Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

Yes we are in an interglacial and are still in the Quaternary glaciation in an overall ice age between 2-3 million years old set in the backdrop of significant glaciation beginning about 23 million years ago. So I think I have the beginnings of some basics.

You are confusing the basics with the irrelevant. What the earths climate looked like before human civilization, of before there were Homo Sapiens Sapiens on the plant or before there were Hominids on the planet is of little or no value to the discussion.

We are not taking about changes taking place over missions of years or even ten thousand years. The earth’s climate is changing at a pace not seen since the dinosaurs and 70% of all life on earth died off 65 million years ago. This is the basics, this is what needs to be understood.

 

[macdoc]

Can we move on to climate science.

••••

This may shed some light on precipitation extremes...

Elucidating Heavy Precipitation Events

Nov. 29, 2013 — It is difficult to forecast heavy precipitation events accurately and reliably. The quality of these forecasts is affected by two processes whose relative importance has now been quantified by a team at the Laboratoire d'Aérologie (CNRS / Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier). The researchers have shown that these processes should be taken into account in low wind speed events. Their findings should help forecast these events, which repeatedly cause significant damage, especially in south-eastern France. They are first published online the November 28, 2013 in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131129101903.htm

We got hammered by one in Toronto this year that was astonishing in it's destructive power.

Toronto's July flood listed as Ontario's most costly natural disaster ...

www.thestar.com/.../july_flood_ontarios_most_costly_natural_d...‎
by Carys Mills - in 39 Google+ circles
Aug 14, 2013 - Insurance Bureau of Canada says property damage caused by storm that swamped the GTA on July 8 is more than $850 million.

There was no warning of scale and no precedent and for purposes it was a pair of thunderstorms ....

Everyone was caught off guard by the intensity of the rainfall and some of the events like Bombay in 2005 are simply off the scale.

 

[r-j]

The challenge to the Arctic amplification studies and changing jet stream can be found at: http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_2013_GRL_wfigs_wsupp.pdf

That link is bad. The correct link is http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_2013_GRL_w_supp.pdf

 

[skeptsci]

well you can ask me. ask what you want to know, i will tell you. but you asked for the evidence, and that is only accesable by reading, you will need to read atleast a dozen scientific papers to get the evidence you asked for.

but i posted a link to several websites that offer short versions of the evidence in case you do't want to read AR5 WG1.

but you seem to have questions. im sure they are easely answerable as i think its unlikely you will come up with something the scientists around the world have overlooked. so just ask

My question is simple. If there is a "good" (intellectually satisfying) answer to it, it should be able to be outlined concisely and painlessly. If not, there's a problem there. I will explain than give examples. I did not ask you to make a scientific representation for my sake to prove that there is methodology, data and what their quality and conclusions are. In principle I'll take your word for it that it was scientifically satisfied. The compelling evidence I asked for was the one that convinced the scientists put in general terms: what was the methodology used and how strong the data were (in simple terms). Here are some examples: "Give me compelling evidence that GW exist". Answer: outline of example methodologies of measurements, links to 2-3 graphs. "Give me compelling evidence that big portion of the carbon in the atmosphere is form fossil burning origin". Answer: Carbon isotope ratios (some details) in plants, atmosphere etc. is typical to those of fossil fuel and is different from that of other origins (a detail). And I can of course give you more which will cover the entire GW claim. See? If the scientific area is well established this does not have to take 40K posts or even 12 scientific articles to out line a simple explanation. The longer/complicated and harder to put in simple terms, the weaker (rule of thumb of course with rare exceptions though). In my fields, if asked such a question by a layman, I cannot think of a corroborated hypothesis I cannot explain reasonably in few relaxed sentences (half a page tops).Now, I came here with a simple question about the A. Can you or can't you give me concise few sentences of explanation (I don't want the proofs by "materials and methods" and data quality and analysis, I'll take your word for it). Go back, see those posters' reactions and you might understand the eyebrow raising here (understatement).
I volunteer in popularization of science mainly to youth (16-18). My main show is a 12 (x1.5h) sessions presentation that this year is called "nanotechnology and life". As part of my vision I dedicate last two sessions to, critical thinking, politics in science, argumentation and debating. My last interaction in the current forum gave me new, high quality material and I PrtScned it to my presentation, can't wait for the 11th session (Feb 2014) to present "empirical hot evidence from the field concerning a high profile world mixed scientific-political debate". Oh, lastly but most importantly, regarding A.: I read before and also in the last few days from the links I've been sent to. I do still have a problem as they all show correlations (no causation) and words like "most likely" (with many possible, probable mechanisms, one place even spoke quantitatively in terms of 95% confidence level, but how did they get to it?). Can you (and are you willing) to give me something stronger. And very importantly, is there, what I call "theoretical feasibility study" in which, on paper, the A connection can be shown. Meaning something like: so much human-caused-carbon is released to atmosphere, ergo so much CO2 (e.g.) concentration per time is built up, thus per the GHG thermodynamic theory so much heat is generated per some assumed (expected) forcing, thus so much temperature rise is expected and how it agrees with observed data. ?

 

[DC]

My question is simple. If there is a "good" (intellectually satisfying) answer to it, it should be able to be outlined concisely and painlessly. If not, there's a problem there. I will explain than give examples. I did not ask you to make a scientific representation for my sake to prove that there is methodology, data and what their quality and conclusions are. In principle I'll take your word for it that it was scientifically satisfied. The compelling evidence I asked for was the one that convinced the scientists put in general terms: what was the methodology used and how strong the data were (in simple terms). Here are some examples: "Give me compelling evidence that GW exist". Answer: outline of example methodologies of measurements, links to 2-3 graphs. "Give me compelling evidence that big portion of the carbon in the atmosphere is form fossil burning origin". Answer: Carbon isotope ratios (some details) in plants, atmosphere etc. is typical to those of fossil fuel and is different from that of other origins (a detail). And I can of course give you more which will cover the entire GW claim. See? If the scientific area is well established this does not have to take 40K posts or even 12 scientific articles to out line a simple explanation. The longer/complicated and harder to put in simple terms, the weaker (rule of thumb of course with rare exceptions though). In my fields, if asked such a question by a layman, I cannot think of a corroborated hypothesis I cannot explain reasonably in few relaxed sentences (half a page tops).Now, I came here with a simple question about the A. Can you or can't you give me concise few sentences of explanation (I don't want the proofs by "materials and methods" and data quality and analysis, I'll take your word for it). Go back, see those posters' reactions and you might understand the eyebrow raising here (understatement).
I volunteer in popularization of science mainly to youth (16-18). My main show is a 12 (x1.5h) sessions presentation that this year is called "nanotechnology and life". As part of my vision I dedicate last two sessions to, critical thinking, politics in science, argumentation and debating. My last interaction in the current forum gave me new, high quality material and I PrtScned it to my presentation, can't wait for the 11th session (Feb 2014) to present "empirical hot evidence from the field concerning a high profile world mixed scientific-political debate". Oh, lastly but most importantly, regarding A.: I read before and also in the last few days from the links I've been sent to. I do still have a problem as they all show correlations (no causation) and words like "most likely" (with many possible, probable mechanisms, one place even spoke quantitatively in terms of 95% confidence level, but how did they get to it?). Can you (and are you willing) to give me something stronger. And very importantly, is there, what I call "theoretical feasibility study" in which, on paper, the A connection can be shown. Meaning something like: so much human-caused-carbon is released to atmosphere, ergo so much CO2 (e.g.) concentration per time is built up, thus per the GHG thermodynamic theory so much heat is generated per some assumed (expected) forcing, thus so much temperature rise is expected and how it agrees with observed data. ?

as you mentioned isotope ratios of CO2, it seems like you know already a crusial part of the evidence.
and as Natural Co2 is in rough balance, almost all of the current CO2 increase is from HUman activity. Also tp consider is that most of the warming since 1950 can be ascribed to human activity.
also the so called fingerprinting is very helpfull here. one of the fingerprints would be stratospheric cooling and tropopspheric warming. a clear indication that the warming is caused by increased GHG's and pretty much rules out solar activity increase as the cause for example.
so humanity is roughly increasing the CO2 concentration by 2 ppm per year.


and how much warming will it cause? well there it starts to get tricky.
but without feedbacks we can pretty accurately say, doubling of Co2 will cause roughly 1.2°C warming. but then feedback loops come into play. for example we have a positive feedback from clouds, as has been predicted by climate models, meanwhile we were able to observe that positive loopback(Herman 2013) . and there is alot more of them.
but then we are already on the topic of climate sensitivity. and there it gets somewhat tricky. not properly defined yet etc etc.



but then also it depends how much CO2 will be emited in future. how fast will the transition be to a CO2 neutral economy etc. and here a number of different scenarios are used.

so far our expectations/ projections and observation agree pretty well, we underestimate sea level rise and pace of ice melting, but themps are pretty spot on.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

i hope that is what you were looking for.

 

[Reality Check]

My question is simple. If there is a "good" (intellectually satisfying) answer to it, it should be able to be outlined concisely and painlessly.

skeptsci, the answer is that there are intellectually satisfying answers to climate science questions. They are contained in the scientific literature and there are many resources explaining the scientific literature concisely and (relatively!) painlessly.

P.S. A bit of a nitpick: An unformatted wall of text containing several questions is likely to be ignored. You would do better asking a specific question clearly. The response will probably be to point you to the above mentioned resources, e.g.
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

 

[skeptsci]

Thx, I'll be back in a day

 

[macdoc]

An expert panel at the National Academy of Sciences is calling for an early warning system to alert us to abrupt and potentially catastrophic events triggered by climate change.

The committee says science can anticipate some major changes to the Earth that could affect everything from agriculture to sea level. But we aren't doing enough to look for those changes and anticipate their impacts.

And this is not a matter for some distant future. The Earth is already experiencing both gradual and abrupt climate change. The air is warming up slowly, and we're also seeing rapid changes such as the melting Arctic ice cap.

Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, says abrupt change is the bigger worry.
"When you think about gradual changes you can kind of see where the road is and know where you're going," Barnosky said at a news conference unveiling the report Tuesday. "When you think about abrupt changes and threshold effects, the road suddenly drops out from under you. And it's those kinds of things we're suggesting we need to anticipate in a much more comprehensive way."

Scientists know about some potential problems that could change the planet dramatically in a matter of years or decades. For example, sea level could quickly rise by as much as 25 feet if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to crumble into the sea.

MORE

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/248474721/ready-or-not-quick-climate-changes-worry-scientists-most

 

[macdoc]

Some positive news out of the north

Quote:
Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate2058
Received 24 April 2013 Accepted 29 October 2013 Published online 01 December 2013

The carbon (C) balance of permafrost regions is predicted to be extremely sensitive to climatic changes1, 2, 3. Major uncertainties exist in the rate of permafrost thaw and associated C emissions (33–508 Pg C or 0.04–1.69 °C by 2100; refs 2, 3) and plant C uptake. In the High Arctic, semi-deserts retain unique soil–plant–permafrost interactions4, 5 and heterogeneous soil C pools6 (>12 Pg C; ref. 7). Owing to its coastal proximity, marked changes are expected for High Arctic tundra8. With declining summer sea-ice cover9, these systems are simultaneously exposed to rising temperatures9, increases in precipitation10 and permafrost degradation11. Here we show, using measurements of tundra–atmosphere C fluxes and soil C sources (14C) at a long-term climate change experiment in northwest Greenland, that warming decreased the summer CO2 sink strength of semi-deserts by up to 55%. In contrast, warming combined with wetting increased the CO2 sink strength by an order of magnitude. Further, wetting while relocating recently assimilated plant C into the deep soil decreased old C loss compared with the warming-only treatment. Consequently, the High Arctic has the potential to remain a strong C sink even as the rest of the permafrost region transitions to a net C source as a result of future global warming.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2058.html

tho that last little stinger about "rest of the region net C source" is of concern given its physical size.

 

[aleCcowaN]

MORE

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/248474721/ready-or-not-quick-climate-changes-worry-scientists-most

I'm sorry but that is not science. It's just politics made by taking several concerns with different terms and shaping them up into a format that catches attention, probably in a context of increasingly underfunded research.

I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying the author is not talking of any additional danger. And I'm saying the author is not talking of science. The title itself is an induced inference, the Damocles' sword type: "Abrupt Climate Changes Worry Scientists Most" suggests you should worry -a bit, a lot- as this or that or the other thing, any of them, would probably be on the verge of happening in the foreseeable future.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Something to reflect on when we discuss about error bands and real error bands in models.

Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm^–2 , than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations
Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock and Timothy Andrews

 

[macdoc]

We have an alert system for asteroids and other risks including earthquakes- all the article is suggesting is an alert system - who said it was science - it's dealing with consequences. Science can inform actions not make policy.
Nor is a political statement - it's an evaluation of risk and a suggested course of action.

The committee says science can anticipate some major changes to the Earth that could affect everything from agriculture to sea level. But we aren't doing enough to look for those changes and anticipate their impacts.

 

[skeptsci]

as you mentioned isotope ratios of CO2, it seems like you know already a crusial part of the evidence....ect.

i hope that is what you were looking for.

skeptsci, the answer is that there are intellectually satisfying answers to climate science questions. They are contained in the scientific literature and there are many resources explaining the scientific literature concisely and (relatively!) painlessly...ect.

I looked at the materials included in both your posts (YouTube did not work, got a ! instead). I updated my thoughts on the A matter as I think it's the most crucial of all the AGW issue (as it indicates how much of the problem can be controlled by humans) and at the same time the most complicated one to accept. It seems to me that there is a more than 50-60% chance A is true. However, the problems (for me) in giving it a 95% or better (as you DC do according to the slogan at the bottom of your posts) are there. I will not delve into it extensively just share few thoughts.
I did not understand how comes spectral analysis of the IR radiation pointing towards the earth had a typical spectrum of the GHG. I understood this radiation is a result of the atmosphere temperature rise after radiation energy absorption by the GHG with resulting heat build up and thus it's a secondary event to the specific radiation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm). I also expect, as result of the GW, that overall IR radiation outbound the planet will increase with decline only in the typical GHG wavelengths. This is a characteristic compounded spectral image that was not mentioned as such. I understood that cloud feedback is important factor in forecasts and is not well understood yet. The same can be said on the whole sensitivity issue (you DC mentioned it and I found more on it). In a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2008 by Spencer RW (abstract given in comment 3 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm), sensitivity of nature to GHG is argued to may well be so low that only an increase of 0.50c in global temperature would be predicted until 2100. Also there exist web sites such as http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3, where contradicting arguments are given (I know they might be unreliable such as creationists sophisticated/scientific looking web sites, but is it (unreliable)?). I also found that in several instances A-CO2 is assumed a priory to create GW and then "proven" empirically to do so (something like "fallacy of the converse").
When I mentioned Malthus in a previous post, I meant that treating the problem and the forecasts in a strictly linear way might lead to significant mistakes, as the planet ecosystem may react by moving towards compensation and so might man ingenuity by finding solutions that will reduce the CO2 accumulation in a relatively very short time span (i.e. decision to move strongly and globally towards nuclear power because of some very relevant safety developments mainly in waste disposable). I know IPCC presented several scenarios but they might not know the right ones.
I have more to argue concerning theoretical models and observed data but this is too long already.

 

[Reality Check]

IHowever, the problems (for me) in giving it a 95% or better (as you DC do according to the slogan at the bottom of your posts) are there.

There is no problem with the A in AGW being 95% probable. That is what the IPCC reports give it. 97% of climate scientist say that this is the case.

http://www.friendsofscience.org is a climate change denial web site - the first thing I saw was a graphic with "The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2". Not according to 97% of climate scientists !
This is the second most popular climate myth: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

A-CO2 is not assumed to create GW. Any increase in any CO2 from any source will according to the laws of physics warm the planet. It is easy to show that we have been increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus we are the cause of the measured GW.

