|
Post by donmartin on May 17, 2009 5:17:05 GMT
What caused the Younger Dryas anomaly?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 17, 2009 12:05:43 GMT
I think GLC is suggesting that the missing heat is hiding somewhere in the atmosphere
No - I'm suggesting that the drop in 2006 temperatures came from a higher starting point than 2009.
The heat is supposed to be in the tropics.....
Magellan
Go and do a bit more reading on the subject. I know what you're trying to get at, but I've spent a lot of time in 'debate' with you and I'm not inclined to go to more trouble only for you to dismiss it with some hand waving nonsense. So tell me again....
What is the issue relating to the tropics? Why is "it all to do with the tropics" - as you keep saying? glc constantly harps about 2008 being a La Nina year thereby making it unfair to include it in calculating a cooling trend, yet I don't recall any of his trends excluding ENSO.
I don't constantly harp on about 2008. I have said that the 2007/08 La Nina will have a disproportionate effect on a short term trend (e.g less than 10 years)- which is true.
If ENSO and volcanic events were removed, where would that put the "long term" trend? Nevertheless, those ENSO/volcano peaks and valleys are still there, rearing their ugly heads.
I was looking at the effect of removing ENSO/volcanic signals several years ago. When bloggers (including sceptics) were accepting Hansen's 1988 Scenario B predictions as 'near the mark', I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point out that Hansen B included a volcano in 1995 rather than in 1991 as actually happened. This created a 'see-saw' effect in the trend(s) which meant that Hansen B was much closer to the observed trend that it would have otherwise been.
You don't need to tall me about volcanic/ENSO effects on short term trends but the long term trends are still up.
There is no "gentle upward movement" in temperatures that can be explained by CO2 AGW. Sorry, it doesn't exist.
Who said there has to be a "gentle upward movement". You just been on about ENSO/volcano effects. Of course they will overcome CO2 in the short term, but it you compare the temperatures during a La Nina to-day with those during a La Nina 40 years ago - temperatures are higher.
This appears to be your own theory or can you name one other reputable sceptic scientist who claims that the CO2 effect does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by jpowell on May 17, 2009 13:43:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on May 17, 2009 17:54:33 GMT
Thank you, jpowell. A very interesting article. Does this mean that the comets instantly released a great deal of energy on the Earth's surface resulting in the release of a plethora of greenhouse gases which caused a precipitous cooling in the Earth's atmosphere? It would seem that raging fires from coast to coast in North America would release an awful lot of CO2.
Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 17, 2009 17:54:59 GMT
GLC...both 2005 and 2008 moved from neutral ENSO conditions in the summer to weak negative (la nina) conditions in the fall/winter. So they had the same basic starting point for the drop in temperature the next year (2006 and 2009).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 18:47:04 GMT
I think GLC is suggesting that the missing heat is hiding somewhere in the atmosphereNo - I'm suggesting that the drop in 2006 temperatures came from a higher starting point than 2009. The heat is supposed to be in the tropics.....Magellan Go and do a bit more reading on the subject. I know what you're trying to get at, but I've spent a lot of time in 'debate' with you and I'm not inclined to go to more trouble ony for you to dismiss it with some hand waving nonsense. So tell me again.... What is the issue relating to the tropics? Why is "it all to do with the tropics" - as you keep saying? glc constantly harps about 2008 being a La Nina year thereby making it unfair to include it in calculating a cooling trend, yet I don't recall any of his trends excluding ENSO. I don't constantly harp on about 2008. I have said that the 2007/08 La Nina will have a disproportionate effect on a short term trend (e.g less than 10 years)- which is true. If ENSO and volcanic events were removed, where would that put the "long term" trend? Nevertheless, those ENSO/volcano peaks and valleys are still there, rearing their ugly heads.I was looking at the effect of removing ENSO/volcanic signals several years ago. When bloggers (including sceptics) were accepting Hansen's 1988 Scenario B predictions as 'near the mark', I was trying (unsuccessfully) to point out that Hansen B included a volcano in 1995 rather than in 1991 as actually happened. This created a 'see-saw' effect in the trend(s) which meant that Hansen B was much closer to the observed trend that it would have otherwise been. You don't need to tall me about volcanic/ENSO effects on short term trends but the long term trends are still up. There is no "gentle upward movement" in temperatures that can be explained by CO2 AGW. Sorry, it doesn't exist.Who said there has to be a "gentle upward movement". You just been on about ENSO/volcano effects. Of course they will overcome CO2 in the short term, but it you compare the temperatures during a La Nina to-day with those during a La Nina 40 years ago - temperatures are higher. This appears to be your own theory or can you name one other reputable sceptic scientist who claims that the CO2 effect does not exist. Start with this first: What is the issue relating to the tropics? Why is "it all to do with the tropics" - as you keep saying? You still, after all these months, don't understand the significance of the tropics? Before continuing, I will attempt to box you in a corner so that there is no wiggle room. So the question is, and please answer directly, based on your knowledge of the CO2 radiative forcing portion of the "greenhouse effect", where should the atmosphere be warming the most?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2009 19:20:19 GMT
I think GLC is suggesting that the missing heat is hiding somewhere in the atmosphereNo - I'm suggesting that the drop in 2006 temperatures came from a higher starting point than 2009. I know what you were suggesting but for SON, OND, & NDJ the index was lower in 2005 than 2008. Only if you go back to ASO do you see the end of the 2005 warm period. Or is it that you are now beginning to acknowledge the cooling trend? This appears to be your own theory or can you name one other reputable sceptic scientist who claims that the CO2 effect does not exist. Thats silly. Of course CO2 is an important gas in the atmosphere. Life would not exist. The only important issue here is whether the effect it is having will likely lead to catastrophe. You say no to that so why continue to harp on it?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 17, 2009 23:19:31 GMT
So the question is, and please answer directly, based on your knowledge of the CO2 radiative forcing portion of the "greenhouse effect", where should the atmosphere be warming the most?
