|
|
Post by steve on May 13, 2009 9:41:09 GMT
Or do you just care about is any measurement that indicates colder weather, even when lots of other things say no significant cooling is happening. If you look at the stats, the sea surface temperatures took a sudden jump in October 1941 which is about the same time as the US Navy started engaging German U boats. Its just my theory, but maybe this had an impact on sea surface measurents. You didn't answer the important question Steve. If the ocean was as warm or warmer in 1940 compared today where is all the heat from CO2 emission of the past 30 years hiding? This is the fundamental test of AGW and it appears it has flunked. I gave one answer. Experiment error (on rereading my post, I wasn't suggesting that submarine warfare warmed the surface, I was suggesting that the change in activity in the naval fleet somehow changed the quality of the observations). Clearly, though, there is always variability in the sea surface temperature. Looking at the raw stats, the 1941 period was much warmer than the average for the period. The 2008 period was much cooler than the average for the period. But neither period was really out of the ordinary for the time. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 13, 2009 9:52:53 GMT
You didn't answer the important question Steve. If the ocean was as warm or warmer in 1940 compared today where is all the heat from CO2 emission of the past 30 years hiding? This is the fundamental test of AGW and it appears it has flunked. But neither period was really out of the ordinary for the time. Of course leaving the main question effectively evaded. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 13, 2009 13:03:25 GMT
Regarding this You didn't answer the important question Steve. If the ocean was as warm or warmer in 1940 compared today where is all the heat from CO2 emission of the past 30 years hiding? The ocean wasn't as "warm or warmer" in 1940. SST tells you jack all about ocean heat content (OHC). However, the trend in SST (like air temperature) gives an indication of the change in OHC. The trend, though, is up. This is the fundamental test of AGW and it appears it has flunked. Clearly Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett, Fred Singer and others have missed this 'fundamental test'. To repeat: taking a snapshot of SST and air temperature from a couple of selected years cannot tell us anything. You need to look at trends and/or OHC. Re: this also According to Hansen, we have been adding 10^22 Joules / yr to the ocean every year since 2003, so the heat addition of the bomb tests is negligible compared to this. Probably correct but irrelevant (see above). However, just to "switch sides" for a minute....... It's also unlikely that anything that happened as a result of WWII was responsible for the sudden cooling that took place in the early 1940s which means that it was most likely due to natural variability (probably oceans - not solar).... which probably means that the warming between 1910 and 1940 was also due natural variability ..... and, at least, some of the warming (possibly most) since ~1975 was also due to natural variability. That said CO2 must have (or has had) some effect. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 15, 2009 4:21:11 GMT
Regarding this You didn't answer the important question Steve. If the ocean was as warm or warmer in 1940 compared today where is all the heat from CO2 emission of the past 30 years hiding? The ocean wasn't as "warm or warmer" in 1940. SST tells you jack all about ocean heat content (OHC). However, the trend in SST (like air temperature) gives an indication of the change in OHC. The trend, though, is up. Up according to what GLC? I have seen up movement from 1950 to 2003, down movement from 2003 to 2009 and nothing but the SSTs back to 1940. . . .which suggest a flat trend. So what are you using for your conclusion? This is the fundamental test of AGW and it appears it has flunked. Clearly Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett, Fred Singer and others have missed this 'fundamental test'. To repeat: taking a snapshot of SST and air temperature from a couple of selected years cannot tell us anything. You need to look at trends and/or OHC. Re: this also According to Hansen, we have been adding 10^22 Joules / yr to the ocean every year since 2003, so the heat addition of the bomb tests is negligible compared to this. Probably correct but irrelevant (see above). However, just to "switch sides" for a minute....... It's also unlikely that anything that happened as a result of WWII was responsible for the sudden cooling that took place in the early 1940s which means that it was most likely due to natural variability (probably oceans - not solar).... which probably means that the warming between 1910 and 1940 was also due natural variability ..... and, at least, some of the warming (possibly most) since ~1975 was also due to natural variability. That said CO2 must have (or has had) some effect. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The question is how much. The question as to how much OHC rise there has been since 1940 is debatable as well. It could be a little, it could be more; but not likely a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 15, 2009 5:31:29 GMT
That said CO2 must have (or has had) some effect. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The question is how much. The question as to how much OHC rise there has been since 1940 is debatable as well. It could be a little, it could be more; but not likely a lot. Yeah, the most egregious error in the "physics" of anthropogenic global warming is the ignoring of their own math and the observed data. The raw math for CO2 absorption says we'll have at most 1C higher temperatures from a doubling of CO2. Then they claim outragious positive feedbacks as a minimum in spite of all evidence pointing to feedbacks being generally negative and the FACT that temperatures are rising at well below their minimum estimates. The only crisis here is that the world's leaders have been duped into believing there's a significant problem in the first place (with CO2) and that the solution is to use some of the most infeasible energy sources available. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 15, 2009 18:38:08 GMT
I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The question is how much. The question as to how much OHC rise there has been since 1940 is debatable as well. It could be a little, it could be more; but not likely a lot. Yeah, the most egregious error in the "physics" of anthropogenic global warming is the ignoring of their own math and the observed data. The raw math for CO2 absorption says we'll have at most 1C higher temperatures from a doubling of CO2. Then they claim outragious positive feedbacks as a minimum in spite of all evidence pointing to feedbacks being generally negative and the FACT that temperatures are rising at well below their minimum estimates. Actually the math and evidence show positive feedbacks are positive. You are completely flat out wrong to claim that positive feedbacks are an error in math or the physics. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 15, 2009 22:23:48 GMT
