Dealing with facile arguments that are supposedly perfect refutations of the climate skeptics’ position is a full-time job akin to cleaning the Augean Stables. A few weeks ago Kevin Drum argued that global warming added 3 inches to Sandy’s 14-foot storm surge, which he said was an argument that totally refuted skeptics and justified massive government restrictions on energy consumption (or whatever).
This week Slate (and Desmog blog) think they have the ultimate killer chart, on they call a “slam dunk” on skeptics. Click through to my column this week at Forbes to see if they really do.
Wind speed is proportional to temperature difference not absolute temperature !
The fastest winds in the solar system are on Neptune not Mercury or Venus.
The strongest earth storms are in spring or fall when temperature difference are maximum not August when it is hottest !
The total global hurricane energy is at a 40 year low so
where is the causal link ?
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
Jeff Wrote
“It appears to me that when temperatures go up, extreme storms increase.”
That is an illusion the strongest storm are in the winter and fall and spring but never in summer when it is hottest.
Haven’t you noticed that hen it is 100 + thee is never a breeze.
Lack of knowledge of thermo is an epidemic !
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/pix/user_images/tk/global_warm_hurr/Emanuel_PDI.png
Power dissipatoin index is closely associated with SST. As the seas warm from AGW, the power intensity increases in the hurricane. Hurricane Sandy was influenced from AGW in this way.
Why wind speed? Its not the only AGW change.
GOOD QUESTION !!!
Because it is affected by CO2 and the alarmists ignore this beneficial effect !
They claim illogically that despite the continued failure to warm significantly that somehow storms are getting stronger despite evidence to the contrary, Sure Sandy was BIG but CO2 doesn’t cause BIG does it ? It was only cat 1 and there is no cat 0 !
Instead they contradict thermodynamics and falsely claim that warming causes faster winds even if it evens out the difference. Pure climate ASTROLOGY !
There are other effects of CO2 but this one is used as a FEAR FACTOR and so real science must be heard !
Remember the fastest winds in the solar system are on Neptune where it is almost absolute zero.
Why ? The alarmist version of thermodynamics has no answer. It predicts Mercury or Venus should have the fastest winds !
When the skeptics point out that Droughts and floods are milder that the effect of stronger storms is reason enough to spend tens of trillions of dollars to avoid ! It almost seems cost effective but it is founded on a lie !
The slight warming we have experienced is beneficial especially when you remember records started in a little ice age !
Jeff Green posted an excellent observation !
He pointed out that Global Warming [notice I used the politically incorrect term ] has other effects than wind speed.
Without warming CO2 has no effect at all, no floods no drought no athletes foot ! [slight warming, slight effect ]
When skeptics point out that despite the AR4 model’s prediction of .36 degrees of warming between 2000 and now, even GISS which is painfully biased, shows only .09 degrees during that period they then jump onto the storm damage lifeboat which is leaking badly.
Thermodynamics and actual real world records do not support the “CO2 warming causes stronger storms” fairytale.
The contrarians claim it is impossible to predict climate 100 years in the future so asking them to do it is nonsense !
By your own chart the IPCC predictions of .36 degrees of warming between 2000 and the present didn’t happen. GISS puts the warming at .09 degrees that is very bad performance.
The skeptics contend that not enough is known to accurately predict 100 years in the future so to ask them to do so is mentally challenged !!
The question is if we emit X tons of CO2 how much will the temperature rise ? No one even knows how much of the observed warming since 1860 is caused by CO2. So predicting the future 100 year from now is a bad joke !.
Did you notice that your chart started in 1990 and between 1990 1nd 1998 there was rapid warming.
The predictions of warming were quite low and turned out to be quite accurate but wouldn’t scare any $$ out of the public so they were revised strongly upward and were totally wrong.
From 2000 to the present it was supposed to warm .36 degrees but even using biased GISS data it warmed .09 degrees.
As natural variation becomes less influential in the temperature record over time, the warming does show through. If you look at land only temperature reocrds, the temperature increase is larger. To think that we change co2 by 40% inthe atmoshpere without consequences needs to be looked at again.
You haven’t shown you know thermodynamics yourself. You wouldn’t be bluffing would you?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
This was from the GISTEMP data records. This is incredibly
easy to use. Just plug in the end dates that you are interested in.
2011 to 2012
Trend:
4.15 ±52.21 °C/century (2σ)
2010
to 2012
Trend:
-11.42 ±22.32 °C/century (2σ)
2009
to 2012
Trend:
-2.57 ±12.59 °C/century (2σ)
2008
to 2012
Trend:
3.08 ±9.84 °C/century (2σ)
2007
to 2012
Trend:
0.44 ±7.24 °C/century (2σ)
2006 to 2012
Trend:
0.23 ±5.29 °C/century (2σ)
2005
to 2012
Trend:
-0.59 ±4.03 °C/century (2σ)
2004
to 2012
Trend:
0.19 ±3.44 °C/century (2σ)
2003
to 2012
Trend:
0.10 ±2.80 °C/century (2σ)
2002
to 2012
Trend:
-0.03 ±2.41 °C/century (2σ)
2001
to 2012
Trend:
0.31 ±2.05 °C/century (2σ)
2000 to 2012
Trend:
0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ)
1999
to 2012
Trend:
1.42 ±1.73 °C/century (2σ)
1998
to 2012
Trend:
0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)
1997
to 2012
Trend:
1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)
1996
to 2012
Trend:
1.34 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
1995
to 2012
Trend:
1.33 ±1.21 °C/century (2σ)
1994
to 2012
Trend:
1.58 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)
1993
to 2012
Trend:
1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
1992
to 2012
Trend:
2.08 ±1.03 °C/century (2σ)
1991
to 2012
Trend:
1.92 ±0.96 °C/century (2σ)
1990
to 2012
Trend:
1.76 ±0.90 °C/century (2σ)
Without warming CO2 has no effect at all, no floods no drought no athletes foot ! [slight warming, slight effect ]
#######################
Are you denying co2 doesn’t warm? CO2 is the reason it warms.
When skeptics point out that despite the AR4 model’s prediction of .36 degrees of warming between 2000 and now, even GISS which is painfully biased, shows only .09 degrees during that period they then jump onto the storm damage lifeboat which is leaking badly.
##################
Different years have different trends due to Natural Variations on the short term. Somehow this overwhelming science isn’t gettnig through to you.
2000to 2012
Trend0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ)
1999to 2012
Trend:1.42 ±1.73 °C/century (2σ)
1998to 2012
Trend:0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)
1997to 2012
Trend:1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)
1996to 2012
Trend:1.34 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ
No I think the effect is very small but real. It is the Catastrophic AGW where the lies and distortions begin.
I believe temperature is a ramp of 1/2 degree per century superimposed on a sine wave [PDO].
When we were at the bottom of the sine wave the Chicken Littles predicted a little ice age.
When we were at the top of the sine wave we didn’t sign thy Kyoto protocols, thank GOD !
Here is a peer reviewed study which explains it better than I can !
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Jeff
Another interesting fact is that since 1998 temperatures have been like the top of a sine wave going down !
Interesting ?
I have o quarrel with renewable energy including solar, wind, corn, and sou bean oil Selling them with the CAGW lie is dishonest !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
2005, 2010, 1998 warmest years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_decades
The warmest decade is just last decade of the 2000’s, 2nd warmest 1990’s. 3rd warmest 1980’s.
People 27 years old have lived in temperatures above the 20th century average all their lives.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
The reason why the global warming trend stopped in about 2000 is likely to be due to the
fact that after peaking in about 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has started to have a
negative trend. There are other signs of the halting (Figures 10b, 14, and 17 as well as the
ocean heat content). The halting is not due to a La Niña
################################
The above is just not true. 2005, 2010 are the warmest years on record and the 2000’s is the warmest decade on record.
################################
THe IPCC is a science review of the world’s data on climate. Over 6000 peer reviewed science were considered. THis is a quite powerful document.
They come to the conclusion that the warming is unequivocal and that it is very likely due to anthropogenic green house gas concentrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
The headline findings of the report were: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Negaitve feedback is what stabilizes different systems. The positive feedbacks are more numerous and the negative feedbacks are few. The eath is 70% water and H2O is a very strong GHG. Being a water planet we have a strong pos feedback system in response to a very stable co2 atmosphere. THere’s really no getting around it. When we add longlasting co2 to our atmosphere, we are turing up the thermostat on the earth. UNIPCC AR5 will confiem this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
1 Positive
1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks
1.1.1 Arctic methane release
1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates
1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane
1.1.3 Decomposition
1.1.4 Peat decomposition
1.1.5 Rainforest drying
1.1.6 Forest fires
1.1.7 Desertification
1.1.8 CO2 in the oceans
1.2 Cloud feedback
1.3 Gas release
1.4 Ice-albedo feedback
1.5 Water vapor feedback
2 Negative
2.1 Carbon cycle
2.1.1 Le Chatelier’s principle
2.1.2 Chemical weathering
2.1.3 Net Primary Productivity
2.2 Lapse rate
2.3 Blackbody radiation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-basic.htmThe 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the
greenhouse effect which is directly observed.
CAGW if allowed to get to 4 to 6*C will be catastrophic. IF the UNIPCC are liars, I invite you to show how and why.
Hurrican Sandy broke records. The energy expelled and the size alone was record breaking.
Lets see Neptune has faster winds than we do. What kind of arguemnt is that?
More co2 in our atmosphere has no effect to worry about? Do you think the UNIPCC are a bunch of liars?
When the skeptics point out that Droughts and floods are milder that the effect of stronger storms is reason enough to spend tens of trillions of dollars to avoid ! It almost seems cost effective but it is founded on a lie !
The slight warming we have experienced is beneficial especially when you remember records started in a little ice age !
################################################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is about +1.6 watts/m²
Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m²
Radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide combined is very likely (>90%) increasing more quickly during the current era (1750–present) than at any other time in the last 10,000 years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=11
Inaction will cost 8 trillion more dollars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_decades
1990–199969993130000000000000.313 °C (0.563 °F)2000–200969995130000000000000.513 °C (0.923 °F)
The contrarians claim it is impossible to predict climate 100 years in the future so asking them to do it is nonsense
########################################
Observations vs the IPCC are the most accurate observations shown. The others are based on statements made by constrarians. The most inaccurate simulations are based on contrarian views of the climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
IPCC Trounces Contrarian Predictions
As shown above, the IPCC has thus far done
remarkably well at predicting future global surface warming. The same cannot be
said for the climate contrarians who criticize the IPCC and mainstream climate
science predictions.
Size matters and clouds are more powerful than all other feedback combined and it seems to cause negative feedback overall.
Actually it is more complicated than that. Some clouds cause warming and some cooling but overall it is cooling !
Their own models do this for me by being consistently wrong !
Yes I do think they are liars. CAGW is big money and the CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRY NEEDS TO SCARE US TO GET IT !.
I would think an obviously intelligent person like you would see immediately what the fact that Pluto has he fastest winds is germane. Storm intensity is proportional to temperature DIFFERENCE not absolute temperature !
I have posted this answer several times so I am surprised an obviously intelligent person would want me to repeat my self ! Do you think absolute temperature actually matters ? Well it doesn’t!
To be crystal clear, by evening out temperature, CO2 causes milder storms.
Sure Sandy was big but it was cat 1 and there is no cat 0. CO2 doesn’t cause BIG does it ??
CRU says 2000 to 2009 is only .014 Why cherry pick and be wrong too ?
The 1990 predictions of warming were quite low and turned out to be quite
accurate but wouldn’t scare any $$ out of the public so they were
revised strongly upward and were totally wrong.
1990 – 1999 = Irrelevant but it warmed !
Coyote Eye test.
Tell me which warming
is man made.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/08/global-warming-6.html
1) Neither axis is manipulated ! I printed it out and verified it.
2)By 1940 [the end of the Natural portion] CO2 was 10 %
increase supposedly causing
.08 degree warming !
The natural one
warmed just as much as the non Natural one !! Why ?
Actually the observations overall are slightly warming with limited data time collection.
This is called one of the human finger prints of climate change. With the human influence included in the simulations the climate models quite faithfully reproduce observations of temperature change in the past. Remove the human influences from the computer model and the earth actually slightly cools. This is part of showing ourselves our responsibility in the warming earth. We are responsible for 100% of the warming in the last 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attribution_of_global_warming_%E2%80%93_simulation_of_20th_century_global_mean_temperatures_(with_and_without_human_influences)_compared_to_observations_(NASA).png
This graph shows two simulations of 20th century global mean temperatures compared with observed temperatures (dotted line). The red line (higher up on the right-hand side graph) shows simulated temperatures including human influences (e.g., greenhouse gases and aerosols), the blue line (lower down on the right-hand side graph) shows simulated temperatures excluding human influences. The graph is adapted from Hegerl et al. (2007) (referred to by the cited source).
From the cited Lindsey (2010) public-domain source: “Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line). Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred. The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records.” For more information, see attribution of recent climate change.
The PDI (power disipation index) follows sea surface temperatures of hurricanes. That effects wind also but in the opposite of what you have stated. Winds become more intense. Hurricane Sandy was unusual for how late of a storm in the season and how far north it went. This was from warmer Atlantic ocean waters for it to feed off of. It also set records for its size in the north Atlantic.
CO2 also causes higher winds in hurricanes
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity (e.g.Emanuel 2007.) show a strong correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) (Figure 1). PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
I disagree but for CAGW to happen massively positive feedbacks are needed and they are simply not happening ! Since we have had 45 % of a doubling of CO2 we should have seen 3 to 6 degrees of warming which hasn’t happened !
Jeff
You posted ” The red line (higher up on the right-hand side graph) shows simulated
temperatures including human influences (e.g., greenhouse gases and
aerosols), the blue line (lower down on the right-hand side graph) shows
simulated temperatures excluding human influences.”
This is simple sleight of hand. !
The way to evaluate a model is prediction vs reality and the AR4 models clearly flunk that test.
.
So there has been so little warming since 2000 that a high
priest in the church of global warming has to assure us that any actually took
place ?
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
During that time period the AR4 IPCC climate models predicted .39 ° C warming
which would be easily detectable by anyone with a browser and one working
eyeball.
Even a highly biased dataset like GISS only claims .09
C warming !
Pretty lousy models aren’t they
The more the atmosphere warms from our co2, the more water vapor that the atmosphere is capable of holding, the more the atmosphere warms from the water vapor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[38] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[52] Considered a faster feedback mechanism.[42]
1. The dashed line is the measured temperature or otherwise observations of temperature.
2. When the model contains the human influence it matches observations.
3. When human influence is taken out the earth slightly cools.
4. This is not a projection, this is what would the earth be like in the past without human influence.
Scientists don’t get ahead by cheating. As soon as they are caught at fraud, their career is done. But a PR scientist working for right wing think tanks are paid to lie. Huge contrast.
Peer review is the quality control on science papers. NOt only was it peer reviewed by indvidual scientists, it was reviewed again to get into the UNIPCC AR4.
Was it peer reviewed by mother nature ?
Saying it cooled without CO2 is just guessing shamelessly !
I have created models and they will tell you whatever you want them to !
We are in a 70% water world that is over a mile deep on average that is a 1000 times more energy density than the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing.
So the general conversation goes what will the earth be at a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere?
3*C is what the mainstream science is coming up with.
I hear your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
The climate is sensitive to radiative forcing.
Using too high a value of sensitivity is why the models aren’t accurate !
The IPCC predictions are so bad that they should be fired !
AR4 models predicted .39 degrees from 2000 to today.
Actual warming is only .09 degrees even using the highly biased GISS !
For example?
The IPCC has several different scenarios and projections. Any particular one you are talking about?
It’s not just a standstill. It’s a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028. Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained ..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
The following are excerpts ..
“As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
“At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
“Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!”
The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article “The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” easily found with Google. I’ve also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
Jim Hansen, Roy Spencer (and IPCC et al) are all wrong in assuming the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHG.
They are also wrong in assuming that the Sun was capable of warming the surface of Venus, Earth or other planets to the observed temperature which is then maintained by back radiation being supposedly the only process that slows such surface cooling. They forgot that conduction and evaporation also decrease with a narrowing temperature gap.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated (in Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics”) thus …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
If there were to be a sealed cylinder of air which was isothermal, then there would be an “ordered” state with more total energy (PE + KE) at the top. Hence this would not be an equilibrium state, because entropy could increase, and it must. There will only be equilibrium when the sum (PE+KE) is the same at all heights.
A vertical isothermal state in a gravitational field has less entropy than an isentropic state, the latter having maximum possible entropy, and thus being the equilibrium state as referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I quoted it above from the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics’ item. Hence a thermal gradient forms autonomously by diffusion at the molecular level.
Doug Cotton
Furthermore, any additional thermal energy deposited at the top can, and will, diffuse towards the bottom, creating a new equilibrium. This means there can be a heat transfer up the thermal gradient if that gradient is equal to or less in absolute magnitude than the normal equilibrium thermal gradient.
This is how energy absorbed in the Venus (or Earth) atmosphere at any altitude from any source, be it upwelling or downwelling radiation or latent heat release (on Earth) can flow towards the surface, heating the base of the atmosphere and subsequently heating the surface, or “supporting” its existing slightly warmer temperature by slowing the rate of cooling.
I assume this blog is dead. Am I wrong?