Spencer is a proponent of the "sensitivity is too low" climate myth: How sensitive is our climate?

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

 

[Iamme]

Our atmosphere used to have more oxygen...gasp! gasp!...i cant breathe! Wheez! Now its more nitrogen. (oxygen levels have substantially decrease since around the 20th century, i believe. SubSTANtially! Gasp!)Both nitrogen and oxygen are lighter than CO2. So what`s the problem? Why doesnt CO2 then get forced back to land/oceans, and further helped by the rain cycle to knock it harmlessly out of the sky? Just curious. Not a global warming expert...even though you`d think with more industrialized countries spewing gasses like an increasing number of volcanoes...you`d think SOMEthing would be changing...either warming or cooling. However, regarding the last sentence...if it ia debatable if it leads to warming or cooling, that mean it could fall in the middle somewhere, maybe, and cause no change at all.
Wouldnt you love to hear Al Gore so succinctly explain it to us?

 

[DC]

I looked at the materials included in both your posts (YouTube did not work, got a ! instead). I updated my thoughts on the A matter as I think it's the most crucial of all the AGW issue (as it indicates how much of the problem can be controlled by humans) and at the same time the most complicated one to accept. It seems to me that there is a more than 50-60% chance A is true. However, the problems (for me) in giving it a 95% or better (as you DC do according to the slogan at the bottom of your posts) are there. I will not delve into it extensively just share few thoughts.
I did not understand how comes spectral analysis of the IR radiation pointing towards the earth had a typical spectrum of the GHG. I understood this radiation is a result of the atmosphere temperature rise after radiation energy absorption by the GHG with resulting heat build up and thus it's a secondary event to the specific radiation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm). I also expect, as result of the GW, that overall IR radiation outbound the planet will increase with decline only in the typical GHG wavelengths. This is a characteristic compounded spectral image that was not mentioned as such. I understood that cloud feedback is important factor in forecasts and is not well understood yet. The same can be said on the whole sensitivity issue (you DC mentioned it and I found more on it). In a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2008 by Spencer RW (abstract given in comment 3 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm), sensitivity of nature to GHG is argued to may well be so low that only an increase of 0.50c in global temperature would be predicted until 2100. Also there exist web sites such as http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3, where contradicting arguments are given (I know they might be unreliable such as creationists sophisticated/scientific looking web sites, but is it (unreliable)?). I also found that in several instances A-CO2 is assumed a priory to create GW and then "proven" empirically to do so (something like "fallacy of the converse").
When I mentioned Malthus in a previous post, I meant that treating the problem and the forecasts in a strictly linear way might lead to significant mistakes, as the planet ecosystem may react by moving towards compensation and so might man ingenuity by finding solutions that will reduce the CO2 accumulation in a relatively very short time span (i.e. decision to move strongly and globally towards nuclear power because of some very relevant safety developments mainly in waste disposable). I know IPCC presented several scenarios but they might not know the right ones.
I have more to argue concerning theoretical models and observed data but this is too long already.

So you have problems understanding the basics already. but somehow you think you are still in the position to doubt the conclusions od those people that are actually experts on this field?
why?
the evidence convinced most experts around the world. all top universities around the world accept it and have it as large part of their curriculum. many of the have dedicated whole departments to research it.
every major scientific institution around the world is convinced by the evidence.

they all have no problem udnerstanding "how comes spectral analysis of the IR radiation pointing towards the earth had a typical spectrum of the GHG."

you on the other hand did not even uinderstand the experiment. evidently. but you think you are in a position to doubt the experts conclusions?

why don't you first learn about it more detailed and try to come to a conclusion then?

