Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[mondeoman]

Not much really.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...

[jet_noise]

Toltec said:

Einion Yrth said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

Do you not accept the Beer-Lambert law?

Do you mean that for a given path length once the concentration reaches a certain level any further increase makes little difference as all the radiation of a particular wavelength has been absorbed?

In-deedley-do. /Ned Flanders.
The law of diminishing returns to the layman.

[Lotus 50]

mondeoman said:

Not much really.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...

You say that but even his data shows an increase of 0.11 degrees C since 1979. So over the last 50 years that suggests an increase of 0.55 degrees.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:34

[Lotus 50]

jet_noise said:

In-deedley-do. /Ned Flanders.
The law of diminishing returns to the layman.

But what about the other feedback mechanisms that come into play? - loss of reflectivity from ice cover, methane release from permafrost melt etc... and that's without taking into account the lag between temp increases and sea level rise (i.e. the current temp increase hasn't yet been fully reflected in change in sea level - as posted before the last time CO2 levels were at present mean sea level was between 6-9m above what it is now). Even those changes are enough to cause us an expensive headache by way of defending/moving low-lying cities.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:19

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

mondeoman said:

Not much really.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...

You say that but even his data shows an increase of 0.11 degrees C since 1979. So over the last 50 years that suggests an increase of 0.55 degrees.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:34

Oh my Gawd !!!!! 0.55 degress in 50 yrs! We're all going to die !!!!!

[PRTVR]

Lotus 50 said:

jet_noise said:

In-deedley-do. /Ned Flanders.
The law of diminishing returns to the layman.

But what about the other feedback mechanisms that come into play? - loss of reflectivity from ice cover, methane release from permafrost melt etc... and that's without taking into account the lag between temp increases and sea level rise (i.e. the current temp increase hasn't yet been fully reflected in change in sea level - as posted before the last time CO2 levels were at present mean sea level was between 6-9m above what it is now). Even those changes are enough to cause us an expensive headache by way of defending/moving low-lying cities.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:19

We are not at the point where there is no ice at the poles, and even if it was there has been times in recent history where the ice level was reduced and we did not have to move out of costal areas, more unfounded scare stories, I am sure you have seen the paper cutting from a captain in the 1800 hundreds explaining the ice loss and the possibility of a north west passage and still any small temperature change cannot be attributed to anything but natural variations in the climate, unless of course you "believe"

[Lotus 50]

PRTVR said:

We are not at the point where there is no ice at the poles, and even if it was there has been times in recent history where the ice level was reduced and we did not have to move out of costal areas, more unfounded scare stories, I am sure you have seen the paper cutting from a captain in the 1800 hundreds explaining the ice loss and the possibility of a north west passage and still any small temperature change cannot be attributed to anything but natural variations in the climate, unless of course you "believe"

Yawn and around we go again. As I've explained before - and posted papers as evidence (not just press cuttings that suggest that some parts of the Arctic were relatively ice free), there is quite clear attribution of the recent changes in temp and my point is that we haven't yet experienced the full follow on impacts of the temp changes that have already happened. Most of the sea level rise comes from thermal expansion rather than ice melt so the good news is that the effects will probably happen slowly (from our perspective) over the next 1-200 years.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Oh my Gawd !!!!! 0.55 degress in 50 yrs! We're all going to die !!!!!

...and you also need to remember that that's in the lower atmosphere not the surface so the Spencer dataset isn't really comparable to HadCRUT4 or any of the other surface temp datasets which show a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years. And the temp change isn't an even spread of 1 degree or 0.55 degrees around the globe. I'm certainly not saying we're all going to die - but the extremes within that relatively small change in average temp are likely to mean that some will.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Oh my Gawd !!!!! 0.55 degress in 50 yrs! We're all going to die !!!!!

...and you also need to remember that that's in the lower atmosphere not the surface so the Spencer dataset isn't really comparable to HadCRUT4 or any of the other surface temp datasets which show a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years. And the temp change isn't an even spread of 1 degree or 0.55 degrees around the globe. I'm certainly not saying we're all going to die - but the extremes within that relatively small change in average temp are likely to mean that some will.

In reality, I doubt if it'll make any practical difference whatsoever.

[jet_noise]

Lotus 50 said:

jet_noise said:

In-deedley-do. /Ned Flanders.
The law of diminishing returns to the layman.

But what about the other feedback mechanisms that come into play? - loss of reflectivity from ice cover, methane release from permafrost melt etc... and that's without taking into account the lag between temp increases and sea level rise (i.e. the current temp increase hasn't yet been fully reflected in change in sea level - as posted before the last time CO2 levels were at present mean sea level was between 6-9m above what it is now). Even those changes are enough to cause us an expensive headache by way of defending/moving low-lying cities.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:19

So what is this lag? Or to put it another way when should coastal dwellers invest in waders rather than wellies? Next year? Next decade? Next Hermie?

[Gandahar]

robinessex said:

Gandahar said:

An interesting topic on warm and dry winds in Antarctica causing ice shelves to calve.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/new-insight-into-...

föhn winds ..

