Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View Arctic Ocean losing Heat Content.
5 years ago  ::  Oct 25, 2009 - 8:00PM #41
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Oct 25, 2009 -- 12:34PM, Bodean wrote:


Oct 24, 2009 -- 12:02PM, eadler wrote:


The fact that the warming is occuring predominantly at night is evidence that GHG's play a strong role. Energy is exiting the surface of the Arctic at night into space. No energy is coming from the sun at that time. Ocean currents carry energy to the Arctic all year round. Warming predominantly at night is a fingerprint of GHG's.


The author's thesis, stated on page 3,  is that other factors in addtion to GHG's are acting to warm the Arctic including ocean currents.  There is no doubt that ocean currents from the tropics will influence the Arctic.  The tropics supply the Arctic with a lot of the energy that is absorbed from the sun by the tropical oceans. If the oceans are getting warmer, for whatever reason, the Arctic will get more energy from them. If the tropical oceans are warming due to added retention of heat due to GHG's, it can also be said that this is the cause of warming in the Arctic as well, even though it is indirect.


 




Yeah .. I know you are saying that the GHG fingerprint would be increased warming at night, and that during the winter in the arctic, the entire period of DJF is considered night.


Only problem is, as I just mentioned, there is no difference in magnitude of warming between figures 2c and 2e, which are the graphs illustrating warming for winter and summer in the arctic.


The differences between 1940 and today for winter and summer are the same .. about .5C.


Further, and more to the point of the theory, GHGs are said to increase the amplification of warming due to natural forces.  The assummed figure is 2-3, which is proven wrong in this paper, as that figure only applies to the warm up period of 1970-2008, the period upon which all global warming theory is based.  As noted on page three of the paper, the amplification ratio for the warm up for 1910-40 was higher (5.4 ratio) than that of the current warming (2.0)  Interestingly, the "amplification" was most severe for cooling (9).  [page 3 of the article]


How can you make the claim that there is more warming in the arctic at night (winter) than there is in the light (summer), when the graphs clearly show there is no difference??  And if the theory is that CO2 is the culprit, how can it be that the amplification of warming was greater during the period of less CO2 than during the period of more??


You mentioned his "theory", but his data do not support his theory, and his conclusions are:



"Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate and to determine whether natural climate variability will make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic global warming."


I take issue with him is assuming anthropogenic warming even exists.  His data destroy the theory, yet, he contineus to make that assumption.




You need to learn how to read graphs a little better. The summer and winter changes are not equal.


The ratio of the winter to summer warming, based on the red trend line from 1970 to 2008, is actually 2 to 1.2 C, based on the close examination of the lines in graph c and graph e.


Graph    1970 anomaly   2008 anomaly  Change


c            -0.5                      1.5                   2


e           -0.4                      +0.8                 1.2


 


You are free to take issue with the idea that AGW exists, but 97% of climate researchers believe that it does.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 25, 2009 - 10:58PM #42
Bodean
Posts: 9,614

Oct 25, 2009 -- 8:00PM, eadler wrote:


You need to learn how to read graphs a little better. The summer and winter changes are not equal.


The ratio of the winter to summer warming, based on the red trend line from 1970 to 2008, is actually 2 to 1.2 C, based on the close examination of the lines in graph c and graph e.


Graph    1970 anomaly   2008 anomaly  Change


c            -0.5                      1.5                   2


e           -0.4                      +0.8                 1.2


 


You are free to take issue with the idea that AGW exists, but 97% of climate researchers believe that it does.




No, I think my reading of the graph is just fine, and it is supported by the data in Table 1.


For the period of what is defined as "winter", DJF.


1910-1940 warmed at a rate of 0.83 K/decade (during a period pre-spike in CO2)


1970-2008 warmed at a rate of 0.38 K/decade (period of high CO2)


These numbers do not support a position that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has the ability to overwhelm the natural system, as the rate of warming decreased for the period of high CO2.  There is an approximate 50% decrease in sensitivity for the latter warming period in K/decade when compared to the former warming period, when the theory of additional CO2 would suggests that the rate of warming in K/decade should have gone up.


Granted, we do not see as robust of a "decrease" during the summer months when comparing the former warming period to the latter warming period, only about a 25% decrease, but none the less, the numbers are going in the wrong direction.


How can this be eadler??

Further, while you are correct when comparing the "magnitude" of warming between winter and summer, the exact same relationship of magnitude exists for the warming period of 1910-1940. 


The actual numbers calculated by the ki/decade given in Table 1 show [multiplying the rate by 3.8 decade]


1910-1940 Winter - 3.15 K, Summer 1.63 K. Ratio 1.93


1970-2008 Winter - 2.13 K, Summer 1.14 L. Ratio 1.86


THUS .. if the alleged change is the addition of CO2, you would expect to see a measurable difference between the two warming periods, either in rate of warming, or magnitude of warming.  We do not see either.  The rates have already been discussed above.  The "peaks" of the smoothed curves are barely more than .2 K apart, and one has to account for the starting temp for the two respective periods, with the starting temp for the former being considerably lower than that the starting point at 1970.  Objectively, as the data state, the previous warming period with no CO2 warmed a full degree more in the same time span (3.15) as did the latter warming period (2.13 K)


While your point about warming rate being greater in winter than summer is well noted, I see no way for you to justify that the warming period between 1970-2008 [a period of high CO2] differs in any way from the former warming period of 1910-1940 [a period of lower CO2].  In fact, based on rate of warming in K/decade, the latter warmup is weaker than the former warmup. ...... how can this be if the theory of increasing CO2 having an impact on arctic suface is true?


As for the 97% of Climate Scientists remark, I'll give no comment.  According to Trident, 4 our to 5 dentists recommend Trident Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum .. this was a deception, as most dentists do not recommend that chew gum at all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2009 - 3:01PM #43
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Oct 25, 2009 -- 10:58PM, Bodean wrote:


Oct 25, 2009 -- 8:00PM, eadler wrote:


You need to learn how to read graphs a little better. The summer and winter changes are not equal.


The ratio of the winter to summer warming, based on the red trend line from 1970 to 2008, is actually 2 to 1.2 C, based on the close examination of the lines in graph c and graph e.


Graph    1970 anomaly   2008 anomaly  Change


c            -0.5                      1.5                   2


e           -0.4                      +0.8                 1.2


 


You are free to take issue with the idea that AGW exists, but 97% of climate researchers believe that it does.




No, I think my reading of the graph is just fine, and it is supported by the data in Table 1.


For the period of what is defined as "winter", DJF.


1910-1940 warmed at a rate of 0.83 K/decade (during a period pre-spike in CO2)


1970-2008 warmed at a rate of 0.38 K/decade (period of high CO2)


These numbers do not support a position that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has the ability to overwhelm the natural system, as the rate of warming decreased for the period of high CO2.  There is an approximate 50% decrease in sensitivity for the latter warming period in K/decade when compared to the former warming period, when the theory of additional CO2 would suggests that the rate of warming in K/decade should have gone up.


Granted, we do not see as robust of a "decrease" during the summer months when comparing the former warming period to the latter warming period, only about a 25% decrease, but none the less, the numbers are going in the wrong direction.


How can this be eadler??

Further, while you are correct when comparing the "magnitude" of warming between winter and summer, the exact same relationship of magnitude exists for the warming period of 1910-1940. 


The actual numbers calculated by the ki/decade given in Table 1 show [multiplying the rate by 3.8 decade]


1910-1940 Winter - 3.15 K, Summer 1.63 K. Ratio 1.93


1970-2008 Winter - 2.13 K, Summer 1.14 L. Ratio 1.86


THUS .. if the alleged change is the addition of CO2, you would expect to see a measurable difference between the two warming periods, either in rate of warming, or magnitude of warming.  We do not see either.  The rates have already been discussed above.  The "peaks" of the smoothed curves are barely more than .2 K apart, and one has to account for the starting temp for the two respective periods, with the starting temp for the former being considerably lower than that the starting point at 1970.  Objectively, as the data state, the previous warming period with no CO2 warmed a full degree more in the same time span (3.15) as did the latter warming period (2.13 K)


While your point about warming rate being greater in winter than summer is well noted, I see no way for you to justify that the warming period between 1970-2008 [a period of high CO2] differs in any way from the former warming period of 1910-1940 [a period of lower CO2].  In fact, based on rate of warming in K/decade, the latter warmup is weaker than the former warmup. ...... how can this be if the theory of increasing CO2 having an impact on arctic suface is true?


As for the 97% of Climate Scientists remark, I'll give no comment.  According to Trident, 4 our to 5 dentists recommend Trident Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum .. this was a deception, as most dentists do not recommend that chew gum at all.




The 97% figure is based on 2 reputable polls. One of them was designed with the participation of one of the Pielke's. Neither Pielke is an AGW supporter.


