217 replies to this topic

[liteness]

Jaguiar, on 06 March 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

It won't stop rising until the Earth is uninhabitable like Mars or Venus, that's why!

congrats on your 100th post

[Little Fish]

Jaguiar, on 06 March 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

It won't stop rising until the Earth is uninhabitable like Mars or Venus, that's why!

go and study the temperature-pressure relationship, then find out the pressure on venus, then find out the temperature difference between day and night on venus, then you can sleep easy.

[BFB]

questionmark, on 06 March 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Your question was whether there was a correlation, which there evidently is as one has to be pretty blind to not see temperatures falling when carbon does and vice verse, and yes that in itself does not establish a causality.

Your argument that it is only a few ppm is either a straw man or you are conveniently ignoring that the average historical content of carbon dioxide is 0.0360% . If we additionally consider that the greenhouse gases contribute to a temperature increase on this planet of about 33 degrees Celsius and that carbon dioxide contributes in between  9 and 26% of that (mainly dependent of how much water vapor is in the same air at the time as it is a better greenhouse gas) of those 33 degrees we can say that a few ppm make a big difference.

Questionmark instead of copy-pasting from various blogs, you should rewrite the context with your own words so it makes sense. (not saying the hole post is copy past but some parts are, if you want me to point them out i'll be glad to)

But to address your point, the answer would be NO. The numbers you have provided are correct but you can't use it in this context. You would know that if you just had a little bit of knowledge regarding climate science.

Have you ever heard of the term climate sensitivity? If you had, you wouldn't have posted the above.

Do some reading on climate sensitivity, after that come back and explain how a small (only a few ppmv) decrease can account for a temperature diffrence at -0,5 to -1 globally.

[BFB]

Little Fish, on 06 March 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

hi bfb, do you accept that LC011 addressed Spencer's comments on LC09?
http://www-eaps.mit....n-Choi-2011.pdf

Hi Little Fish.

Yes its correct that Spencer's critisme is adressed in the 2011 paper.

I agree clouds are often "overlooked" but there are some big problems with their 2011 paper.

First their energy budget equation is problematic, second the data they use, third they might be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

But that doesn't mean the paper is not interesting. They make some valid points.

BTW there is no reason to debate with questionmark regarding this paper. He has shown he doesn't know what climate sensitivity and feedbacks are, so he is not capable of understading the paper.

Edited by BFB, 07 March 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 07 March 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hi Little Fish.

Yes its correct that Spencer's critisme is adressed in the 2011 paper.

I agree clouds are often "overlooked" but there are some big problems with their 2011 paper.

First their energy budget equation is problematic, second the data they use, third they might be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I think you are referring to Dessler 2011 (?)
http://geotest.tamu....Dessler2011.pdf

roy spencer is disputing that paper
http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/
he is even saying that dessler is misrepresenting him which is kind of a big issue.

I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.
http://wattsupwithth...cloud-feedback/

[BFB]

Little Fish, on 07 March 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I think you are referring to Dessler 2011 (?)
http://geotest.tamu....Dessler2011.pdf

roy spencer is disputing that paper
http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/
he is even saying that dessler is misrepresenting him which is kind of a big issue.

I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.
http://wattsupwithth...cloud-feedback/

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?

[questionmark]

BFB, on 07 March 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Questionmark instead of copy-pasting from various blogs, you should rewrite the context with your own words so it makes sense. (not saying the hole post is copy past but some parts are, if you want me to point them out i'll be glad to)

But to address your point, the answer would be NO. The numbers you have provided are correct but you can't use it in this context. You would know that if you just had a little bit of knowledge regarding climate science.

Have you ever heard of the term climate sensitivity? If you had, you wouldn't have posted the above.

Do some reading on climate sensitivity, after that come back and explain how a small (only a few ppmv) decrease can account for a temperature diffrence at -0,5 to -1 globally.

Keeping burping up the same crap does not change the facts. If we have a greenhouse gas of which the atmosphere contains less than 400 ppm (you seem to have a problem converting percent into ppm as I already posted above the percentile of 0.0360%, having problems in both math and physics is not a good omen for your future as meteorologist, you may not be able to pay back your student loan), and that gas is responsible for 3 to 12 degrees of heat retention in the atmosphere, it is quite normal that a few ppm increase or decrease would cause a large difference. 4ppm of the atmosphere is one percent of the total carbon dioxide. 8 ppm atm more/less CO₂ could account for your +- 0.5, 16 ppm for your +- 1 degree.

