tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post6516957138691092555..comments2024-03-11T09:29:31.793-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Moral Logic vs Scientific AccuracyDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-17095248837918997772012-11-21T19:56:12.581-08:002012-11-21T19:56:12.581-08:00baha @ 11/16/12 11:19 pm:
You wrote:
"Hurrica...baha @ 11/16/12 11:19 pm:<br />You wrote:<br />"Hurricanes are nothing new."<br /><br />So your argument is, unless each and every future hurricane is of unprecedented magnitude, they cannot ever provide evidence of climate change? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-62288602242090166212012-11-21T17:44:21.127-08:002012-11-21T17:44:21.127-08:00baha: My claim of 15 meters in 5000 years is simpl...baha: My claim of 15 meters in 5000 years is simply an extrapolation of the current trend, not a prediction. (At BAU, it will be more than that by then.)David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-67774157113449300272012-11-18T23:26:12.813-08:002012-11-18T23:26:12.813-08:00Have you ever wondered whether the Great pyramid a...Have you ever wondered whether the Great pyramid at Giza was built by slaves or by inspired citizens?<br /><br />I believe it was the latter; governments can motivate the "Masses" to achieve great things, In modern times, JFK's and subsequent administrations inspired the USA to put a "Man on the Moon".<br /><br />Pyramids and space exploration are heroic projects that can only be judged in retrospect.<br /><br />Governments around the world have been very effective in motivating citizens to "Save the Planet" by reducing CO2 emissions.<br /><br />We need to ask how our "Solutions" will be viewed by our ancestors. Will solar panels and windmills be seen as the modern equivalent of Pyramids or as something useful?<br /><br />bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-50453136078144870692012-11-18T22:58:50.348-08:002012-11-18T22:58:50.348-08:00Reality is stranger than one's wildest imagina...Reality is stranger than one's wildest imagination. Can any of you believe this?<br /><br />http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/disinvited-ipcc-will-not-be-going-to-the-un-cop18-party-in-doha/bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-85475138675698414492012-11-18T22:51:07.419-08:002012-11-18T22:51:07.419-08:00sylas,
Head in the sand is having more faith in &q...sylas,<br />Head in the sand is having more faith in "Climate Models" than observations.<br /><br />While the satellites (UAH and RSS) show no warming over the last 15 years they only cover the last 43 years and that is much too short a period to draw conclusions about climate trends,<br /><br />The IPCC likes to look at global temperatures over longer periods so here is a link that starts at the IPCC's favourite date (1850):<br />http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/<br /><br />You will note that the temperature increase is ~0.9 Kelvin over 162 years. How long do you think it will take to add another 3 Kelvin to enter the IPCC's "Danger Zone"?<br /><br />bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-28474853548218747012012-11-18T22:35:13.974-08:002012-11-18T22:35:13.974-08:00David,
I hope you are right about sea levels risi...David,<br />I hope you are right about sea levels rising by 15 meters over the next 5,000 years, That would imply temperatures much higher than today. Even the IPCC admits that warming of up to 3 Kelvin will benefit food production.<br /><br />Much more likely, sea levels will fall signalling the onset of a new glacial period. That will be something to worry about.<br /><br />bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-75846110258390879172012-11-18T13:44:23.791-08:002012-11-18T13:44:23.791-08:00bahamamamma says: Thank you "sylas" for ...bahamamamma says: <i>Thank you "sylas" for being a "Good Sport". Please don't take my ribbing about your lack of scientific comprehension too seriously.</i><br /><br />No problem, bahamamamma. I assure you, I don't take it seriously at all. Your "guesses" on what I have read have been consistently wrong every single time, but that's not my problem nor does it bother me.<br /><br />And by the way, Roy Spencer's data for the lower atmosphere (which is the best correspondence to Earth's surface temperature) shows ongoing warming on the 15 year trend. That time span has trend substantially impacted by short term variation, so it's not actually a reliable guide to the underlying trends in climate, but hey. Roy's data has a warming trend of about 0.5C/century over the last 15 years.<br /><br />We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to distract this into good old head-in-the-sand denial of warming altogether!sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23688390575426965722012-11-18T09:51:32.678-08:002012-11-18T09:51:32.678-08:00Sea level rise isn't a "fluctuation"...Sea level rise isn't a "fluctuation" -- it is cause-and-effect. <br /><br />And the error bars on the sea level figure are fairly small, especially over the last couple of thousand years. In any case the rise is nothing at all like today's rise, which is the equivalent of 15 meters in 5000 years. There simply is no comparison.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-27018221725690359692012-11-18T07:27:51.246-08:002012-11-18T07:27:51.246-08:00David,
As I pointed out, the error bars are large....David,<br />As I pointed out, the error bars are large. Your number may be on the low side but it does not affect my argument.<br /><br />At a more detailed level I found the Ricklis presentation useful. One of the failings of AR5 WG1 Chapter 3 (Oceans) is its lack of "Perspective". <br /><br />Seen in the context of the last 5,000 years the present changes in sea level are minor fluctuations. You can't paint a scary picture without picking your time period carefully while ignoring everything outside it.<br /><br />Thank you for providing one of the few places that parties on both sides of the CAGW debate can exchange views without intrusive "Moderation".<br /><br />Thank you "sylas" for being a "Good Sport". Please don't take my ribbing about your lack of scientific comprehension too seriously.bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-62218600759745998202012-11-18T07:08:38.858-08:002012-11-18T07:08:38.858-08:00sylas,
"bahamamamma, your comments on sea-lev...sylas,<br />"bahamamamma, your comments on sea-level and the role of temperature gradients to the Arctic are at this point merely silly, "<br /><br />I guess that MIT paper was a little too technical for you. If you refuse to read the whole paper at least read this:<br /><br />"Because baroclinicity depends on both the meridional temperature gradient and the static<br />stability, the effect of climate change on baroclinicity (and therefore storm tracks) is complicated.<br />Stronger warming in the high latitude regions (due to effects such as the ice-albedo feedback)<br />means that there may be a reduced meridional temperature gradient. This would reduce baroclinicity<br />and seemingly decrease the number of storms (Yin, 2005; Bengtsson et al., 2006)."bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-48712016597482522522012-11-18T06:59:50.075-08:002012-11-18T06:59:50.075-08:00That graph does not show 3 meters of sea level ris...That graph does not show 3 meters of sea level rise in 5000 years, it shows about 1 meter. <br /><br />That's an average of 0.2 mm/yr. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-26051330383862336962012-11-18T06:56:40.512-08:002012-11-18T06:56:40.512-08:00sylas,
"The issue which really is subject to ...sylas,<br />"The issue which really is subject to question (IMO) is whether or not I am correct in declaring that we can expect with reasonable confidence an increase in the damage from Atlantic hurricanes as the planet heats up."<br /><br />Most of us agree that Ryan Maue knows a great deal about hurricanes. He and Roger Pielke have provided ample evidence showing that Al Gore was wrong to link the incidence of Atlantic hurricanes to "Global Warming". You are just regurgitating Al's nonsense.<br /><br />You say the "planet heats up". I guess that will depend on the period of time you choose. Over the last 15 years temperatures have been falling:<br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-76663853759492495072012-11-18T06:40:20.124-08:002012-11-18T06:40:20.124-08:00David,
That graph you cite was included in one of ...David,<br />That graph you cite was included in one of the links I provided in an earlier comment. It shows sea level rising less than 3 meters in the last 5,000 years or ~2 inches/century. My apologies for being overly alarmist by suggesting one foot/century. <br /><br />You will note that the nice black line is drawn through a series of measurements that cover a wide range. Measuring sea level is a tricky business. <br /><br />According to Robert A. Ricklis, nothing of note has happened since 1,000 B.C. What climate alarmists see as accelerating sea level rise is just a minor fluctuation of no great significance.<br /><br />To get some perspective I recommend:<br />http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/coast/prehistory/images/sea-level.html<br /><br />and:<br />http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htmbahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-25029329191201926692012-11-18T00:13:38.860-08:002012-11-18T00:13:38.860-08:00bahamamamma, your comments on sea-level and the ro...bahamamamma, your comments on sea-level and the role of temperature gradients to the Arctic are at this point merely silly, and I'm not going to bother with those further; they detract from serious criticisms that can be made of my claims.<br /><br />David, thanks for joining in!<br /><br />The sea-level matter may be useful for clearing the air a bit, and helping any readers get up to speed with basic background. Current sea-level rise is accelerating and this is one of the things which is quite definite as a known impact of global warming.<br /><br />I am pretty sure you are right about the importance of the hydrological cycle; particularly for the storms we are speaking of here.<br /><br />The issue which really is subject to question (IMO) is whether or not I am correct in declaring that we can expect with reasonable confidence an increase in the damage from Atlantic hurricanes as the planet heats up.<br /><br />It would be good to see a focus on that, rather than the sea-level distraction!sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71347347678869032732012-11-17T22:29:12.444-08:002012-11-17T22:29:12.444-08:00The Kaser paper I just cited finds a glacial mass ...The Kaser paper I just cited finds a glacial mass loss of <br /><br />1961-1990: -219 kg/m2/year<br />1991-2004: -420 kg/m2/yr<br />2001-2004: -510 kg/m2/yr<br /><br />and an acceleration since 1975 of about -11 kg/m2/yr2. That means the loss rate will about double by the end of the century, to about -900 kg/m2/yr (all else being equal).<br /> David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-5220814288483377192012-11-17T22:18:24.810-08:002012-11-17T22:18:24.810-08:00There is also a significant acceleration in the me...There is also a significant acceleration in the melting of glaciers:<br /><br />Kaser, G., J. G. Cogley, M. B. Dyurgerov, M. F. Meier, and A. Ohmura (2006), Mass balance of glaciers and ice caps: Consensus estimates for 1961–2004, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L19501, doi:10.1029/2006GL027511.<br />http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2006/2006GL027511.shtmlDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19293841351614876662012-11-17T22:13:09.768-08:002012-11-17T22:13:09.768-08:00Sea level rise in the last 5,000 years has certain...Sea level rise in the last 5,000 years has certainly *not* average one foot per century:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png<br /><br />It's been about 1 meter in that time, or less than 1 mm/yr, as sylas wrote. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10038234000202056372012-11-17T22:09:42.810-08:002012-11-17T22:09:42.810-08:00You're right, polar warming reduces the temper...You're right, polar warming reduces the temperature gradient. But either way my suspicion is changes in the hydrological cycle are more important, but I haven't studied it much. Two papers I want to read when I get a chance are <br /><br />Trenberth, K. E., C. A. Davis and J. Fasullo, 2007: Water and energy budgets of hurricanes: Case studies of Ivan and Katrina . J. Geophys. Res., 112, D23106, doi:10.1029/2006JD008303.<br /><br />Trenberth, K. E., and J. Fasullo, 2007: Water and energy budgets of hurricanes and implications for climate change. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D23107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008304.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10018898334899781432012-11-17T21:58:42.137-08:002012-11-17T21:58:42.137-08:00sylas,
At the peak of the last glacial (~20,000 ye...sylas,<br />At the peak of the last glacial (~20,000 years ago) the Laurentide glacier dominated North America. Where New York city is today the ice was over one mile thick.<br /><br />When the climate warmed continental ice began to melt so sea levels rose by about four feet per century until 8,000 years ago. After that the rate of rise slowed as there was not much continental ice left to melt.<br /><br />Over the last 5,000 years the rate of sea level rise has averaged about one foot per century as it is today.<br /><br />How much continental ice is left? About 30 million cubic kilometers or 30 Giga-tonnes. This ice is melting at the prodigious rate of ~300 Giga-tonnes per year. See:<br />http://davidappell.com/AR5/ZODS/WG1AR5_ZOD_Ch04_All_Final_cryosphere.pdf<br /><br />At the present rate it will take at least 10,000 years to melt all the continental ice.<br /><br />Will Earth enjoy another PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) with ice free poles? Not likely given that we are in an Ice Age characterized by lengthy glacial periods.bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-6796648154591009962012-11-17T21:32:58.481-08:002012-11-17T21:32:58.481-08:00sylas,
We agree that sea levels are rising. We di...sylas,<br />We agree that sea levels are rising. We disagree on the issue of "Acceleration". IMHO we should welcome all the "Acceleration" we can get.<br /><br />For every atoll in the Pacific that is overwhelmed there will be 10,000 times more land becoming productive at high latitudes.<br /><br />Given enough "Global Warming" Canada may become inhabitable.<br /><br />If you want something to worry about, falling sea levels are a much greater threat than rising ones.bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-72088488434086291032012-11-17T21:18:32.272-08:002012-11-17T21:18:32.272-08:00CharlesH,
You seem like a pretty rational guy so I...CharlesH,<br />You seem like a pretty rational guy so I am a little disappointed with this statement:<br /><br />"Has there been AGW warming in the last 50 yrs? Everyone says so."<br /><br />Everyone I have spoken to agrees that humankind has contributed to "Global Warming". The question is whether the warming we have produced can be safely ignored or will the consequences be "Catastrophic"? Where do you stand on that question?<br /><br />In my opinion we have a long way to go before warming becomes a problem for mammals (creatures like us). The current dominance of mammals was established during Eocene that was the warmest time in the past 100 million years. <br /><br />During the Eocene there was no permanent ice at either pole. Trees were growing in Antarctica and Alligators were roaming Spitzbergen. Polar oceans were about 12 Kelvin warmer than today while equatorial sea surface temperatures were ~35 Centigrade.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum<br /><br />This does not sound like a "Catastrophe" to me.bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-21551476757506125732012-11-17T20:55:07.359-08:002012-11-17T20:55:07.359-08:00David,
You have it backwards. Warming reduces the...David,<br />You have it backwards. Warming reduces the temperature gradients because the poles warm three times faster than the tropics.<br /><br />What we are talking about is the "Meridional Temperature Gradient" that affects the severity of storms.<br /><br />The following paper may help you and perhaps "sylas" too:<br />web.mit.edu/awing/www/stormtracks.pdf<br /><br />bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798861211103459949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-65313704267484283232012-11-17T17:27:03.336-08:002012-11-17T17:27:03.336-08:00Yes, warming means an increased temperature gradie...Yes, warming means an increased temperature gradient. What I am dubious about is that this increase, which is small on a local (per-latitude) basis where storms form, is not very important in the creation of storms compared to local chaos created by changes in ocean currents and atmospheric patterns (both dependent dependent on local geography), and especially changes in the hydrological cycle, since it is the heat of condensation from condensing water vapor that gives storms their energy. AGW is significantly altering the hydrological cycle -- global humidity has increased something like 4% in the last 30 years -- and my suspicion is that that is a far more important factor than an increased temperature gradient (which, again, is small in a local area where a storm would form). David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-78577380202984838122012-11-17T15:05:40.111-08:002012-11-17T15:05:40.111-08:00"I am dubious of the argument that warming po..."I am dubious of the argument that warming poles and a reduced temp gradient means thus less severe storms. Storms are chaotic, born of local conditions of the ocean and atmosphere. Also, Ryan Maue shows a trend in North Atlantic tropical storms and major hurricanes that runs counter to that argument:"<br /><br />You can be dubious if you like but AGW theory predicts (poles warming faster than tropics, thus reduced temp gradients).<br /><br />Has there been AGW warming in the last 50 yrs? Everyone says so.<br /><br />What is the world wide trend for severe storms (hurricanes et al)? No increase.<br /><br />QED. No physical theory AND no evidence in support of AGW leading to more severe storms.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-81809107264454016462012-11-17T14:24:22.875-08:002012-11-17T14:24:22.875-08:00bahamamamma, you guessed incorrectly. I read the z...bahamamamma, you guessed incorrectly. I read the zero order drafts ages ago when David Appell first released them. I'm a long time follower and fan of this site. (I am undecided on whether releasing those drafts was appropriate, but I accept David's sincerity and good will in releasing them.)<br /><br />I was pointing out that your EARLIER link, which you described as a summary of those drafts, was no such thing.<br /><br />Also:<br /><br />Sea level rise *is* accelerating, to well above what we have seen through the last several thousand years.<br /><br />You are now linking to pictures going all the way back to the last ice age! This is another non-sequitur and distraction from really basic observations of what is occurring in the present.<br /><br />The image you link shows a rise of roughly 100m in sea level from about 14ky ago, and extending over some 7000 years as we came out of the ice age. The rate was not uniform, but it averages out to a ball park figure of 14mm/year on that time span.<br /><br />Then, over the last 6000 years or so, the rise flattened out, rising perhaps 2 or 3 meters over that time; an average of less than half a mm per year.<br /><br />Over the recent century, the rate of sea level rise has <b>accelerated</b> substantially again, to over 3mm/year, and increasing.<br /><br />The science on this is much more straightforward than storm projections.<br /><br />The acceleration we <b>observe</b> in sea level rise is real, is significant, and is occurring because the planet is heating up. That rise will continue and increase as this century continues, and will persist for centuries after that.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.com