Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 Next
Comments 65251 to 65300:
-
Climate-Change-Theory at 19:06 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Tom: I suggest that weighting of land v. ocean should be in proportion to thermal energy content - ie roughly 1:15 so if you wish to throw in 1/15th weighting of land temperatures on top of sea surface I'm happy with that, but it can't make much difference. I am not proposing a theory when I am merely using a logical statistical and mathematical approach to analysing all sea surface data since 1900 and saying there is no evidence of any increase in the rate of increase about 100 years ago compared with current rates. Whichever way you look at the data, there is only a rise of the order of 0.05 to 0.06 deg.C per decade on average since 1900. Nothing suggests that an extrapolation to 2100 should exhibit a faster rate of increase in the underlying trend. If you produce any other analysis of that sea surface data since 1900 which shows a sound reason for a rise of significantly more than, say, 0.6 deg.C over the next 88 or 89 years until the year 2100 I will take my hat off to you if I can't fault your logic. Go for it! Here is the source of the original plot. -
skywatcher at 18:57 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
However, radiation which has frequencies significantly below the peak in the emitting spectrum cannot be converted to thermal energy and thus has no effect. It is immediately emitted with the same spectrum and intensity, thus leaving no energy behind. It might as well have been reflected because the end result is similar.
Anyone can go into their kitchen and disprove this canard. Please, Mr Cotton, tell me then how the humble microwave oven is able to heat my dinner. The microwave radiation, according to your obscure physicist's incorrect theory, is incapable of adding energy to my lunch, which naturally emits (dimly) in the longwave infrared band. After exposure to the microwave radiation, my lunch is warmer than it was before, but you say this is not possible... Perhaps microwave manufacturers are all in the worldwide conspiracy? -
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Doug Cotton (aka Climate Change Theory), the theory you are proposing here has no physical basis. Further, it requires very large changes in ocean heat content, and hence the total energy stored at the surface of the Earth with no change of energy in or out. Ergo it contradicts the conservation of energy. If you want us to overthrow one of the most fundamental laws of science, your going to have to show us more than a single cycle in some cherry picked data. And contrary to your claim, the Sea Surface Temperature data is not all the data there is. Last time I looked, the Earth's surface included both continents and an Arctic Ice Cap, inclusion of which would definitely change the trend line of the thirty year trends you show. (HadSST is not the only sea surface temperature product either.) -
Fran Barlow2 at 18:36 PM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Firstly, let me congratulate John on what was an excellent presentation. Dealing with Q & A is a lot harder than it might appear to those who have never done it. While I might quibble with some of John's responses here and there, I believe he got the hard bits right -- adequacy, salience, register. Well done him. One point I'd make concerns John's response on how to use the word "carbon" in this context. I believe it is perfectly apt to speak of "a carbon price" or "carbon pollution". Carbon is the key element in most of the drivers of anthropogenic climate change. While anthropogenic CO2 in the flux is at the heart of the issue, CH4 is also an issue, particularly when one considers the decomposition of the arctic permafrost or releases from coal mines and oil wells. The term "carbon" is a useful and accurate exercise in ellipsis. The objection of the deniers here is a disingenuous and specious piece of pedantry aimed at making the issue seem scientifically credentialled. I'm yet to meet anyone who confuses "carbon pollution" with soot or "black yucky stuff".Response: [JC] Interesting point re carbon being in CO2 and CH4. If I'd thought of that, I would've mentioned it :-) -
Tom Curtis at 18:29 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton @477, the theory you have just proposed is complete nonsense, and in contradiction to inumerable experiments conducted primarily by the USAF to understand the behaviour of IR radiation in order to design effective heat seeking missiles, and FLIR cameras. If you expect us to believe us, you need to refer us to the actual scientific papers explaining the experiments you purport prove your theory, and giving the experimental results. Failing that, we will recognize it for the con it is, and continue to believe that IR lamps will warm a surface, contrary to the theory you have proposed. -
Old Mole at 17:49 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Forgive me for intruding on your learned discussion. I don't have a degree, know diddly squat about climate science and even less about frogs. What I do know, and can defend in most discussions, is that: 1. Climate change is real 2. It is happening right now 3. We are doing it 4. We had better get our act together and do something about it right quick, or things are going to get really bad, really soon SkS has certainly helped with my understanding, and consequently defend the positions, and I thank Dr. Cook and his cohorts for all the work they do ... and for the fundamental point that the science is evaluated through the entire body of evidence. That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less, that a single paper (Pounds) "proves" something, or that another paper that cites Pounds (Thomas) is further proof. Frankly, that it the sort of reasoning I usually find over at Watts Up With That?, when they are discussing Soon and whatsername, or Christie or Lindzen. When pirate cited two more recent studies that apparently came to different conclusions, I didn't hear a peep about those, but got more about how Pounds was conclusive. Can't say I like the pattern. I don't think that just because the basic facts of climate science are settled, that all questions in science have been proven so conclusively ... and for all I know, the question of frog extinction might be one of them. I am not interested enough in frogs to check. But it sounds to me like pirate knows his frogs, however chuckleheaded he might be on climate change. You might cut him some slack, though ... he is from South Carolina, home of Bob Jones, Parris Island and Jim DeMint, so his view that global warming might not be a discredited hoax and a socialist plot to wreck the American economy already mark him as a dangerous radical, subject to summary lynching. While he might possibly be right about the exact wording of the first bullet point concerning extinction, his quotation from the last bullet point makes it clear that it needs to be withdrawn and revised: "It is possible to prepare for climate change and to avert the worst effects of it, but to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening and make informed choices as individuals and communities based on the scientific evidence. Information alone is not enough to choose appropriate policies and strategies to limit some climate changes and prepare society for changes that are already well under way, but without understanding the basic causes and effects of climate change, we will be unable to make informed decisions that will affect generations to come." That wording, as others have pointed out, is far too ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation ... it has no business being used as a teaching tool when you know it will be misinterpreted. Best wishes. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 17:45 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Basically I am predicting that slight warming will continue for 100 to 200 years (maybe one degree (1 deg.C) higher in the trend by 2200) but natural cyclic cooling will then prevail for the following 500 years or so because of apparent natural cycles with about 1,000 year periodicity. Whatever you might think or say about whether the "Little Ice Age" or the "Medieval Warming Period" were worldwide phenomena, neither is the current warming period uniformly worldwide. (It was slightly warmer in the Arctic, for example, in the 1940's.) But there can be no doubt that worldwide mean temperatures were warmish in the 12th century and coolish in the 17th century. When we see that long-term natural trend rates are only of the order of 0.5 deg.C per century, the scenario of alternate natural rises and falls of the order of 2 to 2.5 deg.C over periods of 500 years is far from implausible. The data from which that "hockey stick" was invented came from land based tree ring data. Land surfaces contain only about 1/15th of the thermal energy (wrongly called "heat") that is in the oceans. Hence sea surface temperatures are a far better indication of what's happening. Actual temperature measurements in islands like Northern Ireland could be indicative of sea surface trends and these show a linear trend since 1792 - also increasing by about 0.6 deg.C per century. So there is clear evidence that rates of the order of 0.6 deg.C per century have been the norm since the Little Ice Age and have not increased at all due to industrialisation. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 16:40 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Correction: Those rates should have an extra 0 of course, namely 0.06 deg.C per decade and 0.05 deg.C per decade. There is no way any logical extrapolation would show significantly greater rates of increase over the next century, so nothing in all the historical sea surface temperature data since 1900 gives any indication of a rise of more than about 0.5 degrees C in the trend by 2100. There could of course be random noise (or a natural 60 year cycle) causing temporary values above the trend, but the trend looks like increasing by only 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C by the year 2100. There are no grounds for assuming any increase in the rate of increase in temperatures based on this data. There is no anthropogenic component related to post-WWII industrialisation. -
