Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
hey its you that simplified it by just using the albedo. wich surely is confusing as your claim was wrong, sure if you factor in other things than merely the albedo, then yes it surely is much more complicated. why didn't you make that clear from the beginning? you only talked about the albedo. this leads me to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about here.
Click to expand...

I did. I wasn't the one who tried to simplify it, incorrectly mind you. You did that.
It's not uncommon though, you're in good company.
 
Furcifer said:
FYI, I haven't been absent. I read the thread. I only respond to posts which are scientifically worthy of merit. Most of the posts citing sources like RealCrapClimate are simply Woo and are unworthy of consideration.
Unless it's journal citation it's woo.
Click to expand...

((I believe MacDoc was speaking about his own rather lengthy absence, its been several months since I last saw a post here with the MacDoc sig attached ---btw, MacDoc, welcome back, good to see you again, I hope all is well with you and yours!!))
 
Furcifer. "easlily explain" that the weather extremes are caused by changes in albedo

Furcifer said:
We present examples of weather extremes, which can easily be explained through changes in albedo....
Click to expand...
You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.
See my Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures post
and
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

If you want to move the goalposts to "any changes in albedo" causes climate change then that is trivially correct, e.g. the loss of polar ice is a feedback from global warming that will cause more global warming.
The albedo effect

As for Chicago's urbanization affecting local weather, it does!
The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF)
They derive that different urban categories can produce up to 5 °C difference in local temperatures relative to a unified urban category.
 
Whoops missed this!
Furcifer said:
Chicago turn the entire city to a big block of concrete without having serious, or noticeable effect of Global Warming.

But you would have to be completely ignorant of climate change to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.
Click to expand...
You would have to be completely ignorant of climate change meteorology to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.

Furcifer, You may have missed this but this thread is about global warming :D, not weather. If you want to discuss the effects of urbanization on weather then a new thread would be appropriate.
The discussion of the basic climate science that global warming causes the frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. examples given previously) does though belong in this thread.
 
AlBell said:
Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age
Click to expand...

LOL interesting spin, but the paper paper doesn't need to be debunked because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

First of all it's specific to a relatively small area of northern Scandinavia. Secondly what the paper really discusses is the fact they can detect a long term 0.3 deg C per 1Ky cooling trend. If you are counting that's 3000 years of cooling reversed in a mere 100 years..

It doesn't say whether today's temperatures are warmer or cooler but visually it looks like recent instrumental temperate data (the red line) shows warmer, than 2000 years ago, but the result is probably not statistically significant either way.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AlBell said:
Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age
Click to expand...

i dont think this paper will be accepted by climate change deniers. They used computer models. ECHO-G, ECHAM5–MPIOM, etc.
they hate models.
 
Reality Check said:
Whoops missed this!

You would have to be completely ignorant of climate change meteorology to think such a change won't have any effect on the weather.

Furcifer, You may have missed this but this thread is about global warming :D, not weather. If you want to discuss the effects of urbanization on weather then a new thread would be appropriate.
The discussion of the basic climate science that global warming causes the frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. examples given previously) does though belong in this thread.
Click to expand...

??? I didn't bring up the weather. Perhaps you missed a few posts.

You're correct though, it doesn't belong in this thread, that's why I've been debunking the erroneous associations.

Alarmists can't refrain from desperately trying to make some correlation to AGW during these heat waves. The scientists not so much. :D
 
lomiller said:
LOL interesting spin, but the paper paper doesn't need to be debunked because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

First of all it's specific to a relatively small area of northern Scandinavia. Secondly what the paper really discusses is the fact they can detect a long term 0.3 deg C per 1Ky cooling trend. If you are counting that's 3000 years of cooling reversed in a mere 100 years..

It doesn't say whether today's temperatures are warmer or cooler but visually it looks like recent instrumental temperate data (the red line) shows warmer, than 2000 years ago, but the result is probably not statistically significant either way.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate1589-f2.jpg
Click to expand...

But it does say that it might be that currentl tree ring based temperature reconstructions might underestimate the temperatures.
 
Reality Check said:
You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you're confusing weather and climate again. We're talking about these heat waves, which are weather, and albedo.
But don't blame me, I didn't bring it up!
 
The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.
 
