Hi Jennifer,
An interesting news article appeared in Sci-Tech-Today on November 17, 2006 entitled ‘Iceberg Spotted from New Zealand Shore’. The article reads in part:
“An iceberg has been spotted from the New Zealand shore for the first time in 75 years, one of about 100 that have been drifting south of the country.
The giant ice chunk was visible Thursday from Dunedin on South Island but has since moved away, driven by winds and ocean currents. The flotilla of icebergs – some as big as houses – were first spotted south of New Zealand early this month.
Last year, icebergs were seen in the country’s waters for the first time in 56 years. But the last time one was visible from the New Zealand shore was June 1931, said Mike Williams, an oceanographer at the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research.
Scientists have been reluctant to blame global warming.
“We’ve been monitoring these things for such a short time, it’s impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible,” Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacial geomorphology lecturer, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.“
This observation is interesting in light of the below average sea surface temperatures that are currently observed in the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes. In the November 17 2006 analysis, the cold anomalies extend north to the South Island of New Zealand.
The news article makes the standard comment on whether or not this event is related to global warming. The more appropriate climate science question, however, is whether the geographic distribution of icebergs in both hemispheres have changed over the last several decades, and, if so, why?
In the case of this event, could colder than average ocean conditions in this region be part of the explanation?
Regards,
Paul Biggs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The more relevant question would be to ask if this is related to global cooling.
What we have is a 600km extension to the northern limit of drift ice. We have a body of almost frozen water descending to the ocean floor at latitude 46S.
As it descends it will take surface CO2 with it and seriously undermine the assumption that CO2 only mixes in the upper 100m of ocean. And this will further undermine the climate wonker theory of ocean acidification.
It also demands revision of the extent of albedo from drift ice and the time intervals over which this albedo takes place. And this, of course, undermines the assumed rate of ocean warming.
Hello! Record northern drift ice? Record snow in November in Queensland? Record daily minimums exceed record daily maximums?
The only truthful statement out of these climate gonzos is that it is definitely not related to global warming. Try advanced notice of mini ice age.
Motty should ask anyone in central NSW today about signs of his impending ice age.
Be sure; there is no ice on my horizon!
My bet is that it will somehow turn out to be a further validation of AGW theory.
These days, everything seems to be.
Jim, while you may wish to punt like motty on an iceberg moving up north, my sky is filled with dust from your food bowl and it’s only 37C here today and we have yet to get fires on the horizon. ABC says it’s a wild day as I write.
Reader’s can make up their own minds who to believe without this blog nonsense.
Hang in there Dusty. The waiting is horrible, isn’t it? Best of luck. Cool change on the way.
So every hot event is a sign of global warming but extreme cold events are just anomalies? Give us a break.
It is hot in NSW because the air is flowing from the centre of the continent.
So how is it that the Pittocks of this world can claim that a decrease in albedo at the poles is evidence of local, and therefore global, warming but an increase in albedo in the desert zone means the same thing?
Surely, the climate wonkers couldn’t be guilty of using increased albedo, as measured by daytime temperature increase over land, as evidence of a global scale increase in absorbed sunlight or insolation?
The ice ages have been associated with drought on Australia. Simpified explanation is less evaporation from cold seas but presumably far more complex.
As usual frothing property rights nutters and separatist conspiracists, unrepresentative swill from comfortable coastal environs who don’t actually speak for anyone except their own little introverted diminishing membership of withering members are indulging in a bit of climate wonker gonzo bashing. Having ripped up the social contract it’s easy to pull nonsense out of their fetid hot air emissions and put the boot in.
(Yes Ian that’s what it sounds like – unpleasant and boorish). Now I don’t really think that but we can become totally uncivilised if you like. OK which one of you was graffiting the blog before – betcha it was Rog – that one liner style.
If you wanted to go to town on the bergs story one could easily talk up the increased sea level rise underpinning ice shelf instability (bottom melt) in western Antarctica. These babies probably carved off the Ronne ice shelf according to the experts. And the changes in the southern hemsiphere from an AGW – ozone hole interaction have contributed to the journey these bergs have taken. So yep it’s AGW for sure. Be very afraid. The albedo story is totally bloody reasonable. Go and have a Google on RC for polar amplification if you want the ducks guts on the issue. And if arid lands lose vegetation maybe they might get more reflective – would depend on soil colour?
