Global warming discussion III

[CapelDodger]

Ever heard the term "regression to the mean?" Do you know why it generally applies to natural systems and under what exceptional conditions it generally doesn't apply?

I know this one!

It's when the system regresses to the trend. Yes?

 

[macdoc]

One thing not often covered off is the record warm nights. More than anything that is the tangible evidence of GHG trapping as the evenings are when most LW escapes...and it's not.

Lack of dew has important implications for biome and agriculture.

This is Portland....greenest city in America and not due to plants. The warm nights help set the records.

http://www.brucesussman.com/portland-weather/record-hot-summer-portland-vancouver-eugene/

AGW is both global and local....locally it's weather, impacted by climate change in various ways.

 

[CapelDodger]

One thing not often covered off is the record warm nights. More than anything that is the tangible evidence of GHG trapping as the evenings are when most LW escapes...and it's not.

I'd have thought most LW escapes during the day, when the surface is warmest. That's why the enhanced greenhouse effect is less noticeable during the day.

 

[macdoc]

Note the desert - no clouds, no water vapor - immense re-radiation, very rapid drop in temperature.
Indeed most will emit during the day, but the lack of normal radiative cooling at night is very indicative of additional trapping.

One of the features of these stalled highs in continental winter is clear sky for extended periods resulting in record lows. In that case, no water vapor - just like a desert.

I'm not sure that re-radiation levels are higher in the warm day...interesting question....as in the warm day there would be more water vapour.
I would think LW IR would reradiate a constant rate based on the GHG content above it....mostly water vapor would be the variable since CO2 is fairly distributed.

I think there is some interesting work in the Arctic about IR emission and CO2 and methane levels there being counter what was expected seasonally.

 

[Bruce Voigt]

To reason with something one must first know the reason
Think Hot as being nuclear particles orbiting in chaotic orbit directions and Cold being chaotic nuclear particles orbiting harmonically in same orbit directions.
(cause a reaction) blow on your hand

 

[Reality Check]

Cohen et al used 1988-2010 for their 2012 paper, and 1990-2014 for the latest. They are looking at the cold areas, not the entire NH. They make no claims about global averages and the boreal winter.

That would still be wrong, r-j:
24th September 2014: r-j cannot understand the contents of the Cohen et al 2012 papers

The first paper says there is no linear trend for NH winter land surface temperatures:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling
...
Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends, Cohen et al (2012) (PDF)
contains an analysis of the consequences of using different time periods to get trends and what this means for different seasons. For land winters (DJF), data ending in 2010, the trend goes from positive to negative when you move through 1979, 1987, 1993, 1997 and 2005 as starting dates.

The first paper did use 1988-2010 as their date range - one wonders why you have not, r-j!
The first paper did look at the NH poleward of 20N - one wonders why you have not, r-j!


And getting "wronger", r-j !
This review article looks at the entire Northern Hemisphere from the equator to the poles. The point is that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the NH and that this warming has separated from natural variability in the last ~2 decades.
Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather (PDF) Cohen et al 2014:
Figure 1 | Polar amplification of temperature trends, 1979–2014.
Figure 2 | Winter temperature trends since 1960 and over the most recent period from 1990.
Any one who possesses a ruler can see that Figure 2b which goes from 1960 to 2013 has a slightly warming trend for 0-60 N, 1990 to 2013, and a definitely warming trend for 60-90 N, 1990 to 2013.
The only figure that covers 1990-2013 is Figure 2c where they show the entire Northern Hemisphere.

 

[Reality Check]

This arose in regards to winter trends.

r-j: The NOAA Climate at a Glance tool is an appropriate tool to use because it allows the choice of winter (December, January and February) trends for the Northern Hemisphere. That is what you used it for .

It is the wrong tool to use for parts of the Northern Hemisphere for the simple reason that it does not allow parts of the NH to be selected.

