For REM, it “starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane“, for us, it looks like diminishing Arctic sea ice is the sign. Over at Open Mind, the blogger formerly known as Tamino looks in some detail at the sea ice/rapid warming paper I linked to yesterday. His post makes for sober reading. David Lawrence and his team at NCAR and the NSIDC examined runs of the NCAR-based CCSM climate model that included episodes of rapid sea ice loss, and looked at what happened to climate of the Arctic during those periods. They found that the rate of warming increased 3.5 times faster than the average rate models project over the coming century. From the press release:
While this warming is largest over the ocean, the simulations suggest that it can penetrate as far as 900 miles inland. The simulations also indicate that the warming acceleration during such events is especially pronounced in autumn. The decade during which a rapid sea-ice loss event occurs could see autumn temperatures warm by as much as 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) along the Arctic coasts of Russia, Alaska, and Canada.
This is what it looks like in their nifty graphic:
This is what we saw last winter.
Looks as though the process the paper describes is already under way. Canada’s a bit cooler, but then it still has some ice left at the moment…
And the end of the world? Go and re-read my recent post on methane hydrates in the shallow seas north of Siberia. Consider what Lawrence et al have to say about permafrost. Then ponder the meaning of “positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle”. What’s happening up North could make any efforts to reduce global emissions irrelevant, or at best, mean that reaching a relatively low stabilisation target (450ppm?) suddenly a lot harder. Just to make things even harder, we have 30 years of warming to go, even if we could stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gases today.
I’m going to enlarge my veggie garden, and re-examine my thoughts on resilience as a response to climate change.
[Update: Joe Romm at Climate Progress has good coverage.]
[Update 2: Nature's In The Field blog reports reactions to the Lawrence et al paper from aboard a ship cruising the Arctic, and in passing confirms some of my thoughts...]
Related posts:
- Winter wonderland
- It’s a gas, gas, gas
- Here come the warm jets
- Once upon a time there was an ocean
- Santa’s blues
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Hot Topic, the first popular science book to examine global warming from a New Zealand perspective, was 
{ 167 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
1. The Antarctic sea ice and the grounded ice on the continent – the ice sheets – are different systems that respond in different ways to different things.
2. A tree grows. It takes carbon from the air. I coppice it and burn the wood, the carbon returns to the air. Meanwhile, the coppiced tree regrows and takes more carbon out of the air. The rate of release or fixing has nothing to do with whether the burning of the wood is carbon neutral or not. As long as I replant/regrow enough trees to cover my annual use, I am carbon neutral in that respect.
This all pretty basic stuff. Sid, unless you can demonstrate a slightly better level of understanding, I will be forced to treat you as a troll. They don’t get fed.
Here’s Nature Reports: Climate Change on the Lawrence et al paper, and other relevant recent work.
Gareth. As you go about your lifestyle you emit carbon dioxide. I have no idea what that amount is, but let’s say it’s 52,560kg a year – 144kg a day. Okay, so you emit 6kg an hour. But you plant trees so that they soak up 6kg an hour. You are carbon neutral. However, you then come along and coppice the trees and burn them. So you’ve reduced the ability of the collective of the trees down to say 5kg (so you’re no longer carbon neutral) but worse, you’ve just re-emitted all that sequestered carbon dioxide. If you had let the coppicing rot then they would have slowly released it – AT THE SAME TIME that the trees put on extra growth due to the coppicing, so that would have been neutral. But you burnt it – thus releasing all the previously sequestered carbon dioxide in one short hit. All you’ve done is release all that you captured to offset your emissions. Do you see now?
Gareth, calling someone a troll (or saying they are cherry-picking) is just daft webshite. It belongs to web-chat in the 1990s on forums where two sides argued unendingly and wouldn’t see both sides of a debate. I hope the internet has moved on, and I hate both “troll” and “cherry-picking” (not that you have used that, of course). In my thinking on climate change I can genuinely see both sides of the issue, and genuinely feel sorry for those that can only see one, for they are missing so much. There’s lots I don’t know. The trouble is there’s lots other people don’t know too!
CW. Excuse my ignorance if I have this wrong, but does that data come from a drifting buoy?
All you’ve done is release all that you captured to offset your emissions.