Global warming is projected to increase desert albedo, through reducing desert vegetation cover, which will further amplify the effect of cooling the non-desert atmosphere and drying adjacent nondesert drylands. Thus, whereas global climate change makes the desert drier, deserts make the global atmosphere cooler, and the drier the desert becomes, the more its cooling effect will increase. The same logic applies also in the opposite direction. “Greening the desert” by restricting grazing or by irrigation would reduce the albedo of the Sahara desert and enhance precipitation over the Sahel; it will also decrease the cooling effect of the desert on the global temperature, thus contributing to anthropogenic global warming.
(Back to the bergs) On the other hand as NIWA have reassured us (don’t want to rev up the NZ climate coalition any more than needed – nuch nuch nuch) it’s probably just some unusual but not unprecedented shite happening.
And good to see NIWA giving the NZCC lads a bit of biffo too.
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2006-08-03-1
“INCOMING !”
Now settle down Motty or you’ll start me Google Scholaring again and Rog will get all toey and stressy and exclaim too much “link link”. Then he’ll do the pension day comment – then I’ll have to give some lip that I’ll later regret. Then Pinxi will write me a long email telling me to settle down.
I was gonna chuck a rock at your wanky ocean acidification stuff too but I’m debating the meaning of life with Pinx and it’s sapped all my energy.
Did anyone watch Geldof in Africa on ABC tonight? Again I say we are just playing around here. ALL of us !
“So every hot event is a sign of global warming..”
every …. hot …. event …
You’re ranting Motty and you can’t back up this statement. You’d best admit it’s misleading if you can’t tell us which single events which AGWers have said is caused by GW.
Luke,
I’m about to board a plane back to Brissie so I don’t have time to find a link, but I read yesterday in The Australian I think , of a NZ expert specifically warning against linking the holidaying icebergs to GW. His argument was that not enough is known about this phenomenon to guess it’s cause.
Pinxi , you are surely not suggesting that extreme heat events , droughts , bushfires etc are not regularly cited by media and green groups and some scientists of evidence of AGW?
Ian’s point ( and certainly mine ) is that awkward extreme cold events are usually just dismissed as anomalies.
Isn’t the cause better served by exercising caution with extremes generally?
Jim
Weather and extreme events will go on regardless of anything with climate change. Trends over a reasonable period of time are the issue. And despite newspapers and blogs getting excited about such things, the real science is slower and much more measured.
And as rabid as the anti-AGW types accuse AGW believers for getting over excited about extreme events – getting excited about sporadic cold events is equally illogical. Can’t have it both ways.
Yes I also said in my post that NIWA have warned against attributing much to the icebergs. But there is a lot happening in Antarctica in their area of suspected origin. I think therefore you can speculate on the AGW possibilities.
Proof – hah – one off event and does have historical precedent. As much as it doesn’t prove AGW influences it doesn’t disprove it either. (same argument as with hurricane Katrina – although some recent complex attribution studies with Katrina do suggest an AGW “component”).
Let me get this straight, Luke. You said;
“Global warming is projected to increase desert albedo, through reducing desert vegetation cover, which will further amplify the effect of cooling the non-desert atmosphere and drying adjacent nondesert drylands. Thus, whereas global climate change makes the desert drier, deserts make the global atmosphere cooler, and the drier the desert becomes, the more its cooling effect will increase”.
Now I may be a simple farmer but you appear to be saying that the net effect of Global Warming will be that the deserts become cooler.
And surely, this would mean that any expansion of, and cooling in, the desert zones could off-set the warming of the comparatively smaller polar areas?
So why then is the BOM churning out maps that clearly indicate that the deserts are getting warmer? Could they be measuring increased albedo and using it as evidence of global warming when you have just said that increased albedo will cool the planet down?
Smells like a bob each way and now you claim that a fundamental inconsistency “is totally bloody reasonable”. For deluded climate ideologues, perhaps.
And Luke, once again I have re-read my posts to find evidence of ranting and all I could find was a bit of sarcasm. Surely you wouldn’t stoop, again, to trying to defame me with claims of ranting and rabidity?
I, at least, have the intellectual and moral integrity to put my full name on everything I write. And I am subject to cheap shots and defamation by nobodies and the un-named.
Despite enjoying the odd put down and epithet, I have always regarded the propensity to hate as an overindulgence by fools. But it must be said that as a representative of greenkind you certainly lower the threshhold of that indulgence.
If AGWers cannot identify a single event that is caused by GW then there is no need to act to halt GW.
Rog – you’re an provocative varmit but given I like you (like I like the Warner Bro Tassy Devil) let’s play – Katrina and the 2002 drought have aspects – is your brain that simple that you think GW is a separate thing to the current weather and climate – a third force. Which leads onto albedo.
Ian – A BIT OF SARCASM ! hehehe – anyway I’m not a representative of greenkind – just the “argumentative bastards union”. In terms of defamation – there’s a big difference between defamation and gratuitous abuse. If I defamed you you’d know it and be VERY angry as opposed to some verbal jostling in which we engage.
Anyway – don’t stop as I enjoy it really. Just watch yourself with ladies though. Except Pinxi as she’s no lady. (jeez I hope she doesn’t read this).
Ian back on albedo – it’s “A” factor. Less radiation will be reflected back to space from an icecap that’s melting and darker sea water patches are appearing. A darker surface that absorbs more radiation. Land surface schemas, as we have discussed before, are complex beasties and a major topic in itself. There’s also surface roughness and stomatal conductance. The atmosphere have many components, there are circulation systems, climate forcings from oceans etc which all interact.
I’m not convinced that all the soil colour stuff is well understood and modelled, but simplistically if deserts become brighter through drying and loss of vegetation they will reflect more radiation back to space. So relatively cooler than they would have been with no other factors. But there are other factors involved hence complex models to do all the maths. In which case they may end up relatively warmer.
I’m simply saying your swipe at Pittock is not reasonable from a discussion viewpoint of albedo.
“Katrina and the 2002 drought have aspects…”
Aspects are reason?
Sounds like a home renovators dream, pity about the lack of floor, walls and roof but lets focus on the *aspects*
Yep – the house roof fell in because of termites, incorrect size supports but finally fell in when you backed the truck into the corner.
Do you think climate variability is suspended as global warming starts to take hold? You’re actually asking for the background physics of variability and weather to be suspended while AGW alone works?
Do you really think you’re going to get a nice simple, uncluttered linear answer Rog?
What a nonsensical discussion.
Add all the evidence together and the sum total makes it overwhelming bloody obvious.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution,
the burning of fossil fuels has increased
the CO2 content of the atmosphere from
280 to more than 370 parts per million per
volume (ppmv), a level unprecedented in the
last 420,000 years (1). To date, a large part of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed
by the oceans (2), which have become
more acidic, thus reducing their capacity to
continue to absorb CO2.
Estimates of global
oceanic pH trends to the year 2000 indicate
that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1
pH units relative to preindustrial times (3, 4).
Geochemical models forecast an exponential
decrease of nearly 0.8 pH units by 2300 (4),
a scenario for which there is no obvious
precedent over the last hundreds of millions
of years (5), with the possible exception of
abrupt changes such as those associated with
the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5
million years ago (6).
from :
Science 30 September 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5744, pp. 2204 – 2207
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH
Carles Pelejero,1, Eva Calvo,1, Malcolm T. McCulloch,1, John F. Marshall,1 Michael K. Gagan,1 Janice M. Lough,2 Bradley N. Opdyke 3
Despite the overwhelming opinion no single event tp prove the model eh Luke?
The late Milton Freidman;
“The one place where you seem to be having that kind of modeling now is in the debate about global warming. And those models seem to be very unreliable and inaccurate. But if you think of physics, they usually have models with only a few equations. In any event, if you have a lot of equations, you ought to be able to draw implications from them that are capable of being understood. You should not present the model and say, now it’s up to you to test. I think the person who produces the model has some obligation to state what evidence would contradict it.”
Your argument make as much sense as the other one, that India’s poverty is due to failure of the free market.
Not that India ever had a free market.
The collective opinion runs along these lines; “Group of researchers led by Georgia Institute of Technology’s Peter J Webster releases report that contends intense hurricanes like Katrina are becoming more common in part because of global warming..”
Which is the part that they are talking about?
Well Freidman of course a great exponent of climatology would know. He wouldn’t have a clue.
Define single event Rog?
Re hurricanes – yep it’s adding a bit more energy. Katrina had an AGW component on the retrospective analysis.
Hey _ I didn’t say India’s poverty was due to the free market. I simply said trickle down wasn’t effective.
Friedman wasnt talking about climatotology specifically he was talking about the principle of central planning based on modeling – whether it be economic, social or climate. He also held views on other aspects of a centrally planned society eg drug policy, conscription etc.
Regarding economic planning time and time again he has been proved right. You only have to look at eastern Europe where countries once State controlled have had strong growth post privatisation.
Of course the principle “trickle down” wasnt effective – it has never been applied, it is a straw man.