 

[macdoc]

Solar dimming caused by air pollution increases river-flows

A study published in Nature Geoscience shows that air pollution has had a significant impact on the amount of water flowing through many rivers in the northern hemisphere.The paper shows how such pollution, known as aerosols, can have an impact on the natural environment and highlights the importance of considering these factors in assessments of future climate change.
The research resulted from a collaboration between scientists at the Met Office, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, University of Reading, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique in France, and the University of Exeter.
Nicola Gedney, from the Met Office and lead author of the paper, said: "We detect the impact of solar dimming on enhanced river flows over regions in the heavily industrialised northern extra-tropics. We estimate that, in the most polluted central Europe river basin, this effect led to an increase in river flow of up to 25% when the aerosol levels were at their peak, around 1980. With water shortages likely to be one of the biggest impacts of climate change in the future, these findings are important in making projections for the future."

more
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-solar-dimming-air-pollution-river-flows.html

 

[macdoc]

oh joy.....

The threat of global sea level rise
Sep 30, 2014

Changes taking place in the oceans around Antarctica could result in an abrupt rise in global sea level, according to a Victoria University of Wellington led study.
Dr Nick Golledge, a senior research fellow at Victoria's Antarctic Research Centre, alongside a team of scientists from Victoria University, GNS Science and the University of New South Wales in Sydney, is trying to understand the way that the Antarctic ice sheet responds to ocean warming.
Together they used sophisticated ice sheet and climate models to recreate the Antarctic ice sheet as it came out of the last ice age, when both the ocean and the atmosphere warmed quickly.
The results, published by the online journal Nature Communications, suggest that oceanic changes might trigger a significant shift in the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, which Dr Golledge says could lead to an increase in global sea level.

more

http://phys.org/news/2014-09-threat-global-sea.html

 

[Trakar]

I know this one!

It's when the system regresses to the trend. Yes?

When natural systems are disturbed by forcing factors the natural systems respond by treating the cumulative trend of the underlying system and the (positive or negative) forcing influence as a new system mean. The natural systems still fluctuate and vary, there is simply a new "normal" about which they vary.

 

[greybeard]

It seems that as well as acidification and rising temperatures, increasing CO2 levels in sea water itself is causing possibly irreversible problems. This is from a study published in Nature Climate Change.

Spiny damselfish were kept in water with different CO2 levels for several months. One level was consistent with the world taking rapid action to cut carbon emissions, while the other was a “business as usual” scenario, in which the current trend in rising emissions would equate to a 3C warming of the oceans by the end of the century.

The offspring of the damselfish were then also kept in these differing conditions, with researchers finding that juveniles of fish from the high CO2 water were no better than their parents in adapting to the conditions.

This suggests that fish will take at least several generations to cope with the changed environment, with no guarantee they will ever do so, meaning several species could be at risk of collapsing due to climate change.

So that's a triple whammy then.

 

[r-j]

Oh my, the revisionism begins.

half of the posters knew what he meant with global warming theory, and explained AGW to him, .

Of course it should be easy to quote and link to these posts. Cite please.

And of course, no source, no evidence, not a single link to where this claimed outpouring of explanations of the theory happened. Why?

(it will never happen, because he made that up)

Yes, indeed, like so many things, just made up, and never any evidence to show.

What did happen of course, is easy to illustrate.

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

Not only was such nonsense repeated, nobody, not a single person in the thread ever responded to the nonsense. Not a single person commented on the wild claims that there is no theory.

Of course I posted a dozen valid sources showing clearly that there is a theory, but it didn't seem to matter at all.

You make no effort to discuss the science, you simply make erroneous statements backed by no reasoning or justification, then don't even try to defend them.

Of course I not only defended every last thing, I posted sources for it all.

Those insisting they are right, they never posted a single source supporting their claim that there is no theory..

Priceless.

half of the posters knew what he meant with global warming theory, and explained AGW to him, .

So, where is the post where you explained what the theory is, behind AGW?

 

[macdoc]

Your posts on this got moved to AAH......yet you persist in the face of the sticky specifically addressing what you are doing.

Mod Warning It has been discussed and decided that multiple Anthropogenic Global Warming threads are acceptable. Understand, however, that with the history this topic has gathered any MA violations will be dealth with harshly. For those interested in an honest debate, the onus falls upon you to make sure that you do not feed into those who would derail the thread into a general discussion of AGW. To that end, the recommendation is thus.
When a member posts something that gets to the basics that has been discussed before, point that member to the place it was discussed. Do this once. If they continue, do not respond to them but rather report them. This cannot work if you leave it to us mods alone. You HAVE to help by not feeding into the derail. Understand?
Posted By:kmortis

You've continued.

 

[macdoc]

Greybeard this is a very thorough and well presented coverage of ocean acidification from NOAA

Ocean Acidification by The Ocean Portal Team; Reviewed by Jennifer Bennett (NOAA)

Ocean acidification is sometimes called “climate change’s equally evil twin,” and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

much more
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

 

[bit_pattern]

This is the sad state of affairs that the political narrative around AGW has reached in Australia:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...efore-he-cited-wikipedia-20141006-10qyg0.html

Environment Minister Greg Hunt was given a thorough briefing about the effects of climate change on Australia's weather patterns three weeks before he told a BBC radio interview he had sourced information on bushfires and global warming from Wikipedia.

Confidential Bureau of Meteorology briefings, obtained by Fairfax Media through freedom-of-information laws, show senior officials warned Mr Hunt that the extreme heat that baked Australia in 2013 was "unprecedented" before Mr Hunt downplayed any link between fires and climate change in an interview with the BBC's Newshour in October last year.

The initial briefings show officials advised Mr Hunt that recent extreme heat was consistent with "a pattern of global warming", while subsequent advice in November said climate change had increased the odds of "severe weather conducive to severe bushfires occurring".

The documents shatter claims made by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who last year dismissed any link between global warming and bushfires, and show the extent to which the government has been advised of climate change's influence on recent extreme weather in Australia.

Mr Hunt was questioned on Newshour on October 23 last year and appeared to use Wikipedia to defend the Prime Minister's assertion that United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres was "talking out of her hat" when she said bushfires were linked to climate change.

Mr Hunt said he had "looked up what Wikipedia says" and had learnt that "bushfires in Australia are frequently occurring events during the hotter months of the year … That's the Australian experience".

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard this is a very thorough and well presented coverage of ocean acidification from NOAA


much more
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

Thanks for that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

From the BBC (my emphasis) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29474646

Sea levels across the planet are accurately assessed by satellites, which bounce radio waves off the ocean surface. And sea level changes are closely related to ocean temperature, because the water expands as it warms up.

By combining these calculations, the scientists found that the rate of upper-ocean warming between 1970 and 2004 had been seriously underestimated. That inaccuracy is specific to the Southern Hemisphere, but is big enough, the scientists suggest, that global upper-ocean warming rates are also "biased low" - to the tune of 24% to 55%.

The researchers say the underestimation probably arose simply from the scarcity of measurements in the south.

"It's likely that due to the poor observational coverage, we just haven't been able to say definitively what the long-term rate of Southern Hemisphere ocean warming has been," said lead author Dr Paul Durack.

"It's a really pressing problem - we're trying as hard as we can, as scientists, to provide the best information from the limited observations we have."

(I feel that rates emphasis, given that we may soon hear how these scientists are actually falsifying their results in order to make AGW seem greater than it is - that being what scientists do, doncha know.)

Another paper reports that there has been no detected warming in the deep ocean during 2005-2013, but that there are major data gaps. If all the extra OHC is in the upper ocean layer it must have reduced its efficiency as a heatsink - whether a little or a lot I can't say, but certainly some.

 

[DC]

interesting NASA study shows the deep oceans (below 2000m) have not warmed measurably since 2005.

in another study they found that the oceans absorbed far more heat than previously estimated.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.

 

[DC]

interesting NASA study shows the deep oceans (below 2000m) have not warmed measurably since 2005.

in another study they found that the oceans absorbed far more heat than previously estimated.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

and of course the deniers already think this debunks the Trenberth paper

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
ehich surely happens if you jump to conclusions based on titles and not reading the study or atleast the press releases

 

[macdoc]

Another paper reports that there has been no detected warming in the deep ocean during 2005-2013,

Yet that period has featured several La Nina's....which one would think marked an increase in vertical mixing.