Assuming no feedback, I'd say at the poles, since there is less water vapour and, therefore less overlap of the CO2 and WV absorption bands.
But do you mean lower atmosphere or upper atmosphere, with feedbacks or without feedbacks??
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2009 0:23:54 GMT
So the question is, and please answer directly, based on your knowledge of the CO2 radiative forcing portion of the "greenhouse effect", where should the atmosphere be warming the most?Assuming no feedback, I'd say at the poles, since there is less water vapour and, therefore less overlap of the CO2 and WV absorption bands. But do you mean lower atmosphere or upper atmosphere, with feedbacks or without feedbacks?? Assuming no feedback, I'd say at the poles, Warming of the middle and upper atmosphere from increased levels of GHG is greatest in.......the tropics. Need I drag out the CO2 AGW hypothesis again? There's not much to argue about there and it is written in stone.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 1:13:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2009 1:56:22 GMT
Any cause of global warming is expected to result in enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere: This is the modelled pattern of warming from a 2% increase in solar output for example: You can see that the fastest rate of warming is far above the surface in the tropics. Here we go again..... www.climateaudit.org/?p=4731Cough...cough. Amnesia sets in with Revinvented Climate. Is that how it's done now socold? Or as Steve McIntyre puts it; time to move on. Gavin Schmidt is so certain it doesn't matter he co-authored Santer 08 to prove the models agree with the data. Shall we discuss Santer 08 socold? It's the biggest joke since the hockey stick. Gavin Schmidt, obfuscation extraordinaire.... Gavin Schmidt 2005: www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.pdfTropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.
However, either way, socold has inadvertently stepped in a pile of doggie poo whether he realizes it or not. It should be quite obvious. Here's the satellite data again socold. How much of the warming in the tropical troposphere is due to solar? Can it be said then that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric warming?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 18, 2009 2:05:18 GMT
The heating of the tropic troposphere is truely the missing link per se in the AGW models.
All models do seem to indicate that the trop should be warming dramatically, yet, evidence indicates that that is not the case.
That brings out the main question. Being the models are so wrong on something so obviously checked, does that indicate that they are wrong period?
IF nothing else, it idicates that there is a serious problem with the paramiters of said models.
Even Socold has to understand that one as it is like 2+2=4,260 the way they are written.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 18, 2009 9:34:00 GMT
Warming of the middle and upper atmosphere from increased levels of GHG is greatest in.......the tropics.
Why would that be then? Read my earlier reponse before you reply.
Need I drag out the CO2 AGW hypothesis again? There's not much to argue about there and
If you're referring to the tropospheric hot spot. That is the modelled result of any warming - AGW or natural. However I don't necessarily agree with the models - certainly not at the current level of forcing. That, though, doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist (it does) and it doesn't mean that it's not possible for the effect to be enhanced (it probably can).
What it might mean .... Nah, you work it out. You've told me nothing yet. Tell me why the models (and theory) expect a warm spot in the tropical troposphere.
Also in your earlier question you didn't specify the pressure level of the "atmosphere" where the greatest warming might be evident.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 18, 2009 10:05:16 GMT
That brings out the main question. Being the models are so wrong on something so obviously checked, does that indicate that they are wrong period?
If the models are wrong - and I suspect they probably are - where do you think this leaves us. It certainly doesn't blow the "greenhouse effect" theory out of the water. That still stands and is accepted by all serious climate-related scientists including sceptics such as thingy Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Jack Barrett et al.
Given that fact - should we continue to emit ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide?
The guys mentioned above (RL, RS, PM & JB) don't see a serious problem and believe any warming will be modest and within the bounds of natural variability. Others disagree and use models (& some ice age evidence) to support their argument. Now, the models could easily be wrong, but they could be wrong in lots of ways. They could be wrong but still end up with the right result. However, it's most likely that the models over-estimate any feedback.
The debate is, and always has been, about feedback. Whatever else you might read in these threads, this is where the serious, responsible disagreement lies. The rest is just speculation.
In a nutshell: we can probably expect some warming over the coming decades, but that could easily be offset by a long term negative PDO/AMO or strong volcanic eruption.
The debate is and always has been
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 18, 2009 11:00:28 GMT
glc writes"The debate is, and always has been, about feedback. "
Here I disagree; feedback is merely one aspect of the debate. The main issue of the debate is political. Politicians have been convinced to spend billions of dollars trying to solve a problem which does not exist. The question is, how do we convince the gullible public that people like Hansen are just plain wrong? Showing the models are wrong is one approach. Another is to show that the hard data proves that global temperatures are falling. You dont not mention that the most likely reason that global temperatures are now falling, is the low magnetic activity of the sun. What we need to do is to convince the public and the mainstream media that the warmaholics are sellers of snake oil. Precisely how we do this is somewhat irrelevant, but anything and everything ought to be on the table.
|
|