Who invented the theory “trickle down”?, it wasnt Friedman, or any other economist, it is political rhetoric dreamt up by the loony left.
As Thomas Sowell drily observes, “there is no need to forego economic benefits for the sake of a political phrase.”
Luke,
The Wallabies are desperately in need of someone with such an agile side step as yourself!
I’ve never disagreed that global average temperatures have increased and have accepted the experts explanantion that at least some of this increase is due to human activity.
As you say , it is the trend that is important.
However , it is surely beyond dispute that currently , extreme weather events ( hot or cold ) are treated very differently.
Extreme heat events are cited as evidence of AGW and extreme cold events are simply anomalies.
Now this could mean;
1. Because of the heating trend , more extreme heat events are expected but extreme cold events are harder to explain OR
2. Minds are closed to any possibility other than human originated carbon dioxide as the cause of heating so no further discussion will be entered into?
Finally, if contrary to the caution advised by a genuine scientific expert it’s OK to “speculate on the AGW possibilities” , why isn’t the converse equally valid?
Speculating about non-AGW scenarios is beyond the pale?
As you said – can’t have it both ways.
PS – who are the “rabid ” non-AGW proponents you refer to?
Are there any “rabid” AGW theorists?
Jim: I reckon it’s very unwise to say “Extreme heat events are cited as evidence of AGW and extreme cold events are simply anomalies”.
Any engineer knows from simple vortex studies that extreme cold and extreme heat are both a function of increased energy input in a particular system.
Its time we had a bit of applied physics instead of some odd political bias bearing down in these discussions. Vortex in gas and vortex in other fluids are big subjects for the keen technician.
Extreme heat events alone should not be counted as AGW. It’s a question as to whether we have an increase in the number of events, severity or in a particular event that one could demonstrate a major circulation/climate change from AGW.
What we do have a very good trend on is frost – anyone looking at the frost data would see a dramatic decline in frost frequency over the last 50 years. However this year there have been some late frosts that are quite unusual. That’s all still OK.
Climate variation in Australia is very large anyway. So we’re looking for a trend emerging from that up and down cloud of variation. In 50 years time it will have been obvious. This early on it’s hard to see 100% definitively. However in major events like 2002 drought, Katrina etc there are aspects of AGW which appear in the post moretom.
On your second point – we have well understood physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere. We have empirical evidence of the effect from observation. We have no other drivers like solar mechanisms.
Jim – you have to think what you’d expect to see – do you think all variation and weather is suspended because we have AGW – AGW is pushing on an already variable system.
So yep – you can bring up all manner of other ideas. Unfortunately to date they haven’t stacked up.
Who are rabid – most of the non-AGW guys are as you get a whole bunch of greenie/commie/socialist nonsense thrown in as fog to the argument.
So I’m very convinced it’s happening. But what to do about and how not to stuff the economy in the process is much more difficult. It’s a very difficult problem.
What we do know is if you want to wait until it’s 100% sure that blind freddy can see – sorry too late to act then. All over red rover.
And most of us on blogs are rabid – the mainstream scientists ignore the press and all the ruckus and just keep working (thankfully). The real climate research is quite slow, boring and non-rabid.
That claim by Jim fails to distinguish a general trend in the number and severity (& location & timing) of extreme events from the unsubstantiated furphy that environmentalists and AGWers allegedly blame specific weather events on AGW or GW. That one was started and repeated by denialists. Put some meat on it if you can. (But interestingly, perhaps climatologists are starting to identify climatic influences in these events!? wow)
rog is wrong about the origins of Trickle Down and he is wrong to say it was never applied. rog is ignorant of development history and modern development issues on which he shows great callousness. rog continues to argue about central planning as though it’s relevant when he keeps being told it’s not and no-one but him is arguing in black & white. rog has no explanation of the mechanisms by which free markets alone will help impoverished people and poor countries.
Friedman’s ideas were generally accepted by the ‘left’ & the ‘right’. His ideas were also expanded beyond his initial vision. If rog thinks Friedman was correct about all economic matters then perhaps rog can explain how he reconciled his view with the policies and performance of the Scandanavian economies that rog detests so much and will therefore no doubt refuse to ponder. And out of interest, what’s rog’s prescription for stagflation?
PS: cheap shots by rog the distortionist will be ignored. See if you can explain yourself coherently for a change rog
OK, prove me wrong – who was the first to postulate the “Trickle Down” theory?
As has been pointed out to you before, Luke, the ocean acidity paper by the UK Royal Society is based on the assumption that no carbon that is absorbed by oceans circulates any deeper than 100 metres.
Now this may well be an appropriate assumption to make over a ten year projection but it is outrageous to make the same assumption for a projection out beyond the year 2300, as you have quoted.
For a start, it completely ignores the fact that the eddies associated with one of our stongest ocean currents, the Gulf Stream, can be 1.2 kilometres deep.
More importantly, it ignores thermohaline circulation which has been described as massive undersea rivers etc, which involve the vertical cycling of ocean waters.
Remember, this was the stuff that was deemed significant enough to cause a complete collapse of North Atlantic climate into a new ice age if it stopped. And it has now been confirmed that the shere volume of this circulation in the NA alone is so great that the mooted increase in melt water from greenland could not possibly alter the momentum of the flow.
Ergo, the ocean acidity models, when run over more than a century, must assume that absorbed Carbon is cycled throughout the entire ocean depth.
And as average ocean depth is 4,000 metres then the assumption of only 100 metres of carbon concentration in oceans must overstate modelled outcomes by 40 times. That is, they 4000% wrong.
So if the so-called acidifying carbon is diluted to only 2.5% of the modelled claims then the capacity of oceans to continually absorb carbon will remain. And it must be noted that the claimed increase in acidity to date is based solely on a backwards projection from current data. The increase in acidity, if it is not bunkum, is so insignificant as to not merit any consideration in climate models.
So spare us all the weasle words on albedo. You stated that an increase in albedo by deserts would contribute to cooling. So how can this be used as evidence of global warming?
Defend your own claims rog. I’m not falling for your standard trick of expecting others to disprove yr bogus statements – you then reply with pithy attacks. The whole problem with yr stories is that they are stories. You make them up based on some partial facts and apply them in the narrowest sense. Learn to learn, do some research.
Nope wrong paper. Not talking modelling to date.
And the pH is already dropping ! So bad luck Ian your envelope is in tatters.
Ian if you don’t understand albedo and complex forcing (which you clearly DO NOT) that’s your problemo. The rock you perish on is a one-dimensional processor. Albedo is “A” factor. Read again. Did you even bother to look at the RC stuff? No of course not.
Yea Pinx – give up on Rog. Hopeless. Self made small business guys with self doubt are always intolerable. I’m beginning to suspect he’s just an escaped Tim Blair machine unintelligence project programmed to give one liner right wing answers to any question including what’s the time.
Answer would be “Get your own watch you filthy lazy time ignorant commie”.
Hey Rog what’s the time ?
Ahhh, Pinxii says “Trickle Down” can’t be proved, its a bogus statement.
For once I agree.
That hole you are digging Pinxie, I’d toss you a special long handled shovel but I prob would get done on an OH&S issue.
But you dont need my help…
What a cop-out Luke. The so-called evidence that the pH is going down is purely modelled evidence derived from working backwards from current data. If you dispute this fact then please advise where, how and by whom they obtained global ocean pH readings over the past century?
Lets face it, you, and the rest of Climate Inc., have been caught out on a fundamental inconsistency with arid region albedo and you are doing a classic weasel’s exit.
Ditto with ‘acidifying’ oceans. And what is your proposed response? You refer me back to Real Climate (now theres an oxymoron) for some “re-education” on the party line.
What a scrubber.
Ian get stuffed !
It’s well worth reading a few references on albedo:
http://www.unep.org/geo/GDOutlook/045.asp
It is rather paradoxical that the forces which induce highly productive conditions next to deserts – the high solar radiation in the tropical rainforests, the cold and nutrient-rich upwelling of western coastal seawaters, and the moisture-laden tropical trade winds reaching tropical continental mountains – are also all factors maintaining the aridity of deserts. Rainfall patterns within deserts also depend on climatic processes outside deserts.
It is rather paradoxical that while anthropogenic warming of the global atmosphere already warms and dries deserts, deserts habitually cool the adjacent global atmosphere – a state that is also projected to further intensify, due to global warming. This is due to the desert albedo (the direct reflection of solar radiation by the earth’s surface back to outer space). In contrast to the intuition that views the long hours of intense solar radiation reaching the bright desert surface through the dry atmosphere as a cause of enhanced warming, the actual effect of deserts is that of cooling the global atmosphere (Charney 1975). The typical desert albedo is 20-35 per cent of solar radiation reflected back to space (much higher than the 15% of the savannah and the 5% of the rain forest; Pinty and others 2000). With little water available for evaporation from the dry desert surface, most of the remaining solar radiation heats the desert surface, and the generated thermal radiation escapes to space through a dry atmosphere. The heated dry air cools at the rate of 10°C km-1 as it rises to 3-4 km, such that the tropospheric air column above deserts is cooled. This high-altitude cooled air is dispersed by the winds over great distances away from deserts, at least as far as the adjacent non-desert drylands, which become cooler and drier.
