Remove ads from site

polarwind
29 January 2011 09:02:34




''Some Greenland glaciers run slower in warm summers than cooler ones, meaning the icecap may be more resistant to warming than previously thought.''


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12285230


Originally Posted by: Essan 

I'm surprised that Gandalf hasn't pointed out that the rest of the report is supportive of the consensus.


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


Do you need him to point out the obvious?


On a more serious note, I wonder if this explains why Greenland wasn't entirely ice free even in the Eemian?


Originally Posted by: SEMerc 

Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.


"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
polarwind
29 January 2011 09:57:11

see -


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoc--mfd012811.php


All this could no doubt be due to ocean temperatures only - without the need for AGW. Indian Ocean temperatures, I would imagine are now lower than they have been over the last 20 years.


 


The increased frequency of drought observed in Eastern Africa over the last 20 years is likely to continue as long as global temperatures continue to rise, according to UC Santa Barbara scientist Park Williams.


The new research, published in Climate Dynamics, indicates that more drought poses increased risk to millions of people in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia, who currently face potential food shortages.


"Forecasting precipitation variability from year to year is difficult, and research on the links between global change and precipitation in specific regions is ongoing so that more accurate projections of future precipitation can be developed," said Williams, first author and postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Geography.


Warming of the Indian Ocean, which causes decreased rainfall in eastern Africa, is linked to global warming. These new projections of continued drought contradict scenarios previously projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which predict increased rainfall in Eastern Africa.


This new research supports efforts by the USGS and the U.S. Agency for International Development to identify areas of potential drought and famine in order to target food aid and help inform agricultural development, environmental conservation, and water resources planning.


"Global temperatures are predicted to continue increasing, and we anticipate that average precipitation totals in Kenya and Ethiopia will continue decreasing or remain below the historical average," said co-author Chris Funk, USGS scientist. "The decreased rainfall in Eastern Africa is most pronounced in the March to June season, when substantial rainfall usually occurs. Although drought is one reason for food shortages, it is exacerbated by stagnating agricultural development and continued population growth."


Present temps below -




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


http://vortex.plymouth.edu/psu_sst_anom.gif


"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Gandalf The White
29 January 2011 16:35:39


Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


I know you have a very good memory Dave, so once is sufficient - unless you want me to go through it again....


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


polarwind
29 January 2011 16:41:15



Well............he pointed it out to me in another thread and it was obvious there As regards your second question - I don't know whether the Eemian was icefree or not, but that very question is recognition of parameters unmodelled.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


I know you have a very good memory Dave, so once is sufficient - unless you want me to go through it again....


Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Yes, my memory is very good.................but, unfortunately, my recall is rubbish.


"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
AIMSIR
30 January 2011 16:08:25

Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.

polarwind
30 January 2011 16:40:24


Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 

................and I too, don't like it.


"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Gandalf The White
30 January 2011 17:31:56


Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


Surely you are not naive enough to believe this drivel are you, AIMSIR - or are you having a bad Sunday?


 


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Northern Sky
30 January 2011 18:41:11


Looks like all weather and all climate senarios as far as we can reliably record ,have been caused, are caused or will be caused in the future by AGW.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


I would have thought that 'influenced by' might be more appropriate than caused. To what extent though, that is the question...

Essan
30 January 2011 18:48:34

If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 


Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?


Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
Devonian
30 January 2011 19:03:24


If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 


Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?


Originally Posted by: Essan 


Cake analogy time


Bake cakes every year. Each year add a tiny amount more sugar.


Question: which year do you change the composition of the whole cake*? And at what point (if you only add a few percent extra sugar each year) do you notice? Indeed, if the change was slow, might you not notice as quickly as if it was sudden in one year?


* easy this one

Essan
30 January 2011 19:10:20



If global warming is happening then it stands to reason that all weather events in all parts of the world at all times will be affected to some extent (however small) by global warming. 


Unless global warming only affects a few places at a time?  Perhaps it spends summer in Indonesia and Autumn in Peru?


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Cake analogy time


Bake cakes every year. Each year add a tiny amount more sugar.


Question: which year do you change the composition of the whole cake*? And at what point (if you only add a few percent extra sugar each year) do you notice? Indeed, if the change was slow, might you not notice as quickly as if it was sudden in one year?


* easy this one


Originally Posted by: Essan 


I'd not heard that one before - I may have to pinch it


Andy
Evesham, Worcs, Albion - 35m asl
Weather & Earth Science News 

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job - DNA
Stephen Wilde
30 January 2011 19:23:01

Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

Devonian
30 January 2011 19:51:33


Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Stephen, you're obfuscating, or perhaps you simply miss the point?


The point is a simple one, it's that we have changed the whole atmosphere, the question is not if but how much.


So, yes, we do have a hand in all climate, again, the question is not if but how much. Can we detect it? Those of us who go with the science think yes we can and that it will become increasingly obvious. You don't think that. Fine, see you in the future.


 

Gandalf The White
30 January 2011 20:45:58


Well if the cake has a sugar content of 380 ppm I think it would take several hundred years to notice much of a difference.

Anyway sugar makes a cake nicer to eat just as a CO2 rich atmosphere is nicer for plants to eat and then there are more plants for other life forms to eat.

Pretty much a win win situation.

You could change the analogy to incorporate a poisonous ingredient for the cake but that would be misleading because CO2 is a fertiliser and not a herbicide.

