I looked at some of those 'climate models' once. Oh. My. God. A few hundred sample points to model the entire Earth?
That's the funny thing about statistics. After all it takes less than 3000 people for pollsters to model the population of the whole United States if the sample points are selected correctly.
They are calibrated at least partly by temperature measurements made by weather balloons as they rise through the atmosphere.
I'm not really following you there on the ocean thing. What does that have to do with measuring the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules? H2O as a highly variable (in concentration) greenhouse gas is not suitable for satellite temperature measurements.
You lost me there. But as an example of the relative scale of the emissions the largest volcanic eruption for a century, Pinatubo eruption in 1992, only emitted about 3% as much CO2 as human activities do in a year.
How to explain the difference? Among other things different stages of Milankovitch Cycles, different configurations of the continents due to plate tectonics, much higher levels of CO2 before it got sequestered in the fossil fuels we're digging up now. Of those the Milankovitch Cycles are the most immediately effective and probably explain the warmth of the early Holocene.
Data, in particular temperature records are not data that is input into climate models. Climate models attempt to model the physics of the atmosphere and its interaction with the land and oceans. Generally they are given a starting state and set loose to see what the results are. The only input is various realistic scenarios that simulate changes that would be seen in the real world such as changes in the level of CO2. Everything else is internally generated.
It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you make it obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Here for your edification are two FAQs on climate models by one of lead authors of the NASA/GISS ModelE GCM:
True skepticism is willing to follow the evidence and change it's mind if that's where it leads rather than coming up with more and more bizarre explanations about why it isn't true.
Satellites don't measure temperature with infrared sensors. They measure microwave emissions of oxygen from various layers of the atmosphere which is a proxy of temperature. They don't measure temperature at the surface at all, just the lower troposphere. That said surface temperature trends and satellite temperature trends are within each others error bars so you can't really say that they are significantly different.
What makes you think the claim that human emissions of CO2 surpass volcanic emissions is extraordinary? They're not that hard to measure, especially at the order of magnitude level.
Sorry but the total heat released by chemical combustion (and nuclear power) is so miniscule compared to the energy coming from the Sun that it can be ignored in any first order calculations. A 2008 study by Mark Flanner finds the total waste heat produced by human activities amounts to 0.028 W/m^2 while the total forcing from additional greenhouse gases we've emitted is 2.9 W/m^2, over 100 times as much. Waste heat is just not an issue.
Nice revistionist of history. MOST of the excitment which brought climate change to the world state was literally one paper after another citing that literally much of the world would be underwater, right now.
Cite the specific papers you are talking about or you're just blowing smoke.
Sea level has been rising and all prospects are that it will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. If so then Florida will eventually be under water. I just said they weren't expected by anyone who understands the science to be under water at the present time.
I didn't say their is a delay in CO2 absorption by the oceans because there isn't much of one. It's also a fact that as the oceans warm up they hold less CO2. The oceans are warming but right now the excess CO2 in the atmosphere makes the partial pressure high enough that they continue to absorb it. Once we quit emitting CO2 and a new equilibrium is reached I would expect the oceans to outgas CO2 as it gets removed by other means keeping the level high. A paper published a few years ago found that CO2 levels would remain high for over 1000 years unless we do something to actively remove it from the carbon cycle.
Changes in CO2 levels are (relatively) simple to measure and have been measured in detail since the late 1950's. He doesn't need to repeat that science. Actual numbers aren't that hard to find online.
Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate,
He's right, Mann's hockey stick graph is merely corroborating evidence for global warming, not the primary evidence which is found mostly in physics.
There is a delay in the effect of CO2 on temperature, mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. That delay appears to be about 30-40 years although it may take longer for things to fully stabilize. There are other effects such as the melting from glaciers and ice sheets that will probably take centuries to catch up and stabilize.
The oceans already hold much more CO2 than the atmosphere. But if you know anything about partial pressure you realize there is a balance between the pressure of a gas and the amount of that gas dissolved in a liquid under it. For over 8,000 years CO2 levels hovered around 280 ppmv and there was that balance. Then we started adding carbon to the carbon cycle. Right now a bit over 40% of the CO2 emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere. Most of the rest is being absorbed in the oceans. When we stop emitting CO2 it will reach a new balance but there will still be more CO2 in the system so atmospheric levels will remain elevated.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked at some of those 'climate models' once. Oh. My. God. A few hundred sample points to model the entire Earth?
That's the funny thing about statistics. After all it takes less than 3000 people for pollsters to model the population of the whole United States if the sample points are selected correctly.
Perhaps the higher temperatures inland cause greater strength of convection (rising air) thus increasing the onshore flow of wind.
They are calibrated at least partly by temperature measurements made by weather balloons as they rise through the atmosphere.
I'm not really following you there on the ocean thing. What does that have to do with measuring the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules? H2O as a highly variable (in concentration) greenhouse gas is not suitable for satellite temperature measurements.
You lost me there. But as an example of the relative scale of the emissions the largest volcanic eruption for a century, Pinatubo eruption in 1992, only emitted about 3% as much CO2 as human activities do in a year.
What's your point?
That's because the oceans have a lot of thermal inertia and moderate the land temperatures along their shores.
How to explain the difference? Among other things different stages of Milankovitch Cycles, different configurations of the continents due to plate tectonics, much higher levels of CO2 before it got sequestered in the fossil fuels we're digging up now. Of those the Milankovitch Cycles are the most immediately effective and probably explain the warmth of the early Holocene.
Data, in particular temperature records are not data that is input into climate models. Climate models attempt to model the physics of the atmosphere and its interaction with the land and oceans. Generally they are given a starting state and set loose to see what the results are. The only input is various realistic scenarios that simulate changes that would be seen in the real world such as changes in the level of CO2. Everything else is internally generated.
It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you make it obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Here for your edification are two FAQs on climate models by one of lead authors of the NASA/GISS ModelE GCM:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
I think it is you who is trying to change the meaning of the word "denier", equating it only with holocaust deniers.
True skepticism is willing to follow the evidence and change it's mind if that's where it leads rather than coming up with more and more bizarre explanations about why it isn't true.
True but it's also true that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988 so the term has been around a long time.
Satellites don't measure temperature with infrared sensors. They measure microwave emissions of oxygen from various layers of the atmosphere which is a proxy of temperature. They don't measure temperature at the surface at all, just the lower troposphere. That said surface temperature trends and satellite temperature trends are within each others error bars so you can't really say that they are significantly different.
What makes you think the claim that human emissions of CO2 surpass volcanic emissions is extraordinary? They're not that hard to measure, especially at the order of magnitude level.
Sorry but the total heat released by chemical combustion (and nuclear power) is so miniscule compared to the energy coming from the Sun that it can be ignored in any first order calculations. A 2008 study by Mark Flanner finds the total waste heat produced by human activities amounts to 0.028 W/m^2 while the total forcing from additional greenhouse gases we've emitted is 2.9 W/m^2, over 100 times as much. Waste heat is just not an issue.
The warming that's occurred in the last 250 years is there whether you start your graph then or 65 million years ago.
This one that has existed in some form for over 100,000 years.
Nice revistionist of history. MOST of the excitment which brought climate change to the world state was literally one paper after another citing that literally much of the world would be underwater, right now.
Cite the specific papers you are talking about or you're just blowing smoke.
Sea level has been rising and all prospects are that it will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. If so then Florida will eventually be under water. I just said they weren't expected by anyone who understands the science to be under water at the present time.
On a global scale those few seconds are equivalent to a few centuries. Pretty significant on a human scale.
I didn't say their is a delay in CO2 absorption by the oceans because there isn't much of one. It's also a fact that as the oceans warm up they hold less CO2. The oceans are warming but right now the excess CO2 in the atmosphere makes the partial pressure high enough that they continue to absorb it. Once we quit emitting CO2 and a new equilibrium is reached I would expect the oceans to outgas CO2 as it gets removed by other means keeping the level high. A paper published a few years ago found that CO2 levels would remain high for over 1000 years unless we do something to actively remove it from the carbon cycle.
Changes in CO2 levels are (relatively) simple to measure and have been measured in detail since the late 1950's. He doesn't need to repeat that science. Actual numbers aren't that hard to find online.
Keep grasping at those straws.
Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate,
He's right, Mann's hockey stick graph is merely corroborating evidence for global warming, not the primary evidence which is found mostly in physics.
We have to look at this from an economic perspective.
The economic perspective is subordinate to the scientific perspective. How can economics work if it don't acknowledge reality?
There is a delay in the effect of CO2 on temperature, mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. That delay appears to be about 30-40 years although it may take longer for things to fully stabilize. There are other effects such as the melting from glaciers and ice sheets that will probably take centuries to catch up and stabilize.
The oceans already hold much more CO2 than the atmosphere. But if you know anything about partial pressure you realize there is a balance between the pressure of a gas and the amount of that gas dissolved in a liquid under it. For over 8,000 years CO2 levels hovered around 280 ppmv and there was that balance. Then we started adding carbon to the carbon cycle. Right now a bit over 40% of the CO2 emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere. Most of the rest is being absorbed in the oceans. When we stop emitting CO2 it will reach a new balance but there will still be more CO2 in the system so atmospheric levels will remain elevated.