 

[DC]

Our atmosphere used to have more oxygen...gasp! gasp!...i cant breathe! Wheez! Now its more nitrogen. (oxygen levels have substantially decrease since around the 20th century, i believe. SubSTANtially! Gasp!)Both nitrogen and oxygen are lighter than CO2. So what`s the problem? Why doesnt CO2 then get forced back to land/oceans, and further helped by the rain cycle to knock it harmlessly out of the sky? Just curious. Not a global warming expert...even though you`d think with more industrialized countries spewing gasses like an increasing number of volcanoes...you`d think SOMEthing would be changing...either warming or cooling. However, regarding the last sentence...if it ia debatable if it leads to warming or cooling, that mean it could fall in the middle somewhere, maybe, and cause no change at all.
Wouldnt you love to hear Al Gore so succinctly explain it to us?

if nothing else changes, increased levels of CO2 lead to warming. simple physics. it could trigger stuff that could lead to atleast local cooling, like shutting of the gulf stream, but that is very inlikely to happen any time soon and is very speculative.

and why would i want Al explaining it? there are so many briliant scientists that explain it a 1000 times better than Al would. Richard Alley for example or James Hansen, Rahmstorf etc etc. there are so many.

 

[Mikemcc]

We have an alert system for asteroids and other risks including earthquakes- all the article is suggesting is an alert system - who said it was science - it's dealing with consequences. Science can inform actions not make policy.
Nor is a political statement - it's an evaluation of risk and a suggested course of action.

The comparison to Spacewatch is not really valid. We are not making changes that affect the incidence of asteroid or comet strikes. This doesn't invalidate the work of Spacewatch though. Our ability to respond to high-risk events is very low.

Whilst it is logically reasonable to say that the changes due to climate change must affect the incidence and strength of storms we are a long way from trying to say that any particular storm is attributable to climate change. Sustained drought is a different kettle of fish though. These tend to be associated with areas that are strongly associate with ENSO (Southern California, and the American Mid West, and Australia)

The big exception was Hurricane Sandy. By normal measurements it shouldn't have been exceptional, by the Saffir - Simpson scale it was a cat 3 storm. But it was huge. Under the more precise IKE measurement it was second only to Irene. On top of that it hit landfall in (almost) the worst possible place, it could only have been worse by tracking directly over NYC. The sea-level rise due to AGW, plus the storm tide equated to a disasterous storm for NYC

 

[Mikemcc]

Something to reflect on when we discuss about error bands and real error bands in models.

An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations
Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock and Timothy Andrews

From my limited understanding of the satellite records is that they can explain the changes in the energy balance but that they were difficult to use to define the absolute values of the energy within the system (could see the waves but not the depth...) It's only with the deployment of the Argo bouys that we can truely see the absolute scale of the system and how it's changing.

Whilst I dislike the atom-bomb scale of energy measurement (it's overly symbolically scary) the concept of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second does give an idea of how bad the energy imbalance really is.

 

[macdoc]

I think it's a useful scale and 4 per second doesn't do it justice. I was totally shocked when we did the calculation just for the Greenland melt alone that we were carpet bombing the place to the tune of 2,000 Hiroshima's a day....ice is bloody hard to melt.


BTW 4 per second...126 million annually in thermal equivalent.
365 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 4
= 126,144,000

The biggest issue with C02 is the damn stuff is invisible....if we were belching out noxious green it would be dealt with ......

••• Mikemmc....
There is a clear pattern of higher intensity rain events even if the frequency has not increased.

The storms are getting larger and there are more of the more powerful ones and more carrying more water even if the actual typhoon/hurricane frequency is not increasing.

Sandy's major nudge from AGW was the stalled highs that steered it into New York instead of the normal path out to sea for hurricanes in that location.
I think scientists are less shy these days to say AGW is a factor even if it's not a primary cause.

In addition I think the council is saying there needs to be work done on warning systems for climate change. It's a hodge podge now and there will evolve regional impacts ( the East coast US sea level is rising faster than elsewhere.)

Netherlands has it's own set of assessments and responses to rising sea levels as does Venice ( dropping sea bed as well ).

My sense is these are not coordinated. For instance Bangladesh and salt intrusion is a clear coming impact - the ocean is expanding as well as the glacier melt. They WILL be impacted as the small islands off Australia already are.