Of course any ingredient in excess could be a bad thing in the long term but on the relevant numbers the timescale would be so long that humanity will either be extinct for other reasons or will have dealt with it's problems in the meantime.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


For someone who is clearly intelligent you have the remarkable ability on occasions to miss the point.


The point, as you must know perfectly well, is about our ability to perceive the effects of very small incremental changes.  I assume you have children?  Did you notice them growing week by week - no, you didn't but over time the effect is quite noticeable (and not just in the visits to the clothing department)...


Higher levels of CO2 may be good for plants (although I have read that they do little for some crop yields) but is absolutely not good for the oceans, where increasing acidification is a known and growing issue.


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Stephen Wilde
30 January 2011 21:15:50
I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Ulric
30 January 2011 21:28:08



If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Perhaps not. Try carbonating the water though.


”The interlocking power of stupidity below, and love of power above, paralyses the efforts of rational men.” - Bertrand Russell
Devonian
30 January 2011 21:56:33

I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Yes you have.


However, what we are doing to the atmosphere is of greater magnitude than that - or can you convince me a spit in a swimming pool is of ppm magnitude? You know that it isn't, so your point is misleading.


But your obfuscating is working, you're dragging us off the point, adding the U and D of FUD. Well done


 


 

Gandalf The White
30 January 2011 22:26:37

I think I hit the point precisely. Just not the point that you wanted to convey with that cake analogy.

If I spit into a swimming pool have I changed the whole swimming pool ?

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Well if you were carrying an infectious disease yes you have.


But again you miss the point.  If you spit into the swimming pool every day and there are people watching how long before they decide you are changing the pool?


 


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Stephen Wilde
30 January 2011 23:25:19
Sunlight kills bacteria and the poolwater is regularly replaced and/or recycled through a purifier (which equates to the hydrological cycle).

One can only go so far with an analogy though.

In practice everyone using a pool 'spits' into it whenever water enters or leaves their mouths which is pretty much all the time especially when moving energetically.
Stu N
31 January 2011 09:34:41

In practice everyone using a pool 'spits' into it whenever water enters or leaves their mouths which is pretty much all the time especially when moving energetically.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Heh. I see what you've done there.


Doesn't mean we should stop breathing so that carbon emissions go down (although they would, because we'd all asphyxiate and wouldn't be flying planes and burning coal and so forth).


Anyway Stephen, your comment about ppm was obfuscating, as we have established time and time again that although the concentration of trace gases is small their effect is large. Think of it more as saffron in the cake if you like - though then the first effect you notice might be on your wallet

Stephen Wilde
31 January 2011 10:12:25
"as we have established time and time again that although the concentration of trace gases is small their effect is large."


Not when we bring the oceans into the equation it isn't.
Stu N
31 January 2011 10:25:34

"as we have established time and time again that although the concentration of trace gases is small their effect is large."


Not when we bring the oceans into the equation it isn't.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Are you saying that if we had the oceans but not GHGs the Earth would be about as warm as it is now?

Stephen Wilde
31 January 2011 11:08:24
Are you saying that without CO2 there would be no water vapour and no oceans ?

I'd like to resolve that issue because I saw it suggested elsewhere but not explained.
Stu N
31 January 2011 11:29:41

Are you saying that without CO2 there would be no water vapour and no oceans ?

I'd like to resolve that issue because I saw it suggested elsewhere but not explained.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde 


Yeah I was having a protracted discussion about that with a few other commenters on Deltoid, not sure if that's what you saw or not.


My stance is that yes, there would still be water vapour if there was no CO2 (or to be more holistic, no non-condesable greenhouse gases) - just much less of it because the planet would be colder.


Here's a link you might find interesting. Not too sure myself about the title, but the content is good:


http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Carbon_Dioxide_Controls_Earth_Temperature_999.html


"However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect.



The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept - all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect.


Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth's greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state - a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect." [emphasis mine]


Essentially, it's saying that non-condensible GHGs are needed to kick start the greenhouse effect, and without them the amount of water vapour is so low that the temperature of the planet would not be much above what it would be if there were no greenhouse gases at all.


I started to think about the logarithmic radiative forcing effect of GHGs, i.e. that even a very small amount of WV could have a decent warming effect, but then I figured this is hampered by the fact WV is not even close to well mixed with most of it in the lowest few km of the atmosphere, and also in this cold Earth environment there would be very little convection so you would have even less vertical mixing of WV. A thin layer of GHGs is much less effective at warming the surface than the present situation with GHGs (bar WV) being well-mixed up to ~100km


 


 


Stephen Wilde
31 January 2011 11:56:34

I can see why AGW requires such a proposition but I just can't see how it could be so out in the real world.

Certainly without CO2 in the air there would be less energy in the air (colder) and as a result the water cycle would slow down but with all that solar shortwave still being absorbed by the oceans before re-release to the air on variable timescales there would be plenty of energy still in the system to maintain an active water cycle.

Furthermore we have lots of oxygen and nitrogen which whilst not having the thermal powers of GHGs do acquire and hold energy by conduction and hence the warmed oceans would keep those gases warm even without GHGs.

Their 'experiment' doesn't seem to deal with solar shortwave into the oceans or our non GHG gases at all.

However it's a bit of a distraction from the real issue. The issue really is as to what would happen if we stripped out all the anthropogenic GHGs and the scale of the effect. The answer in my view is practically nothing compared to natural variability.

They may be right in asserting that with zero GHGs the greenhouse effect as we know it would collapse but we would still have my much more dominant Hot Water Bottle Effect.

Remove ads from site

Ads