Natural phenomena then !!

Yes, and not twisted one way or another on an man made blog I guess.

[Gandahar]

budgie smuggler said:

robinessex said:

So why no planet Armageddon when the CO2, in the past, was higher? Dinosaurs thrived on it for 50,000,000 years or so! Which it always has been. Opps, nearly forgot. Does it mattered if the planet get a miniscule amount warmer? Question never answered here so far, despite what Durbcter claims, just lots of evasion and blinkers on.



No correlation there !!

Edited by robinessex on Friday 28th April 09:47

It's not just the absolute, it's the rate of change.

Exactly.

Before man change was slow or fast naturally. Now it is slow or fast naturally plus an extra edition from man which is very fast, obviously, but we don't know yet the addition quantity wise. But there is some edition. You cannot just say "mother earth will be ok", you might as well start saying the pixies will sort it out.

That we should be worried about our effect on the planet seems rather forward thinking rather than backward thinking such as King Canute and the Catholic church against that italian bloke who liked to use a telescope etc.

Or has science run up against the almighty power of the US based right wing blogger and therefore science stops?

[Gandahar]

PRTVR said:

Lotus 50 said:

jet_noise said:

In-deedley-do. /Ned Flanders.
The law of diminishing returns to the layman.

But what about the other feedback mechanisms that come into play? - loss of reflectivity from ice cover, methane release from permafrost melt etc... and that's without taking into account the lag between temp increases and sea level rise (i.e. the current temp increase hasn't yet been fully reflected in change in sea level - as posted before the last time CO2 levels were at present mean sea level was between 6-9m above what it is now). Even those changes are enough to cause us an expensive headache by way of defending/moving low-lying cities.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 29th April 10:19

We are not at the point where there is no ice at the poles, and even if it was there has been times in recent history where the ice level was reduced and we did not have to move out of costal areas, more unfounded scare stories, I am sure you have seen the paper cutting from a captain in the 1800 hundreds explaining the ice loss and the possibility of a north west passage and still any small temperature change cannot be attributed to anything but natural variations in the climate, unless of course you "believe"

The question is, are the poles a good bellweather for climate change or not? If not, then you can not bother on the gradual change in the Arctic over the last 10 years or so, for whatever reason. However, that still brings up the point, why has the ice in the Arctic decreased over the last 10 years, that is good science.

Note I am very interested in the polar regions, as per my previous posts on the matter, than climate change, however I do note a load of bks talked about it with little knowledge to press some point or other.

At the moment the Arctic seems to indicate short term climate change in that region, for whatever reason.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

How much surface warming has there been in the last 50 years would you say?

Not a lot:

[Globs]

hairykrishna said:

Opinions uninformed by data are fairly worthless.

As are equations and models for climate change when you don't know the amount or variation of incoming energy.
Worthless guesses.

Perhaps that's why they are all wrong?
What percentage of models predicted "The Pause"?

Remember our children wouldn't know what snow was?
Usually with a theory only one false prediction proves it wrong, how many does AGW need exactly?

[Silver Smudger]

budgie smuggler said:

robinessex said:

So why no planet Armageddon when the CO2, in the past, was higher? Dinosaurs thrived on it for 50,000,000 years or so! Which it always has been. Opps, nearly forgot. Does it mattered if the planet get a miniscule amount warmer? Question never answered here so far, despite what Durbcter claims, just lots of evasion and blinkers on.



No correlation there !!

[b]It's not just the absolute, it's the rate of change[b].

Knowing that the method of temperature measurement now is very different and more precise than that used to detect the temperature in the distant past, can anyone show that there were no periods in the earlier part of that graph when temperature went up or down very quickly, or cite some research that investigated this?

[Silver Smudger]

No-one?

[hairykrishna]

The time resolution in the earlier parts of that plot will, obviously, be terrible. It's not really clear where the temperature data comes from - the 'citation' for it doesn't seem to lead me to a paper. The CO2 information in the early part is probably reconstructed using a model with 10 million year timesteps - not that useful if you're looking for short time interval changes.

Plotting a graph on that timescale is actually fairly uninformative. For a start the suns output changes by ~1% for every 110 million years you go back. You need rather a lot of CO2 concentration to equate to a few percent change in the sun. The albedo was probably completely different back then etc.

I'd say that it's impossible for anyone to say anything about rapid climate changes in the early part of that figure with a high degree of certainty

We only have high resolution stuff going back a few hundred thousand years.

Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 2nd May 16:12

[Silver Smudger]

hairykrishna said:

I'd say that it's impossible for anyone to say anything about rapid climate changes in the early part of that figure with a high degree of certainty

That is what I was thinking, especially when you so often hear ...

budgie smuggler said:

It's not just the absolute, it's the rate of change.

[hairykrishna]

I have a plot somewhere that I made of temperature proxy with (approximate) time error bars. Can't seem to find it now though.

The rate of change seems unusual based on the data we do have - something like 10k years at annual level resolutions out to ~800k where we have decade level, decreasing as we go further back.