Global warming discussion IV

[Fudbucker]

And by a simpleton for simpletons. Storms move heat around in the troposphere, they don't cool the planet. Nor are they a new phaenomenon, and they haven't prevented inter-glacials in the past or present.

Wouldn't you get some cooling from the higher albedo of clouds?

 

[Reality Check]

Think on this and look NO smilies

And look NO smilies when I tell you that you are parroting lies from a crank YouTube video channel, Haig!
Its first link is an article stating that overall (land and sea ice) Antarctica is Melting Faster Than Ever

It seems that every day scientists are telling us how climate change is causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt, threatening to raise sea levels and drive the region's iconic penguins into extinction. And now, it appears that Antarctica, which was already rapidly disappearing, is melting faster than ever before.
...
So how does that mean that Antarctica's melting is increasing? Although East Antarctica's sea ice extent is increasing, it's still only half the amount of ice lost from the west.

That crank video then idiotically cites an article on just sea ice (now a smilie is needed)
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

 

[Reality Check]

Problems ahead for this paper Trakar

Non-science musings on a climate denial web site are not a probem for any climate science, Haig.
They are the WUWT lies, damned lies and crank science! that we expect from any web site delusional enough to allow Monckton to spread climate lies on it .
In this case we have the rather deluded and paranoiac Bob Tisdale.
He has a very odd belief that global warming, including the one of the oceans is caused by the El Nino-La Nina (or ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle.
He links to a previous post where he suggests that NOAA at least twice tried to adjust data to match climate models!

 

[CapelDodger]

Wouldn't you get some cooling from the higher albedo of clouds?

Perhaps, but then there always would have been and it hasn't stopped the climate varying quite substantially. This is the problem with all these negative-feedback, low-sensitivity arguments - it doesn't match global experience.

(I think any albedo effect would be dwarfed by the energy being lifted closer to space by convection.)

 

[Trakar]

(I think any albedo effect would be dwarfed by the energy being lifted closer to space by convection.)

Is it that convection "lifts" the energy -release point- or that the lowered density of warm molecules at altitude are a -bigger hole sieve- allowing more outward bound IR to leak through?

 

[CapelDodger]

Is it that convection "lifts" the energy -release point- or that the lowered density of warm molecules at altitude are a -bigger hole sieve- allowing more outward bound IR to leak through?

Just that, for a cooling effect, energy has to get out into space and the closer it starts the quicker it gets out. Latent heat in water-vapour probably pays a large part. All off the top of my head, you understand, I could well be wrong (crazy though that sounds).

 

[lomiller]

It gives the measured data on rainfall across northern Africa above the equator, showing that the warming climate has brought more rain to that reason, possibly on a permanent basis.

Monsoon patterns changing brings more rain to areas that are currently sparsely populated and drought to heavily populated areas that grew because that’s where the rainfall was. Furthermore the currently dry areas don’t have the soil or drainage to handle the increase in rainfall making them prone to devastating floods. It will take hundreds if not thousands of years for the landscape to adapt to the changes.

 

[Haig]

Non-science musings on a climate denial web site are not a probem for any climate science, Haig.
They are the WUWT lies, damned lies and crank science! that we expect from any web site delusional enough to allow Monckton to spread climate lies on it .
In this case we have the rather deluded and paranoiac Bob Tisdale.
He has a very odd belief that global warming, including the one of the oceans is caused by the El Nino-La Nina (or ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle.
He links to a previous post where he suggests that NOAA at least twice tried to adjust data to match climate models!

You really don't think that's possible, Right ?

Then how do you explain this RC ?

Huge Divergence Between Latest UAH & HadCRUT4 Temperature Datasets

Why are the new satellite and ground data sets going in opposite directions? Is there any reason that you can think of where both could simultaneously be correct? Lubos Motl has an interesting article in which it looks as if satellites can “see” things the ground data sets miss. Do you think there could be something to this for at least a partial explanation?

This comment has a valid point too !

"Nowhere in any of this is there any sign of an increase in acceleration of warming which is the basic premise of “human produced CO2 will cause a run away global warming catastrophe”. No acceleration of warming means the theory of man made climate destruction is wrong."

 

[lomiller]

Huge Divergence Between Latest UAH & HadCRUT4 Temperature Datasets

1) Satellite and surface records don’t measure the same thing
2) Satellite measurements of temperature are a lot less precise and prone to much larger random variation
3) Lower troposphere temperatures (satellite) are more sensitive to ENSO that surface temperatures.
4) The UAH set has a history of very big errors that completely invalidated it’s results. For a long time the UAH crew claimed there was no warming at all until the RSS team who were independently working with the same raw data pointed out UAH had geometry errors that completely invalidated the entire set. When fixed UAH more or less matched all the other temperature records, within the limitations noted above.

 

[Haig]

1) Satellite and surface records don’t measure the same thing
2) Satellite measurements of temperature are a lot less precise and prone to much larger random variation
3) Lower troposphere temperatures (satellite) are more sensitive to ENSO that surface temperatures.
4) The UAH set has a history of very big errors that completely invalidated it’s results. For a long time the UAH crew claimed there was no warming at all until the RSS team who were independently working with the same raw data pointed out UAH had geometry errors that completely invalidated the entire set. When fixed UAH more or less matched all the other temperature records, within the limitations noted above.

It's a Huge Divergence and getting bigger

 

[lomiller]

It's a Huge Divergence and getting bigger

See my previous post for the reasons. Your silly web site is comparing the “trend” from 2002 – 2014 to the “trend” from 2010 – 2014. Even with the more precise surface records this would be ridiculously short, far to short to calculate a meaningful trend in the presence of the aforementioned noise.

It’s created to take in those who lack a skeptical mindset and convince them to fall into line and obey their masters wishes, it’s not real analysis.

 

[bobdroege7]

Nope, you should never assume

If you do you will make an ass/u/me

Think on this and look NO smilies
Antarctica is Melting Faster Than Ever but is it ? SPECIAL REPORT | S0 News May 30, 2015

Pronunciation is important.

If your Special Report guy can't properly pronounce albedo, I am not going to take him seriously enough to even catalog all the mistakes in the video.

But one thing, the albedo changes in the northern hemisphere when the sea ice changes correlate with the insolation are more important than in the southern hemisphere where the sea ice changes do not correlate with the insolation.

 

[Haig]

Pronunciation is important.

If your Special Report guy can't properly pronounce albedo, I am not going to take him seriously enough to even catalog all the mistakes in the video.

You know what they say - England and America are two countries divided by a common language.

Sing ....... "You like potato and I like potahto You like tomato and I like tomahto Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto. Let's call the whole thing off"

I did grit my teeth when I first heard it, that song NOT our Ben

But one thing, the albedo changes in the northern hemisphere when the sea ice changes correlate with the insolation are more important than in the southern hemisphere where the sea ice changes do not correlate with the insolation.

Don't agree ! The extent of the sea ice in the Antarctica is unprecedented and it's thicker than predicted.

“The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”

 

[ehcks]

Don't agree ! The extent of the sea ice in the Antarctica is unprecedented and it's thicker than predicted.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion tons per year.

The loss of land ice causes the surrounding water to decrease in salinity, which decreases its freezing point, which means more sea ice during the winter. It still all melts in the summer.

 

[Haig]

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/



The loss of land ice causes the surrounding water to decrease in salinity, which decreases its freezing point, which means more sea ice during the winter. It still all melts in the summer.

You do know what unprecedented means ?

ALL that extra Antarctic ice adding to the albedo effect and it ain't warming

 

[bobdroege7]

Albedo don't mean nuffin when it's dark

 

[Trakar]

Albedo don't mean nuffin when it's dark

another couple weeks and the south polar nights will stop increasing in length for another six months.

 

[Haig]

another couple weeks and the south polar nights will stop increasing in length for another six months.

The opposite for the north pole

Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ‘pause’ in warming

 

[Reality Check]

You had to go to the now actually deluded Anthony Watts for your "science", Haig !
The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson

More perversity from Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat

The day before yesterday, with approval of the author, I promoted a comment to an article, which needed very little introduction. Anthony Watts had already publicly accused the NOAA of fraud, and of lying. In an email to Dr Peterson he went one further and accused Dr Peterson and his colleagues of fraud and prostitution. [See also addendum below.]

The scientific facts are explained widely including What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper include

4. The Adjustments Reduce Global Warming Estimates!

 

[Reality Check]

Then how do you explain this RC ?

Easy, Haig: You are relying on an ignorant climate change denial web site rather than trying to understand real climate science .

The stupidity of thinking that surface and satellite datasets should be the same is obvious to anyone who knows about climate science.
Surface temperatures are taken around sea level using thermometers.
Satellites do not even measure temperature! They read the radiation from the atmosphere at various levels and use models to convert the readings to temperatures.

The quoted comment is even more stupid to anyone who knows about climate.
Global warming does not mean that every year the global surface temperature will be warmer then the last year! It means that the trend over climatic periods (30 years is usual) will be warming.

What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper

1. Rapid Global Warming Continues
Arguments about short-term temperature changes only deal with the Earth’s surface temperatures, which account for just 1–2% of the overall warming of the planet. More than 90% of that heat goes into the oceans, and as my colleagues and I noted in a paper published 3 years ago, if anything that warming is accelerating, building up heat at a rate faster than 4 atomic bomb detonations per second.