A Few Things Ill Considered

Open thread

Posted by coby on June 23, 2009
(28)
More »

As per a request from comments here is an open thread for whatever might be on your minds. The request came when once again touching on the issue of 21st century temperatures. I have tried once, twice, three times in posts and so many others times in comments but this argument will likely not die until we get the next record breaking high. GISS thinks this will likely come in the next year or two if the El Nino they predict comes.

Here is an opportunity for other approaches on this, or any other issue…

(28)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Adam
    June 23, 2009

    but this argument will likely not die until we get the next record breaking high.

    Likely, it will continue even then, but we will probably see minor alterations of the argument. I’m sure the argument then will look something like “oh, we’re just getting record temperatures because of the El Niño effect.”

    To which we will respond “Yes, and the trend is still upwards”

    And then the game of denialist argument whack-a-mole will continue.

  2. #2 amanda townsend
    June 23, 2009

    The question that I would like to ask that I cannot find an answer to is: What effect does increased precipitation have on the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere? Is there a “scrubbing” effect whatsoever; or is this process included in the vegetation sink?

  3. #3 Jim Eager
    June 23, 2009

    Amanda, as I understand it, removal of atmospheric CO2 dissolved in precipitation is the main way that CO2 is conveyed into the ocean. (Given that just over 70% of Earth’s surface is ocean most precipitation falls into the ocean, and much–most?–of the rest flows into it.)

    However, water vapor as a percentage of the atmosphere falls rapidly as elevation increases and temperature falls, while CO2 does not, so most CO2 is not able to dissolve into condensing water vapour, hence its concentration is rising.

  4. #4 Kate
    June 24, 2009

    A great source which explains the “global warming stopped in 1998″ crock with lots of pretty pictures and graphs is this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

  5. #5 barry
    June 24, 2009

    Regulars might bookmark this thread so we can come here to avoid thread drift elsewhere.

    Thus.

    @ crakar

    The Antarctic is increasing and 2007 was highest ever recorded, i am told by all that this caused by GW. If so then this is an untapped source of more evidence of GW so my question was why does Coby not have a topic especially for this?

    I think you mean Antarctic sea-ice? Coby has posted on that, as well as the Antarctic ice sheet.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing.php

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/antarctic-ice-is-growing.php

  7. #7 barry
    June 24, 2009

    i am told by all that this caused by GW

    Possibly. I wouldn’t attach too much confidence to that assertion. Prior to 2007 there wasn’t much of a trend at all, so we might be seeing weather variations. Increased sea ice in the Antarcticice is not inconsistent with AGW theory. More data/time is needed before we have a clearer picture of that part of the world.

  8. #8 crakar14
    June 24, 2009

    Hello Barry,

    Thanks for the links to sea ice threads, Coby has an exhaustive list, i did not recall the one in #6.

    Anyway the reason why i question the connection between Arctic sea ice melt and AGW is that a picture of a polar bear floating on a block of ice is not evidence of Co2 induced GW (refer where are they now (missing hotspot)) as an example of what evidence is.

    The sea ice or lack there of at times my suggest the globe warmed (primarily 1970 to 2000) but it does not support the theory of AGW. We can postulate ideas but it cannot be used as evidence.

    I have posted links in an Arctic thread somewhere sometime ago from both Russian and NASA studies which strongly suggest the Arctic sea ice is effected by natural climate variations. These two studies were ignored for no apparent reason except they went against the AGW theory.

    And we are once again back to AGw is melting all the ice. I do not expect a debate with you will be any different (nothing personnal).

  9. #9 barry
    June 24, 2009

    The deep ocean theory is also debunked by Cazenave et al as deep water heat should produce thermal expansion. This thermal expansion peaked in 2005 and has decreased steadily since then.

    etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf

    Unfortunately I couldn’t get the pdf to download (I included the http tag at the front). however, I think I found a working link:

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf

    If it’;s the same paper, the conclusion is not that there has been no sea level rise since 2005, but that it has decelerated by 60%. This would not seem to be at odds with the La Nina event of the past couple years or the smaller influence of low sun spopt activity. It does, however, still point to a discrepancy between SSTs cooling/no trend and sea level rise for the period, suggesting a possible deep ocean warming.

    A point to consider – a theory is rarely ‘debunked’ or ‘proved’ by a single study. This is a new paper and may be subject to revisions or more accurate work – or it may be the most accurate that will come – or further study may reveal no sea level rise at all, or even decline for the short period. Time will tell.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    June 25, 2009

    I have posted links in an Arctic thread somewhere sometime ago from both Russian and NASA studies which strongly suggest the Arctic sea ice is effected by natural climate variations. These two studies were ignored for no apparent reason except they went against the AGW theory.

    Please change your handle to “crock”, because this is just a crock.

    1. No climate scientist has *ever* stated that *any* natural climate-related phenomena is unaffected by natural climate variations.

    2. There is *nothing* in climate science that would lead to the conclusion that #1 in any sense “goes against AGW theory”.

    Your entire disbelief of climate science appears to be built on a strawman representation of what climate science claims about AGW. Not just because of this post, but your ongoing track record.

    You can’t disprove climate science by strawman techniques.

  11. #11 Michael hauber
    June 25, 2009

    The reduction in sea ice in the Arctic does not by itself prove AGW. Therefore it is not evidence for AGW.

    Repeat for every other piece of evidence for AGW (does anyone one know of one single piece of evidence that in isolation can prove AGW??). Therefore every other piece of evidence for AGW is not evidence for AGW.

    Therfore there is no evidence of AGW.

    Gee that was easy. For my next trick I will prove black = white and walk across this zebra crossing that has just appeared in front of me….

  12. #12 Adam
    June 26, 2009

    Michael hauber -

    The reduction in sea ice in the Arctic does not by itself prove AGW. Therefore it is not evidence for AGW.

    This is probably the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read about global warming.

  13. #13 dhogaza
    June 26, 2009

    Adam, read Michael’s entire post carefully – with your sarcasm detector set to its maximum strength.

  14. #14 Adam
    June 26, 2009

    Adam, read Michael’s entire post carefully – with your sarcasm detector set to its maximum strength.

    Doh! That’s what I get for reading that post at 6:15 in the morning on a Friday.

    Apologies to Michael hauber.

  15. #15 Snowman
    July 2, 2009

    As Coby has invited us to use this thread for anything that takes our fancy, I would like to discuss an article that appears in the current issue of The Spectator magazine.

    UK participants in this forum will know that The Spectator is a lively, rather rightish journal of current affairs and politics. It is available online, although for some reason I can’t get the link to work. Still, it is easily found.

    The article is by the well-known theorist Cass Sunstein, author of ‘The Nudge’ and adviser to President Obama. It is entitled: ‘To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with.’

    Its thesis is that individuals who may initially be only moderately inclined towards one side or another in a debate quickly become hardened in their views and intolerant of opposition when they begin to associate with those who agree with them. They do so because they become part of a cycle of reinforcement (‘feedback’ as some in this forum would doubtless call it) that quickly and inevitably leads to entrenched positions. Not only that, their disapproval of counter arguments soon leads to actual loathing.

    The author sums it up this way: ‘When people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes.’ Interestingly, this association does not have to be physical. He specifically mentions internet discussion sites as a means by which this polarization takes place.

    Although the article refers to climate change, it does so en passant, and not as a central issue. Nevertheless, it speaks of environmental tribes, characterized by mutual detestation. Anyone who reads through a few blogs in here will recognize the accuracy of this description.

    Now I come to the point (and about time). This process works both ways. The deniers and the warmists are equally likely to be affected. As a proud denier, I am as guilty as anyone else. It is very easy to find the blood pressure rising, and before you know it you are exchanging insults with the best of them.

    I raise all this merely because I found it interesting, and thought others might too. I don’t for a moment believe it will cause any of us to moderate our ways. And perhaps we wouldn’t want it to. Apart from anything else, this site would become much duller.

    Incidentally, Coby, I hadn’t realized until I read your recent reference to Vancouver that you are based in the great white north. You should be welcoming a spot of warming, mate. Just think how it would improve Canada.

  16. #16 barry
    July 11, 2009

    Snowman, speaking for myself, I find the politics of climate change tedious and speculative. There are extremists on every side, their ideologies fashioned out of ignorance, usually. I don’t find strident opposition the least bit entertaining. The science is much more interesting.

    You mileage may vary, as they say – although we measure it in kilometers here. :-)

    Cheers from downunda.

  17. #17 pough
    July 11, 2009

    Snowman, I know you’re interested in things related to ice ages, so when I happened upon a blog post about them (one that I missed when it was originally posted) by one of my favourite science bloggers, I knew I had to bring it back here for you:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/ice_ages/

    Also, you’ve mentioned a few times Vancouverites wanting the globe to warm. There are a few things you should perhaps know. Vancouver’s climate isn’t anywhere near as snowy and cold as the rest of Canada. Some winters we don’t get any snow that sticks on the ground and the temperature rarely drops below zero. Also, British Columbia is mostly forested and very susceptible to pine beetles. Pine beetles thrive in warmer temperatures, and our forests are getting destroyed by them already. Oh, and we’ll be hosting the Olympic Winter Games next year. A little cold would go a long way towards helping us not waste craploads of money on an event that isn’t capable of running due to lack of cold.

  18. #18 Snowman
    July 11, 2009

    Actually Pough, I am well aware of Vancouver’s moderate climate. In fact, I visited your beautiful city some years ago. You are very fortunate to live there.

    Incidentally, it doesn’t sound as if you are too impressed about paying for the winter Olympics. Spare a thought for us Londoners, who will have to pay for the 2012 shindig.

  19. #19 Richard
    July 11, 2009

    Pough I left a comment on that site and here it is (spelling mistakes and all):

    First of all I want to point out I’m not the same Richard as above.

    You have stated “The total temperature change of 5 or 6oC from glacial to interglacial typically takes 5000 years or more; the rate of warming is generally less than 0.1oC/century.”

    I have the GISP2 data in front of me. From 11,857 BP to 11,558 BP, 299 years, the temperatures climbed from -16.58C to -4.17, 12.41C, thats a rate of 4.15C/Century. Then the temperatures dropped to -7.73C by 11,408 BP and then climbed to -3.74C by 11,258 BP thats 3.99C in 150 years giving a rate of 2.66C/century and finally it steadilly climbed out of the Glacial into the Holocene from 11,149 BP at -4.58C to +1.31C by 10,064, thats 5.89C in 1,085 years or 0.54C per century.

    Then aain when you quote a rise of 1.8C per century that is extrapolating from the last 30 or 32 years. In 110 years the temperatures have risen by a mere 0.6C. There are plenty of instances even during the last 10,000 years (that is within the interglacial) where over a period of a century or even several centuries the rate of climb (and fall) has been more than that.

    And as for your winter Olympics maybe you could host it elsewhere in Canada. I do note that Quebec is freezing even now.

  20. #20 dhogaza
    July 11, 2009

    Yes, Richard, and the professional statistician who runs that site, using the same data you claimed to use, shows that you’re wrong.

    Run on over there and continue the debate. This will be fun … science illiterate vs. professional statistician who works with climate scientists (among others).

  21. #21 coby
    July 11, 2009

    Richard in no. 19:

    You are using a local record (GISP2) to claim a global trend. This is not prudent and in this case incorrect, those large swings were regional.

  22. #22 Richard
    July 11, 2009

    Coby,

    You have repeatedly claimed that the GISP2 record is a local trend and once you said because it was not reflected in the Antarctic ice records. Well todays (Global) warming is also not reflected in the Antarctic temperatures. It is amazing that Greenland can be warm for centuries and millenia even and that it would just be true for Greenland.

  23. #23 coby
    July 11, 2009

    Today we have thermometers everywhere, so we do not have to rely on ice cores or other proxies.

    The proxies we do have from the periods of time you are talking about indicate those large jumps were not global.

  24. #24 crakar14
    July 12, 2009

    Speaking of thermometers, here is a link to a story which talks about the severe cold in Peru. Apparently the cold weather has come early and over 250 children have perished from the cold.

    Rather than feel sorrow for the loss of life some unnamed “climate scientists” had this to say;

    “Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.”

    Now apart from the fact that these so called experts are simply leeches waiting for any suffering to appear so as they can reinforce there own self importance (a bit like ambulance chasing lawyers) i fail to see how global warming AKA climate change can cause COLD weather, for a number of reasons.

    1) I have been told events like this is “its only weather” not climate

    2) If global warming can/might cause warmer weather or long term climate warming and if global warming can/might cause colder weather and therefore i assume long term climate cooling, then how do we know whether this is a natural event or a man made one?

    Note the complexity of the question was intended to show how complex the multiple layers of additional theories are required to support the original failed theory.

    3) Or is this just another example of the falsifiability of the AGW theory, when its hot its global warming, when its cold its global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Here is the link

    h.t.t.p://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146995.stm

  25. #25 crakar14
    July 13, 2009

    As some of you maybe aware i had serious doubts about the Australian ETS, however that has all changed i now have full confidence in the efficiency and integrity of these schemes as i have recieved a call from an Indian call centre offering to sell me carbon credits that are garanteed to be able to offset my carbon (dioxide) footprint. Someone should tell the government that our problems are solved.

    Just after the phone call i read a scary story in the paper about the Artic ice melt caused by global warming (yes i know another one!!) i normally view these types of “stories” with high scepticism however following on from my new found enlightenment (Indian phone call) i decided to read it, so i read on and there was one piece of evidence cited as proof that this was happening.

    That proof was that a polar had been sighted in Iceland!!!!!!! Seeing as i do not have the ability to dispute this Earth shattering piece of scientific evidence i will just have to accept the fact the AGW is real and happening faster than our models could have ever predicted.

  26. #26 dhogaza
    July 13, 2009

    Well todays (Global) warming is also not reflected in the Antarctic temperatures.

    Steig’s recent paper showed otherwise.

  27. #27 crakar14
    July 14, 2009

    That should have read; see **

    That proof was that a polar *BEAR* had been sighted in Iceland!!!!!!! Seeing as i do not have the ability to dispute this Earth shattering piece of scientific evidence i will just have to accept the fact the AGW is real and happening faster than our models could have ever predicted.

    Sorry for the poor typing

  28. #28 barry
    July 19, 2009

    Evening, crakar

    i fail to see how global warming AKA climate change can cause COLD weather, for a number of reasons.

    Changing weather patterns. More precipitation (rain/snow etc) is expected in some areas under global warming. Higher temps mean higher humidity. If wind patterns change, then the combined effect – locally – could be more cold snaps/cooling. At continental scales, warming is projected across the world, but at smaller regions, there may be some cooling. Global warming won’t stop weather happening, but it is exspected to change weather patterns.

    As an aside, I spoke to an atmospheric physicist who, proffessing no particular opinion on global warming, advised that more energy in a system makes the system more energetic (kinda obvious, I guess).

    1) I have been told events like this is “its only weather” not climate

    And so they are. The record hot year globally (1998, 2005 – take your pick) is mainly a weather, not climate phenomenon – a product of an unusually intense el Nino. The Australian record heatwaves earlier this year are likewise weather events, as are the record hot temperatures at various towns and cities around the globe for 2009 so far. Hot or cold, short term events are not statistically significant with respect to climate. Only by averaging out over time and the globe does a global climate signal begin to emerge, and the established period for that is 30 years.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate

    2) If global warming can/might cause warmer weather or long term climate warming and if global warming can/might cause colder weather and therefore i assume long term climate cooling, then how do we know whether this is a natural event or a man made one?

    For short time scales, we can’t say much in that regard. Where we get some long-term cooling at a given location, it may be possible to attribute that to global warming, but only if we have sufficient knowledge on weather patterns and how and why they have changed.

    Global warming will not cause long-term (30 year) global climate cooling. The concept is contradictory.

    You’ve raised a question in my mind – re the quote in the article. I know that spring has been starting earlier and that this is seen as evidence (not ‘proof’, mind) of global warming. I wonder, then, if the other seasons would likewise start earlier (in line with the comments of the climatologists in the article), or if winter would be truncated. Something interesting to check out…