Climate Change: Modern Witch Hunts - Desmogblog.com

[Andre]

Here is the latest on the PETM

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/G...rojected_By_Ancient_Carbon_Emissions_999.html

Human CO₂ emissions are overwhelming all other climate forcings. The body of evidence supports this assertion. The warming of the last three decades is unprecedented in the last 750,000 years. You have to go back 55 milllion years before we see anything similar. And the cause then was carbon.

The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum was something totally different. I'll open a thread in the Earth files about that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice spinning again

Mann also wrote:

"We are likely to see only increased warming and increased Hurricane activity, if we continue to increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through fossil fuel burning."

In my English textbook "if" is used to indicate causality. So Mann explicitely states here that more fossil fuel burning causes more greenhouse gas (CO2) which causes increased Hurricane activity.

My mistake I didn't realize there were two separate quotes.

We have agreed that hurricanes depend on high sea surface temperatures and we have in that study sea surface temperature have behaved chaotically in the last century, and cannot be correlated to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses. We have also seen that hurricane intensity and landfall has basically decreased in the same period. So there is no indication whatsoever that justifies the claim that more greenhouse gasses cause increased Hurricane activity.

SST's affect the strength and duration of hurricanes. SST needs to be 82F for hurricanes to form. Hurricanes intensity and duration has increased in the last 35 years. CO₂ does contribute to global warming and is therefore a factor in increased hurricane activity.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050915_more_hurricanes.html

The number of severe hurricanes has doubled worldwide even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped over the last 35 years, a new study finds.

A second element in forming hurricanes is atmospheric conditions, most notably a strong vertical lapse rate. If more greenhouse gasses would mean more absorption of IR in the atmosphere then that would cause more atmospheric warming, which would decrease the lapse rate, which would decrease hurricane activity.

Another factor is high altitude wind shear. I would postulate that both of these factors, lapse rate and wind shear, are significant factors in the decrease in the number of hurricanes, while increased SST is the major factor for increased intensity and duration.

Whilst it is an hominem to point at a person discussing personal greedy motives, agendas etc it is not an ad hominem to point out that a person has demonstrated lack of trustworthiness on related subjects.

So who has demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness? MBH98 has not, contrary to your belief the been debunked. As I am sure we will see when the IPCC AR/₄ is released in February 2007.

So it is an ad honimem to suggest that the owner of that http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork (CO2 emission allowances). That's just as lame as the demonizing the skeptics with the deluge of oil company fallacies.

When someone tells a bald faced lie, it is not ad hominem to call them a liar. It is a statement of fact. Fred Singer is a liar.

[edit]

I would not characterize NETeller as being "desperate".

CARBON trading specialists joined the rebound in small-cap stocks after Germany’s decision to recall excess permits sent carbon prices higher.

It seems to me that the idea is catching on so well that more and more companies are reducing their emissions thereby lowering the demand. I see that as a good thing.
[/edit]

But is not an ad hominem to challenge Manns trustworthiness by pointing out that with the hockeystick, he has already demonstrated having his own standards of between being effective, and being honest whilst dreaming up scary scenarios

But that link has absolutely nothing to do with Mann. Viscount Monckton, just like Stephen Schnieder, has engaged in media hype and distorting of science. However I do not lump him into the same category as Mr. Lindzen.

 

[Andre]

Perhaps http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/hurricanes1.pdf can enlighten us somewhat although I think that the job of the demonizers of the sceptics is getting increasingly difficult, especially when AR4 is out.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/hurricanes1.pdf can enlighten us somewhat although I think that the job of the demonizers of the sceptics is getting increasingly difficult, especially when AR4 is out.

Thanks for the link. I found it quite informative. Professor Gray seems honest in his assertions and I respect his opinion.

However it is just an opinion with only his experience and stature to back it up. I might point out that he focused on the Atlantic basin, and not the entire globe when citing statistics for hurricane intensity. He also relied on hurricanes making landfall in the US.

The other point that I find disturbing is his assumption that in 1933, with the robust shipping trade in the Atlantic, that 7 hurricanes were undetected. My impression is that he is drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence and erroneous assumptions.

Here is a better summary with links to many recent studies that show his opinion to be somewhat lacking.

In total, at least four studies, two based entirely on analyses of observations, and the other two based on climate model simulations, independently come to the conclusion that warming tropical Atlantic and Pacific SSTs cannot be purely attributed to any natural oscillation. These studies do not conclusively show a hurricane/global warming link, let alone determine what it's magnitude might be, but they do strengthen one pillar of that linkage.

There is still a robust debate on this issue, but clearly these studies support Mann's assertion that human-induced GW is a possible/probable cause.

[edit]
One more point, the fact that the stratosphere is cooling is evidence that the troposphere is absorbing IR. A clear sign of the greenhouse effect.
[/edit]

 

[Andre]

Thanks for the link. I found it quite informative. Professor Gray seems honest in his assertions and I respect his opinion.

Would it even be remotely possible that most, if not, all climate sceptics are honest and skillfull and have assertions which deserves to be respected, if it wasn't for the remorseless Exxon-hatred campaign?

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

The other point that I find disturbing is his assumption that in 1933, with the robust shipping trade in the Atlantic, that 7 hurricanes were undetected.

Undetected is one, unreported is another. Perhaps the single ship that encountered the hurricane didn't make it. There is no way of knowing the exact count of hurricanes prior to the satellites and relying on that count is most definitely giving an increase bias due to a improved detection mechanism.

Here is a better summary...There is still a robust debate on this issue, but clearly these studies support Mann's assertion that human-induced GW is a possible/probable cause.

That would imply that there must be a correlation between SST and CO2 which isn't there. Because general SST 's have risen the last three decades and so did CO2 isn't enough because the first three decades of the former century the situation was reversed. Appararent rising of CO2 with a significant drop of the SST's. SST's are dropping right now with rising CO2

Moreover the mechanism of heat transfer or IR with water is doubtful although RC has spun one somewhere. The IR penetration depth in water is some 15 micron, therefore it's just as likely that increased IR is increasing the evaporation rate, with the agitated water molecules directly at the first layer of the surface, which removes the added heat immediately. This is about the same as trying to heat water with hot air. You can test the effectiveness easily, just jot down how many weeks it takes to warm a jar of water one degree with a hair dryer. Why is a deep ocean so dark? Because visible light is completely absorpted, converting it to heat. Variation in clouds is likely to be the main >90% mechanism regulating the amount of heat that goes into the oceans, however the main >90% mechanism regulating SST's is the ocean currents up- and down wellings, redistributing heat.

the fact that the stratosphere is cooling is evidence that the troposphere is absorbing IR. A clear sign of the greenhouse effect.

There is little doubt that there is greenhouse effect, however due to saturation at the surface with high concentrations of water vapour, concentration changes have little effect in the lower troposphere. The stratosphere is much more near vacuum with a very low density of greenhouse gasses and nowhere near saturation. That has changed recently which an exponential growth of aviation pumping gigatonnes of water vapor and CO2 into the tropopause, just below the stratosphere. Little surprise that this has some effect on the radiation balance but that doesn't mean that we're heading to a climate disaster that we could have prevented.

 

[Skyhunter]

Would it even be remotely possible that most, if not, all climate sceptics are honest and skillfull and have assertions which deserves to be respected, if it wasn't for the remorseless Exxon-hatred campaign?

I would say many climate skeptics are honest, most are skillful, some have assertions that deserve respect, and some are contributing greatly to the body of geophysical knowledge. The reason I read your threads, is so that I can discover and separate out what is real science and what is junk.

This whole political debate was started by corporations, whose primary existence, by law, is to make a profit. Deciding that profits are just fine the way things are they did what corporations always do, they looked at the bottom line. They decided it was in the interest of profit to spend money to fight Kyoto. The Exxon Memo is real, it is no secret that Exxon funded political think tanks as part of it's strategy to fight Kyoto.

The result of this strategy to spread disinformation, was to obscure the real scientific debate. I want to know both arguments but I grew weary of all the junk science obscuring the minority opinion.

Then I found you. Debating with you has helped me get through the fog and see the landscape a little more clearly. I hope you enjoy these exchanges as much as I do.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

Monckton is not even American, why is he so concerned about Exxon's right to free speech.

IMO if you have no habeas corpus, you are not a person. Corporations are not persons, they should not automatically be given the same rights as persons.

Undetected is one, unreported is another. Perhaps the single ship that encountered the hurricane didn't make it. There is no way of knowing the exact count of hurricanes prior to the satellites and relying on that count is most definitely giving an increase bias due to a improved detection mechanism.

That would imply that there must be a correlation between SST and CO2 which isn't there. Because general SST 's have risen the last three decades and so did CO2 isn't enough because the first three decades of the former century the situation was reversed. Appararent rising of CO2 with a significant drop of the SST's. SST's are dropping right now with rising CO2

NOAA is a good place to find somewhat intelligent debate. (I found Pielke's economic argument to be somewhat off topic and mostly irrelevant.)

Moreover the mechanism of heat transfer or IR with water is doubtful although RC has spun one somewhere. The IR penetration depth in water is some 15 micron, therefore it's just as likely that increased IR is increasing the evaporation rate, with the agitated water molecules directly at the first layer of the surface, which removes the added heat immediately. This is about the same as trying to heat water with hot air. You can test the effectiveness easily, just jot down how many weeks it takes to warm a jar of water one degree with a hair dryer. Why is a deep ocean so dark? Because visible light is completely absorpted, converting it to heat. Variation in clouds is likely to be the main >90% mechanism regulating the amount of heat that goes into the oceans, however the main >90% mechanism regulating SST's is the ocean currents up- and down wellings, redistributing heat.

I agree with most of this. I find your hair dryer experiment to be meaningless hyperbole. Air is not a good conductor, but it is a good insulator. So to only emphasize lack of conductivity and ignore it's ability to insulate is distorting the affect of a warmer atmosphere and it's relationship to the ocean temperatures.

The biggest contributor to ocean thermodynamics is convection. Ocean currents, upwellings, sinkings, salinity's, and melting ice have an overwhelming influence on ocean temperatures. But to ignore or dismiss the significance of the thermal relationship of the atmosphere is reckless.

There is little doubt that there is greenhouse effect, however due to saturation at the surface with high concentrations of water vapour, concentration changes have little effect in the lower troposphere. The stratosphere is much more near vacuum with a very low density of greenhouse gasses and nowhere near saturation. That has changed recently which an exponential growth of aviation pumping gigatonnes of water vapor and CO2 into the tropopause, just below the stratosphere. Little surprise that this has some effect on the radiation balance but that doesn't mean that we're heading to a climate disaster that we could have prevented.

Aviation doesn't pump water vapor into the atmosphere, it does pump aerosols, and produce the famous contrails, but I have seen no credible study suggesting that airplanes are causing the stratospheric cooling.

There is brief study however, after 9/11 when all commercial air traffic was grounded for three days.

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.

I would like to note also that most air traffic is over land, so whatever effect it has would be greater over land than at sea. If the land is being kept cooler by our aviation industry, and I am not drawing any conclusions, but if this is the case then the GHG could be being significantly underestimated.

So we may be in for a lot warmer world as we reduce air pollution. Not a llikely scenario in the immediate future.

 

[Andre]

But to ignore or dismiss the significance of the thermal relationship of the atmosphere is reckless.

It's a matter of quantities. Seeing the specific heat capacity of water and air, transfer (conduction) of heat of the air to water is infitinisimal small. Seeinfg the lack of penetration capacity of IR the transfer of IR energy to water is minimum. Visible light penetrates water a few 100 feet and transfers the radiation heat to energy. That's your heater of water. I gestimate >90%. Therefore when the IR radiation is increased, the atmosphere heats up slightly, transfer of that energy to the ocean is probably two orders of magnitude less. A very little part of a possible minimum increase gets some three-four orders of magnitudes less.

Aviation doesn't pump water vapor into the atmosphere.

Never did physics, did you? Suppose that fuel is something like: C_nH_2n Just a rough guess, then the chemical reaction of fuel burning is highly simplified:

C_nH_2n + 3O_2n -> nCO₂ + nH₂O

Hence the fossil fuel burning also contributes considerably to the sea level rising by directly producing water.

I would like to note also that most air traffic is over land, so whatever effect it has would be greater over land than at sea.

Not where I live, Most planes are over the Atlantic and most of them are over the northern hemisphere, many pass the North pole between China/ Japan and the US/Europe. Now would it be an idea to check in which grids the most changes are?

 

[Skyhunter]

It's a matter of quantities. Seeing the specific heat capacity of water and air, transfer (conduction) of heat of the air to water is infitinisimal small. Seeinfg the lack of penetration capacity of IR the transfer of IR energy to water is minimum. Visible light penetrates water a few 100 feet and transfers the radiation heat to energy. That's your heater of water. I gestimate >90%. Therefore when the IR radiation is increased, the atmosphere heats up slightly, transfer of that energy to the ocean is probably two orders of magnitude less. A very little part of a possible minimum increase gets some three-four orders of magnitudes less.

It would seem to me it is more than simple matter of quantities. Transference is also important. A warmer atmosphere will slow the rate that the ocean cools overnight.

Never did physics, did you? Suppose that fuel is something like: C_nH_2n Just a rough guess, then the chemical reaction of fuel burning is highly simplified:

C_nH_2n + 3O_2n -> nCO₂ + nH₂O

Hence the fossil fuel burning also contributes considerably to the sea level rising by directly producing water.

[edit]The rising sea levels thing sounds like an alarmist argument. [/edit]

I don't remember most of what I learned in high school. But why do we need to suppose?

Here is the IPCC database on fuel properties

Water is a significant emmission. But is it in the gigatons? And if it is, at what rate?

Not where I live, Most planes are over the Atlantic and most of them are over the northern hemisphere, many pass the North pole between China/ Japan and the US/Europe. Now would it be an idea to check in which grids the most changes are?

Absolutely, I think this is a good idea. Although perhaps more suited to the Earth forum.