Climate Change

[garo]

I don't think GW is the biggest problem ever. The article I quoted takes quite a conservative view of the impact of GW. I find this focus on CO2 and GW to be too narrow. There are other equally worthy environmental concerns such as deforestation, industrial pollution etc. And I also think cap and trade and carbon offsetting is a joke. At the same time, I don't think GW is a manufactured global consensus. It has been verified through several independent methodologies.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Um ... the ocean is part of the planet.

What, exactly, do you think the Earth consists of, besides land surface and air?

Do you think that every ocean voyage is an off-planet excursion?

No, of course not. You missed completely what I was trying to say: that the warming of the subsurface oceans isn't having any effect on the surface (both land and ocean). The surface is the part that we, humans, interact with--not the subsurface ocean. If the subsurface ocean is warming, how's that a problem if it doesn't affect us adversely?

Yes, we do - the subsurface oceans have been directly measured to be warming.

What do you think happens when heat transfers from ocean surface waters to deeper waters because of vertical circulation?

Why would you prefer such "easy and direct" methods to more-comprehensive but hard methods, such as taking temperatures of deep ocean water, that help give a more accurate picture of the overall situation by filling in the "blanks" between what's "easy" and "direct"? Is convenience and ease more important than obtaining an accurate overall picture?

(Are you including glaciers in "icecaps"?)

Rising temperatures cause more precipitation. More precipitation over Antarctica causes that icecap to increase in thickness (as long as its temperature stays below freezing, that is), but that's a known and expected consequence of global warming.

You say "others have grown in proportion", implying that the decrease in some areas is balanced by the increase in other areas. Can you cite data showing that that equality is true? Or did you mean something else?

You seem to have a simplistic view of the way heat transfers through air/surface/subsurface ocean.

Have you ever taken a physics course or studied physics independently?

The polar ice caps have contact only with the surface ocean waters, not the deep waters. Heat transfer isn't magic; it requires some sort of contact. Infrared rays don't travel far underwater, so it's only the ocean water that's in contact with polar ice that melts it. So, yes, deep ocean water has no effect on ice caps -- and that's perfectly consistent with global warming. There's no contradiction there. There's no flying in the face of the findings.

Do you think that the only tangible effects are those someone can could directly see and touch without use of instruments? Deep ocean warming is perfectly tangible, through use of thermometers lowered into those levels. Haven't you ever consulted an outdoor thermometer that was visible through a window so that you could determine the outside temperature without actually exposing your own skin to it?

See above. "Easy and direct" was perhaps a poor choice of words. What I was intending to express was that icecaps/glaciers/etc. are a great indicator of whether warming of any sizeable impact is occurring on the surface (which, as I explained above, is the part that really matters--the subsurface stuff only makes a difference if it affects the surface in some way, which in this case it doesn't).

... but only if you're determined to ignore data that contradicts your theory. Ahem.

Normal geological activity leaves the temperature relatively constant, because the hot vents are pretty continuous and earthquakes don't noticeably affect ocean temperature. Can you cite any evidence that geological activity has somehow heated up the ocean recently?

When magma flows, it causes plate tectonics and volcanoes, which are well-observed. There's been no particular increase in either activity.

There's still quite a lot we don't know about what goes on far below what we can observe directly. And think about it: if the subsurface ocean water has warmed up because of increased solar radiation being absorbed due to increased CO₂, it has to pass through the surface waters before it can even get to the subsurface waters. Yet we don't see those surface waters heating up, just the subsurface. Sounds to me like some as-yet-unknown geologic process would be a pretty good guess for how the subsurface is heating up disproportionately compared to the rest of the planet.

... which means nothing if their quotes are taken out of context or distorted ...

Can you partially verify it to any extent at all?

No, but neither can you. Neither of us have actually talked to the original scientists who the quotes came from.

... which is why a scientific journal article would be much more convincing than any news report!

A political interest in the pro-AGW position? Please explain what would that be.

Please tell me you're not that naive. There's mega bucks to be made in the areas of carbon offsets, cap-and-trade, etc. Those who would stand to profit by that have plenty of incentive to support the pro-AGW position.

Also, an even more directly political interest in the pro-AGW position is that in the name of "saving the planet" from AGW, any number of restrictions and limitations can be enacted on the people to curb their emittance of CO₂--government control of thermostats, heavy taxation of gasoline, etc. Power-hungry politicians have plenty of political interest in the pro-AGW position, because it has such a high potential to kick off numerous slippery slopes into totalitarian control.

Wow, you've really got paranoia.

Know the difference between paranoia and reality?

Evidence.

Show us the evidence that your vague fears of the media and mainstream journals are justified.

... and you've failed entirely to show us that your confidence has any scientific importance!

You can go off and believe in your convenient conspiracy theories, which comfort you by not requiring you to change your beliefs, if you're really satisfied to do that. But it's self-deception on your part unless you have actual evidence. Do you prefer self-deception to reality?

BTW, have you ever studied, or taken a class in, geology, meteorology, or any other earth science?

That's just crybaby conspiracy theory.

Anyone who presented actual, real, verifiable evidence to disprove AGW could easily find a way to publicize them. There are plenty of conservative media outlets who'd be friendly to anti-AGW data (as shown by their frequent criticism of AGW without any scientific evidence!).

However, as I indicated above, the anti-AGWers are mostly outside the community of scientists with relevant knowledge, so the real reason you don't see scientific refutations of AGW is that there just aren't any nowadays -- the evidence of AGW is too strong for anyone who understands that evidence. Over and over and over again, the anti-AGW arguments I see have some elementary scientific flaw (such as ignoring some data, or falsely accusing mainstream science of overlooking/ignoring some data).

Oops, that plays into your conspiracy theory, doesn't it? Conspiracy theories are very handy in that respect -- contrary evidence is simply taken as confirmation of the conspiracy. Well -- you can choose between (a) your comfortable conspiratorial simplistic view of the world, or (b) reality.

If you look at the various articles that have been posted by Ernst over the last couple of days showing actual proof of such a conspiracy, suddenly it doesn't sound so far-out any more. This isn't just any old unfounded conspiracy theory; this one has evidence to back it up.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

More weak apologia: If 'hide' really means what the realclimate writer says it does, then it is extremely implausible that any scientist would use such wording, even in a private e-mail: One would say e.g. "correct for".

Humbug. "Correct for" is more formal than many other folks would use in casual communication. When I was in college, we'd use slang terms along the lines of "hide" for "correct", just for the amusement of deliberately employing a term that could be misconstrued by an outsider.

When my programming colleagues attended an improvisational comedy club, we gave the performers a list of our slang terms for incorporation into their improvisations. One was "dump" (meaning "core dump"). Guess what the improvisers, who'd never seen a core dump, thought "dump" referred to.

I'd have no trouble using "hide" as slang for "exclude a set of data known to be iffy, even by those who published it originally, for purposes of analyzing trends", without any unethical intention whatsoever.

But fine, let`s assume this was just really, really unfortunate wording on the part of the e-mail writer ...

Yes.

(note that "stolen" would seem to imply "genuine", BTW)

... and you know the "stolen" e-mail is genuine (or even actually "stolen" instead of being at least partly fraudulent) -- how? I wasn't aware that the organization from which they were purportedly stolen has even confirmed that they were stolen -- how do you know so much more than they have announced?

I stand by my assertion that such evidence is EXACTLY of the kind you ask for when you say "Show us the evidence that your vague fears of the media and mainstream journals are justified" - but with the caveat that my "fears" are becoming much less "vague" all the time.

Bull.

C'mon cheesehead, I know you're smarter than to believe that a handful of purloined emails with possibly-ambiguous phrasing would suffice to settle the argument

]Of course it's not, and I've never suggested that it is. This is just a straw man from you.

... so why not tackle the science?

I HAVE BEEN!

Do you need new glasses?

If the AGW evidence and the "Mann hockey stick" are so scientifically solid, it should be easy for you to show us where folks like McKitrick (and perhaps more pertinently Edward Wegman, Hans von Storch, et al) have their facts "totally wrong"

That's a rhetorical trick designed to make it appear that I have the responsibility and expertise to do so, Ernst. But I'm going to keep calling you on your rhetoric.

No, there is no reason why I should necessarily find it easy to show you where professional climatologists have made some mistake.

I have written here about things I know. I will not be drawn into assuming some inappropriate responsibility that you want to rhetorically lay on me for the purpose of making it seem that I am qualified to comment on any and all climatological data. I will continue to write about the things I know, but I will not allow you to foist inappropriate qualifications upon me for the purpose of trying to make it seem that some mistake I make in reaching beyond my qualifications is a reflection of some weakness in the AGW theory.

So cheesehead, when you cite scientific work supporting whatever argument you are making from here on out, I would hope that the article(s) are from journals which require full disclosure of their authors` data and methods.

... as will yours and Max's so as to show that you meet your own criteria -- right?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

No, of course not. You missed completely what I was trying to say: that the warming of the subsurface oceans isn't having any effect on the surface (both land and ocean). The surface is the part that we, humans, interact with--not the subsurface ocean. If the subsurface ocean is warming, how's that a problem if it doesn't affect us adversely?

Where in the world do you think the heat came from to warm the subsurface ocean water?

It came from vertical circulation in the ocean! That is, some of the heat in the surface water was transferred to the deeper waters.

And when that happened, the ocean surface would cool if it were not gaining as much heat from the air as it was giving up to the depths.

(This is all perfectly consistent with the AGW hypothesis. AGW never, ever means that all portions of the globe are warming equally. Indeed, the climate models predict cooling in some areas while other (most) areas warm.)

Just where did _you_ imagine that the heat for subsurface warming came from, when surface water circulates downward?

What I was intending to express was that icecaps/glaciers/etc. are a great indicator of whether warming of any sizeable impact is occurring on the surface

... and it's well established that glaciers all over the world have been retreating for decades. Very few are still advancing, and they don't balance the retreats.

There's your indicator.

the subsurface stuff only makes a difference if it affects the surface in some way,

... which it does.

For example, when ocean water circulates vertically, warm surface water becomes subsurface water and is replaced by cold formerly-subsurface water.

That's a simple example. Do you have trouble understand that example? Do you need some more detailed explanation?

which in this case it doesn't

No, you haven't shown that it doesn't. All you've shown is that you don't understand some ways in which the subsurface does affect the surface.

There's still quite a lot we don't know about what goes on far below what we can observe directly. And think about it: if the subsurface ocean water has warmed up because of increased solar radiation being absorbed due to increased CO₂, it has to pass through the surface waters before it can even get to the subsurface waters.

... and as I've been trying to tell you, that way the heat is exchanged is through vertical circulation. The heat absorbed by surface water is transported further down through vertical circulation of the water.

Do you remember ever being taught about the three methods by which heat travels: radiation, conduction and convection?

Vertical water circulation is convection.

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

No, but neither can you. Neither of us have actually talked to the original scientists who the quotes came from.

But I don't have to verify it!

You were the one claiming that the article's statements are valid! You were the one who bore the burden of verification there, not me.

Please tell me you're not that naive.

I was asking for the purpose of clarification, not education -- finding out just which political interests you were referring to. I apologize for having worded my question so ambiguously.

[cheesehead]

When I wrote the following, I did not intend for journal or magazine to be the only possibilities:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

It would have been much more convincing if you had presented an article written by established climatologists and published in a peer-reviewed journal or at least in a science-oriented magazine with a history of scientific accuracy (such as Scientific American)

... or an article on or from a website that is scientifically accurate.

[cheesehead]

Here's an example of global warming's effects:

"Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123...climateiceberg

SYDNEY (AFP) – More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

. . .

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 30 square kilometres (11.6 square miles) in size when it left Antarctica," Young told AFP.

"It's done a long circuit around Antarctica and now the bigger parts of it are breaking up and producing smaller ones."

. . .

Young earlier told AFP he expected to see more icebergs in the area if the Earth's temperature continues to increase.

"If the current trends in global warming were to continue I would anticipate seeing more icebergs and the large ice shelves breaking up," he said.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Where in the world do you think the heat came from to warm the subsurface ocean water?

It came from vertical circulation in the ocean! That is, some of the heat in the surface water was transferred to the deeper waters.

And when that happened, the ocean surface would cool if it were not gaining as much heat from the air as it was giving up to the depths.

(This is all perfectly consistent with the AGW hypothesis. AGW never, ever means that all portions of the globe are warming equally. Indeed, the climate models predict cooling in some areas while other (most) areas warm.)

Just where did _you_ imagine that the heat for subsurface warming came from, when surface water circulates downward?

It would seem that a more plausible explanation is that it comes from geological activity on the ocean floor. Otherwise, if that heat supposedly passes through the surface layers before going down, how come we don't see that same heat warming up land surface areas? (After all, if there's additional heat being absorbed from the sun, then it would strike land as well as sea.)

... and it's well established that glaciers all over the world have been retreating for decades. Very few are still advancing, and they don't balance the retreats.

There's your indicator.

But you're ignoring other sources of ice, besides just glaciers. It just happens that a whole lot of glaciers are in the parts of the earth that are warming, and not as much in the parts that are cooling. What about polar icecaps? Last I heard, the Antarctic icecap is getting bigger in its center region.

... which it does.

For example, when ocean water circulates vertically, warm surface water becomes subsurface water and is replaced by cold formerly-subsurface water.

That's a simple example. Do you have trouble understand that example? Do you need some more detailed explanation?

No, you haven't shown that it doesn't. All you've shown is that you don't understand some ways in which the subsurface does affect the surface.

... and as I've been trying to tell you, that way the heat is exchanged is through vertical circulation. The heat absorbed by surface water is transported further down through vertical circulation of the water.

Do you remember ever being taught about the three methods by which heat travels: radiation, conduction and convection?

Vertical water circulation is convection.

This assumes that the subsurface warming is actually being caused by AGW. See above.

But I don't have to verify it!

You were the one claiming that the article's statements are valid! You were the one who bore the burden of verification there, not me.

Okay, yes, you don't have the burden of verification for the Spiegel article. But what about the skepticalscience.com articles taht you posted? How do you know those are any more reliable than the Spiegel article?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Humbug. "Correct for" is more formal than many other folks would use in casual communication. When I was in college, we'd use slang terms along the lines of "hide" for "correct", just for the amusement of deliberately employing a term that could be misconstrued by an outsider.

But the e-mail in question was never intended to be read by an outsider.
When I was in college I used many slang terms, some of which are not printable here ... but not in communications with colleagues about research and publication. I simply find it difficult to believe that a serious scientist would use "hide" in reference to completely justified/valid/acceptable modifications to observed data, precisely because it is generally construed to mean something quite different than e.g. "correction for [some known effect]." Are you saying you would deliberately use deliberately misleading-or-misconstruable language in research-and-publication-related e-mails with colleagues? If so, care to provide any examples? (Or at least what kind research this occurred in the context of.)

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Here's an example of global warming's effects:

"Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official"

So? There is no serious dispute about *whether* the climate has warming over the past century, rather the issue is the *causes*. You know this as well as anyone, so what's the point of posting "look, shit is melting" links that provide precisely zero illumination as to the core issue of the debate, nmely: "To what degree (if any) is the warming the result of human activity"?

I saw lots of icebergs around the southern tip of Greenland this past summer while flying back from Europe to the U.S. - but it seemed to me that there were less than the last time I flew that route a few years ago. It must be global cooling! Should I send out a bunch of ambiguously-worded e-mails to colleagues and then contact the IPCC, do ya think?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I saw lots of icebergs around the southern tip of Greenland this past summer while flying back from Europe to the U.S. - but it seemed to me that there were less than the last time I flew that route a few years ago. It must be global cooling! Should I send out a bunch of ambiguously-worded e-mails to colleagues and then contact the IPCC, do ya think?

Excellent example! As the observation would also support a "look, shit is melting so fast, there is hardly any shit left that can melt" hypothesis, you can make money off of gullible GWAs and GCAs at the same time.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I saw lots of icebergs around the southern tip of Greenland this past summer while flying back from Europe to the U.S. - but it seemed to me that there were less than the last time I flew that route a few years ago. It must be global cooling!

Whoops, after correcting for "concealing" a typo, I meant "more than last time". Sorry about that, folks! What's a little sign error between friends, eh?

As I recall, one of the less more-numerous bergs I saw this past summer had a nifty turquoise-colored little lake of meltwater on top ... very cool sight to behold, pardon the pun.

[davieddy]

Some essential school physics (circa 1967 Summer of Love)

A candela is related to the light emitted by a perfect black body
at the freezing point of platinum.

0th law of thermodynamics: "If A is hotter than B and B is hotter than C
then A is hotter than C".
It follows that emissivity = absorbtivity

If you think this is gibberish then think again.

Einstein

PS Flatlander has a theory that I try to divert
every thread towards music.
Enjoy Martha and the Candelas:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhcflDSUMvc