble when the sign is inverse to the models eg Turner 2012 Zunz 2012.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/451/2013/tc-7-451-2013.html
The models are in trouble with the Antarctic anomaly.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
The growing Antarctic sea ice is only an embarrassment for IPCC because IPCC has downplayed it as non-existent, while ballyhooing the Arctic sea ice decline.
Most recent NSIDC data show that one has essentially offset the other.
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Steven Mosher
reading for dave
stratospheric cooling and increased cyclonic winds.. leading to
polynyas (more open water) fostering more ice growth.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml
see Zhang to understand how southern ocean is a bit more complicated
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by maksimovich
The Antarctic energy imbalance is -114wm^2
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Wagathon
Imposing changes on this system creates a risk…
Really? What is the risk if I squash a bug flat on the sidewalk with my shoe?
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chef Hydrologist
So here is the <a href="http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=12#/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=12&_suid=136424016199103344027152171031" rel="nofollow">missing energy.</a>
Does it matter that it is all in SW? Of course it does except to the agenda driven.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Max_OK
Girma, if that were the case, more older scientists would be speaking out. The protestors are but a drop in the bucket. Every large organization has a few old cranks.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chef Hydrologist
You get bug on your shoe. You are being an idiot. Discussion closed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