And sorry, I don't copy and paste without leaving a reference. And if I leave a reference it is because I am not talking about my opinion but somebody's research which I certainly will not put here as my opinion.

Edited by questionmark, 07 March 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[questionmark]

liteness, on 06 March 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Not to mention, this data I posted, and the data you're on about is from the oxygen isotopes from the ice caps.
BFB and I have gone over this form of proxy data in another thread. It is not reliable, and can not provide solid evidence.
So just that, rocks your entire argument.

Right, and according to you both weather recording and the invention of the thermometer date back to the middle ages... or could it be that "the not so fast reconstruction" is based on that same "faulty ice cap isotopes"?

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 07 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?

you would need to flesh those points out for me, I had assumed you were talking about Dessler since that is the only published response to LC11 and Spencer 2011 I am aware of. Since Spencer is in the process of publishing his response to Dessler, I can't comment on what I'm not aware of.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Right, and according to you both weather recording and the invention of the thermometer date back to the middle ages... or could it be that "the not so fast reconstruction" is based on that same "faulty ice cap isotopes"?

I'm trying to say, in other words, ice cores and the measurements of their oxygen isotopes is NOT evidence to prove or disprove other theories upon.

Not exactly faulty ice cap isotopes, no... Not saying that. Just saying it's not strong enough evidence.
Do you know how the data is collected from ice cores and how scientists measure 'temperature' using it?
It's a guess, a good guess. But hardly perfect, and barely evidence.
Shouldn't have including BFB. He may not agree =) I was just mentioning BFB, because he was basically the only one to discuss in the thread. And together, peacefully, we came to the conclusion that ice cores, can't provide a great enough source of evidence to support a theory. It's just one piece/part that CAN in correlation with other proxies, support a theory.

SO basically, I was trying to say, poorly I see. That, it's not possible to disprove the research I showed you with the Vikings and Greenland de-glaciation periods.
Especially since, the data required on de-glaciation periods primarily comes from ice core samples, and oxygen isotopes. Not faulty, no, just not evidence.

[questionmark]

liteness, on 07 March 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

I'm trying to say, in other words, ice cores and the measurements of their oxygen isotopes is NOT evidence to prove or disprove other theories upon.

Not exactly faulty ice cap isotopes, no... Not saying that. Just saying it's not strong enough evidence.
Do you know how the data is collected from ice cores and how scientists measure 'temperature' using it?
It's a guess, a good guess. But hardly perfect, and barely evidence.
Shouldn't have including BFB. He may not agree =) I was just mentioning BFB, because he was basically the only one to discuss in the thread. And together, peacefully, we came to the conclusion that ice cores, can't provide a great enough source of evidence to support a theory. It's just one piece/part that CAN in correlation with other proxies, support a theory.

SO basically, I was trying to say, poorly I see. That, it's not possible to disprove the research I showed you with the Vikings and Greenland de-glaciation periods.
Especially since, the data required on de-glaciation periods primarily comes from ice core samples, and oxygen isotopes. Not faulty, no, just not evidence.

So again, if it is unreliable data that shows that the temperature raised faster then, why do you bring it up? That is the question.

And the reliable source in case of Greenland and the Vikings is not any ice core, it is the historical description of Greenland that we have from the Vikings. They called it Greenland because it looked like a gigantic pasture from afar (much like the Lofotians nowadays). That precludes pretty much any glaciation, which according to the same historical sources happened again in the 14th century when most of the Viking settlements were abandoned.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

So again, if it is unreliable data that shows that the temperature raised faster then, why do you bring it up? That is the question.

And the reliable source in case of Greenland and the Vikings is not any ice core, it is the historical description of Greenland that we have from the Vikings. They called it Greenland because it looked like a gigantic pasture from afar (much like the Lofotians nowadays). That precludes pretty much any glaciation, which according to the same historical sources happened again in the 14th century when most of the Viking settlements were abandoned.

I bring it up because it's the only data available. I mention at the same time that it's not reliable. What's your beef with that? =)

Greenland got the name "Grønland" from Erik the Red (who was exiled for murder) in hopes that the name would attract settlers. Common misconception really, it wasn't a gigantic pasture from afar. lol. There has always been hard winters in Greenland, it has never been a gigantic pasture at all.

The historical description of Greenland comes from the Icelandic sagas. Cool stuff, I can read some of the old norse myself. I don't recall there being a serious description of Greenland in any of the sagas, just the propaganda from Erik the Red(a norwegian born icelandic murderer) copied in text about how Greenland is sooo great and GREEN. But it wasn't. Greenland was a struggle for every single settlement and was abandoned many times. Even after Denmark got a hold of it, it was because Norway did not want it...
Sure ups and downs in temperature in Greenland, that's expect. But you can not accurately say Greenland has been a gigantic pasture. It's cool though, that Erik the Red's propaganda about Greenland still holds today. Good game.

Nevertheless, this could be debated. And I of course might be wrong.

Being a Norwegian myself, and have had a look at this history and have read the sagas and historical descriptions myself in old Norse and Danish, I personally come to the conclusion that the descriptions are from Erik the Red, a murderer who wanted control and wanted people to come to his jail...

All in all, this argument, even if what you read from articles and forums is correct, it's STILL NOT an argument against the research I posted =)
That research on biocap I gave you to read, is so vast and so large that it doesn't matter what Greenland looked like. Greenland could be a dessert and still not effect the data and research, let alone disprove it... Do you understand that? =)

[questionmark]

liteness, on 07 March 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

I bring it up because it's the only data available. I mention at the same time that it's not reliable. What's your beef with that? =)

Greenland got the name "Grønland" from Erik the Red (who was exiled for murder) in hopes that the name would attract settlers. Common misconception really, it wasn't a gigantic pasture from afar. lol. There has always been hard winters in Greenland, it has never been a gigantic pasture at all.

The historical description of Greenland comes from the Icelandic sagas. Cool stuff, I can read some of the old norse myself. I don't recall there being a serious description of Greenland in any of the sagas, just the propaganda from Erik the Red(a norwegian born icelandic murderer) copied in text about how Greenland is sooo great and GREEN. But it wasn't. Greenland was a struggle for every single settlement and was abandoned many times. Even after Denmark got a hold of it, it was because Norway did not want it...
Sure ups and downs in temperature in Greenland, that's expect. But you can not accurately say Greenland has been a gigantic pasture. It's cool though, that Erik the Red's propaganda about Greenland still holds today. Good game.

Nevertheless, this could be debated. And I of course might be wrong.

Being a Norwegian myself, and have had a look at this history and have read the sagas and historical descriptions myself in old Norse and Danish, I personally come to the conclusion that the descriptions are from Erik the Red, a murderer who wanted control and wanted people to come to his jail...

All in all, this argument, even if what you read from articles and forums is correct, it's STILL NOT an argument against the research I posted =)
That research on biocap I gave you to read, is so vast and so large that it doesn't matter what Greenland looked like. Greenland could be a dessert and still not effect the data and research, let alone disprove it... Do you understand that? =)

Lets see, here we have a nice paper saying something about that:

http://www.edwatch.o...09-Vikingsw.htm

Yes, I know, I know, they say that because Greenland was not full of Ice it disproves global warming. But that is why I use them as source.

And, as far as Erik the Red, no matter how many legends are attributed to him, it is highly unlikely that the settlement of Iceland goes back to him.

[liteness]

btw, do you mean Lofotens? Because I've been there, and let me tell you it's *** cold!
I complain about where I live and that it's cold. But I would NEVER move there.
Not even if Erik the Red said it was a gigantic pasture  

[liteness]

questionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Lets see, here we have a nice paper saying something about that:

http://www.edwatch.o...09-Vikingsw.htm

Yes, I know, I know, they say that because Greenland was not full of Ice it disproves global warming. But that is why I use them as source.

And, as far as Erik the Red, no matter how many legends are attributed to him, it is highly unlikely that the settlement of Iceland goes back to him.

What is that "paper" supposed to say really?
A serious joke if you ask me. Got some IPCC research from back in 95, some author of political science with an art degree?

Sure, Erik the Red was the man who started the settlement of Greenland by European (Scandinavian) countries. Though, Greenland was inhabited by the Saqqaq from approx 2600bc until they left, forget when. Don't bother googling.

Still, do you understand that none of this disproves the research I linked from biocap?