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/324200.pdf
There are two competing effects of global land cover change on climate: an albedo effect which leads to heating when changing from grass/croplands to forest, and an evapotranspiration effect which tends to produce cooling. It is not clear which effect would dominate in a global land cover change scenario. We have performed coupled land/ocean/atmosphere simulations of global land cover change using the NCAR CAM3 atmospheric general circulation model. We find that replacement of current vegetation by trees on a global basis would lead to a global annual mean warming of 1.6 C, nearly 75% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while global replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 C. These results suggest that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming. In particular, high latitude forests probably have a net warming effect on the Earth’s climate.
Polar amplification
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
Why the climate system is non-linear with feedbacks – problems for envelopes !!!!
blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-260.pdf
When you think about all the hype and personal abuse put out by Phil Done/Luke, Ender, Pinxii et al, they have actually set the case for AGW back. Not that their actions are particularly unusual; more the status quo among global warmer worshippers.
For instance active french socialist Claude Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences and author of more than 100 scientific articles, 11 books and recipient of numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, has now come out and joined the sceptics.
“..Claude Allegre accused proponents of anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, commenting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre
“..Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes.”
http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670
Pretty strong language from one of the scientists that signed the letter “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Rog you’re just a gimp. What do you contribute except drivel. As Pinx has exclaimed you’re a waste of space. Your last post proves such
As for Allegre I just wet myself in laughter. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
You think by now you’d check first !
Bon soir num nuts.
As for acidity issues – do some reading on oceanography 101. The majority of the anthropogenic CO2 is confined to the thermocline. Try Suess effect. And see how the Revelle factor affects surface concentrations too.
cheap shots by rog the distortionist are being ignored. He has failed to connect the dots
You quote out of context rog, you distort people’s lines, make false claims of victories (rogaganda), you half-weave arguments out of rotting straw and you don’t bother to think through the arguments you’re defending or how they’re appropriate to the discussion. Brainless jibberjabba.
waste of time.
over.
& I thought we were talking about Icebergs, & things.
Arent small icebergs also called ‘growlers’?
I’m sorry Rog – but weren’t very nice. But ya must admit I did get you a beauty with the Allegre one !
n’est pas. I’ve been waiting for you to use it for months. Even Phil is giggling.
Let’s start over. First you apologise to Pinxi.
I wonder what opinion Claude Allegre has of Luke? – there isnt that much to work with, once you detract the Real Climate links, half a dozen ad hominems that any school kid could better.
He probably doesnt have the time to spare.
Pinxi,
Surely you’re not serious?
Let’s get this straight.
Your riposte is that extreme weather events are NOT linked to AGW by environmentalists and/or AGW proponents???
Is that truly your position?
So the attribution of blame for Katrina to GWB by AGW true believers didn’t occur?
Or Howard getting caned for drought / bushfires because he didn’t sign a treaty?
Or are you and Luke saying that those who did make the asssociation are hsterics/wrong/misguided/BS artists etc??
Which is it?
Gavin , unwise I well may be – but if you haven’t seen/read/heard a link between extreme weather events and AGW in the newspapers , radio , TV in the last 6 months then I stand in awe of your splendid isolation.
I dips me lid Sir.
sunsubstantiated furphy that environmentalists and AGWers allegedly blame specific weather events on AGW or GW. That one was started and repeated by denialists. Put some meat on it if you can. (But interestingly, perhaps climatologists are starting to identify
Luke,
Allow me to withdraw, I just read through all posts – following a cranky post-taxi accident trip home – and note your comment “Extreme heat events alone should not be counted as AGW”.
I’m guilty of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I await your castigation of those who cite EHE as evidence of AGW with relish
I remember a quote about their can be no science of isolated phenomenonwhich includes rogue bergs. Or simply n=1 is an orphan. So tell me, if I had now decided my temperature forecasting coin was biased ( Fewer observed frosts, dummy)and so there were more HOTS than TAILS, should I read anything in to the next toss or even the next 100. But if I had decided there was no bias, I could not read anything into the next 100 tosses either. So WHAT ARE YOU ALL ON ABOUT. At the other and non-random extreme, if I had a good simulation of coin tossing, I would know how it would land because I had programmed all the physics of the flick. And I would even know the bias. But we live in the uncertain muddle between knowing their is a bias but not sure how much. Get used to it and move on.
Jim Jim Jim Jim, you’re still failing to get it, despite it being repeated above. General trends versus particular specific singular events. The distinction is key. Do you get it? Read my post above again.
“So the attribution of blame for Katrina to GWB by AGW true believers didn’t occur?”
Katrina is a particular event. Which environmental scientists or climatologists or spokespeople attributed Katrina to AGW?
I saw denialists make that claim and I saw someone debunk it rather well. I also saw plenty of AGW-concerned people caution others about claiming that any particular weather event is caused by AGW or GW.
Yes I would say that a person who made such a specific claim could be misinformed or might be deliberately spreading alarmism, but if they’re an armchair commenter just reading news headlines it could be easy to miss the distinction. They might also be making it up to attack AGW.
Jim, can you provide evidence who said GW caused Katrina? Where did you get that from?
On Katrina (and in fear of being bazooka-ed by Bazza) I will say the “average” AGW person will say “can’t read much into a single event”. The astute denialist will say “ha ha ha – what the Atlantic Multi-decadal Twin Overhead Cam Oscillation”. The philosophical climatologist will say “it’s just as erroneous to say that AGW didn’t have a hand in Katrina and the whole question should not be asked anyway”. Then a long silence.. .. ..
Then the pretty clever GCM modeller with a whole bunch of flash stats ends up saying – look I’ve partitioned up the variance and my analysis shows there’s something on top of the AMO – it’s AGW and I’m calling it. It’s both. Eat my shorts.
At this point Roget gets chest pains and enters denial.
Similarly Nicholls suggested the 2002 drought evaporative flux had an AGW component.
The rest of you can wait 30 years and say “jeez they weren’t kidding were they – what a mother of a trend “. or “ha ha ha – who would have thought the solar torque/LOD stuff got up” and it started cooling.
Ahh – just read the RC roast on Allegre again. What a froggy tosser eh? Three sets of undies today.
the whole AGW Katrina debate is over a lot of hot water Luke
I doubt yr post will help Jim much, btw
Eat shit and die Rog
Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles in Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season, NCAR Scientists Conclude
June 22, 2006
BOULDER—Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
“The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity,” Trenberth says. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise. Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength.
Trenberth and Shea’s research focuses on an increase in ocean temperatures. During much of last year’s hurricane season, sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic between 10 and 20 degrees north, which is where many Atlantic hurricanes originate, were a record 1.7 degrees F above the 1901-1970 average. While researchers agree that the warming waters fueled hurricane intensity, they have been uncertain whether Atlantic waters have heated up because of a natural, decades-long cycle, or because of global warming.
By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic. Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. Aftereffects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.
Previous studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century—and associated hurricane activity—to the AMO. But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming was also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth’s tropical and midlatitude waters. He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures—in effect, separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle. The results show that the AMO is actually much weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also quite active. However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.
Global warming does not guarantee that each year will set records for hurricanes, according to Trenberth. He notes that last year’s activity was related to very favorable upper-level winds as well as the extremely warm SSTs. Each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic SSTs due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, says Trenberth. However, he adds, the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity.
Three hurricanes
Hurricanes Ophelia, Nate, and Maria were among 15 hurricanes that raged across the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean in 2005. Click here or on image to enlarge. (Image by NASA-GSFC, data from NOAA
Luke, you have your head up the RC backside again on Allegre. If you actually look at the full context you would see that Allegre was criticising proponents of anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming. The alarmists have clearly implied that Antarctica will undergo significant melting over this century. But Allegre did not take aim at the entire body of science.
Wasn’t it only yesterday that Don Henry, in relation to substituting nuclear for coal said words like “we will have fried the planet in 20 years” as justification for more immediate action.
Yet your RC propagandist mates implied that Allegre was in absolute denial of all the IPCC modelling. Note also, that Allegre was writing in Le Express, he was not presenting a formal paper.
But it certainly pressed all your buttons as they set up their straw man and then burned him down. The interesting thing is that RC felt the need to defend the alarmists by implying that they had a basis in solid science.
nuh – Allegre has got a stack wrong !
Don’s full of it too !
This is the new zero tolerance policy.
