The Problems with CAGW

[A-L-E-K]

Sokolow slays

[chubbs]

However, there is plentiful research that postulates a stronger correlation between certain natural forcings and temperature change.

 

http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.html

 

 

See also H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss, German study explaining the combined effects of solar / PDO / AMO forcings.

 

 

This is not a global temperature image, but it's interesting to note nonetheless, the strong correlation b/t coupled AMO/PDO/Solar and US temperature variations over the past century.

 

 

 

Well sure there is a correlation between PDO and solar cycles and temperature thats why there have been periods of relatively rapid and slow temperature rise since AGW started. However that correlation doesn't explain the rise in global temperatures over the past 100+ years. Solar and PDO conditions today are similar to those 100 years ago.

[blizzard1024]

Why don't you try acting like a scientist instead of appealing to logical fallacies?

 

Instead of straw polls and tribalism why don't you try telling us where the increase in temperature is coming from if not from increase GHG?  

 

Just because there has been some small warming does not prove GHGs have anything to do with it. They could have some small part but the climate system is far more complex than just CO2 levels regulating climate.

[blizzard1024]

1.  The fact that the climate has changed before certainly does not mean anything about whether or not climate change is real or not.  Fire occurred before man, however we are all aware that man can create and cause fire.  Using the "its changed before" line is nonsense and a scientist with a minimal amount of critical thinking would understand that.

 

2.  This shows a lack of familiarity with some of the more important current literature.  CO2 only lags in one hemisphere and mainly due to the differences in place having to do with the bi polar see saw.  I've discussed this before, but your approach is incredibly lazy and does not look to do anything but repeat the same talking points over and over.  

 

3.  I find it incredibly annoying how certain people here defend having a red tag as if everything they say is gospel.  Yet, those people don't recognize really bad mistakes that a redtag might make such as when they say the total green house effect is equal to 333 w/m^2.  This is the same guy who in his point 2 calls out some climatologists because they have geography degrees.  Well, I've never met a climatologist who applied all forcing by the sun merely to the green house effect.

 

Furthermore, if you think about a 1% change in TOTAL forcing and expect it to give you a 1% change in temperature then you're going to see a 2.7 degrees Celsius increase.  Pretty sure thats right in the ball park for IPCC figures so why are we dismissing a 1% change in forcing again?  Such a gigantic lack of critical thinking here based on nothing more than 1% being a small number to the OP.

 

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest.  So yes, it was quiet in here and its because the post from OP was so incredibly bad.  I know personally it just gets old explaining basic things to someone who thinks they already know better based on what they've accomplished in the past and refuses to learn anything new.  

 

 

1. Fire and man? What? What does that have anything to do with CO2 and climate? The climate is always changing naturally and any reasonable unbiased scientist would try to get a handle on natural variations objectively. Instead it is assumed CO2 drives the climate. The mere fact that CO2 so closely follows temperature variations in ice core data actually is a big RED flag for me. Always has been. The climate system and atmosphere is sooooo complex that to assume that a single small trace gas has a linear relationship to the Earth's temperature is laughable given all the other mechanisms. The easy answer is the ocean temperatures...cooler oceans during glacial periods suck CO2 in and outgass it during interglacials. Can't believe this passes as real science. Its pretty basic stuff here. 

 

2. Shakun 2012 shows that warming occurs first in the NH from orbital parameters which then melt the ice which freshens the North Atlantic ocean and shuts down the AMOC which in turn builds up heat in the southern oceans. This in turn outgasses more CO2 which then becomes well mixed and supposely warms the planet. This assumes CO2 drives the global climate which as stated above seemed far fetched.  What about the southern oceans warming up and eventually transporting warmer water into the NH once the thermohaline circulation intensifies? That could also explain the warm up. That was not considered. Heat is heat and once it reaches the ocean surface and travels in the ocean conveyor system it could easily communicate this warming to the rest of the planet. This paper also discusses the sea-saw effect of the AMOC and the southern oceans because of thermohaline circulation. Hey? Guess what? Its cold in the southern oceans with record amounts of sea ice down there NOW as a lot of heat has been transported north into the north atlantic and Arctic sea ice is down. Hmmm. This could be natural and likely is as the paleo records show this.

 

3. If you would even look at the latest energy flow diagram from Trenberth (see below) you will see the total greenhouse effect accounts for 333 w/m2. So yes a little over 1% push equaling a +3.7 w/m2 from doubling CO2 somehow is enough to spiral the climate out of control?  I have my doubts. Some warming, yes...maybe 1C or so over 100+ years or more. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure and piss away our prosperity over. 

 

You won't go over the rest because there isn't anything that can disprove this stuff. You can use your mainstream talking points I guess.

[sokolow]

Oh yeah and I'd also add the claims in point 9 imply a person could propose at least rough answers and constraints to point 1 for the last ~1500 years or more, and those constraints should come to mind pretty readily.

On my end I'd suggest to point 1 in some places we have functional mix max regional thermometers for the entire holocene.

[Msalgado]

The climate is always changing naturally and any reasonable unbiased scientist would try to get a handle on natural variations objectively. Instead it is assumed CO2 drives the climate. 

 

This assumes CO2 drives the global climate which as stated above seemed far fetched.  

 

 

 

And then Blizzard posts:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-1184-0-69692700-1406358540.gif

 

 

Hilarious.