DrTsk at 16:28 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
What an incoherent blabbermouth.. -
Utahn at 16:10 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Usually I think of these guys as "true believers" in their crazy theories, but this is so out there that I'm biting my tongue to avoid moderation about motivation... -
Climate-Change-Theory at 16:05 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
So would you also say that the derivative and second derivative of a function tell you nothing about the original function? You would be in error if you did, and I suggest there are strong parallels with my argument. About 100 years ago sea surface temperatures were increasing at a rate of about 0.6 deg.C per decade, whereas now the yellow trend line shows they are only increasing at a rate of about 0.5 deg.C per decade. This I suggest is also supported by the fact that the second maximum gradient is lower than the first, meaning the world saw faster warming in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower. -
DSL at 16:04 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
That's the first name that came to mind - style is much the same. -
scaddenp at 16:02 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton? -
Climate-Change-Theory at 15:33 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
The models are unreliable because there is an implicit assumption that backradiation from a cooler atmosphere is capable of either (a) warming or (b) slowing the rate of cooling of a (significantly) warmer surface. In a new extension of the work of Einstein and Planck, computations on blackbody radiation have show conclusively that this is a physical impossibility. For any given temperature, a surface emits at a peak frequency (proportional to the absolute temperature) this cut-off frequency being determined by Wien's Displacement Law - see Wikipedia. (There is a maximum a bit above the peak as the distribution is strongly attenuated.) Coherent radiation which the Earth's surface receives and which has frequencies above the maximum (ie SW solar insolation) will all be converted to thermal energy which can be stored and subsequently emitted with the appropriate (lower) IR frequencies, or diffused into the atmosphere or transferred by evaporation. Such transfers by these thermodynamic means reduce the remaining energy available for radiation. This is why the Earth's surface does not act anything like a perfect blackbody. However, radiation which has frequencies significantly below the peak in the emitting spectrum cannot be converted to thermal energy and thus has no effect. It is immediately emitted with the same spectrum and intensity, thus leaving no energy behind. It might as well have been reflected because the end result is similar. This is why frost lying in a shady spot does not get melted all day long by backradiation, even if the ground and air are slightly above freezing point. This is why a gas will not absorb when an emitter is radiating (spontaneously) until that emitter is warmed above the temperature of the receiving surface. (Spectroscopy confirms this.) So it is a fact of physics now proven (and never disproven) that the assumed warming effect of backradiation cannot happen. Thus an atmospheric greenhouse effect assumed as a result of radiative transfer is a physical impossibility. Those who are well read will know of the "Computational Blackbody Radiation" note to which I am referring which was written by a widely published Professor of Applied Mathematics whose name has (predictably) been somewhat slurred due to misinterpretation and lack of understanding. Having had over 45 years experience in Physics I can vouch for the accuracy of his results in such computations which I realise may well be above the heads of many readers here. -
WheelsOC at 15:32 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
A prediction of drastic, unprecedented temperature plummeting in the near future. Hmmm, doesn't that strike anybody as being a bit "alarmist?" -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:29 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Climate-Change-Theory... Really? A trend of the trends? I don't know if I could define that as "cogent." -
DrTsk at 15:01 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
This worse that Newt's Videos.... -
Waldo at 14:56 PM on 29 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Dana @ 49 Tom @ 50 Thank you for the input! That information has been helpful for me. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 14:53 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Below is a cogent argument showing that, whilst warming is happening in the long-run, the gradient is decreasing and a maximum is likely by 2200, being only about 1 degree C above current levels. You will need to study what is being said here rather carefully before commenting ... The most informative plot I have seen compares gradients derived from 30 year trends calculated on a moving basis every month. This is not a plot of temperatures ...
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
JMykos at 14:06 PM on 29 January 2012A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
If the government said to all the coal fired power stations that we have had enough. In 2 years time you are only allowed 85% of the coal you use today. The next year it drops by 15% and so on. In 10 years time there would be no coal fired power stations. Need to do the same with coal exports. Companies would see the forthcoming opportunity and invest madly and the whole country would be chock full of renewable power stations. -
Marcus at 13:56 PM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
"Open raceway ponds can become contaminated with exotic species of algae". Simple, then, don't use open ponds-use a close looped system instead. I've seen systems that are force fed CO2 from power station flue gas (probably gas powered, not coal powered) to provide both their food supply & a source of circulation. Here is some info that might be of use: http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/VertigroFAQ.asp -
adelady at 13:13 PM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
This work is really, really important. We need better fuels even if the conversion rates aren't marvelous to start with. Check out this Guardian piece I knew palm oil wasn't terribly wonderful. I really didn't expect it to be worse than drilled oil, let alone in the same unfriendly group as tar sands. -
adelady at 12:06 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
pirate - The latest update to climate zones for gardeners could be a handy starting point for discussions. Chicago Sun-Times No idea what would or wouldn't be suitable for various year standards. (I find myself quite disheartened when my tutoring students turn up with handouts or textbooks that I think belong in curriculum for 2 or 3 years earlier. That could just be a sign of grumpy-old-lady-ness. Standards have dropped since my day, hrrrrmpph.) -
Fran Barlow2 at 11:30 AM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Open raceway ponds can become contaminated with exotic species of algae, which then out-compete the desired species for light and nuttient. You need to ensure that the desired species are robust relative to those endemic locally. The keys for me, as someone who has always been interested in 2nd Gen biofuels like algae, are EROEI, (though if the energy input is from low energy intensity and intermittent non-fossil HC the "EI" is not nearly so important) and scaleability. One needs something that will scale up to meet industrial level demand on short timelines, otherwise one has no more than a niche product. Nothing wrong with that, but if we are speaking of the heavy lifting to decarbonise ... Still, I admire the passion, and it's obviously R & D that is very worthwhile. Kudos to them. -
Paul D at 11:26 AM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
The engineer at the back of the audience is incorrect regarding the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'. 'Climate change' was used in the 70s before 'global warming', which became more prevalent in the 80s after Hansens presentation. This myth about the terms is so often used and so many incorrect theories from the skeptics are based on some incompetent journalist or loud mouth media blogger claiming there is a conspiracy. I think John Cook handled that question well. -
DrTsk at 10:31 AM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
The only problem is the productivity of the algae....too low.. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:03 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Muon at 81 Thanks for pointing this out and we do use a lot of this material. Our Honors Physics teacher has even picked it up for his class. I often use other materials beside our textbook. As a matter of fact, this year I requested that we do not issue books to students and instead use a classroom set. Anything they need for homework can be accomplished by handouts, or they can "check out" a book from my room. -
Composer99 at 09:16 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
william, I suspect a great deal of it has to do with the rise of millennarian dispensationalism among many Protestant denominations that form the 'Religious Right' within the US. If one holds the belief that, as the song goes, God's gonna set this world on fire one of these days (that is, the imminence of the End Times and hence the perfect Kingdom of God), then one can hardly be expected to support policies which are based on countervailing notions (such as the expectation that humans want to restructure society to sustain 7+ billions of people, if possible, for some thousands of years into the future). -
Chris G at 08:47 AM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Little pressed for time; so, I didn't watch the whole video; sorry. I did skip to the end and caught the Q&A with the guy asking about the BEST results being published before being "published". I think a more succinct answer, should it come up again, would be something along the lines of: From a personal standpoint, it would have been better to wait, but we all know the results have not completed review yet and can take that into account. If the results change when they have been through review, we can consider that as well. I think the odds of any meaningful change in the numbers are unlikely. From a broader perspective, I think the only reason this study receives so much attention is that some people expected it to be different in some substantial way from the already existing records, and it wasn't. Stepping back further, and no refection on John, I was disappointed at the size of the crowd. What is coming is going to be something like WWII and the bubonic plaque combined, and most people want to carry on as though nothing is happening. -
william at 07:42 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
What an incredibly sensible scientist. If you believe that God gave us dominion over the beasts in the field and the fish in the sea, he didn't say take this and destroy it. Presumably, like a father willing his legacy to his son, he hoped his son would take care of said legacy. This has always puzzled me about the GOP (Republicans). The proportion of committed Christians amongst them is said to be very high and yet all they want to do is to exploit the earth at the expense of their children. All they want to do is to accumulate wealth. What happened to their role as the guardian of god's works. What happened to Love thy neighbour. I just don't get it. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
pirate: From the AP ES course webpage 'Special Focus: Energy and Climate Change', in an article starting on p. 20: Although global warming is one of the key environmental topics of today, few environmental textbooks provide a satisfying scientific explanation of the phenomenon. The people who write the exams are thus endorsing the point: one cannot teach by relying on textbooks alone. Textbooks are a starting point, not an endpoint. -
johngwarne at 06:54 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Sapient Fridge@4 Ding! Dishonesty, thy name is climate change denial! -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:46 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Muon @ 77 You make a good point about weaving in climate change in the other units, and we can and often do just that. But, pursuant to what SB posted in 76, there are constraints and we have to hit the key ideas in each unit since that is what students (and teachers) are assessed on. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:37 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
SB at 76 My apologies. That was unintentional. And your last paragraph is spot on! -
John Hartz at 05:57 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
@muoncounter #75: You might want to sound out Katherine Hayhoe about what's going on in Texas with respect to science textbooks. -
Rob Painting at 05:17 AM on 29 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Absolutely loved the talk! Thanks Rob. Bilal Bomani is a bit of a legend to my mind. -
muoncounter at 05:15 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
pirate#71: "Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change" You quote only one section (Section VII Global Change) from the AP Environmental Science course description. Sections I (Earth systems), II (The Living World), IV (Land and Water Use), V (Energy Resources and consumption) and VI (Pollution) all have topics that could be thematically tied to issues of climate change. So this 'time limitation' you claim is your choice: It is often known as 'teaching to the test.' In the US, Advanced Placement courses typically expect a higher level of work than is the case in 'regular' or even 'advanced' high school subjects. AP EnvSci is designed to be the equivalent of a one semester, introductory college course in environmental science. How difficult would it be to assign research problems throughout the year that tie the course to a unifying theme - man's impact on the environment, for example? As a result, you would not be tied to these time limits. But you have to see the need to do that. -
Stephen Baines at 04:59 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate, To provide a specific example in support of DB's assessment, after I made the following comment "More generally, when thinking of biodiversity loss, it's very hard to make a credible argument that changing climate will not, on average, have a net negative influence on the persistence of species..." You responded with "I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change. " (my emphasis) You claim to agree with what I say, but then restate my position so that it no longer resembles what I initially wrote. I can't tell if this is unconscious or not on your part. But I can tell you that it's maddening! Given the dissembling that is common about the web on this topic, it is easy to believe you are dissembling yourself. As for your last comment, I actually empathise with the plight of science teachers regarding text books. People are generally too quick to blame teachers for insufficiencies in science education. I think systemic problems play a key role as well. Teachers are often caught between teaching to standards on which they are strictly evaluated, and having to pick books from a limited selection that are in turn heavily influenced by the peculiar politics of one particular state. These factors place a serious constraint on time and resources available to delve into topics in depth in ways that promote critical thinking. -
muoncounter at 04:57 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
adelady#70: I looked through all of that information on desmogblog. They quote the LA Times article; they do not provide any new information about specific education policy. The money trail and influence-buying is certainly a web of corruption. I suspect that we will be drowned in new policy initiatives after the state education board elections in November. -
John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
@Daniel Bailey: With all due respect, I am one SkS author who continues to take apiratelooksat50 seriously. I know from personal experince (which predates Pirate's posting on SkS) that interacting with him can at times be very exasperating. I also know from personal experience that when I let my emotions take control, I over-react to what people post on a comment thread and invariably get into a heated exchange with them. As someone who has closely followed the recent exhanges between Pirate and SkS moderators/authors, I urge you all of you to leave your emotions at the door and stick to a straight-forward objective discussion of the issues at hand. Easier said than done, eh! -
Rob Painting at 04:31 AM on 29 January 2012NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
Victull @27 - Joe the Scientist has gone over this but...... Yes, ENSO (La Nina/El Nino) is a cool/warm natural cycle. It is mainly a re-distribution of heat already within the system,.i.e the ocean either storing the heat below the surface layers (La Nina), or the heat rising up to the surface and spreading out across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean (El Nino). See the animation linked to in the post. When all that cool water is at the surface during La Nina, it exchanges heat with the atmosphere, but being cooler water, it leads to a temporary drop in global temperature. But now that cool water is at the surface, it gets heated by sunlight. Deep water that was once cool now warms up so the ocean gains a considerable amount of energy. In effect we have heat still stored in the subsurface layers in the western tropical Pacific, and the cool upwelled water along the west coast of the American continent being warmed by the sun. In addition, the cooler ocean surface leads to less evaporation which leads to less cloud cover which means more sunlight is able to reach the ocean surface. Understandably the oceans are going to soak up a lot of heat. During El Nino, of course, a fair chunk of that heat stored in the ocean is given up to the atmosphere (see figure 3), global temperatures rise rapidly and a lot of that heat is lost out to space. This cyclic ENSO phenomenon has been around for a very long time, many millions of years at the very least. It was once thought that the Pliocene (around 2-5 million years ago) saw a permanent El Nino, but recent research indicates that our friend ENSO was still doing it's thing then too, and may in fact stretch back tens of millions of years. Current global warming on the other hand has only been around a short time - since the start of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), a time when humans started to fundamentally alter the composition of the ocean and atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. All this manmade CO2 creates a small but persistent annual warming trend. Prior to the Industrial Revolution i.e. the natural pristine climate would have been something like this:
In the absence of any climatic 'nudge' the climate would not undergo any net long-term warming or cooling because ENSO (and the 11-year solar cycle) average out to zero.
With increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning (global warming) this changes things. That cyclic ENSO is now superimposed upon top of a rising trend.
Of course in the real world these cycles are not regular as in these diagrams, that's just for illustrative purposes. That's how it might appear if we were to plot temperatures on a graph, but what we would actually experience are periods of slow or negligible global warming, followed by periods of rapid global warming (as the NASA scientists expect). So quick/slow/quick/slow..........and so on and so forth.
Again, not every cycle will be the same, there is likely to be significant variability. This variability is apparent in every climate model run that I have ever seen. You may perhaps have seen it too, but may not have grasped its significance.
Anyway hope this clears up your confusion. Current global warming intersperses periods of little warming with periods of rapid warming because the natural cool/warm oscillations are superimposed on a warming trend. At times it reinforces the warming trend (warm phase), and at other times it works against it (cool phase). This is nothing unexpected, however predicting the timing and intensity in well in advance is difficult. However as those eminent NASA scientists point out, the evidence strongly suggests a rapid global warming phase is near.
-
Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Sapient Fridge - That article in the "The Australian" appears to refer to the Schmittner et al 2011 paper discussed here. Their mean sensitivity value is a bit lower than the current IPCC estimate, while their lower value is in part due to a rather warmer Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) temperature estimate than is usually used. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:21 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Sphaerica at 66 and 67 Teachers are provided a selection of textbooks to choose from. We review and make recommendations to the District Office on the one we want to adopt. We make that decision based on accuracy of information and the accompanying materials. I personally do not like our current textbook and opted for another publisher. I do not know how the other Env. Sci. teachers in the district voted, but regardless we did not get new books due to budget issues. As a good teacher, I can only affect what textbooks are selected to a certain degree. The citizens of the state can put pressure on local schoolboards more effectively. Heck, I'm pretty sure at least one of SKS moderators who has posted in this thread lives in this state and could take a role as a taxpaying citizen in textbook adoption. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:16 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Perhaps you find the statement close to the mark then. This all stems from your earlier comment which was a context-free quote from a textbook. It was pointed out to you the fallacy of the statement without the context the science provides. Apirate, the reason you are not taken seriously here anymore is illustrated in the exchanges on this thread: You continually post from a position of preconception and ignore or downplay that which contradicts that position. That is not science, it is ideology. To teach science from that standpoint is an abomination. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:07 AM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
DB at 65 You have no idea what I provide in my classroom, therefore your statement is patently false and offensive. Regardless of my position on this issue, I teach the students what is in the textbook since that is what they will be tested on. Then we augment that with current events, research papers, moderated debates, position papers, etc... FYI - SKS is on their provided list of websites to access for information. We are limited by time since there is a curriculum pacing guide we have to follow. We have 180 days with students in the classroom. Some of those days are spent on testing and others on administrative tasks. Following is an excerpt from the AP Environmental Syllabus which can be found in its entirety here. NOTE: Question #2 in the Sample Free Response Questions is about climate change. You might find it interesting. VII. Global Change (10–15%) A. Stratospheric Ozone (Formation of stratospheric ozone; ultraviolet radiation; causes of ozone depletion; effects of ozone depletion; strategies for reducing ozone depletion; relevant laws and treaties) B. Global Warming (Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties) C. Loss of Biodiversity 1. Habitat loss; overuse; pollution; introduced species; endangered and extinct species 2. Maintenance through conservation 3. Relevant laws and treaties So, at best, Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change section (of which global warming is only part) since the students are assessed on the entire breadth of the course. -
Sapient Fridge at 03:06 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
JoeTheScientist@2 You mean like the bruising El Nino that won the argument in 1998? Hmm, something wrong there... All that would happen is that the "skeptics" would claim it was a freak event, then they would use it as the start point of their graphs for the next decade to show falling temperatures. -
JoeTheScientist at 02:41 AM on 29 January 2012NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
victull@15, The ENSO cycle is temporal variation in energy distribution, not a spatial one. Warmer water and air at the SURFACE is balanced by cooler water and air at the SURFACE some-when else. @27 ENSO has been around for a very long time, certainly throughout the industrial era. Since it existed early in the industrial era when the impact of GHGs on the atmosphere was very small, there is no reason to believe it did not exist before industrial emissions. Complaining about Rob@18's two statements: Sure, ENSO does not make a net contribution to long term anthropogenic greenhouse gas-induced warming, and technically, the "globe" actually cools during an El Nino. However, when an El Nino comes along, it makes the global surface temperature rise sharply. Surface temperature is the usual benchmark for "global warming", so colloquially speaking, the El Nino will "increase global warming". Obviously you understand the distinction between CO2-driven global warming and El Nino-driven surface warming, but if you try to get technical with the average reader and force them to understand that distinction, you'll probably just confuse them. (No offense.) -
mlyle at 02:04 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Joe-- Wrong wish. Unfortunately this is not a football game but our world. The best strategy is to keep focusing on the facts and their outcomes. -
JoeTheScientist at 01:50 AM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
(Oh how I wish the La Nina would end and give us a bruising El Nino. We need some stark new temperature highs to help win the argument.) -
Sapient Fridge at 00:42 AM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Apologies for following up my own post, but I think "The Australian" article being quoted by the chap at 00:50:29 was this one.
Prev 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 Next
