Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[DC]

I do not see a AGW signal in the Stratosphere.


[qimg]http://www.theozonehole.com/images/ozone_temperature_graph.gif[/qimg]

you want to see the AGW signal in the Stratosphere?

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

here you find the signal in every stratosphere channel.

Channel TLS - C25

 

[Laidbackracer]

Here we go, an irrefutable graph of 13 years of recovery over the last 31 years. Checkmate warmers

[qimg]http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif[/qimg]

Overall there is no recovery in the short timeframe you reference. Timescales over the Holocene would be more convincing.

A negative AO/NAO causes a redistribution of north polar air, it flows south and impacts the overall temperature at the pole. The AO/NAO is solar affected (read Baldwin et al etc)

 

[uke2se]

Overall there is no recovery in the short timeframe you reference. Timescales over the Holocene would be more convincing.

A negative AO/NAO causes a redistribution of north polar air, it flows south and impacts the overall temperature at the pole. The AO/NAO is solar affected (read Baldwin et al etc)

He was making fun of deniers. Real skeptics understand that long time periods are required to establish trends. Deniers don't.

 

[DC]

Look them up yourself, will take 5 mins. I am not going to spoon feed you, the links behind the images tell the story.

this is a sceptics forum. you make a claim, you are expected to provide evidence and sources for your claims.

there is a clear trend in the stratosphere, the stratosphere is cooling like expected. wich pretty much rules out the sun as the source of the warming and fits what one would expect from GHG warming.

 

[Laidbackracer]

you want to see the AGW signal in the Stratosphere?

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

here you find the signal in every stratosphere channel.

Channel TLS - C25

The lower levels of the Stratosphere TLS is probably the better record. You can see the longer term trend. The last decade is flat with a fairly large drop from 1980 to 2000. CO2 has been a constant slope, so why has it leveled off since 2000. Answer there are natural forces at play.

The upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes, during low solar the upper atmosphere shrinks because of the lower EUV interaction which has a large impact on ozone especially in the 40-45km region. (read Haigh et al)

 

[uke2se]

The lower levels of the Stratosphere TLS is probably the better record.

Explain why.

 

[Laidbackracer]

this is a sceptics forum. you make a claim, you are expected to provide evidence and sources for your claims.

there is a clear trend in the stratosphere, the stratosphere is cooling like expected. wich pretty much rules out the sun as the source of the warming and fits what one would expect from GHG warming.

Like I said right click on the image.

The clear trend is that the Stratospheric temperature cooling has leveled off. A hot spot is also expected in the upper Troposphere, but it is nowhere to be seen?

 

[Trakar]

Do I have a paid subscription to Time magazine that allows me to read the 1970s article in full? Do I have time to independently read a dozen or half-dozen science papers? I brought the quote here to ask you people if you knew the answer.

A minimal amount of logic, yet alone 30 minutes of searching through any legitimate climate science resource would provide you with enough information to realize that Goddard's considerations were without relevance or merit. Claiming that you do not have the time to "do all that reading, and thinking and stuff," is not a valid excuse for not understanding at least the generalities about something before you declare it a "valid" position.

Furthermore, I never said it was a valid contradiction.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9745960&postcount=1903

what you said was: "Crank or not, the contradiction presented is a valid point."

Once again, what leads you to believe that Goddard's presented contradiction, is a valid point?

...As of yesterday, after reading that climate report from the UK, I understand a lot more and feel more comfortable with the "A" in AGW. I am still on the fence as regards to its reversibility and seriousness. These things take time.

To be honest with you, I, as well as almost every researcher and colleague I know began the path to our current understandings as extremely skeptical of some of the claims and the implications of those claims when we first started hearing them with regards to human influenced climate change. Of course, that was, for me, several decades ago, and the information was much harder to access, much less refined and precise, and in many cases absent. The situation has improved greatly in the intervening decades.

The National Academies of Science have a lot of good information

Videos-for the simplified overviews (science isn't static, some understandings have been refined since some of these videos were produced)

There is an "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change" Webinar on Friday the 10th

Much more, if you are interested I'd be happy to put up a more extensive link to resources, but they aren't going to do you much good if you aren't willing to take the time and commit the effort to learn the science of the mechanisms at work.

...Then what are you all doing here if you're not trying to convince each other of the science?

Most of us are here to discuss the science old and new, where those facts lead us, what are the technologies and policies that could help us to minimize the pain and economic impact, while maximizing results. Secondarily, we do enjoy helping others who have legitimate questions to find the resources they need to answer their questions. Unfortunately, there is a steady flow of pseudoscience cranks, political wankers, conspiracy theorists and trolls on steroids constantly disrupting such discussions with their agenda (plural of agendum).

 

[uke2se]

Like I said right click on the image.

Like we said, provide the links.

Right clicking the images show that they are taken from various deniers, such as creationist Roy Spencer, and apparently hotlinked. That is a violation of the MA.

 

[DC]

Like I said right click on the image.

The clear trend is that the Stratospheric temperature cooling has leveled off. A hot spot is also expected in the upper Troposphere, but it is nowhere to be seen?

oh dear, the old hot spot myth.... this aint fooling anyone here.

your own source, that i aslo use, does show the stratospheric trend very well. take a look at the channels C10- C25. especially C25 , its the complete stratosphere. shows a clear cooling trend.

but even if there was no cooling there, we still know the planet is warming. just take a look at OHC. pr at the imbalance of incoming vs outgoing radiation.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Explain why.

I just did, the upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes. Any Co2 increase is contained in the upper Troposphere, if there was a blanket effect it would be seen most at the boundary between the Troposphere and Stratosphere. There are too many ozone fluctuations above this area which influence temperature.

It is very clear that the Troposphere and Stratosphere temps have plateaued for around 17 years. Why has CO2 not continued the trends experienced between 1980 and 1998, until this is answered CO2 cannot be seen as a main driver.

 

[uke2se]

I just did, the upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes. Any Co2 increase is contained in the upper Troposphere, if there was a blanket effect it would be seen most at the boundary between the Troposphere and Stratosphere. There are too many ozone fluctuations above this area which influence temperature.

It is very clear that the Troposphere and Stratosphere temps have plateaued for around 17 years. Why has CO2 not continued the trends experienced between 1980 and 1998, until this is answered CO2 cannot be seen as a main driver.

It doesn't seem clear at all. Why do you say that it's clear when it isn't?

I think it's clear that the stratosphere is cooling, just as the climate models say.

What is your explanation for the fact that more than 95% of climate scientists agree on the facts that the Earth is heating up and that human activity is primarily responsible? How do you explain that the few dissenters are invariably cranks, have financial ties with heavy industry and/or have a history of science denial (smoking causing cancer)?

 

[DC]

The lower levels of the Stratosphere TLS is probably the better record. You can see the longer term trend. The last decade is flat with a fairly large drop from 1980 to 2000. CO2 has been a constant slope, so why has it leveled off since 2000. Answer there are natural forces at play.

The upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes, during low solar the upper atmosphere shrinks because of the lower EUV interaction which has a large impact on ozone especially in the 40-45km region. (read Haigh et al)

the TLS is only a smal part of the stratosphere. but also there, we can nicely see the cooling trend in agreement with the GHG warming. we also see the 2 warming events from the volcanic eruptions. and a look at the whole stratosphere shows clearly it has not levels off like you claim.

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

 

[macdoc]

Moving on...

Blame slow jet stream for US deep freeze

17:52 07 January 2014 by Catherine Brahic and Aviva Hope Rutkin
For similar stories, visit the Picture of the day and US national issues Topic Guides
(Image: Scott Olson/Getty)

Don't blame the polar vortex. The real reason for the cold snap paralysing North America this week is a slow jet stream.

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-stream-for-us-deep-freeze.html#.Us5S2HlIn3w

snip

It has been 20 years since the entire mainland US was affected like this, says forecaster Brian Korty of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Weather Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.

As temperatures fell, some blamed a mysterious polar vortex, but this is a system of winds in the stratosphere that spins around the Arctic and Antarctic during their respective winters, many kilometres above the weather. There is nothing unusual about the polar vortex, according to the UK Met Office. Instead, cold Arctic air has reached North America thanks to a weakened jet stream – the continent's atmospheric conveyor belt.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-stream-for-us-deep-freeze.html#.Us5V8nlIn3w

 

[Laidbackracer]

Like we said, provide the links.

Right clicking the images show that they are taken from various deniers, such as creationist Roy Spencer, and apparently hotlinked. That is a violation of the MA.

right clicking will reveal these links

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

If you deny the UAH or the RSS record I think we are on shakey ground. Even using the adjusted (manipulated) GISS and HADCRUT land based records we still see no warming for 17 years. Who is the real denier?

 

[DC]

I just did, the upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes. Any Co2 increase is contained in the upper Troposphere, if there was a blanket effect it would be seen most at the boundary between the Troposphere and Stratosphere. There are too many ozone fluctuations above this area which influence temperature.

It is very clear that the Troposphere and Stratosphere temps have plateaued for around 17 years. Why has CO2 not continued the trends experienced between 1980 and 1998, until this is answered CO2 cannot be seen as a main driver.

what utter nonsense.
when we expect Tropospheric warmign and stratospheric cooling from GHG warming, then you will see that least likely on the boundries of tropo- and stratosphere.

channel TTS shows a pretty flat trend. because it is between the warming and cooling spheres......

do you think the scientists researching the climate system are dumb?

 

[Trakar]

the TLS is only a smal part of the stratosphere. but also there, we can nicely see the cooling trend in agreement with the GHG warming. we also see the 2 warming events from the volcanic eruptions. and a look at the whole stratosphere shows clearly it has not levels off like you claim.

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

No wonder the other graph looked like it was missing some legend material!

Good eye!

 

[DC]

right clicking will reveal these links

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

If you deny the UAH or the RSS record I think we are on shakey ground. Even using the adjusted (manipulated) GISS and HADCRUT land based records we still see no warming for 17 years. Who is the real denier?

your second link shows warming also short term trend, 2010-now in all tropospheric channels and cooling in all stratospheric channels........

your own link debunks your claim

 

[Laidbackracer]

Moving on...



more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-stream-for-us-deep-freeze.html#.Us5S2HlIn3w

snip


http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-stream-for-us-deep-freeze.html#.Us5V8nlIn3w

Your references are weak and show no understanding of the process, much like yourself.

The polar vortex is intrinsically linked to the AO/NAO and the jet stream. The jet stream bends around low and high pressure systems, these pressure systems are what make up the vortex and AO/NAO.

 

[uke2se]

right clicking will reveal these links

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Roy Spencer isn't UAH or RSS.

If you deny the UAH or the RSS record I think we are on shakey ground.

I don't. I asked you to provide links to where you got the data, which you claim is taken directly from UAH and RSS. As you have nicely shown, it isn't. It's lifted from Roy Spencer, crank and creationist. It's probable that he got it from UAH and RSS, but that's beside the point.

The point is, provide citations when asked.

Even using the adjusted (manipulated)

Adjusted data isn't nefarious. It's necessary to adjust data. This is something else denialists don't understand. For them, adjusted data means faked data, because that's what they are used to.

GISS and HADCRUT land based records we still see no warming for 17 years. Who is the real denier?

We see constant warming for well over a century, with no recent drop. 8 or so of the latest 10 years have been the warmest on record.

So, clearly, you are the denier.