[blizzard1024]

1.  The fact that the climate has changed before certainly does not mean anything about whether or not climate change is real or not.  Fire occurred before man, however we are all aware that man can create and cause fire.  Using the "its changed before" line is nonsense and a scientist with a minimal amount of critical thinking would understand that.

 

2.  This shows a lack of familiarity with some of the more important current literature.  CO2 only lags in one hemisphere and mainly due to the differences in place having to do with the bi polar see saw.  I've discussed this before, but your approach is incredibly lazy and does not look to do anything but repeat the same talking points over and over.  

 

3.  I find it incredibly annoying how certain people here defend having a red tag as if everything they say is gospel.  Yet, those people don't recognize really bad mistakes that a redtag might make such as when they say the total green house effect is equal to 333 w/m^2.  This is the same guy who in his point 2 calls out some climatologists because they have geography degrees.  Well, I've never met a climatologist who applied all forcing by the sun merely to the green house effect.

 

Furthermore, if you think about a 1% change in TOTAL forcing and expect it to give you a 1% change in temperature then you're going to see a 2.7 degrees Celsius increase.  Pretty sure thats right in the ball park for IPCC figures so why are we dismissing a 1% change in forcing again?  Such a gigantic lack of critical thinking here based on nothing more than 1% being a small number to the OP.

 

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest.  So yes, it was quiet in here and its because the post from OP was so incredibly bad.  I know personally it just gets old explaining basic things to someone who thinks they already know better based on what they've accomplished in the past and refuses to learn anything new.  

 

So in 3. you state that the "who applied all forcing by the sun merely to the green house effect.".... What? The sun's energy is about 1366 w/m2 give or take but you have to divide by 4 due to geometry of the Earth which equals 341 w/m2, but only 70% reaches the Earth because of the albedo which takes it down to 239.5 w/m2.   So where do you assume I take the total forcing of the sun and equate that 333 w/m2 that comes from the energy flow diagram which is a peer reviewed document and was done by Trenberth.

 

When energy changes is it non linear as you assume it is linear. And where do you get a 1% change in energy equals a 1% change in temperature which equals 2.7C?  This is hilarious that you actually think this is how the energy and temperature relate.  You are changing the greenhouse effect by 1% for doubling CO2 which is postulated to lead to a 3.7 w/m2 TOA forcing. That is a little over 1% of the total greenhouse effect. But by differentiating the S-F law and solving for DT assuming DF = 3.7 w/m2 you get 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. Now this is BASIC stuff. Really basic. So a small poke of 1.2C will spiral the climate out of control. I again am skeptical that this will be a significant problem for many reasons including how long it takes for us to double CO2 and also the TCR which could be a long time.

 

Why is the post incredibly bad? It raises valid common sense points... The "gigantic lack of critical thinking" 

rests solely with you bro....

[Msalgado]

You are correct that my calculation of temperature change was really poor and incorrect.  

 

The greenhouse effect is not even close to 333 w/m^2.  What you're looking at is all downward IR from greenhouse gases.  This is a number before the net calculation.  Your comparison of the change in forcing due to CO2 to the gross downward IR estimate is foolish because the gross doesn't matter.  What matters is the change in the net warming produced by that - in other words the greenhouse effect - which is MUCH smaller than 333 w/m^2.  

To give you a simple analogy, a business that has revenue of 100 million a year but only brings in a profit of 2 million a year isn't going to say that a 1 million dollar increase in operating costs is 1% of their profit because of their large revenue.

 

But what really is telling about your posting is how often you contradict yourself in your posts.  You sit there and talk about scientists assuming and not proving anything, then you post a graphic where they show their calculations.  You use their data to make claims that it doesn't support and dismiss it as assumptions when you find it convenient.  In your eyes and arguments what they say is invalid unless you need it to make a point.

[blizzard1024]

You are correct. I have read up some more and Schmitt et al 2010 calculates the NET greenhouse effect to be

155 W/m2 not the 333 W/m2 which is just the downwelling component. In any event, it still is only a 2.4% increase

and as I stated equals about 1.2C assuming no feedbacks. That is where many of us disagree. Its the feedbacks.

The common ground is the 1.2C without feedbacks for doubled CO2. Thanks.

[chubbs]

You are correct. I have read up some more and Schmitt et al 2010 calculates the NET greenhouse effect to be

155 W/m2 not the 333 W/m2 which is just the downwelling component. In any event, it still is only a 2.4% increase

and as I stated equals about 1.2C assuming no feedbacks. That is where many of us disagree. Its the feedbacks.

The common ground is the 1.2C without feedbacks for doubled CO2. Thanks.

As described in the link below water vapor is the most important feedback roughly doubling the impact of CO2 alone. This feedback is hard to argue with - otherwise there would be significant drying. If we can extend the agreement  to CO2+water vapor feedback we are over 2C and the remaining issues are less important. 

 

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf

[dabize]

http://www.su.se/english/research/leading-research-areas/science/swerus-c3-first-observations-of-methane-release-from-arctic-ocean-hydrates-1.198540

 

This stuff may become more important too

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://www.su.se/english/research/leading-research-areas/science/swerus-c3-first-observations-of-methane-release-from-arctic-ocean-hydrates-1.198540

 

This stuff may become more important too

 

 

 

Mapping the bottom of the deep ocean

SWERUS-C3 scientists could determine the depth from which methane plumes were bubbling up with the help of precise sonar instruments commonly used to map the bottom of the deep ocean and detect gas seeps in the water column. ”We mapped out an area of several kilometers where bubbles were filling the water column at depths of 200 to 500 m,” writes Örjan Gustafsson. Additional observations include the discovery of over 100 new methane seep sites in the shallower waters of the Laptev shelf (at 60-70m depth), a likely consequence of the thawing subsea permafrost.