I agree with what the authors say,


"Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical
to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation
and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate
and to determine whether natural climate variability will
make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic
global warming.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2009 - 3:30PM #44
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

We can only control the human element if we so choose, the rest is up to the nature of the planet itself.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2009 - 6:28PM #45
Bodean
Posts: 9,614

Oct 26, 2009 -- 3:01PM, eadler wrote:


Oct 25, 2009 -- 10:58PM, Bodean wrote:


Oct 25, 2009 -- 8:00PM, eadler wrote:


You need to learn how to read graphs a little better. The summer and winter changes are not equal.


The ratio of the winter to summer warming, based on the red trend line from 1970 to 2008, is actually 2 to 1.2 C, based on the close examination of the lines in graph c and graph e.


Graph    1970 anomaly   2008 anomaly  Change


c            -0.5                      1.5                   2


e           -0.4                      +0.8                 1.2


 


You are free to take issue with the idea that AGW exists, but 97% of climate researchers believe that it does.




No, I think my reading of the graph is just fine, and it is supported by the data in Table 1.


For the period of what is defined as "winter", DJF.


1910-1940 warmed at a rate of 0.83 K/decade (during a period pre-spike in CO2)


1970-2008 warmed at a rate of 0.38 K/decade (period of high CO2)


These numbers do not support a position that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has the ability to overwhelm the natural system, as the rate of warming decreased for the period of high CO2.  There is an approximate 50% decrease in sensitivity for the latter warming period in K/decade when compared to the former warming period, when the theory of additional CO2 would suggests that the rate of warming in K/decade should have gone up.


Granted, we do not see as robust of a "decrease" during the summer months when comparing the former warming period to the latter warming period, only about a 25% decrease, but none the less, the numbers are going in the wrong direction.


How can this be eadler??

Further, while you are correct when comparing the "magnitude" of warming between winter and summer, the exact same relationship of magnitude exists for the warming period of 1910-1940. 


The actual numbers calculated by the ki/decade given in Table 1 show [multiplying the rate by 3.8 decade]


1910-1940 Winter - 3.15 K, Summer 1.63 K. Ratio 1.93


1970-2008 Winter - 2.13 K, Summer 1.14 L. Ratio 1.86


THUS .. if the alleged change is the addition of CO2, you would expect to see a measurable difference between the two warming periods, either in rate of warming, or magnitude of warming.  We do not see either.  The rates have already been discussed above.  The "peaks" of the smoothed curves are barely more than .2 K apart, and one has to account for the starting temp for the two respective periods, with the starting temp for the former being considerably lower than that the starting point at 1970.  Objectively, as the data state, the previous warming period with no CO2 warmed a full degree more in the same time span (3.15) as did the latter warming period (2.13 K)


While your point about warming rate being greater in winter than summer is well noted, I see no way for you to justify that the warming period between 1970-2008 [a period of high CO2] differs in any way from the former warming period of 1910-1940 [a period of lower CO2].  In fact, based on rate of warming in K/decade, the latter warmup is weaker than the former warmup. ...... how can this be if the theory of increasing CO2 having an impact on arctic suface is true?


As for the 97% of Climate Scientists remark, I'll give no comment.  According to Trident, 4 our to 5 dentists recommend Trident Sugarless Gum for their patients who chew gum .. this was a deception, as most dentists do not recommend that chew gum at all.




The 97% figure is based on 2 reputable polls. One of them was designed with the participation of one of the Pielke's. Neither Pielke is an AGW supporter.


I agree with what the authors say,


"Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical
to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation
and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate
and to determine whether natural climate variability will
make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic
global warming.




eadler .. I don't care to discuss any arbitrary consensus. ... I want your comments on the DATA we are discussing.


How can CO2 be identified as a player in the warming of the arctic, when the rate of warming and relative magnitude of warming was greater for the previous [CO2 poor] warmup period when compared to the more recent, CO2 rich, warmup period.


Running to the "consensus" argument is a copout to address the real question!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2009 - 7:43PM #46
eadler
Posts: 4,449

Bodean: "How can CO2 be identified as a player in the warming of the arctic, when the rate of warming and relative magnitude of warming was greater for the previous [CO2 poor] warmup period when compared to the more recent, CO2 rich, warmup period."



 


Since many different mechanisms can cause warming of the Arctic, a superposition of mechanisms which cause warming can account for this.


We know solar irradience increased in that time period, and the AMO transferred heat from the tropics into the Arctic, so we had a large degree of warming in the Arctic. The following graph shows that solar activity increased in the first half of the 20th century.


s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg


As the authors of the paper on Arctic climate say, model simulations could tell us what is going on more clearly.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook