The oceans are rising!

[doubtingmerle]

New Study: Climate Alarmism Takes One Helluva Beating | Watts Up With That?

Now there is an interesting article. A simple search shows that the conservative Internet has literally lit up on this topic in the last week. I don't see much of a mainstream response yet. I'm not an expert on this, but would be happy to throw my comments into the mix.

We know that burning coal has two effects on global temperatures. Releasing CO2 tends to increase the temperature. Dust and aerosols from the plants tends to decrease the temperature. The forcings caused by CO2 and dust are not known with precision. We know how much temperatures have been rising since industrialization, and can make good estimates of how much of that is due to industrialization. That net affect equals the difference between the CO2 warming effect and the aerosol cooling effect. The problem is that the CO2 effect is long term--once it is released it affects climate for millennia--but the aerosol effect in short term, and would decay rapidly if all coal burning stopped. So what happens if coal burning would stop tomorrow? The CO2 would still be there, but the dust effect would decrease. So paradoxically, stopping all coal burning would cause a significant increase in temperature. This is what NASA's Jim Hansen refers to as a deal with the devil, in which we rely on the dust released from coal to mitigate the CO2 damage, knowing that the temperature jump when we finally stop burning coal will be worse the longer we make this deal with the devil. And yes, eventually we will significantly reduce coal burning, if for no other reason, when we have burnt all we can efficiently mine.

That's the background. If the affect of coal dust is high, then the affect of CO2 must be high also to produce the results we see today. If the coal dust affect is low, then the affect of CO2 must be lower. None of this makes any difference to the conclusion that the current releases cause temperatures to rise as effected by the net difference of the two. The issue is what happens when coal burning decreases. Is the immediate jump in temperature high (due to high aerosol effects) or low (due to low aerosol effects).

I don't know enough to be able to evaluate this study, but if it proves to be true, then all it means is that, as we stop burning coal, there will be little immediate bump in global temperatures. That is actually good news. It means that if we decided to limit coal burning today, we would receive only a minor upward bump because of reduction in dust, but would significantly slow the long term rise of global temperatures. But it is good news only if we start decreasing coal burning. If coal burning remains, then move on, there is nothing to see here. This study would then make little difference until we actually reduced coal burning.

And yes, we could begin to slow the rise of the oceans if we limited coal burning.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Except that each year is not less ice than the previous year as stated earlier in the thread, since the low was around 2012, and it has increased since then.

Actually I said that Arctic ice varies from year to year and that it has been decreasing on the average. Not every year has less ice than the year before.

And for the record, the extent of the sea ice in the Arctic this winter was the lowest on record. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: 2015 Arctic sea ice maximum annual extent is lowest on record

 

[brewmama]

Uh, no, when one scientist argues with the detail of another scientist's work, that is an indication that real science might actually be occurring. That is the whole basis of science. If one scientist establishes a claim, then others test the conclusion to see if they can disprove it, or if the claim needs modification. If a claim withstands repeated scrutiny, it becomes generally accepted throughout the scientific community.

Now if instead all scientists were to just step in line and say "Amen!" every time a leading scientist claimed something in line with climate change, that would be "pretty slipshod". But if scientists actually test each claim and find alternate explanations where needed, that makes me feel good that somewhere something is right in the world, and that honest scientists are busy doing their job.

But that goes absolutely against what certain climate scientists actually do. They refuse to share their codes and work, so others cannot replicate what they have done, they get rid of people who disagree with them, or at least try to ruin their reputation, they refuse FOIA requests, they behave in a most boorish manner. I really don't see how you can back such people, or remain so ignorant of what they do.

 

[brewmama]

Actually I said that Arctic ice varies from year to year and that it has been decreasing on the average. Not every year has less ice than the year before.

And for the record, the extent of the sea ice in the Arctic this winter was the lowest on record. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: 2015 Arctic sea ice maximum annual extent is lowest on record

I was actually replying to this:

Arctic sea is is thinning year by year. Glaciers are melting back year by year. California is experiencing extreme drought and NASA reports it is on its way to running out of water this year. Island nations are reporting loosing land. Nations are planning how to navigate and defend an open Artic sea. The Ross Ice shelf has collapsed.
CO2 levels are going past 400 parts per million these days.
Maybe you think there are predictions not fulfilled, but from my viewpoint I read about it actually happening.

And that was in interesting article, but hardly conclusive:

"However, the sun is just beginning to rise on the Arctic Ocean and a late spurt of ice growth is still possible, though unlikely.

A record low sea ice maximum extent does not necessarily lead to a record low summertime minimum extent.

The main player in the wintertime maximum extent is the seasonal ice at the edges of the ice pack. This type of ice is thin and at the mercy of which direction the wind blows: warm winds from the south compact the ice northward and also bring heat that makes the ice melt, while cold winds from the north allow more sea ice to form and spread the ice edge southward.

Scientifically, the yearly maximum extent is not as interesting as the minimum. It is highly influenced by weather and we’re looking at the loss of thin, seasonal ice that is going to melt anyway in the summer and won’t become part of the permanent ice cover,” Meier said. “With the summertime minimum, when the extent decreases it’s because we’re losing the thick ice component, and that is a better indicator of warming temperatures."

No to mention that the Antarctic had the largest recorded maximum, against modeling predictions.

 

[brewmama]

That's odd that this study says the "conveyor belt" is not slowing down, because I remember reading just this week that there is new evidence that it is slowing down. So I looked it up again and found https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pre...-overturning-found-to-slow-down-already-today .

I personally don't know enough to understand who is right on this. I note that the Potsdam study is 5 years later than the NASA study, and they may have new technology or things might have changed since the NASA study. At any rate, this is just an example of science doing its work. Deep ocean currents are difficult to measure, and difficult to predict. One should not be surprised that there are differing conclusions, or that the status in 2015 differs with your study from 2010. There is definitely a concern that climate change could affect the currents, but nobody really knows when it will happen and the extent of the change. The fact that the Potsdam study finds concrete evidence that it is actually happening already is cause for concern.

Just curious, will you also read and quote the Potsdam study, or are you interested only in articles where there is something you can use to support your claim?

What about this study?

On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20?years of direct measurements - Rossby - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

"Abstract
In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2 s−1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20 year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period."

 

[amanuensis63]

What about this study?

On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20?years of direct measurements - Rossby - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

I addressed this very point back HERE. But Brewmama ignored it to focus on one of the other points.

Guess it was inconvenient that someone already addressed the Rosby paper.

oh well.

 

[brewmama]

I addressed this very point back HERE. But Brewmama ignored it to focus on one of the other points.

Guess it was inconvenient that someone already addressed the Rosby paper.

oh well.

How did you address the point? You didn't really say anything, except that they used a much longer time frame. But it does not negate the fact that the current isn't changing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But that goes absolutely against what certain climate scientists actually do. They refuse to share their codes and work, so others cannot replicate what they have done, they get rid of people who disagree with them, or at least try to ruin their reputation, they refuse FOIA requests, they behave in a most boorish manner. I really don't see how you can back such people, or remain so ignorant of what they do.

Can you say ad hominem?

Attacks on the character of people with whom you disagree is not considered valid argument. I think perhaps you get your litany of attack from skewed sources, but even if your character assassination is based on fact, it does not change the research. I back the research. If the research is done by fallible people, I still back the research.

 

[amanuensis63]

How did you address the point? You didn't really say anything, except that they used a much longer time frame. But it does not negate the fact that the current isn't changing.

It addressed the "critique" you made of Michael Mann. Oh, wait, no, you just insulted Mann and didn't even bother with the details of the study.

I forget...in the world of the "climate skeptic" on here just posting a link to something and larding in a few insults, that's called a critique!

 

[doubtingmerle]

certain climate scientists...refuse FOIA requests.

I don't know the details of the particular Freedom of Information Act request you refer to, so I have no comment on whether the scientists were right or wrong in withholding the requested information.

But what I do know is that you have come here and disagreed with scientific findings that have been validated multiple times. But you have given us no data to back your claim. None. So where is your data that it is a lie that humans have raised CO2 levels over 100 ppm? Where is your data that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas? Where is your data that temperatures have not risen about 0.75 deg C in the last century?

If you are going to preach about the evils of scientists not giving the data requested, then where is your data?

 

[amanuensis63]

I don't know the details of the particular Freedom of Information Act request you refer to, so I have no comment on whether the scientists were right or wrong in withholding the requested information.

Apparently some climate scientists have drug their feet on foia requests. From what I could gather that was the worst anyone could find from the CLimategate faux-horror.

The funny thing is, most of our so-called "skeptics"

A) wouldn't know what to do with data and code if they got it

B) never would have bothered to ask any other scientist ever in history for their raw data.

I suspect most scientists can go most of their careers without ever having random anonymous citizens on the intarwebs demand they show them their raw lab notebooks and the raw data. Sure it happens occasionally but not that often.

Most of the "skeptics" on here probably think that this happens all the time. I doubt that it does. It's good if it's there but indeed based on the way most "skeptics" have attacked the AGW scientists relentlessly and abused data etc, it is not surprising that some scientists would drag their feet in turning over stuff to people who already sharpened the pitchforks.

But more to the point: many of the scientists expend years in developing their data sources, and pay large sums of grant money for the data. So it kind of maintains its own value for them.

In the end scientists actually DO SHARE THEIR DATA rather freely. The NSF itself in the US is establishing the CyberInfrastructure initiative in order to ensure that data be publically available. Much of the climate data has been available for a LONG time. Free of charge!

THe vast majority of the skeptics on here have probably never even downloaded a temperature data set even though they've been available for years online.

If you are going to preach about the evils of scientists not giving the data requested, then where is your data?

I suspect you'd actually have to ask Anthony Watts. He seems to supply most of the data to "skeptics". Well, when I say data I mean "predigests it and throws in a few excessive accusations" so the skeptics don't have to bother reading actual science and can just run to their favorite forum and pump and dump more WUWT sploo.

 

[doubtingmerle]

New Study: Climate Alarmism Takes One Helluva Beating | Watts Up With That?
based on this paperhttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

UH, actually no, it is not one heck of a beating. As I said, the conservative blog world has lit up on this issue recently, but it turns out that their concerns are based on a misinterpretation of the study, to make it sound like the study minimizes the affects of CO2. But none of them seems to have contacted the author. The author reports that the findings for the aerosol affects show it within the range previously predicted, and that this finding merely increases the accuracy with which the value is known. According to the author of this study, this in no way reduces the concern about CO2. See Climate Scientist: No, My Study Is Not A "Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria" | Blog | Media Matters for America.

So once again this is nothing more than Watts Up flapdoodle.

And oh, still looking for your data to support your claim that CO2 has not risen significantly since industrialization, that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and that temperatures have not risen significantly in the last century. Got any data?

 

[doubtingmerle]

THe vast majority of the skeptics on here have probably never even downloaded a temperature data set even though they've been available for years online.

Yes, I suspect that is true. People who have no desire to comb through the available public data and who have no idea how to interpret the data that is there complain that minute details that they have no chance of understanding are not also publicly available.