dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on May 27, 2009 16:58:30 GMT
The albedo effect with extra cloud cover has been considered one of the mechanisms for global cooling, the other being snow and ice. I haven't seen any strong evidence for cloud increase, but what about snow and ice? There is lots of anecdotal evidence for extra snow cover and lasting longer then normal this year, Are there stats. published showing the extent and coverage this year compered to previous ones. Considering we are less than a month from mid summer and (according to ICE AGE NOW) there are parts of northern USA still covered with snow and receiving perhaps 16+ hours of delight. What effect could this be having on Global temps.?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 27, 2009 17:20:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 27, 2009 17:59:24 GMT
Well if albedo is down the only other explanation has to be some kind of solar dimming.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 27, 2009 22:58:32 GMT
Well if albedo is down the only other explanation has to be some kind of solar dimming.
Explanation for what?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2009 1:31:38 GMT
Well if albedo is down the only other explanation has to be some kind of solar dimming. Explanation for what? Ocean cooling. As you know of the 3 studies only one has it flat and they admit their methodology in addressing potential float anomalies is self admitted to be inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on May 28, 2009 8:28:55 GMT
www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/I suspect high latitude snow cover has a lot less effect than tropical cloud cover. Albedo increased after 1998 and has stayed at a higher level since. This is now feeding through into oceanic cooling and is being increasingly felt in lower air temps.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 28, 2009 8:46:31 GMT
Well if albedo is down the only other explanation has to be some kind of solar dimming.
Explanation for what? Ocean cooling.
I see. So you're firmly convinced that the 'non warming' of the last 6 years is a long term trend. It doesn't bother you, at all, that there was a much longer period in 1970s/1980s when the warming is also paused.
How do you know this isn't simply a response to ENSO conditions since 2002.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2009 13:36:57 GMT
Well if albedo is down the only other explanation has to be some kind of solar dimming. Explanation for what? Ocean cooling.I see. So you're firmly convinced that the 'non warming' of the last 6 years is a long term trend. It doesn't bother you, at all, that there was a much longer period in 1970s/1980s when the warming is also paused. How do you know this isn't simply a response to ENSO conditions since 2002. It doesn't matter if its a long term trend GLC. If albedo is down or average and OHC is flat or downtrending. . . .CO2 is having no measurable effect. Bottom line is if the heat coming in is being radiated back to space everything is in balance and whatever is causing heat fluctuations of recent years is probably external to the globe. It is not necessary for me to predict what that external forcing is going to do next year or the year after to understand that physically its not plausible that CO2 forcing, if it exists, can turn it self on and off.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 28, 2009 14:05:12 GMT
Bottom line is if the heat coming in is being radiated back to space everything is in balance and whatever is causing heat fluctuations of recent years is probably external to the globe. It is not necessary for me to predict what that external forcing is going to do next year or the year after to understand that physically its not plausible that CO2 forcing, if it exists, can turn it self on and off.
It's not a case of CO2 switching on and off, it's a case of other factors, which may be more dominant over short periods, switching to different modes. For example, El Nino episodes tend to release more heat into the atmosphere which implies the ocean could lose more heat than normal. El Nino conditions dominated in the 2002-2008 period. I am only hypothesising here but it's clear the recent flat trend is not unique in the last 50 years.
By all means, use it as a straw to cling to, but I'm far from convinced that this is a long term pause, and there is no way that it can be used to falsify the CO2 effect (yet).
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2009 16:54:04 GMT
It's not a case of CO2 switching on and off, it's a case of other factors, which may be more dominant over short periods, switching to different modes. For example, El Nino episodes tend to release more heat into the atmosphere which implies the ocean could lose more heat than normal. El Nino conditions dominated in the 2002-2008 period. I am only hypothesising here but it's clear the recent flat trend is not unique in the last 50 years. There are several insurmountable problems with those explanations. First, El Ninos have dominated for 3 decades. Are you going to be consistent and admit that the ocean has been casting off heat for decades? If so then where has AGW manifested itself? Second, OHC is orders of magnitude greater than AHC. If the oceans are casting off heat where is it? The atmosphere has been cooling since 2003 also. Third, each historical flat trend is inconsistent withn of AGW. In the past prior to full ocean modeling/measurement such flat periods were either ignored or blown off as ocean weather. Fourth, the reason cooling oceans are inconsistent with AGW is there is no other place for the heat to be hiding. By all means, use it as a straw to cling to, but I'm far from convinced that this is a long term pause, and there is no way that it can be used to falsify the CO2 effect (yet). You are the straw clutcher. Here clearly the best science available says the globe is not warming and is likely cooling. . . .thats inconsistent with the radiation budget models of the AGW alarmists. I can acknowledge that quadrupling CO2 will increase global temperatures at least .05 degrees C perhaps more. The physics is solid on that minimum but it would seem to pose no more threat than a fly at a picnic. Beyond that gets speculative. The best work to date seemed to be Don Easterbrook, but his work was done on the theory of PDO ocean weather, not ocean cooling which only came out after his study. With natural variation overriding AGW today even with the ever increasing rate of CO2 emissions, its not clear you can attribute anything beyond the minimum to AGW. One cannot lay back on the theoretical radiation physics as the original parameterization of that has been falsified and there is no other way to parameterize it scientifically. All they ever had was historical temperature increases and today the cause of that is unknown from any rigorous review of the topic.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 17:11:45 GMT
From Hansen et al 2005:
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 28, 2009 18:09:03 GMT
You are the straw clutcher. Here clearly the best science available says the globe is not warming and is likely cooling. . . .thats inconsistent with the radiation budget models of the AGW alarmists.
What is the "best science" available - presumably science that agrees with your opinion. Science does not say the globe is not warming. At best, science would have to conclude that there is some uncertainty and more data is needed, but we cannot reject the NULL hypothesis, i.e. the world is continuing to warm. There is no statitically significant down trend. That much is absolutely certain. If we work backwards using 2000 as a start point then every single year, apart from 1998, gives a warming trend.
I can acknowledge that quadrupling CO2 will increase global temperatures at least .05 degrees C perhaps more. The physics is solid on that minimum but it would seem to pose no more threat than a fly at a picnic.
Which "best scientist" has come up with that conclusion. The basic science says ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2. That is agreed by sceptics and AGWers alike. The argument concerns feedback. Beyond that gets speculative. The best work to date seemed to be Don Easterbrook, but his work was done on the theory of PDO ocean weather, not ocean cooling which only came out after his study.
Why is Easterbrook's the best work. Easterbrook certainly doesn't agree with your estimate of 0.05 deg for 4xCO2. Easterbrook's projections show 2060 to be about 0.3 deg warmer than to-day.
With natural variation overriding AGW today even with the ever increasing rate of CO2 emissions, its not clear you can attribute anything beyond the minimum to AGW.
Natural variation is always likely to over-ride CO2 on short timescales but eventually the CO2 signal will show through. For example, despite the La Nina, global temperatures in 2008 were still higher than during any El Nino (**never mind La Nina) year before 1997. So, yes - a La Nina or volcanic eruption will cause cooling relative to a recent period but not relative to 20 or 30 years ago. Similarly, a negative PDO may hold temperatures back a bit but they'll still be higher than they were in the 1960s, 1970s and probably 1980s.
** Recent La Nina years have been warmer than past El Nino years - yet you say it's not warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2009 18:17:36 GMT
Exactly what I was saying. In 2005 they were blowing off SST oscillations as weather prior to the effort to model and measure the oceans to depth. Two problems with trying to blow off the new science as weather is: 1) The urgency for climate action was built ontop of an aggressively understated dynamics of the ocean and no new evidence has come forth on that topic. Alarmists minimized ocean dampening of climate change to make the case for urgency. Thus for alarmists to try that argument without new science on ocean dynamics is disingenuine at best. 2) The best science suggests that the really deep oceans (beyond the Argo project) can only have climate effects on very long time scales (certainly more than decades perhaps centuries). Thus even admitting to long processes in deep ocean exchange is tantamount to an admission of alternative theories for two centuries of warming. The only haven the warmers have is whereever the missing heat is. . . .and none of them want to even speculate on any plausible location for that as to tackle that head on exposes the fraud that AGW is. . . .its a lot safer to try to rely on obfusication. So we have GLC and Socold arguing a natural oscillation argument without wanting to go near to what its implications are to their pet theory in light of the ocean temperature monitoring to depth and what it does to the arguments they have paraded around here since the site inception.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 18:36:53 GMT