 

[blizzard1024]

As described in the link below water vapor is the most important feedback roughly doubling the impact of CO2 alone. This feedback is hard to argue with - otherwise there would be significant drying. If we can extend the agreement  to CO2+water vapor feedback we are over 2C and the remaining issues are less important. 

 

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf

 

I have read both Dessler and Soden's peer reviewed work and the problem with both of these papers is that their datasets are seeing the impacts of tropical variations in ENSO. There datasets begin with El Nino conditions and end with La Nina-ish conditions. ENSO leads to more tropical convection and warming in the upper troposphere vs La Nina. There is warming and increasing moisture because of the enhanced convection. You can't use this to prove a positive water vapor feedback. I already went through this stuff. It is uncertain that it is a positive feedback where it matters most, in the tropical upper troposphere. Soden's paper about Pinatubo starts with an El Nino and ends with a weak La Nina and again shows decreasing upper level moisture. Its related to ENSO. Anyway, Christy and Spencer's work and Lindzen and Choi's work on this I think are much more insightful.

[chubbs]

I have read both Dessler and Soden's peer reviewed work and the problem with both of these papers is that their datasets are seeing the impacts of tropical variations in ENSO. There datasets begin with El Nino conditions and end with La Nina-ish conditions. ENSO leads to more tropical convection and warming in the upper troposphere vs La Nina. There is warming and increasing moisture because of the enhanced convection. You can't use this to prove a positive water vapor feedback. I already went through this stuff. It is uncertain that it is a positive feedback where it matters most, in the tropical upper troposphere. Soden's paper about Pinatubo starts with an El Nino and ends with a weak La Nina and again shows decreasing upper level moisture. Its related to ENSO. Anyway, Christy and Spencer's work and Lindzen and Choi's work on this I think are much more insightful.

The papers linking water vapor and temperature cover a range of time periods and enso conditions. Soden just published a paper using satellite data from 1979  to 2005 which continues to support a strong upper troposphere water vapor feedback. Note that the enso contamination that you are concerned with is in fact is a validation of the feedback. Warmer conditions with enhanced convection moisten the upper atmosphere. This is the opposite of Lindzen's contention.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.abstract

[blizzard1024]

The papers linking water vapor and temperature cover a range of time periods and enso conditions. Soden just published a paper using satellite data from 1979  to 2005 which continues to support a strong upper troposphere water vapor feedback. Note that the enso contamination that you are concerned with is in fact is a validation of the feedback. Warmer conditions with enhanced convection moisten the upper atmosphere. This is the opposite of Lindzen's contention.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.abstract

There is a big issue with this. When you have enhanced convection you warm and moisten the upper troposphere.But you do get enhanced drying in the descending limbs of this enhanced convection.  When you don't have enhanced tropical convection, the upper troposphere dries. The convection is the REASON for this not the simple fact that it is getting warmer up there in the upper troposphere. So unless we see enhanced tropical convection, we won't see this effect. BUT if we do see enhanced tropical convection, guess what? It rains more which is a sink of the primary greenhouse gas...H20 vapor. The fact that computer models are on the climate scale are terrible with convection is a big red flag in all this. 

[chubbs]

There is a big issue with this. When you have enhanced convection you warm and moisten the upper troposphere.But you do get enhanced drying in the descending limbs of this enhanced convection.  When you don't have enhanced tropical convection, the upper troposphere dries. The convection is the REASON for this not the simple fact that it is getting warmer up there in the upper troposphere. So unless we see enhanced tropical convection, we won't see this effect. BUT if we do see enhanced tropical convection, guess what? It rains more which is a sink of the primary greenhouse gas...H20 vapor. The fact that computer models are on the climate scale are terrible with convection is a big red flag in all this. 

 

Sure I understand all that. You can't determine the net effect in the tropics by a priori reasoning. There is growing body of work using satellite data that supports a positive feedback.  

[skierinvermont]

I know this is going to over like a lead balloon but here goes....

 

 

1) The climate is always changing. 100 years or so of data is a snap shot in a long period of changing climate. How do we know that the climate was stable before CO2 was increasing??? It never was before so why was it in the late 1800s stable???

 

2) CO2 itself is a minor GHG. This is little credible evidence that it dominates the climate system. In ice cores, the lag effect of CO2 vs temperature should have put this whole thing to rest but of course there is a hokey explanation that makes NO physical sense. There were many times that global temperatures were falling and CO2 was going up and vice versa during the glacial to interglacial cycles. It was not a driver of the climate then so what makes it a driver now? 

 

3) If you double CO2, you get about 3.7 w/m2 extra forcing. Since the entire greenhouse effect is about  333 watts/m2  this is just over a 1% change. So we are saying that the Earth's atmosphere is essentially unstable enough that a 1% change in either direction is enough to spiral the climate out of control? If this were really true some other minor event in the past would have wiped life out completely. It took huge extraterrestrial impacts to do so back then. Now it is a small push? This is the common sense stuff...

 

4) The greenhouse effect is primarily water vapor and clouds. So by increasing CO2 or any external factor that warms or cools, the hydro cycle amplifies the change. Yet, we know that all atmospheric models on the planetary scale do not handle clouds and precipitation well. Precipitation is a SINK of the primary greenhouse gas. An increase/decrease in cloud cover alone could easily cause changes in planetary albedo too which swamps any small effect of CO2. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).  shows variations in cloud cover that can explain the changing global temperatures based on MSU satellite data since the early 1980s.

 

5) Paltridge et al shows declining water vapor at high altitudes which shows a negative water vapor feedback. Lindzen's work and Dr Spencer's work also shows this too. Some seminal papers on this topic from Dessler and also Soden both show a positive H20 feedback but if you read these papers their results are related to the SOI and changes in the tropical convection. Hardly evidence on a planetary scale. In fairness Paltridge's work is suspect too and others are not bullet proof either. There is a lot of uncertainty on this very important part of this whole subject.

 

6) The so-called tropical "hot spot" seen in the climate models is not observed.

 

7) The ocean currents alone can easily explain the temperature variations in the last hundred years with uncertainties growing too large back before the satellite era.

 

8) Arctic sea ice has declined but Antarctic sea has increased dramatically. Global sea ice now is above normal. This is related to ocean currents and is cyclical. We happen to be observing the consequence of a warm AMO which is now dropping.

 

9) The Little ice age ended in the late 1800s. The 20th century showed much higher levels of solar activity which naturally leads to the conclusion that we are recovering from the LIA. Solar activity is down now, but lag effects could make any drop in temperature delayed.

 

10) the oceans have enormous heat capacity which can easily soak up any small forcing in either direction damping it out or even delaying it from becoming sensible heat for centuries. This is a big part of TCR which could delay or damp changes for a long time...and it might only be 1-2C at best!

 

 

I know there are more so if there are at least one or two others on this forum with some objectivity please add them.

 

In summary, a small modest warming from CO2  (1C or so) will be swamped by natural fluctuations in the long run. That's my scientific opinion and frankly many METs do agree with this. Not all, but many don't see CAGW coming.

 

 

Thanks for listening.

 

This post contains numerous logical fallacies and false information. I will try to point them out one by one.

 

1. Nobody ever said that the climate was perfectly stable in the late 1800s. However, in the last 2000 years it is very unlikely that there was a 100+ year sustained warming event as we have just experienced (and we remain in a very large positive energy imbalance of ~.6W/m2). The earth has experienced roughly 2.3W/m2 of RF since 1750. It's likely the earth was in many  small positive and negative energy imbalances (+/-.1 or .2W/m2) during the 1700s and 1800s. This would explain why the temperature went up and down numerous times. But it is unlikely the earth was in a sustained large energy imbalances (>.5W/m2). Otherwise, there would have been a sustained period of rapid warming or cooling. There were likely brief 3-5 year periods of large negative imbalances following the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa.

 

But the lack of a sustained period of surface warming or cooling shows the earth was never in a period of sustained imbalance. The lack of significant sustained sea level change also demonstrates this. Imbalances during the 1700s and 1800s were likely small and brief except following the eruptions of large volcanoes when they were large and very brief. Decadal imbalances were likely on the order of +/- .1 or .2W/m2. Even if the decadal imbalances were very large (.5W/m2) it would still be much smaller than the very large net RF experienced since 1750 of ~2.3W/m2. Even IF the earth was in a large energy imbalance (which it wasn't) it is irrelevant because eventually even a very large energy imbalance would have been neutralized by reltively modest (.1 or .2C) surface temperature change. The only way large temperature change (.9C) has been able to occur is by a continued increasing radiative forcing (~2.3W/m2) largely from CO2 (1.7W/m2). Any imbalance during the 1700s or 1800s would have been an order of magnitude or more smaller than the total net RF experienced since then. 

 

2. a) CO2 is not a 'minor GHG.' If your removed all water vapor and clouds and other GHGs, CO2 would still absorb 26% of what is currently absorbed by the atmosphere. Water vapor, clouds and other GHGs without CO2 would absorb 91% of what is currently absorbed (a reduction of 9%). The sum of the two numbers 91%+26% is greater than 100% because of the spectrum overlap. Either way you calculate it, CO2 is responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. And this doesn't include feedbacks. Removing CO2 removes 9% of the greenhouse effect, but this ignores the fact that by removing CO2, water vapor would also decrease due to temperature decrease. These figures were originally calculated in 1978 by Ramanathan and Coakley and can be calculated using any radiative transfer code. Radiative transfer code is the foundation by which the radiative effect of all gases is calculated. 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

 

 

b. The fact that CO2 has lagged temperature changes from interglacial to interglacial for the last 2 million years is a well-established fact in climate science. CO2 did not initiate interglacials or glaciations. Orbital parameters did. CO2 acted as a positive feedback as warming caused CO2 to be released from the oceans and amplify orbital warming. This is not a 'hokey' explanation. It is a very simple logical explanation. Since CO2 on its own has a warming effect of 1.2C per doubling (which even blizzard says he acknowledges) that alone would make it a significant positive feedback, even without other positive feedbacks amplifying the effect of CO2. It is impossible to explain the large temperature variations from glacial to interglacial without the positive feedback CO2 provided. 

 

Furthermore, there are not periods where CO2 goes up or down significantly and temperature goes the other way over the last 2 million years. This is a lie. 

 

3. As others have already pointed out, the greenhouse effect is not 333W/m2. This is factually incorrect. Either way, your argument is not sound. You simply state that a 1% (actually it would be more than this). change in the greenhouse effect cannot produce a large change in temperature. Why not? You've given no reasoning other than your own personal incredulity. The earth's climate shows repeatedly that small changes in RF produce large changes in temperature. 

 

4. The decline in cloud cover in ISCCP was found to be an artifact of changes in satellite viewing geometry. Measurements of changes in global cloud cover from various satellite products are generally inconsistent with each other. Measurements of changes in cloud cover from surface products exhibit little consistent global change. A large change in global cloud cover is physically implausible. 

 

 

5. Paltridge is a reanalysis that is not considered suitable for climate studies. Studies that are designed for climate purposes include Mears 2010, Shi and Bates 2011, Chung 2010, Chung and Soden 2010, Willet et al 2008, Dai 2006. These studies use data from satellites, radiosondes, and/or GPS receivers and find increasing long-term water vapor, as well as short-term variations in water vapor consistent with Clausius-Clapeyron (7% increase per 1C temperature rise). 

 

It is considered 'very likely' in the AR5 that tropospheric water vapor is increasing an a manner generally consistent with Clausius-Clapeyron (7%/1C). 

 

6. This statement is partially false. The tropospheric hot spot is found to exist by studies based on the wind-shear which relates directly to horizontal temperature gradients (Allen and Sherwood) and on the rising SST threshold for convective instability (Johnson and Zie). Studies based on radiosonde data which contain large temperature biases that are difficult to correct for show some warming, but not quite as much as modeled. However, this data is considered highly uncertain given the difficulty in correcting for the very large biases. The lack of conclusive data on the tropospheric hot spot makes any conclusion premature. 

 

7. The oceans cannot be warming the atmosphere and warming themselves at the same time. The oceans have gained an incomprehensible amount of heat over the last 100 years (enough to raise sea levels by 8"). 

 

8. Arctic sea ice has declined far more than Antarctic sea ice has increased over the last 35 years. In addition, there is good evidence that Antarctic sea ice decreased dramatically in the previous 40 years.

 

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/shem140.jpg

 

The reason for the slight increase in antarctic extent could be a number of factors including freshening of the southern ocean from land ice melt and increased precipitation, and strengthening of the southern polar vortex and wind flow which generates more ice. 

 

In either case, the modest increase in southern sea ice over the last 35 years has no bearing on whether the earth is warming and why. I mean honestly, how does one make the logical jump from antarctic sea ice is increasing!!! to AGW is a lie!!! ??? This seems to be a classic example of deniers throwing as much mud as they can and hoping some of it sticks. 

 

9. Again, the logical leap here is completely unsupported. 'The late 1800s was the LIA. Therefore the .9C of warming since then is a recovery from the LIA'. The gaping logical hole here needs no rebuttal. However, for those inclined to make the logical leap I will say:

 

a. Current temperatures are likely higher than any time in the last 2000 years. If this was a 'recovery' it is very unlikely we would have warmed so much.

 

b. The energy imbalance remains positive and very large, which guarantees warming will continue for some time to come and that we further surpass temperatures for the last 2000 years.

 

c. The large positive energy imbalance also means that the return to LIA-levels of solar activity does not mean a return to LIA-level temperatures. There is no cooling coming. The earth's oceans continue to gain heat at an incomprehensible rate, meaning that surface warming is guaranteed to continue. 

 

d. Even ignoring all of the above, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes 1.2C per doubling without feedbacks. This has been understood for over 100 years. There is strong evidence that feedbacks are moderately to strongly positive. This means that CO2 explains the majority of warming over the last 100 years, and that the earth will continue to warm.

 

10. There are limits to the oceans' ability to delay surface warming. Without surface warming, the earth does not re-radiate the extra energy it absorbs from the growing greenhouse effect. The energy imbalance grows large and the oceans warm faster, eventually manifesting as surface warming. 

 

The rate at which the oceans mix is debated in climate science and will have some effect on the rate at which surface warming occurs.

[blizzard1024]

This post contains numerous logical fallacies and false information. I will try to point them out one by one.

 

1. Nobody ever said that the climate was perfectly stable in the late 1800s. However, in the last 2000 years it is very unlikely that there was a 100+ year sustained warming event as we have just experienced (and we remain in a very large positive energy imbalance of ~.6W/m2). The earth has experienced roughly 2.3W/m2 of RF since 1750. It's likely the earth was in many  small positive and negative energy imbalances (+/-.1 or .2W/m2) during the 1700s and 1800s. This would explain why the temperature went up and down numerous times. But it is unlikely the earth was in a sustained large energy imbalances (>.5W/m2). Otherwise, there would have been a sustained period of rapid warming or cooling. There were likely brief 3-5 year periods of large negative imbalances following the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa.

 

But the lack of a sustained period of surface warming or cooling shows the earth was never in a period of sustained imbalance. The lack of significant sustained sea level change also demonstrates this. Imbalances during the 1700s and 1800s were likely small and brief except following the eruptions of large volcanoes when they were large and very brief. Decadal imbalances were likely on the order of +/- .1 or .2W/m2. Even if the decadal imbalances were very large (.5W/m2) it would still be much smaller than the very large net RF experienced since 1750 of ~2.3W/m2. Even IF the earth was in a large energy imbalance (which it wasn't) it is irrelevant because eventually even a very large energy imbalance would have been neutralized by reltively modest (.1 or .2C) surface temperature change. The only way large temperature change (.9C) has been able to occur is by a continued increasing radiative forcing (~2.3W/m2) largely from CO2 (1.7W/m2). Any imbalance during the 1700s or 1800s would have been an order of magnitude or more smaller than the total net RF experienced since then. 

 

2. a) CO2 is not a 'minor GHG.' If your removed all water vapor and clouds and other GHGs, CO2 would still absorb 26% of what is currently absorbed by the atmosphere. Water vapor, clouds and other GHGs without CO2 would absorb 91% of what is currently absorbed (a reduction of 9%). The sum of the two numbers 91%+26% is greater than 100% because of the spectrum overlap. Either way you calculate it, CO2 is responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. And this doesn't include feedbacks. Removing CO2 removes 9% of the greenhouse effect, but this ignores the fact that by removing CO2, water vapor would also decrease due to temperature decrease. These figures were originally calculated in 1978 by Ramanathan and Coakley and can be calculated using any radiative transfer code. Radiative transfer code is the foundation by which the radiative effect of all gases is calculated. 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

 

 

b. The fact that CO2 has lagged temperature changes from interglacial to interglacial for the last 2 million years is a well-established fact in climate science. CO2 did not initiate interglacials or glaciations. Orbital parameters did. CO2 acted as a positive feedback as warming caused CO2 to be released from the oceans and amplify orbital warming. This is not a 'hokey' explanation. It is a very simple logical explanation. Since CO2 on its own has a warming effect of 1.2C per doubling (which even blizzard says he acknowledges) that alone would make it a significant positive feedback, even without other positive feedbacks amplifying the effect of CO2. It is impossible to explain the large temperature variations from glacial to interglacial without the positive feedback CO2 provided. 

 

Furthermore, there are not periods where CO2 goes up or down significantly and temperature goes the other way over the last 2 million years. This is a lie. 

 

3. As others have already pointed out, the greenhouse effect is not 333W/m2. This is factually incorrect. Either way, your argument is not sound. You simply state that a 1% (actually it would be more than this). change in the greenhouse effect cannot produce a large change in temperature. Why not? You've given no reasoning other than your own personal incredulity. The earth's climate shows repeatedly that small changes in RF produce large changes in temperature. 

 

4. The decline in cloud cover in ISCCP was found to be an artifact of changes in satellite viewing geometry. Measurements of changes in global cloud cover from various satellite products are generally inconsistent with each other. Measurements of changes in cloud cover from surface products exhibit little consistent global change. A large change in global cloud cover is physically implausible. 

 

 

5. Paltridge is a reanalysis that is not considered suitable for climate studies. Studies that are designed for climate purposes include Mears 2010, Shi and Bates 2011, Chung 2010, Chung and Soden 2010, Willet et al 2008, Dai 2006. These studies use data from satellites, radiosondes, and/or GPS receivers and find increasing long-term water vapor, as well as short-term variations in water vapor consistent with Clausius-Clapeyron (7% increase per 1C temperature rise). 

 

It is considered 'very likely' in the AR5 that tropospheric water vapor is increasing an a manner generally consistent with Clausius-Clapeyron (7%/1C). 

 

6. This statement is partially false. The tropospheric hot spot is found to exist by studies based on the wind-shear which relates directly to horizontal temperature gradients (Allen and Sherwood) and on the rising SST threshold for convective instability (Johnson and Zie). Studies based on radiosonde data which contain large temperature biases that are difficult to correct for show some warming, but not quite as much as modeled. However, this data is considered highly uncertain given the difficulty in correcting for the very large biases. The lack of conclusive data on the tropospheric hot spot makes any conclusion premature. 

 

7. The oceans cannot be warming the atmosphere and warming themselves at the same time. The oceans have gained an incomprehensible amount of heat over the last 100 years (enough to raise sea levels by 8"). 

 

8. Arctic sea ice has declined far more than Antarctic sea ice has increased over the last 35 years. In addition, there is good evidence that Antarctic sea ice decreased dramatically in the previous 40 years.

 

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/shem140.jpg

 

The reason for the slight increase in antarctic extent could be a number of factors including freshening of the southern ocean from land ice melt and increased precipitation, and strengthening of the southern polar vortex and wind flow which generates more ice. 

 

In either case, the modest increase in southern sea ice over the last 35 years has no bearing on whether the earth is warming and why. I mean honestly, how does one make the logical jump from antarctic sea ice is increasing!!! to AGW is a lie!!! ??? This seems to be a classic example of deniers throwing as much mud as they can and hoping some of it sticks. 

 

9. Again, the logical leap here is completely unsupported. 'The late 1800s was the LIA. Therefore the .9C of warming since then is a recovery from the LIA'. The gaping logical hole here needs no rebuttal. However, for those inclined to make the logical leap I will say:

 

a. Current temperatures are likely higher than any time in the last 2000 years. If this was a 'recovery' it is very unlikely we would have warmed so much.

 

b. The energy imbalance remains positive and very large, which guarantees warming will continue for some time to come and that we further surpass temperatures for the last 2000 years.

 

c. The large positive energy imbalance also means that the return to LIA-levels of solar activity does not mean a return to LIA-level temperatures. There is no cooling coming. The earth's oceans continue to gain heat at an incomprehensible rate, meaning that surface warming is guaranteed to continue. 

 

d. Even ignoring all of the above, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes 1.2C per doubling without feedbacks. This has been understood for over 100 years. There is strong evidence that feedbacks are moderately to strongly positive. This means that CO2 explains the majority of warming over the last 100 years, and that the earth will continue to warm.

 

10. There are limits to the oceans' ability to delay surface warming. Without surface warming, the earth does not re-radiate the extra energy it absorbs from the growing greenhouse effect. The energy imbalance grows large and the oceans warm faster, eventually manifesting as surface warming. 

 

The rate at which the oceans mix is debated in climate science and will have some effect on the rate at which surface warming occurs.

 

1.  and you know that radiative imbalances were only +- .1 to .2 w/m2 in the 1700s and 1800s??  and you know that temperature changes in the 1700s and 1800s were only a few tenths either way?  what?? Proxies are proxies...not temperature.  

 

2. CO2 is a minor GHG. Clouds and water vapor are the primary. The glacial to interglacial periods saw vastly different boundary conditions than today. To say that CO2 was the driving mechanism is totally unproven...except in the climate model world.

 

3. small changes in RF do not produce large changes in temperature or else the Earth's  climate would have spiraled out of control long ago with minor perturbations. The Greenhouse effect is 155 w/m2 I was mistaken so adding 3.7 w/m2 to that...a whole 2.4% will spiral the climate out of control. I doubt it.

 

4. Of course the cloud cover data is bad...in the long run... because it would prove that warming or cooling is almost entirely due to changes in cloud cover. Of course the data is bad. /sarc

 

5. increasing temperatures at the SURFACE do increase water vapor by the C-C equation yes that's true. But the upper troposphere is where it matters and you can't assume that warming in the upper troposphere will lead to a positive feedback. there is a lack of evidence. the papers you cite all are confusing ENSO like variations in tropical convection which heat and moisten the upper troposphere.

 

6. That thermal wind argument is crap for the tropical hot spot. Come on, that atmosphere tends away from geostrophic balance down there. How this passed peer review is amazing....

 

7. and you are certain of the oceanic measurements of 100 years ago compared to today? really?? wow such faith.

 

8. sea ice coverage before satellite data is ridiculous. different datasets. How can we know what the 15% coverage was prior to the satellite era. this is garbage. totally so.

 

9. current temperature are likely higher than the  last 2000 years?  how did they measure temperature globally 2000 years ago, please answer that question.

 

10. the oceans are absorbing heat...ok...it equals something like .04C...fine.... whatever.

 

You are a total alarmist sucked in by realclimate and the skeptical science crowd.

[wildweatherman179]

Hey, thought this might be a good place to ask. Can anyone link me to a few (3) sites with a GLOBAL ice volume/area chart with a decent history on it. Not having any luck finding one.

[skierinvermont]

1.  and you know that radiative imbalances were only +- .1 to .2 w/m2 in the 1700s and 1800s??  and you know that temperature changes in the 1700s and 1800s were only a few tenths either way?  what?? Proxies are proxies...not temperature.  

 

2. CO2 is a minor GHG. Clouds and water vapor are the primary. The glacial to interglacial periods saw vastly different boundary conditions than today. To say that CO2 was the driving mechanism is totally unproven...except in the climate model world.

 

3. small changes in RF do not produce large changes in temperature or else the Earth's  climate would have spiraled out of control long ago with minor perturbations. The Greenhouse effect is 155 w/m2 I was mistaken so adding 3.7 w/m2 to that...a whole 2.4% will spiral the climate out of control. I doubt it.

 

4. Of course the cloud cover data is bad...in the long run... because it would prove that warming or cooling is almost entirely due to changes in cloud cover. Of course the data is bad. /sarc

 

5. increasing temperatures at the SURFACE do increase water vapor by the C-C equation yes that's true. But the upper troposphere is where it matters and you can't assume that warming in the upper troposphere will lead to a positive feedback. there is a lack of evidence. the papers you cite all are confusing ENSO like variations in tropical convection which heat and moisten the upper troposphere.

 

6. That thermal wind argument is crap for the tropical hot spot. Come on, that atmosphere tends away from geostrophic balance down there. How this passed peer review is amazing....

 

7. and you are certain of the oceanic measurements of 100 years ago compared to today? really?? wow such faith.

 

8. sea ice coverage before satellite data is ridiculous. different datasets. How can we know what the 15% coverage was prior to the satellite era. this is garbage. totally so.

 

9. current temperature are likely higher than the  last 2000 years?  how did they measure temperature globally 2000 years ago, please answer that question.

 

10. the oceans are absorbing heat...ok...it equals something like .04C...fine.... whatever.

 

You are a total alarmist sucked in by realclimate and the skeptical science crowd.

 

Not even worth responding to. Your arguments rest mostly upon sarcasm, made up facts, and logical leaps of faith. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

3. small changes in RF do not produce large changes in temperature or else the Earth's climate would have spiraled out of control long ago with minor perturbations. The Greenhouse effect is 155 w/m2 I was mistaken so adding 3.7 w/m2 to that...a whole 2.4% will spiral the climate out of control. I doubt it.

Not true . Paleoclimate is my primary field of study, and I can say this...the climate system has spun wildly out of control..many times, and AGW could easily lead to another event. Some studies suggest sea levels were rising 7-12" per year during the termination of the younger dryas...the global May have temperature spiked 4-7C in 10 years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html

We're like monkeys pulling levers on a machine we know nothing about..

[blizzard1024]

Not even worth responding to. Your arguments rest mostly upon sarcasm, made up facts, and logical leaps of faith. 

 

I bring up all the holes in the CAGW alarmist viewpoint. You could respond with the talking points from the IPCC probably....I have already read them....

[blizzard1024]

Not true . Paleoclimate is my primary field of study, and I can say this...the climate system has spun wildly out of control..many times, and AGW could easily lead to another event. Some studies suggest sea levels were rising 7-12" per year during the termination of the younger dryas...the global May have temperature spiked 4-7C in 10 years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html

We're like monkeys pulling levers on a machine we know nothing about..

 

During Younger Dryas there was a LARGE amount of ice melting from the rapid transition from glacial to interglacial which could easily affect the North Atlantic MOC which then could rapidly affect climate...the "flickering" climate of that time. Once the ice melted the climate has become incredibly stable relative to the periods when there has been a lot of glacial mass. That is a well documented fact. The Greenland Ice Core data shows this remarkably well. And we all know that the Arctic regions respond most rapidly to any climate change so if the climate was fairly stable in Greenland it is suffice to say that globally the climate probably was just as stable or even more so. I also took courses in paleo climatology. In fact because of these courses I became even more skeptical of CAGW... not less.  

[blizzard1024]

Not true . Paleoclimate is my primary field of study, and I can say this...the climate system has spun wildly out of control..many times, and AGW could easily lead to another event. Some studies suggest sea levels were rising 7-12" per year during the termination of the younger dryas...the global May have temperature spiked 4-7C in 10 years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html

We're like monkeys pulling levers on a machine we know nothing about..

 

If you feel like a monkey pulling on a lever then STOP driving your fossil fuel burning car. Grow your OWN food(without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides), don't heat or cool your house. don't refrigerate your food, don't watch TV. Don't use computers, don't use cell phones....basically move back into a cave or hut. Maybe you will feel better....   

[chrisf97212]

Not true . Paleoclimate is my primary field of study, and I can say this...the climate system has spun wildly out of control..many times, and AGW could easily lead to another event. Some studies suggest sea levels were rising 7-12" per year during the termination of the younger dryas...the global May have temperature spiked 4-7C in 10 years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/full/391141a0.html

We're like monkeys pulling levers on a machine we know nothing about..

 

 

During Younger Dryas there was a LARGE amount of ice melting from the rapid transition from glacial to interglacial which could easily affect the North Atlantic MOC which then could rapidly affect climate...the "flickering" climate of that time. Once the ice melted the climate has become incredibly stable relative to the periods when there has been a lot of glacial mass. That is a well documented fact. The Greenland Ice Core data shows this remarkably well. And we all know that the Arctic regions respond most rapidly to any climate change so if the climate was fairly stable in Greenland it is suffice to say that globally the climate probably was just as stable or even more so. I also took courses in paleo climatology. In fact because of these courses I became even more skeptical of CAGW... not less.  

I thought the consensus was the Younger Dryas was caused by an asteroid or comet?

[StudentOfClimatology]

The abruptness of the shift originally led some to propose the idea, however the evidence is very much against the idea of an impact forcing the event:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825211000262

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GM001209/summary

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/05/2014/comet-strike-not-responsible-for-younger-dryas

Let alone the fact that there is no known crater, and no mechanism explaining how a comet impact could force a cooling for over 1000yrs..that dust would mix out in a decade..

[chrisf97212]

The abruptness of the shift originally led some to propose the idea, however the evidence is very much against the idea of an impact forcing the event:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825211000262

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GM001209/summary

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/05/2014/comet-strike-not-responsible-for-younger-dryas

Let alone the fact that there is no known crater, and no mechanism explaining how a comet impact could force a cooling for over 1000yrs..that dust would mix out in a decade..

 

Thanks for that update.  What's your theory on the cause?

[skierinvermont]

If you feel like a monkey pulling on a lever then STOP driving your fossil fuel burning car. Grow your OWN food(without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides), don't heat or cool your house. don't refrigerate your food, don't watch TV. Don't use computers, don't use cell phones....basically move back into a cave or hut. Maybe you will feel better....   

 

Childish ranting from a childish man who thinks he is 100X smarter than he really is..

[LocoAko]

During Younger Dryas there was a LARGE amount of ice melting from the rapid transition from glacial to interglacial which could easily affect the North Atlantic MOC which then could rapidly affect climate...the "flickering" climate of that time. Once the ice melted the climate has become incredibly stable relative to the periods when there has been a lot of glacial mass. That is a well documented fact. The Greenland Ice Core data shows this remarkably well. And we all know that the Arctic regions respond most rapidly to any climate change so if the climate was fairly stable in Greenland it is suffice to say that globally the climate probably was just as stable or even more so. I also took courses in paleo climatology. In fact because of these courses I became even more skeptical of CAGW... not less.  

 

Really? I hadn't heard... 

[LocoAko]

If you feel like a monkey pulling on a lever then STOP driving your fossil fuel burning car. Grow your OWN food(without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides), don't heat or cool your house. don't refrigerate your food, don't watch TV. Don't use computers, don't use cell phones....basically move back into a cave or hut. Maybe you will feel better....   

 

Really? This is your response? Great level of discourse we have here.