AlBell said:
Only source I've been able to find; Daily Fail. I don't care much for it either.

But has anyone yet debunked this purported study?

Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age
Click to expand...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

The Daily Mail story is easily debunked by reference to the paper. The paper itself is not bunk but is in the throes of post-publication peer-review. There have been unfortunate press-releases and quotes as well.

Research which does make some contribution, but another imaginary straw grasped at in the denial world. One hopes that the authors won't let the attention lead them onto the Judith Curry path.

(It's worth noting that the latest denial shout is about history again, not the present (with its insignificant warming) nor even recent history (like the long-term cooling-trend we entered back in 2007 or so). That and the urban heat-island effect - this is positively nostalgic. We haven't seen denial like this since 2003. :D)
 
Furcifer said:
Oh dear, you're confusing weather and climate again. We're talking about these heat waves, which are weather, and albedo.
Click to expand...
Oh dear , you are not understanding what I wrote again.
There is no confusion. These are two different topics (in English a new paragraph means a new topic)
Originally Posted by Reality Check
You are wrong - none of these examples of weather are caused by the changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) .
These changes in albedo that you have mentioned (deforestation and urbanization) are insignificant in climate change.
Click to expand...

Topic 1: The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused by the albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!)and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:
Furcifer
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?
Click to expand...

First asked 3rd July 2012 (10 days and counting)
​
Topic 2: The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
 
Furcifer, "easlily explain" that the weather extremes are caused by changes in albedo

Furcifer, You missed the question in my post's title
You asserted
Originally Posted by Furcifer
We present examples of weather extremes, which can easily be explained through changes in albedo....
Click to expand...
So there must be an easy explanation somewhere.
 
Justinian2 said:
The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.
Click to expand...

It isn't a difficult argument, it is an almost casually demonstrable fact.
 
Justinian2 said:
The sea levels have been rising for the last 21 thousand years since the last glacial maximum. Assuming that melting ice corresponds to an increase in heat, then the earth has been warming for that period. Melting ice, fortunately, moderates the rise in temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.
Click to expand...

why difficult? we know human is adding to it.
 
Justinian2 said:
The difficult argument is whether or not man is contributing to the rise in temperature.
Click to expand...

There's no reasonable doubt that humanits is causing the warming, and the argument for that is pretty easy to make; the dificulty lies with unreasonable doubt or outright conviction that AGW is not real.

The graph you linked shows a large increase in sea-level during the glacial/inter-glacial transition as the most vulnerable ice-sheets melted, followed by a much slower continuing increase, which reflects the lagged response of the less vulnerable ice. That, of course, does not mean that there has been warming over that period - in fact there's been a cooling trend for the last 6-8 thousand years - but shows how long it takes for the high-latitude ice-sheets to reach an equilibrium.
 
Groundbreaking research has shown how climate change significantly increased the odds of some recent extreme weather events.

This latest science is featured in a companion piece to The State of the Climate in 2011 report, which is led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and is published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The new report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, includes contributions from the Met Office and many other research institutions from around the world. For the first time it includes so-called 'climate attribution studies', looking at six key weather events shortly after they have happened
 
bit_pattern said:
Groundbreaking research has shown how climate change significantly increased the odds of some recent extreme weather events.

This latest science is featured in a companion piece to The State of the Climate in 2011 report, which is led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and is published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The new report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, includes contributions from the Met Office and many other research institutions from around the world. For the first time it includes so-called 'climate attribution studies', looking at six key weather events shortly after they have happened
Click to expand...

"Increased odds" lends support to the conclusion that a warming climate may have played a role in some recent extreme weather events, but it would still be inappropriate to say "this summer's heat wave was directly caused by AGW."
 
"On Tuesday, for the first time, government scientists are saying recent extreme weather events are likely connected to man-made climate change. It's the conclusion of a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

From
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57469878/noaa-links-extreme-weather-to-climate-change/

'The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

'NOAA made a point of saying in their study that the climate change they've identified is man-made.'

I can't find these specific quotes on NOAA's site yet but it's great to finally have scientists making the connection between AGW and extreme weather events with much greater certainty.

Here's another great compilation by Peter Sinclair
Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives at Climate Denial Crock of the Week on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w&index=1&feature=plcp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom