|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2010 15:22:13 GMT
steve, I am a true beleiver that when predictions are wrong, they are wrong. But if the predictions are right you ignore them. You're obviously fixated by the hype of the guy who wrote the summary which is just a demonstration of what I've said about you in the last few posts. "The Long Summer" and "Collapse" appear to be books about previous civilisations that have been damaged in part by local climate change. People who ignore history etc. etc. Or are archaeologists also part of the conspiracy. If you had any reasoning ability you would understand that neither AGW nor CAGW need to be based on a "pure leap of faith" when there is perfectly good physical reason for AGW and good evidence for a sensitive climate that would cause CAGW (even if you dispute the evidence). What you have is not reason or faith. It's either blind hope or ideological stubbornness.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 29, 2010 16:21:21 GMT
steve, Your inability to comprehend that your side has been beating the false drum of extreme and current doom is amazing. I am dismissing nothing. I am guided by history, and informed by critical reviews of the evidence. Idiot true believers, once they glom onto their apocalypse du jour, do not require more than the occasional bs article to keep their faith alive. The evidence for a sensitive cliamte is limited to computer models and carefully crafted data sets edited to make sure the desired story is seen. I show you an article written by a true believer listing books by CAGW promoting scientsts and you simply dismiss it. What a fool CAGW has made you and so many like you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 29, 2010 17:36:38 GMT
Now you might wish (like icefisher) to dispute whether such warming is likely to be "good" or "bad", but your world view seems to limit you to the here and now. LOL! Shitt happens Steve! Its pretty hard to argue against the success of humans during the warmth of the Holocene. You can try sure, but we did a pretty bangup job of adapting to it. I would worry more about going back to a time when our ancestors were hairier since that is probably where we are inexorably headed. CO2 might give a degree or two but I tend to think another LIA is likely to wipe that out before we fully realize even that.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 29, 2010 18:20:02 GMT
icefisher, good point! I just can't live in a world with hairy women! (my own personal problem)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 29, 2010 18:53:49 GMT
icefisher, good point! I just can't live in a world with hairy women! (my own personal problem) LOL! Probably not a problem for you. . . .but your several great grandchildren might have a problem if they inherit that. But hey remember the 60's, its all a matter of attitude!!! ROTFLMAO! Hey Steve the only thing you need is an attitude adjustment!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 29, 2010 21:17:13 GMT
No it isn't. Paleoclimate data supports high climate sensitivity too. Those large swings in temperature in the past defy a climate with a low sensitivity to changes in energy flux. Estimates of climate sensitivity from various methods, of which climate models are just one, overall suggest high climate sensitivity is the most likely possibility: www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdfAnd don't forget that we can explain the recent warming with high climate sensitivity and forcing from greenhouse gases. But low climate sensitivity defies any current explanation. The best people advocating low climate sensitivity can argue is that the mechanism for recent warming is not known.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 29, 2010 22:03:07 GMT
No it isn't. Paleoclimate data supports high climate sensitivity too. Those large swings in temperature in the past defy a climate with a low sensitivity to changes in energy flux.
Estimates of climate sensitivity from various methods, of which climate models are just one, overall suggest high climate sensitivity is the most likely possibility: www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
And don't forget that we can explain the recent warming with high climate sensitivity and forcing from greenhouse gases. But low climate sensitivity defies any current explanation. The best people advocating low climate sensitivity can argue is that the mechanism for recent warming is not known. The best people advocating high climate sensitivity can argue is that the mechanism for recent warming is known. And considering the accuracy of the models in predicting current temperatures that makes that the longshot.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 29, 2010 23:32:33 GMT
The best people advocating high climate sensitivity can argue is that the mechanism for recent warming is known.
And considering the accuracy of the models in predicting current temperatures that makes that the longshot.
Surely you must agree with the "high climate sensitivity" hypothesis. We know that TSI only varies by 0.1%-0.2% and that the energy from other solar factors (e.g solar wind) is minuscule compared to TSI changes. You seem to believe (or want to believe) that the sun is a primary driver of climate change. It follows, therefore, that the climate must be highly sensitive to small changes in the energy balance.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 30, 2010 1:14:24 GMT
Surely you must agree with the "high climate sensitivity" hypothesis. We know that TSI only varies by 0.1%-0.2% and that the energy from other solar factors (e.g solar wind) is minuscule compared to TSI changes. You seem to believe (or want to believe) that the sun is a primary driver of climate change. It follows, therefore, that the climate must be highly sensitive to small changes in the energy balance No not really! Post satellite after taking out .7degreesC for the modern ocean oscillation (calculated from the 1911 to 1944 ocean oscillation applied to the 1979-2009 series leaves me with a negative slope of .08degC/decade (thats .14 minus .7*10/31). So what I need to explain is cooling here. Now one can cast around for explanations like the satellite era starting 3 years after the ocean oscillation starting thus losing .3degC which would wipe out that negative slope. So for the future I am not sure. Has the ocean oscillation crossed the zero anomaly line? It might have in 2008 but the 2009 El Nino makes a case against that. We will have to wait and see for a couple of years and see how it shakes out and whether we go into an extended La Nina or not which would better define where the trend line crosses zero. Now that certainly does not rule out other forcings being in the game. After all we might expect the 2nd half of the 20th century to have weaker residual warming than the first part and maybe CO2 is making up that difference (after accounting for the late start of the satellite era in relationship to ocean oscillation shifts). We could look at cooling phases of the oscillations. One stunted cooling oscillation occurred before the satellite era with busy hands playing with it. It also does not seem to be a feature of US temperatures as no pause was noted. That gives pause in trying to make any sense of why all the oscillation variation might exist always in lesser sampled territory. . . .known auditor fertile territory for finding shenanigans and unsupportable extrapolations. Going beyond Akasofu I am not sure I need to explain the .5C/century number if its disappeared in recent years via either more accurate measurements or a diminishing residual LIA recovery. At any rate it would be easy for half of it in the first 68 years past 1911 to just be a bias of the folks assembling the samples pulling the past downwards to exaggerate the total warming. Bottom line is if you look at Hadcrut about 2/3rds of the past 100 years warming occurred before 1979 despite having all of a cooling phase in it. Wouldn't it be funny if all that stretching resulted in a cooling curve at the top? These young college guys probably aren't experienced enough to be good con men not realizing data manipulation always comes around to bite you. In the recent satellite era you only have warm oscillation and after an early fade post 1998 it is turning out to be an anemic ocean warm phase oscillation. (Gee maybe the horns did knock down the walls of Jericho) I tend to think we need more work and it remains to be seen what I do or do not have to provide sensitivity for. You just keep harping on high sensitivity because you have so much faith in what you have been told that it simply just has to be there and it has to be high sensitivity.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 30, 2010 4:46:23 GMT
The AGW camp (and some others) need to stop acting like one forcing is equal to another.
Milankovitch cycles change orientation, timing and amount of warmth. You should EXPECT them to cause different behaviors in the climate system during different configurations.
While TSI might seem like something to be treated as a sort of absolute, it too involves energy distribution. When the TSI is higher it also strengthens the stratospheric inversion because of UV increases disproportionately. That forces the gradient to shift toward the ground to compensate...more energy PLUS circulation changes means a disproportionate impact (balanced eventually by water vapor and convection). Add to this the potential for cloud changes by cosmic rays (may or may not be significant).
Similar quirks (which I've yet to research) likely happen with volcanic eruptions.
Then of course you have the glacial-interglacial transitions...during which water based feedbacks really are very powerful. They're in fact so powerful that CO2 is ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY to explain the warming. The water based feedbacks also explain the timing problems as well.
CO2 on the other hand...has problems. Since radiation is NOT the dominant mode of transport across the troposphere CO2 should not be expected to have an impact proportional to its absorption of radiation. Over half of the energy emitted by CO2 (at the tropopause) was moved PHYSICALLY by latent heat and convection. Even without radiation from the surface...the emissions by CO2 at the tropopause wouldn't drop below about 1/2 of their current levels. Add to this the fact that a 1.2C rise in surface temperatures (were it supposedly forced by CO2) would produce a 6watt increase in convection/latent heat and a 3.7 watt increase in radiation and you start to see your math fall to pieces.
CO2 sensitivity should be expected to be quite low, ESPECIALLY during the interglacial periods...when energy transport skews more toward convection/latent heat.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 30, 2010 7:05:26 GMT
No not really! Post satellite after taking out .7degreesC for the modern ocean oscillation (calculated from the 1911 to 1944 ocean oscillation applied to the 1979-2009 series leaves me with a negative slope of .08degC/decade (thats .14 minus .7*10/31).
There wasn't 0.7 deg rise. If you want to know how to calculate trends let me know.
However, even if we accept your erroneous calculation, your point is still not valid. If the 1910-1945 warming and the 1975-2010 warming were solely due to ocean oscillations then the temperatures in the 1940s would have been the same as they are now. They weren't. Temperatures for the recent decade are ~0.5 deg warmer than during the warmest 10 year period in the 1930s/1940s.
Since 1940 there has been ~1.2 w/m2 increase in ghg forcing which is about 1/3 of the the forcing from a CO2 doubling (~3.7 w/m2), so expect another 1 degree rise over the coming 60-70 years.
You just keep harping on high sensitivity because you have so much faith in what you have been told that it simply just has to be there and it has to be high sensitivity.
Err... I don't keep harping on about "high sensitivity". I've argued against "high sensitivity". That's why I don't think the sun is a prominent driver.
Poitsplace:
Your description of the possible mechanisms for a solar influence may (or may not) be correct. However they still imply high sensitivity. The main solar parameters (TSI, SSN, mag flux, GCRs, etc) all move in lock step. They don't vary independently of each other. The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI which only varies ~0.1%. Temperature observations over solar cycles match pretty much what theory predicts from the small TSI changes i.e. less than 0.1 deg change over the cycle.
There isn't some magical missing ingredient which amplifies the effect. Also
Add to this the fact that a 1.2C rise in surface temperatures (were it supposedly forced by CO2) would produce a 6watt increase in convection/latent heat and a 3.7 watt increase in radiation and you start to see your math fall to pieces
If you're saying that the earth will emit ~6 w/m2 more because of a 1.2 deg rise in temperature - then you are correct. That does not neccessarily say anything about convection/latent heat. It just tells us that the earth's surface will need to emit that amount to ensure that the 3.7 w/m2 outgoing loss (due to 2xCO2) is restored. This can be demonstrated with a simple energy balance model.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2010 7:07:21 GMT
steve, Your inability to comprehend that your side has been beating the false drum of extreme and current doom is amazing. Someone who believes that humans could be extinct in 50 years is either a loon, is overly pessimistic. Someone who believes that existence of such people proves that AGW and CAGW is false is logically challenged. You are arguing that because there are some alarmists, the whole theory is faulty. You have argued that because CAGW has not happened already as (you say) predicted, it is falsified. You have argued that because it is falsified, AGW is a waste of time. Those are the steps of your multiple logical fallacy. You are apparently guided by a limited amount of history of "apocalypse du jours" not happening. Just because "idiots" can be persuaded to believe catastrophe theories does not mean that catastrophes cannot happen. Do you believe that catastrophes cannot happen? You are ignoring most of the evidence for high sensitivity which comes from prehistory which is not based computer models or carefully crafted datasets (by which I assume you mean the millennial reconstructions and modern temperature records). I didn't dismiss it. I used it to demonstrate a truth about your mindset. Your failure or refusal to accurately reflect the arguments of your opponents suggest that there is either a limit in your critical thinking skills or an underlying ideological determination to avoid a proper discussion.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 30, 2010 8:22:31 GMT
No it isn't. Paleoclimate data supports high climate sensitivity too. Those large swings in temperature in the past defy a climate with a low sensitivity to changes in energy flux. ... And don't forget that we can explain the recent warming with high climate sensitivity and forcing from greenhouse gases. But low climate sensitivity defies any current explanation. The best people advocating low climate sensitivity can argue is that the mechanism for recent warming is not known. You are right. AGW camp need large climate sensitivity to GHGs to be able to explain climate changes by radiative equilibrium based models. That is the dividing point. AGW theory claim small radiative changes cause large climate changes. But there is a big experiment going on that can be used to test the sensitivity model. Our earth. So how sensitive do our earth have in areas with high incoming radiation and a lot of GHG in from of vapor available. That is tropical rainforest's. Hmm not much sensitivity there in daily radiation change from 0 to 1000W/m2. Pretty stable temperatures. Strange. OK how sensitive in areas with low GHG content but high insulation as deserts. Daily temperature changes a lot with changed incoming radiation. Strange. That simple observation show that at least local climate sensitivity decrease with more GHG available in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2010 11:43:09 GMT
northsphinx
You misunderstood. *Everybody* needs large climate sensitivity to explain past climate change during the ice age cycles etc. Those who believe in a very warm MWP and cold LIA need a sensitive climate.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 30, 2010 12:52:55 GMT
steve- bunk. If the climate system was highly sensitive to CO2 then in the past, after hundreds of years of warming and CO2 finally does go up, then it would just keep climbing.
|
|