I think you miss the point. In 2005 Hansen wrote: the models do not reproduce reported decadal fluctuationsAnd what is your argument against AGW? That the models do not reproduce a reported decadal fluctuation. The point is there is no need to invoke "missing heat" when OHC has such variation anyway. As long as the longterm trend is upward. For example what is going on here, the sharp upward jump around 2003 is just as odd as the flat period wrt the models: The two practically cancel out. There's a question over why it does hinge like that, but the longterm trend is as if OHC rose gradually. Perhaps yet again the record will turn out to be in error.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 28, 2009 18:56:39 GMT
What is the "best science" available - presumably science that agrees with your opinion. Science does not say the globe is not warming. At best, science would have to conclude that there is some uncertainty and more data is needed, but we cannot reject the NULL hypothesis, i.e. the world is continuing to warm. There is no statitically significant down trend. That much is absolutely certain. If we work backwards using 2000 as a start point then every single year, apart from 1998, gives a warming trend. I actually mostly agree with the above. But that part about what science you agree with might be your approach but not mine. What I am talking about when it comes to actual ocean measurement is the ARGO bouy project. It is the only one of its kind that actually measures the ocean to depth and finally rids us of needing to rely on proxy data subject to vagaries we know about oceans (e.g. we can not rely on it short term). No this is not just the best science available, its really the only science available for short term estimates of ocean temperature trends. And as I noted in my reply to socold above (and indirectly to you) the implications of ocean weather affecting these results still cuts directly at AGW alarmism. I can acknowledge that quadrupling CO2 will increase global temperatures at least .05 degrees C perhaps more. The physics is solid on that minimum but it would seem to pose no more threat than a fly at a picnic.Which "best scientist" has come up with that conclusion. The basic science says ~1 deg warming for 2xCO2. That is agreed by sceptics and AGWers alike. The argument concerns feedback. I can acknowledge a theoretical case for a degree increase in temperature. But there is zero evidence it will ever be manifested anywhere. Beyond that gets speculative. The best work to date seemed to be Don Easterbrook, but his work was done on the theory of PDO ocean weather, not ocean cooling which only came out after his study.Why is Easterbrook's the best work. Easterbrook certainly doesn't agree with your estimate of 0.05 deg for 4xCO2. Easterbrook's projections show 2060 to be about 0.3 deg warmer than to-day. Easterbrooks work was a good job of putting into historic perspective an accurate trend in temperatures and extending it to the future. It is far superior to the product of the IPCC that focused on a limited period of temperature increases. Is Easterbrook right or wrong I don't know but it at least more accurately captures history than most. With natural variation overriding AGW today even with the ever increasing rate of CO2 emissions, its not clear you can attribute anything beyond the minimum to AGW.Natural variation is always likely to over-ride CO2 on short timescales but eventually the CO2 signal will show through. For example, despite the La Nina, global temperatures in 2008 were still higher than during any El Nino (**never mind La Nina) year before 1997. Why should the signal show through? First, real worlds are different than theoretical ones would be one cause of not showing through. The theoretical back radiation may not exist. If it does exist it could be destroyed before going anywhere. If it goes back towards the surface much may be captured by CO2 it got through the first time out. Other stuff is some may be transferred to heat and lost to conduction, convection, and radiation at other frequencies. Second, feedbacks could cause it to never be manifested. Bottom line is that until we can measure it and rule out other sources or gain a far greater understanding of all the physical processes in the atmosphere whether it will manifest itself is a guess. So, yes - a La Nina or volcanic eruption will cause cooling relative to a recent period but not relative to 20 or 30 years ago. Similarly, a negative PDO may hold temperatures back a bit but they'll still be higher than they were in the 1960s, 1970s and probably 1980s. None of these explains the drop in OHC. Indeed BB's may bounce off your skin but a 30-30 slug isn't likely to. ** Recent La Nina years have been warmer than past El Nino years - yet you say it's not warming. I think you are going to win the meaningless statistic award in the global warming debate on that one. Yeah we know the recent decade has been warmer than the previous one. But the oceans are also known to be cooler now for only 6 years. Ultimately what the ARGO bouys are showing us at a minimum is that these world temperature change processes are long term. Accepting the deep ocean exchange model allows for alternatives that previously were ruled out as too weak of a force to be the explanation of climate change we have seen for the past 2 hundred years. The fact we have not been able to measure variability in the sun can be explained by changes before TSI was measured and the delaying factor of the deep oceans. Add in an increasingly active sun and you have this baby almost bracketed. One degree, yeah maybe but if we are now entering an extended period of sun inaction its going to be a much appreciated one degree.
|
|