|
Post by icefisher on Sept 18, 2009 3:37:37 GMT
That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Yes think about those things Socold! The enviros went into a tizzy in each one and proclaimed the near end of the world. . . .and they have been wrong each time. Fisheries rebuild, ozone holes close. It would be nice to have a crystal ball in order to avoid all human mistakes. . . .but not progressing. . . .not acting economically only guarantees the failure of our species. Where the poppycock enters into the discussion is when folks start predicting irreversible disaster before anything whatsoever harmful has occurred.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 18, 2009 3:59:35 GMT
That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Yes think about those things Socold! The enviros went into a tizzy in each one and proclaimed the near end of the world. . . .and they have been wrong each time. Fisheries rebuild, ozone holes close. It would be nice to have a crystal ball in order to avoid all human mistakes. . . .but not progressing. . . .not acting economically only guarantees the failure of our species. Where the poppycock enters into the discussion is when folks start predicting irreversible disaster before anything whatsoever harmful has occurred. The track record of apocalyptic predictions is 100%. Wrong. The interesting thing is socold can so arrogantly look to the future about how we will have to eat our skeptical words, but he seems unable to even nibble at the fact that OHC is off by orders of magnitude from AGW predictions. Perhaps he, as a representative of AGW true believers everywhere, would be more concerned about what he eats, and less concerned about what we may someday eat?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 18, 2009 5:43:11 GMT
The track record of apocalyptic predictions is 100%. Wrong. The interesting thing is socold can so arrogantly look to the future about how we will have to eat our skeptical words, but he seems unable to even nibble at the fact that OHC is off by orders of magnitude from AGW predictions. Agreed, it's off by enough to completely disprove the hypothesis. It's kind of like the way we're completely missing that hot spot in the atmosphere. The hot spot was supposed to be there because that was (supposedly) how anthropogenic global warming worked...and its absence means their basic understanding of the whole process was seriously wrong and that the transport of energy through the atmosphere was through other means (I assume water vapor). With the exception of the 80's and 90's (2 decades out of hundreds of millions of years) the warming and cooling just shows no good correlation to CO2 levels...and that is an extremely bad correlation. One alternative explanation for the "unprecedented" warming of the 80's and 90's is that the PDO, AMO and NAO all went into strong warming phases one by one and during a solar maximum, something that hasn't happened for quite a while. On the bright side we're probably about to find out how much of this warming really was from the natural cycles as they'll be going negative simultaneously in the coming years (the AMO will probably take the longest)
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 18, 2009 10:40:23 GMT
socold. Indeed not but this is exactly the risk we run by sharply increasing greenhouse gases. It;s going to send us into an ice age! Really? It's also going to send us past the tipping point of uncontrollable warming! Just take the long term average of these two pieces of alarmist nonsense and the result is that we stay pretty much as we are. If you factor in some real science then we are getting colder FOR REAL! Alarmist nonsense? nautonnier described it as "a view from a more trusted source" This kind of thing is possible, in fact the article points out abrupt cooling happening before caused by a period of warming. There is no sign of cooling. Years into a deep solar minimum and temperatures are at some of the highest levels of the past few decades. You can't take the average of two competing risks to claim risk does not exist. For example two competing risks are drought and flood. Average the two and humanity will not face either? Well this is what you would expect from the Arctic ice melt especially that in 2007 caused by winds which would drop a lot of very low salinity water into the North Atlantic. So one would expect if freezing started again that the 'engine' would restart. "One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.
The “pump” in question is in the western North Atlantic Ocean, where pools of cold, dense water form in winter and sink beneath less-dense warmer waters. The sinking water feeds into the lower limb of a global system of currents often described as the Great Ocean Conveyor (View animation (Quicktime)). To replace the down-flowing water, warm surface waters from the tropics are pulled northward along the Conveyor’s upper limb.
The phenomenon has far-reaching impacts on climate. It transports tropical heat to the North Atlantic region, keeping winters there much warmer than they would be otherwise. And it draws down the man-made buildup of carbon dioxide from air to surface waters and eventually into the depths, where the greenhouse gas is stored for centuries and offset global warming. "The pump is driven by the contrast between warm water and frigid, dry winter air, which draws heat from the ocean into the atmosphere and leaves ocean water colder and denser. Over the last 15 years, the sinking of cold water in the North Atlantic has been either absent or too shallow to feed into the deep Conveyor. Scientists have speculated that a cause could be generally warming air temperatures, which also melts polar ice and adds less-dense fresh water to the ocean. That overall trend didn’t change in 2007, and in fact, Arctic Ocean sea ice disappeared to a record minimum in the summer of 2007.