Yeah, the most egregious error in the "physics" of anthropogenic global warming is the ignoring of their own math and the observed data. The raw math for CO2 absorption says we'll have at most 1C higher temperatures from a doubling of CO2. Then they claim outragious positive feedbacks as a minimum in spite of all evidence pointing to feedbacks being generally negative and the FACT that temperatures are rising at well below their minimum estimates. Actually the math and evidence show positive feedbacks are positive. You are completely flat out wrong to claim that positive feedbacks are an error in math or the physics. So as there are only positive feedbacks the climate MUST be past a 'tipping point' and is even now climbing unstoppably to higher and higher temperatures and will continue until Earth boils dry. Is that a correct re-statement of your position? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 15, 2009 23:26:59 GMT
Actually the math and evidence show positive feedbacks are positive. You are completely flat out wrong to claim that positive feedbacks are an error in math or the physics. So as there are only positive feedbacks the climate MUST be past a 'tipping point' and is even now climbing unstoppably to higher and higher temperatures and will continue until Earth boils dry. Is that a correct re-statement of your position? Positive feedbacks in relation to climate do not imply runaway. I believe someone (a skeptic) on another thread already pointed out that the positive ice albedo feedback has diminishing returns. When you see "positive feedback" in relation to climate, think "amplification" not "inifinite runaway". |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 16, 2009 5:29:59 GMT
So as there are only positive feedbacks the climate MUST be past a 'tipping point' and is even now climbing unstoppably to higher and higher temperatures and will continue until Earth boils dry. Is that a correct re-statement of your position? Positive feedbacks in relation to climate do not imply runaway. I believe someone (a skeptic) on another thread already pointed out that the positive ice albedo feedback has diminishing returns. When you see "positive feedback" in relation to climate, think "amplification" not "inifinite runaway". Yeah, but when essentially all the ice that has any chance of melting is at very high latitudes and sitting on water (which has nearly the same albedo at those angles) you have to admit, there's not a whole lot of difference between ice and no ice. It's quite likely that the only thing it would do is just let the oceans radiate away heat more effectively. (ice insulates and *gasp* is colder than water) |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 16, 2009 17:22:10 GMT
Positive feedbacks in relation to climate do not imply runaway. I believe someone (a skeptic) on another thread already pointed out that the positive ice albedo feedback has diminishing returns. When you see "positive feedback" in relation to climate, think "amplification" not "inifinite runaway". Yeah, but when essentially all the ice that has any chance of melting is at very high latitudes and sitting on water (which has nearly the same albedo at those angles) you have to admit, there's not a whole lot of difference between ice and no ice. We can just assume all kinds of things on an internet forum but actual detailed calculations show that ice albedo provides a significant positive feedback. One thing you seem to be forgetting is snow cover on land in spring and fall. It's not just about sea ice. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 17:55:10 GMT
Yeah, but when essentially all the ice that has any chance of melting is at very high latitudes and sitting on water (which has nearly the same albedo at those angles) you have to admit, there's not a whole lot of difference between ice and no ice. We can just assume all kinds of things on an internet forum but actual detailed calculations show that ice albedo provides a significant positive feedback. One thing you seem to be forgetting is snow cover on land in spring and fall. It's not just about sea ice. You probably would not survive long as an eskimo Socold. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 20:08:16 GMT
Yeah, but when essentially all the ice that has any chance of melting is at very high latitudes and sitting on water (which has nearly the same albedo at those angles) you have to admit, there's not a whole lot of difference between ice and no ice. We can just assume all kinds of things on an internet forum but actual detailed calculations show that ice albedo provides a significant positive feedback. One thing you seem to be forgetting is snow cover on land in spring and fall. It's not just about sea ice. Socold, can you provide a statistical workup that supports your statement of "significant positive feedback"? Specifically, I would be interested in what constitutes "significant". Are you speaking of statistically significant? And if so, at what confidence level (50%, 90%, 95%, 99.7%, etc. ). And I'd also appreciate any additional information you care to provide, such as the basis of your calculations (formulas, etc. used to derive those estimates ). |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2009 19:43:34 GMT
So as there are only positive feedbacks the climate MUST be past a 'tipping point' and is even now climbing unstoppably to higher and higher temperatures and will continue until Earth boils dry. Is that a correct re-statement of your position? Positive feedbacks in relation to climate do not imply runaway. I believe someone (a skeptic) on another thread already pointed out that the positive ice albedo feedback has diminishing returns. When you see "positive feedback" in relation to climate, think "amplification" not "inifinite runaway". It doesn't matter how SMALL the positive feedback is - if there are no negative feedbacks the rise in temperature is now totally unstoppable. It will also accelerate on a compounding basis. So I once again say - you, SoCold are now convinced that the Earth is already on its way to boiling dry as there are NO negative feedbacks to AGW. Is that the case or not? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 19:44:42 GMT
We can just assume all kinds of things on an internet forum but actual detailed calculations show that ice albedo provides a significant positive feedback. One thing you seem to be forgetting is snow cover on land in spring and fall. It's not just about sea ice. You probably would not survive long as an eskimo Socold. Ya think?  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2009 0:46:20 GMT
We can just assume all kinds of things on an internet forum but actual detailed calculations show that ice albedo provides a significant positive feedback. One thing you seem to be forgetting is snow cover on land in spring and fall. It's not just about sea ice. Socold, can you provide a statistical workup that supports your statement of "significant positive feedback"? I refer to the "detailed calculations" in climate models. The IPCC report leads to references on this. The models show a lot of varitiation in ice albedo strength but crucially the strength of ice albedo effect on climate in the models is proportional to the strength of ice albedo effect on the seasonal cycle and this suggests a significant (as in not negliable) feedback. |
|