Only if I coppice the whole lot – which would be remarkably stupid. I will coppice enough (on a 10/12 year rotation) to get carbon neutral space heating. But as I will I have planted many more trees than required to meet my heating needs, I will cover a great deal more than just that.
As for the “troll” bit: I suggest you ask interesting questions, and drop the bumptious rudery. Or you’ll just get ignored.
Sidney,
Yes, it’s a buoy, you can see it’s path if you scroll down the page. Troll / Cherry-picking are actual terms with definitions.
Isn’t it more a surface mounted weather station that drifts with the ice? If you look at the pix at that page you can see it’s beginning to lean over as the underlying ice melts.
Technically yes, that’s how I see it Gareth.
But it is referred to as a bouy on their site. If you check the definitions page – “This buoy uses lithium batteries to power the buoy itself…” Re-reading Sidney’s question I should have been more precise.
To avoid confusion I will henceforth refer to it as the North Pole Weather-Whatyamacallit.
Thanks for the Nature link. By now it’s getting such that short of the ice releasing Cthulhu or Godzilla, nothing seems to make it worse than it already is.
Actually if Godzilla were to be released I’d be OK (I don’t live in New York). So Cthulhu is my only worry.
Phew, I nearly panicked there.
Here’s what I was basing my “Antarctic losing ice mass” statement on: a Nasa press release about Rignot et al, Nature Geoscience, Feb 2008.
Thanks for that Gareth, I wasn’t aware of it, the article refers to another study also finding a mass balance decrease. So I’m happy to go with “Antarctica is losing mass.”
See also this Rignot abstract from GRL:
(Hat tip to Hank Roberts over at Open Mind)
From the NASA press release:
I may be reading this in the wrong way, but “112 plus or minus 91) gigatonnes” means to me that the loss could be 21 gigatonnes OR 203 gigatonnes in 1996! Same applyes to “196 (plus or minus 92) gigatonnes a year in 2006″. This seems almost worthless as a meaningful measurement. Is that the right way to read it?
Antarctica is still losing mass of course, but these margins of error seem to have the possibility of overlapping amounts for the years 1996 and 2006 i.e. 2006 amount could be less than the 1996 amount.
I’ve not properly read this yet, just sped though it: “Winter Arctic Sea Ice Uncertainty Under Global Warming due to a Cloud Radiative Feedback.” Abbot/Tziperman. pre-print. They’re proposing that clouds could provide an additional winter warming that we cannot predict.
“…..We therefore conclude that the actual climate system may be more likely to lose winter sea ice than is implied by the fact that only two out of 14 models predict a complete collapse of winter sea ice.”
(Gareth – sorry, I accidentally copied you on to an email with this in.)
Antarctica just gets colder and colder. Ice extent now running at 1.5 million sq kl, from 1 million sq kl just a few weeks ago. Will smash last year’s record. Meanwhile the Arctic still hasn’t dropped into the predicted free-fall. Ice extent running ahead of 2007′s. Gareth, your link is 1-2 years out of date. Most ice loss was in the west on the Peninsula. On the east it is gaining http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html. The interior meanwhile is gaining (due to increased precipitation?). It’s getting colder in the Antarctic, and has been doing so for very many years. Deny all you like friend, the planet just ain’t warming any more – and more reports this week of a global cooling ahead. Oh dear!
The problem is reports like this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080114-antarctica-melting.html This seems to suggest that Gareth is right, but when you read it you find that it refers to a COASTAL survey and actually reports on the Peninsula. Just rotten journalism really.
Not only that, but this issue is indicative of what’s rotten in the state of warming. When increased precipitation is reported, up go the cries from the Warmists. “Yeah we knew that. That’s in our models. More warming means more snowfall”. Then when some ice loss is reported, up go the cries from the Warmists. “Yeah we knew that. Antarctica is warming, the seas will rise, and we’ll all go to hell”. Let’s have it all, shall we?
You tell me my link is out of date (it’s to a paper published this year),and then point to one published in 2005, that isn’t inconsistent with overall mass loss? Strange way to make a case…
The NG story is reporting a paper – and quite accurately it appears. Hardly “rotten journalism”. Do you not like it because it confirms increased rates of melting in the areas it studies?
Again, Sid, you seem to be struggling to comprehend the way ice sheets work. It’s perfectly possible for snowfall to increase in the middle of Antarctica, and for melting to increase at the edges. If the melting exceeds the snow accumulation, you get mass loss. If it doesn’t, the ice sheet grows. Virtually all the current work on Antarctica suggests that the ice sheet is losing significant amounts of mass.
Stephen: Yes, the error bars are wide, but I that’s a function of the methods being used. As they’re refined, and as we get more of them – and use different tools – I’m sure they’ll get better. The news might not, though…
It really is odd. Thanks.
Gareth, you miss the point. I provided the link with an ‘old’ story, because you did! What I mean about rotten journalism is the impression it gives – that Antarctica is losing ice mass. It isn’t. It cannot, when it’s getting colder and colder down there. Only the Peninsula and part of the west coast is getting a bit of melting. You seem to be struggling to comprehend a simple sentence. Again then: Ice loss in the west; ice gain in the east; ice gain in the interior. Overall: Ice gain.
Rignot used satellite observations of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate melting, but he compared this actual data to computer models of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to losing mass, but only when compared to computer models!
Before you comment further you should remember the IPCC: “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Case closed.
Sid, you seem unable to accept the facts. Current research suggests that the Antarctic is losing ice mass. Of course it’s possible to dredge up old papers that suggest something else, but times change.
If you want to comment intelligently on what the IPCC actually says, go read AR4 4.6.2.2.2. And then remember that it doesn’t include the latest research. That I linked to.
It’s not hard to find.
Ah Gareth, you do not see a point made very clear above. Let me try again. The IPCC says that Antarctica will GAIN ice because of increased precipitation due to increased water vapor – that’s what the models say. But you are saying that the study that suggests it is LOSING ice is correct because it’s the “latest research”. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier – you cannot have it all. Either the models are wrong (again!) and Antarctica is losing ice (despite a plunging temperature!) OR the study is wrong (and the models are correct) and Antarctica is gaining ice. Which is it Gareth?
As you and all the other Warmists love to quote realclimate, I thought I’d remind you of their most recent foray into the subject: This was in February…
“Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
It’s either getting colder and gaining ice mass, or it’s getting warmer and losing it. Look forward to your reply with great interest.
It’s either getting colder and gaining ice mass, or it’s getting warmer and losing it. Look forward to your reply with great interest.
False dichotomy.
Didn’t think you’d ever answer it – not at all surprised. Let’s make it simple: Gareth, is Antarctica getting colder (last few decades), or warmer? And remember, we’re talking about the continent as a whole, so no weasling by mentioning the Peninsula when it makes up only 4%.
Says it all.
Gareth. Yes I quote that web page above (didn’t you notice?), that’s where the quoted paragraph comes from. Sheesh! Are you going to answer it, or shy away? Is Antarctica getting colder, or warmer?
Ooer! Arctic ice extent still not plunging. Rate of fall slower compared to last year, and getting on for 1,000,000 sq km ahead of last year’s too! Meanwhile, the Antarctic is heading for 2,000,000 sq km more ice extent than 2007′s record high. Brrr!
That’s it Sidney, put on the blinkers, ignore what’s awkward, and focus on the evidence that makes you feel nice.
Do you really think you’re telling anyone here anything they don’t already know? It’ll be interesting if Bitz’s 1 year lag auto-correlation rule holds, but it won’t change the fundamentals.
BTW you haven’t specified what part of Antarctic Gareth should provide temperature trends for.
Antarctica: Some bits are warming, some bits are cooling. Some bits are gaining mass, others are losing mass. Overall, it’s losing mass.
Sea ice extents. Don’t know where you get your “million km2 behind” for the Arctic from. CT suggests it’s about 0.25m at the moment, and we’re heading into the peak of the melt season. All bets are still on.
I would’ve thought ‘volume’ matters a hell of a lot more than ‘ice we can see from above’ (square kilometres)?
You might very well think that…
Gareth. Can’t believe it – you still haven’t answered! I thought that even you would be shamed into answering a simple question by now. Yet again then: Is Antarctica getting colder, or warmer?
Note this question doesn’t allow you to pick and choose regions (as I made absolutely clear earlier!). Neither does it talk of mass. It’s purely a question of the temperature of the continent overall.
CW. Blinkers?? That would be you and your friends, I think!
And: “Didn’t think you’d ever answer it – not at all surprised. Let’s make it simple: Gareth, is Antarctica getting colder (last few decades), or warmer? And remember, we’re talking about the continent as a whole, so no weasling by mentioning the Peninsula when it makes up only 4%.”
So CW, how is that, “…you haven’t specified what part of Antarctic Gareth should provide temperature trends for.”
SHEESH!
Sid, you’re becoming boring. If you want to play silly games, go somewhere else.
So no answer then? Speaks so loud.
Here’s something to make you think(!). Southern hemispheric temperatures: Last year (Dec) saw a minus for the first time since 1992. This year, so far, the temperature anomaly is running at 0.1 degrees C as against last year’s (same period) 0.285
Gareth,
Thanks for your blog and for hosting this discussion, it was very useful.
You know my email, if Steve Bloom wants mine you’re free to divulge.
Regards
Chris.
Now I know what a Tuatara is.
Sidney, looking about it seems that surface and near-surface trends in the Antarctic aren’t statistically significant for the most part. Data coverage is sparse, too. But weren’t you originally trying to make some point about Antarctic sea ice? Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures would be more relevant for that I would think.
Fragment. Yes you are, of course, correct. The temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t varied much for a few decades. Although there’s a slight cooling, it’s not significant (just like the warming in the troposphere). And yes, I was indeed trying to get people to see that there will be a new record of Antarctic sea ice extent this year – could be a substantial increase on last year, which itself was a new record. Southern hemispheric temperatures are down considerably. I was just trying to get Gareth to acknowledge a truth – that the Antarctic isn’t warming.
Title of the post I linked to as “says it all”: Antarctica is cold? Yeah , we knew that.
You forget that I live a lot closer to the place…
Sidney, to be fair you threw a lot of other things at Gareth before you got to that question. I’d have got frustrated too.
So you agree we can’t say much either way on the Antarctic surface temperature record given the data we have. GRACE shows recent mass loss of the ice sheets – I know you question it, but I’m not aware of any better estimates of ice sheet mass. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years or so, but it’s really not that dramatic an increase compared to the variability in the data – check the SH ice anomaly graph on Cryosphere Today. Overall there’s not much to base an argument about Antarctic temperature trends either way.
To be honest I think it would be better to take a detailed look at the dynamics of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean rather than try to make points based on sparse and recent datasets. I’m unfortunately ignorant on that score.
There’s an interesting post on Open Mind about sea ice.
Fragment. I certainly don’t accept that I threw anything at Gareth he didn’t deserve (re: coppicing). The ‘problem’ of the Antarctic and the cooling southern hemisphere isn’t going to go away for the Warmists, even if the Warmists do (Cobblyworlds has gone – again! Pity, because I was looking forward to the non-story of Arctic melt unfolding). There’s certainly no warming going on in the Antarctic overall. I abhor the type of analysis on that link you give. How can we compare HadISSL data which is so sparse with today’s satellite records? As for the Antarctic ice extent, well it’s still early days. If we don’t get a pause in late July or so, then I still say we’re going to see a significant new record.
And what of the Arctic – should have gone by now – much the same as Cobblyworlds.
Gareth. How exactly can I forget that you live closer to the place – and what difference does it make??? And as I said, I quoted from that very site before you did!
Since I thought much of what you threw at Gareth didn’t make much sense, I don’t agree that he deserved it. But let’s not rehash that, you brought the conversation down to a simple question that we can at least attempt to agree on. With respect to that I notice that you’ve gone from “the Antarctic just gets colder and colder” to “the temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t varied much for a few decades” and “there’s certainly no warming going on in the Antarctic overall”. Do you think this conversation might have gone better if you’d omitted the former claim?
Ignore the HadISST if you like and look at the satellite data alone (graphed in red on Open Mind) you can see that the Antarctic sea ice extent over the satellite period isn’t doing a great deal either direction, whereas the Arctic shows a dramatic decline. Same thing you see in the Cryosphere Today graphs, I mainly pointed to it because the smoothings been done. Point is a record sea ice extent in the Antarctic isn’t that big a deal given the variation in the data. Interesting, but it hardly brings down climatology. When you focus this much attention on a weak point I have to wonder if it’s because you haven’t got anything better.
Can you point to data for “cooling Southern Hemisphere”? Maybe you already did, but I didn’t see it in a quick overview of the thread.
Fragment. My point on “colder and colder” was that it defies ‘global’ warming. The rate of cooling isn’t much, but it’s there nonetheless. I know what would be happening if it were warming, witness all the coverage that the Peninsula gets!
With hindsight, conversations would always go better!
Nothing better? Fragment, the problem is that sceptics won’t accept that carbon dioxide appears to have warmed the globe in the past 30 years or so. Neither do they tend to accept circumstantial evidence of receding glaciers and expanding oceans. However, Warmists (as displayed here) won’t see the other side either. They won’t see the Antarctic not warming, they won’t see the troposphere not responding, they won’t see a slight fall in sea levels (meaning oceans cooling), and as of late, they won’t see the global temperature apparently stabilised. I cannot see why people cannot see both sides!!! Carbon dioxide has NOT raised global temperature anything like we all thought it would. It’s time to accept that and learn. Yet on here you seem to have all the doom-merchants that are prevalent on so many other blogs. When one thing isn’t responding as they thought, they move on to something else. Look at the other threads here on the Arctic also. It’s my ‘guess’ that the Arctic won’t melt like last year. And when (if) it doesn’t, Cobblyworlds, Steve Bloom and Gareth will move on to something else that they can find to worry themselves about. The fact is that the world IS NOT, or perhaps no longer, warming up. You can look at all the graphs from UAH, RSS and CRU showing such (GISS is a joke). I think it’s time we accepted that many of the alarmist claptrap that was/is spoken is binned. For reasons we don’t and cannot understand global warming has turned out to be overstated.
The link you wanted http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
For a dose of realism I can strongly recommend this site http://www.climateaudit.org/ The latest graphs are near the top – part of a new thread on troposphere data.
Fragment. Is this the strangest hockeystick you’ve ever seen?
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
If the statistics are insignificant, then you can’t say the cooling is there. That’s what insignificant means – you can’t draw a conclusion from the data. It’s really twisting things to say “colder and colder” is compatible with that, and it’s also twisting things to say and insignificant Antarctic cooling trend “defies global warming” “Global warming” is simply a description of trends in mean temperature anomalies, which can still be positive even if some of those anomalies are negative. You’re statement “colder and colder” still looks like hyperbole unsupported by the actual data to me. I’m sure you’ve accused “warmists” of doing that at some point (possibly accurately), so pot, kettle, etc.
And what do you mean “warmists” won’t see various things? I’ve seen all those things discussed a number of times, with the exception of sea level (and the link you provided for that appears to be no more than a year-long departure from the trend so far, and not wildly out of line with previous departures). The disagreement isn’t one of awareness of or acknowledgement of the data, it’s about whether those things are actually dramatic blows against mainstream climate science.
CRUs not working for me right now. And yeah, that’s a mighty strange, and nearly data-free, climate reconstruction!
Fragment. On your first sentence. This is a miss-take on what we perceive as warming/cooling. I (and others) go by a method whereby if the temperature goes up, then it’s warming. If it goes down, then it’s cooling (continuous data streaming). This is because otherwise you have to have a time to choose when to set your standard against. GISS use a period of global cooling to set their baseline – 1951-80. So the Antarctic IS cooling. It may be “insignificant”, but it’s there. So my comments on the Antarctic are perfectly valid. Same for the Antarctic and global warming. Fragment, the Antarctic (by the BAS’s own description) is “a barometer of global climate change”. They said it, not I. So if the Antarcic defies that change then there’s something wrong somewhere, isn’t there?
That’s wrong. It’s nothing to do with baselines, which are arbitrary and don’t affect trends. Statistically insignificant in this case means that we can’t reject the null hypothesis that there is no trend whatsoever and the observed data is just a consequence of random variation.
As far as I can tell (from e.g. the RealClimate piece already linked) no-one’s expecting dramatic warming of the Antarctic as a whole at the moment. If you can find some GCMs that say there should have been warming in the Antarctic for the last couple of decades, then you can start saying there’s something wrong.
Fragment. Think about it for a second. Imagine the Antarctic was warming significantly. Do you believe for one second that Warmists would say, “Oh actually, that’s incidental, and nothing to do with our theory”. Of course not. They would be upon it as proof of their theory. Temperature in the Peninsula of the Antarctic is seized upon by Warmists as part of climate change. Like I have said, they cannot have it all. The rest of the continent is ignored. And again, it was the BAS that has said that the Antartci is a “barometer of climate change”. Well then something’s wrong with the barometer. Motl says today, “In terms of the anomaly, the land in the Southern polar lands – Antarctica – cooled by a hefty 2.35C from the previous month – from +0.82 to -1.53C. Such things happen near the poles where all changes are amplified and where the area is not too large to guarantee a constancy of temperature.” Indeed, Warmists have seized upon the Arctic 2007 melting as an indicator of man-made climate change. Again, wrongly in my belief. So it’s not simply a case of “show me GCMs”. ANY warming ANYWHERE is taken as part of climate change, just as ANY weather event ANYWHERE is taken as part of climate change.
Motl again: “There’s no global warming in the recent 10 years of data. This absence of warming becomes even more striking in the middle troposphere where the bulk of the greenhouse effect is being predicted while the reality shows an even slower warming trend if any. In fact, the trend since 1979 is 0.00C per decade on the Southern Hemisphere and 0.05C per decade globally, justifying the claim that there exists no satellite-observed global warming in the mid troposphere.
Fragment, there simply isn’t any warming anymore. Or rather, the warming that we thought we would get from carbon dioxide simply hasn’t happened. It’s very plain, and very obvious. Just as obvious as the fact that the Arctic isn’t melting in 2008 – despite all the hot air from messrs Cobblyworlds, Bloom and Gareth.
Quoting Lubos Motl as an authority?
Forgive me if I ignore his – and your – rants.
Actually, if the Antarctic as a whole was warming significantly and dramatically, I’d be saying there’s something that GCMs aren’t modelling very well. I don’t claim any weather event anywhere is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, and I’m not alone in that, so take your strawman somewhere else, please.
As I understand it, the middle troposphere in the tropics would be expected to warm more than has been observed no matter what the forcing, so the satellite data is actually inconsistent with ground observations, although the errors in the reconstructions from satellite data might be wide enough for that to be not much of an issue. It’s an interesting issue, but not fatal to mainstream climate science.
Where did the BAS say the barometer thing, by the way? Googling that quote mostly gets me a guy from Ohio quoted in articles about Greenland.
Fragment. I don’t care whether you claim weather events as warming or not, my point was that generally, Warmists do, so it’s not a strawman at all. Please keep such terms as ‘strawman’, ‘cherry-picking’, ‘troll’ etc. back in the 1990s web-arguing where they belong.
Your troposphere comments are amusing. So what of radiosonde then? That’s in error too, I suppose? Oh come on Fragment, get real.
The BAS quote was said by them when I used to argue all this on the BBC weather boards about three years or so ago. I can genuinely tell you that it was indeed a quote, and I used it often. I’ll spend a little time trying to find it – but not much!
Gareth. Of course you’ll ignore Motl, I wouldn’t expect anything else!
Fragment. “Barometer”…
Nature says it here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/nature710.html
1degree says it here: http://www.1degree.com.au/node/678
las/physik says it here: http://las.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/eProceedings/vol02_1/02_1_rau1.pdf
Mentioned in the UK Parliament here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70115-0013.htm
The NSF mention it here: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/5signif.htm
I could go on…
Fragment. What is actually your position on climate change?
Balloon/rocket-sonde data is in error, but has recently been corrected, bringing it closer to the models (McCarthy 2008 J.Clim). Although uncertainty still remains.
On a global mean, if the appropriate observational uncertainty is applied observations of tropo trends are not outside of model results. The tropical troposphere remains an issue, but it’s quite obviously outside of the intellectual grasp of the average denialist. Schmidt has covered this at RealClimate recently. “24 May 2008: Tropical tropospheric trends again.”
However as some people can’t even grasp the simple concept of timescale in climate science, there’s no hope they’ll grasp the issue of observational uncertainty, let alone the significance of good model match using metrics other than temperature.
I agree CW, there’s no chance of people here even grasping climate facts as opposed to models, and then clutching at straws by saying “bringing it closer to models”. Let’s not let reality get in the way of a good model, eh? So let’s re-cap: Satellite data is in error because it doesn’t show the expected warming. Radiosonde data is in error because it doesn’t show the expected warming either. But the models are perfectly alright. I think I can see where you’re going wrong.
Nice to see you quoting realclimate YET AGAIN! Do you read anything else, my friend? I’m going to say something that may hurt you…Gavin Schmidt isn’t God. No, really, he isn’t! I know, I know, it hurts, doesn’t it? Tell you what, there’s a realclimate piece on radiosonde data error on Aug 11, 2005. I’ve got $40 on it going to Oxfam that you’re going to use it.
Fragment. Do you see now? You see, if the tropospheric and radionsonde data WERE showing the expected warming, messrs Cobblyworlds, Gareth and Bloom would be using it – and any talk of errors would be placed firmly under the shagpile. And inevitably there would be a realclimate piece on it saying why any perceived errors are nothing of the sort, and well within error bars anyway – and Cobblyworlds would continually link to it.
CW. Better get your handkerchief out, your hero, Mr Gavin Schmidt, gets a wet kipper slapping here http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/
That’s it continue to display your lack of grasp, and your lack of reading any of the threads of research in trying to resolve these issues.
The data gets corrected because it needs to in order to be closer to reality. It just so happens that often brings it closer to the models. The models have loads of problems, but you continue to invent non-existent ones because you don’t get the problems that they really have (e.g. split ITCZ).
As for Lucia’s erroneous piffle, well we’re back to comparison of trends on the appropriate climatological scale. If 1998′s EN were happening now I’d still see it as an ocean driven +ve bias unrelated to GHG forcing. Just as I see the current cooling as an ocean related -ve bias unrelated to GHG forcing.
Schmidt’s not a hero, I don’t do heros. He’s a decent chap and a good scientist.
Zzzzzzz
Dont be daft Cobblers, you know full well that Sid would have read-up on the ‘problems’ of drift, and everything else, as have I. But it doesn’t cut it, does it? Funny how radiosonde comes up with almost the same figures…even though they both have separate ‘problems’!!! Like Sid says, it’s always best to blame the equipment, eh? Never any thought that the models and the very idea of CO2=warming could be wrong, eh? Wake up Cobblers for crying out loud. Something’s up with the base idea. And you do do heros (sic). You’ve been banging on about good ‘ol Gavin for years now. Realclimate is your bible, and everyone who’s ever run up against you knows it too. When the Arctic doesn’t melt, which cause are you going to go onto then? I’d like to know in advance. Let’s see now, you’ve done methane clathrates, water vapour, positive feedbacks (funny how they’re always positive, isn’t it?). So what’s going to trouble you next…when the Arctic doesn’t play ball?
CW. “Cooling”. Cooling? Nice to see you admit that there’s cooling going on, and yes, it does appear to be as a result of ocean circulation. So, now you admit that we’re in a period of cooling, do you therefore accept that this is over-riding the pull of carbon dioxide? So, if (as) it is, then ocean circulation could also result in warming, couldn’t it? I mean there’s no reason to suppose it only ever results in cooling periods. We accept, of course, that 1998 was natural, and not part of the carbon alarm. So then, the Earth can scrub out what man can do, can it? And what about sunspot activity Cobblyworlds? Can that affect our climate?
Childish.
Realclimate is the site for anyone interested in what real scientists (as oppposed to pub-bore know-it-alls) have to say on climate change. Schmidt does most of the posts, hence I refer to him a lot. Anything else is in your mind Harry.
Just because one year doesn’t follow another you both conclude there is no problem – you are wrong. The behaviour Bitz has noted has persisted throughout the ongoing reduction in extent.
Had we listened to your faux-council on warming in 1975 we’d have had good reason to be very doubtful of your collective predictive skill. Just as you’d have been wrong in 1975, you are wrong now. You’re both just so impatient to declare some form of victory that you have jumped the gun. And you lack the clarity of mind to see it.
I think you’ll find that at Stoat I was the only person siding with Connelly:
on 16/5/08. I changed my opinion on 12/6/08 with a further clarification for Eli Rabbett. Having seriously dithered on 1/6/08. Now I’m back to not being sure what will happen, but I think it’s likely to be around last years’ figure. I change my opinion? Yes if the evidence demands I do.
If you think there’s no chance of another record with almost 5 weeks of melt to go, you are using prejudice, not evidence & reason.
My views on the cooling/warming-abatement are a matter of public record.
No. They don’t.
Sunspot changes are epiphenomenal of the processes that drive changes in TSI and solar magnetic field.
This village is inflicted with a surfeit of idiots.
Checking the logs for Hot Topic, I find that “Harry the Hat” and “Sid” are the same person, or at the very least posting from the same computer. This makes “Sid” Harry’s “sock puppet“, and I don’t approve.
Harry/Sid: use only one identity when posting here, or you will be banned.
This has been a public service announcement, on behalf of general sanity.
Gareth, that’s a slur I’ll deal with. We use the same computer because it’s our business one! And we’re brothers – in case you hadn’t already noticed that I had said that. Yes, of course we support each other, but whereas ‘Harry’ is an out-and-out contrarian, I am a skeptic (not the same thing, even if people on here don’t seem to have the intelligence to realise that). So an apology is called for, but won’t be expected. And “general sanity”? Don’t make me laugh, there’s nothing sane in believing in a theory when you are not getting the responses that you should.
CW. You admit that we’re in a period of cooling. So I’ll repeat the questions at risk of getting them answered. Do you therefore accept that this is over-riding the pull of carbon dioxide? And, the Earth can scrub out what man can do then, can it?
A further one: Do you not link the Maunder Minimum with a lack of sunspots?
One last one: Do you only ever believe that man affects the climate, and never nature/cosmic forces?
Admit???? I observe the facts.
For a short period yes, the ocean can (for longer periods it could in the southern hemisphere). But at a price – a sustained greater degree of ocean heat-sinking will imply a smaller time constant meaning that although in the short term you get less warming than otherwise expected, in the long run you get the long-term impacts, like massive Antarctic continental melt more rapidly (a smaller number of centuries).
It cannot stop the warming in the Northern hemisphere, which bothers me because that’s where most people live. It can mask but not stop the warming due to GHGs.
I link the MM with a reduction in TSI leading to a cooling concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (especially the N Atlantic Basin, seasonally mainly winter). The sunspots are merely used as a proxy for that process.
A stupid question deserves another: Do you think there was an anthropogenic impact millions of years ago?
But as it’s your last question I’ll also answer seriously: Of course natural factors can influence the climate, try the MM or Ice ages. But since the 1970s the single greatest impact on a multidecadal climatic scale (around 30 years – World Met Organisation) has been human activity, GHG emissions, but also particulate pollution, CFCs and land useage changes.
Elsewhere here you’ve taken exception about Gareth pointing out that if CO2 doesn’t cause warming then physics itself is in gave crisis. Denying that shows you’re grasp of the physics is non-existent. You may as well tell me (BSc 2(I) Electronics) that the mathematics used in Fourier transforms do not atually bear a relationship to reality.
If CO2 doesn’t have the potential to cause warming via infra-red blocking, then the very IR absorption based photometry that enables measurement of concentration doesn’t work. And it clearly does! I know because I have used an IR photometer.
For the record; there is such similarity of langauge and poor reasoning between Harry Sidney that I fail to see why Gareth should apologise. It remains my opinion that you are one and the same. I can rely on my opinion for that at least, as if I am wrong it means nothing.
CW. What I believe is that carbon dioxide has not resulted in the warming that we thought (Hansen’s Scenarios) we would get. Therefore, something is wrong somewhere. It really is as simple as that. And Cobblyworlds, me and ‘Harry’ are indeed two different people. I couldn’t give a flying * whether you believe it or not friend. I did think that Gareth might apologise, but what the hell? And you say, “Elsewhere here you’ve taken exception about Gareth pointing out that if CO2 doesn’t cause warming then physics itself is in gave crisis. Denying that shows you’re grasp of the physics is non-existent.” Actually I didn’t say that, and again, it’s Harry that knows more about physics than I do, I’ll admit. I’ll return in September when the Arctic hasn’t melted – just to do some nose-rubbing. GISS temperature came out today, and continued the downward trend. It’s all over CW, you’ll not see any warming from now on. Like I said, carbon dioxide has not turned out to be the forcer we all thought. Expect a groundswell of the science community to turn upon itself in the next 1-2 years, you’ll see. When temperatures plummet, we’ll be wondering how we got hooked for so long.
Well at least you aren’t using the ‘they’re all corrupt leftie scientists’ argument…
← Previous Comments
You must log in to post a comment.