Yet the sinking of cold water in the North Atlantic resumed vigorously, a research team led by Kjetil Våge and Robert Pickart of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported in the Dec. 23, 2008 issue of Nature Geoscience. “The obvious question is, why?” wrote Våge, Pickart, and colleagues. " www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347(Note the same trusted AGW source) However, the gulf stream as reported in my earlier post may take longer to recover even with the arctic handle being cranked as the AMO appears to be going negative. Its not a simple black and white, there are many reasons for things happening and it would be nice if rather than jumping on each observation and waving hands that this proves AGW it was actually scientifically investigated. There are two ends to the Gulf Stream its no accident that all the 'storms' this year have been wimping out after a few days - there does not seem to be any real energy from the oceans - even though the surface temperatures are relatively warm. It is the OHC causing convection which drives the Gulf Stream and if that is low then all the cold water dropping in the Arctic may just cause local circulation and cool the Arctic oceans faster than they are being warmed. You will note of course that the main driver of the Gulf Stream ..... "The pump is driven by the contrast between warm water and frigid, dry winter air, which draws heat from the ocean into the atmosphere and leaves ocean water colder and denser. "
This is the hydrologic cycle again If the water is not as warm (less energy content) then the pump will not run as efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 17:52:49 GMT
socold. This kind of thing is possible, in fact the article points out abrupt cooling happening before caused by a period of warming. There is no sign of cooling. Years into a deep solar minimum and temperatures are at some of the highest levels of the past few decades. Yes socold, anything is possible, but is it likely??? Has it anything at all to do with CO2. NO! But it could do in the future. If abrupt climate change was triggered in the past by an otherwise gradual warming trend then the gradual warming trend we will cause could also cause such abrupt climate change. I actually suspect a large part of that was due to the missed solar ramp up. But unlike you I have considered what will happen when solar does eventually ramp up. Do you really think solar activity will remain this low for the entire 21st century?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 17:53:35 GMT
That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Socold: You are a smart feller. For you to say that methane is rising in the atmosphere is mmmmmm..........welllllllll......totally wrong. I said we had caused it to rise, which we have. It isn't falling at best it's currently flat.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 17:55:21 GMT
The ozone hole has indeed come and gone several times since implementation of the Montreal Accord. Each recovery is recorded with glee and proof of human power to control the environment. Heads I win, tails we don't discuss. The ozone hole appears every year. It's the trend in it's size and depth which was a decline which the Montreal protocol addressed. Since then the hole decline has slowed down in line with expectations and in coming decades will increase back to 1960s levels.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 17:59:24 GMT
That argument has been dead for decades after we realized we can impact natural phenomena. Think about overfishing for example, the ozone hole. Even more close to subject the significant impact we've had on co2 and methane levels in the atmosphere compared to natural phenomena on these timescales. Yes think about those things Socold! The enviros went into a tizzy in each one and proclaimed the near end of the world. . . .and they have been wrong each time. Fisheries rebuild, ozone holes close. No in fact I chose ones in which they (and non-environmentalists) were right. The ozone hole was declining due to CFCs and overfishing has crashed many fishing industries worldwide whereas they could have sustainably kept going. Do you refer to the folks predicting irreversible disaster from solar minimums and crop shortages before anything whatsoever harmful has occurred? Or do you refer to folks predicting irreversible disaster to the economy if carbon taxes are introduced, before anything whatsoever harmful has occurred? Or are you just aiming a good sounding argument at your opponents without thinking through how it could apply to your own team?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 18:01:37 GMT
The track record of apocalyptic predictions is 100%. Wrong. The interesting thing is socold can so arrogantly look to the future about how we will have to eat our skeptical words, but he seems unable to even nibble at the fact that OHC is off by orders of magnitude from AGW predictions. Perhaps he, as a representative of AGW true believers everywhere, would be more concerned about what he eats, and less concerned about what we may someday eat? I am simply passing on the simple fact that an ever increasing forcing from greenhouse gases will dominate the energy balance of Earth on the long scale without the existence of an equal and opposite decreasing forcing to cancel it out.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 18:08:37 GMT
Agreed, it's off by enough to completely disprove the hypothesis. It's kind of like the way we're completely missing that hot spot in the atmosphere. The hot spot was supposed to be there because that was (supposedly) how anthropogenic global warming worked It's how any global warming works. Solar warming, declining aerosol warming, any warming. At least it's what physics suggest should happen - the tropical upper troposphere should warm relatively fast compared to many other areas of the Earth. Either the physics is wrong, or the data is wrong (and there is precedence for either way) The data isn't exactly brilliant from the tropics. Different various records disagree between themselves. Even if the theory is wrong and the physics is corrected, it's not a given that GCMs with this updated physics will show a lower climate sensitivity than they currently do.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 18, 2009 18:26:10 GMT
Socold: You are a smart feller. For you to say that methane is rising in the atmosphere is mmmmmm..........welllllllll......totally wrong. I said we had caused it to rise, which we have. It isn't falling at best it's currently flat. Let us assume - for the point of argument that the OHC is flat and has been for around 6 years. Can you explain the mechanism that allows MORE heat to escape into space *past the soaring levels of CO 2* when in prior years the lower concentrations of CO 2 were sufficient to cause OHC to rise ? ( "I said we had caused it to rise, which we have." SoCold) Surely something must have altered in the atmosphere to allow an extremely large amount of heat to escape? The figures reported are: "OBSERVEDBEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002]. 2003 ~0 Joules 2004 ~0 Joules 2005 ~0 Joules 2006 ~0 Joules 2007 ~0 Joules 2008 ~0 Joules 2009 —— 2010 —— 2011 —— 2012 ——"
But
"HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002]. 2003 ~0.98 * 10** 22 Joules 2004 ~1.96 * 10** 22 Joules 2005 ~2.94 * 10** 22 Joules 2006 ~3.92 * 10** 22 Joules 2007 ~4.90 * 10** 22 Joules 2008 ~5.88 * 10** 22 Joules 2009 ~6.86 * 10** 22 Joules 2010 ~7.84 * 10** 22 Joules 2011 ~8.82 * 10** 22 Joules 2012 ~9.80 * 10** 22 Joules Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should be approximately 5.88 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2008 than were present at the beginning of 2003." climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/pielke-sr-compares-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/ Quoting Roger Pielke's paper. Except as we have assumed - there was NOT any more heat in the top 700meters of the ocean at the end of 2008. 5.88 * 10**22 Joules is a LOT of heat. Where is the pipeline it is hidden in SoCold?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 19, 2009 13:35:15 GMT
Agreed, it's off by enough to completely disprove the hypothesis. It's kind of like the way we're completely missing that hot spot in the atmosphere. The hot spot was supposed to be there because that was (supposedly) how anthropogenic global warming worked It's how any global warming works. Solar warming, declining aerosol warming, any warming. At least it's what physics suggest should happen - the tropical upper troposphere should warm relatively fast compared to many other areas of the Earth. Either the physics is wrong, or the data is wrong (and there is precedence for either way) The data isn't exactly brilliant from the tropics. Different various records disagree between themselves. Even if the theory is wrong and the physics is corrected, it's not a given that GCMs with this updated physics will show a lower climate sensitivity than they currently do. The physics are fine. It is the models that have been wrong. The fallacy that GCMs are physics is one of the more annoying fallacies of this entire debacle. GCMs do not account for negative feedbacks well, over state positive feedbacks.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 14:54:17 GMT
Let us assume - for the point of argument that the OHC is flat and has been for around 6 years. Can you explain the mechanism that allows MORE heat to escape into space *past the soaring levels of CO 2* when in prior years the lower concentrations of CO 2 were sufficient to cause OHC to rise ? ( "I said we had caused it to rise, which we have." SoCold) I was talking about methane not OHC. But as for OHC, it's upward rise over past decades was due to more energy coming in than out, which is attributable to the positive planetary energy imbalance caused by rising greenhouse gases ( naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/hansenFigure6.jpg) For OHC to go flat or decline requires either that positive energy imbalance goes zero or negative, or that heat is lost into the deeper ocean at a rate compatible to the gain from the positive energy imbalance - OHC being a measurement of upper ocean heat. From the above image it can be seen that major volcanic eruptions are expected to have sufficient negative forcing to make the imbalance go negative. But there hasn't been such an eruption in recent years and the solar cycle minimum doesn't provide enough of a negative forcing to do so. So the other option - heat loss into the deep ocean - seems to be the only compatible explanation in this case. There is some relationship between ENSO and OHC and the period of question does involve ENSO going from strongly positive to negative. Therefore it's too early to conclude OHC is inconsistent with a positive energy inbalance caused by rising GHGs.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 15:01:44 GMT
It's how any global warming works. Solar warming, declining aerosol warming, any warming. At least it's what physics suggest should happen - the tropical upper troposphere should warm relatively fast compared to many other areas of the Earth. Either the physics is wrong, or the data is wrong (and there is precedence for either way) The data isn't exactly brilliant from the tropics. Different various records disagree between themselves. Even if the theory is wrong and the physics is corrected, it's not a given that GCMs with this updated physics will show a lower climate sensitivity than they currently do. The physics are fine. It is the models that have been wrong. The fallacy that GCMs are physics is one of the more annoying fallacies of this entire debacle. GCMs do not account for negative feedbacks well, over state positive feedbacks. If it was as simple as "the physics are wrong in the models" someone would have corrected the physics in the models or made a model that showed differently. As realclimate puts it: "f the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models." It looks like it will require a change in understanding of atmospheric physics itself for science expect a different result.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 19, 2009 15:36:03 GMT
The physics are fine. It is the models that have been wrong. The fallacy that GCMs are physics is one of the more annoying fallacies of this entire debacle. GCMs do not account for negative feedbacks well, over state positive feedbacks. If it was as simple as "the physics are wrong in the models" someone would have corrected the physics in the models or made a model that showed differently. As realclimate puts it: "f the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case – the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models." It looks like it will require a change in understanding of atmospheric physics itself for science expect a different result. Kiwistonewall requested this not be discussed in his ice thread, so it will be posted here. If you want to believe the jackals at ReinventedClimate, that's your prerogative. I've seen too much disinformation and flat out lies from that motley crew to ever take anything they say as factual. You said: .......someone would have corrected the physics in the models or made a model that showed differently.
This appears to going over your head like a lead balloon. www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdfResults also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. That is but one example (there are many) and should be cause for questioning why "someone has not corrected the physics in the models or made a model that showed different", but True Believers cannot question Authority; it is their umbilical cord.
|
|