Luke, I note you have only a rudimentary grasp of thermocline, Suess effect and revelle factor. All this stuff is in a context of deep ocean replacement.
Thermocline varies with latitude, season and location. Thermocline in the tropical Eastern Pacific is about 50m but is 160 to 200m in the western Pacific. Away from the tropics it is found between 200 and 1000m.
And this means the mixing zone varies in depth and volume, yet, the IPCC models assume uniform uptake of CO2 by oceans.
Variable depth and volumes of mixing zones mean the Revelle Factor that limits uptake of CO2 is subject to similar variation.
And when this is considered in a context of deep ocean replacement of the 95% of ocean volume, the modelled carbon uptakes, and the ocean acidity projections start to look very suss.
The Pacific Ocean deep waters are estimated to be completely replaced every 510 years while the Indian Ocean replaces every 250 years and the Atlantic deep ocean waters are replaced every 275 years.
This is a lot shorter than the 500-2000 year that is commonly bandied about to justify ignoring this factor.
And this means that any modelling of CO2 uptake by oceans must also include the proportion of total ocean circulation for the period being modelled.
For example, a calculation of the CO2 uptake by the Atlantic ocean over the next century must include 100/275ths of the total ocean volume as the volume that is capable of absorbing carbon.
The current models don’t do that. The UK Royal Society paper on ocean acidity did not do that.
Instead, they applied the entire uptake of CO2 to the volume of the top 100m of ocean and, surprise, surprise, they got some very alarmist results.
And it is this inflated level of acidity that has been assumed to limit CO2 uptake via the Revelle Factor.
It is a case of good scientific tools being applied without the proper skills. Plus ca change..
There you go Pinxii, Luke just provided the evidence.
Yes I know, you dont like to have to provide or be confronted with evidence, it gets in the way of your zealous propagandising.
Firstly some definitions:
Hans Suess was the first to point out that the burning of fossil fuels has a profound influence on carbon reservoirs. These fuels, obtained from the Earth’s crust, are so ancient that they contain no C-14 at all. Indeed some of these materials are used as standards to enable the laboratories to monitor the background radiation. When the fuels are burned, their carbon is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and certain other compounds. The annual release of this “dead” carbon amounts to approximately 5,000,000,000,000,000 kg as compared to the 7.5 kg of C-14 produced annually by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere.
Variations in surface concentrations are related to the length of time that the waters have been exposed to the atmosphere and to the buffer capacity, or Revelle factor, for seawater. This factor describes how the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater (PCO2) changes for a given change in DIC. Its value is proportional to the ratio between DIC and alkalinity, where the latter term describes the oceanic charge balance. Low Revelle factors are generally found in the warm tropical and subtropical waters, and high Revelle factors are found in the cold high latitude waters. The capacity for ocean waters to take up anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere is inversely proportional to the value of the Revelle factor; hence, the lower the Revelle factor, the higher the oceanic equilibrium concentration of anthropogenic CO2 for a given atmospheric CO2 perturbation.
So how uniformly is anthropogenic CO2 distributed in the oceans?
Science 16 July 2004:
Vol. 305. no. 5682, pp. 367 – 371
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine,1* Richard A. Feely,1 Nicolas Gruber,2 Robert M. Key,3 Kitack Lee,4 John L. Bullister,1 Rik Wanninkhof,5 C. S. Wong,6 Douglas W. R. Wallace,7 Bronte Tilbrook,8 Frank J. Millero,9 Tsung-Hung Peng,5 Alexander Kozyr,10 Tsueno Ono,11 Aida F. Rios12
Anthropogenic CO2 is not evenly distributed throughout the oceans. The highest vertically integrated concentrations are found in the North Atlantic. As a result, this ocean basin stores 23% of the global oceanic anthropogenic CO2, despite covering only 15% of the global ocean area . By contrast, the Southern Ocean south of 50°S has very low vertically integrated anthropogenic CO2 concentrations, containing only 9% of the global inventory. More than 40% of the global inventory is found in the region between 50°S and 14°S because of the substantially higher vertically integrated concentrations and the large ocean area in these latitude bands. About 60% of the total oceanic anthropogenic CO2 inventory is stored in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, roughly in proportion to the larger ocean area of this hemisphere.
Low Revelle factors are generally found in the warm tropical and subtropical waters, and high Revelle factors are found in the cold high latitude waters (Fig. 3). The capacity for ocean waters to take up anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere is inversely proportional to the value of the Revelle factor; hence, the lower the Revelle factor, the higher the oceanic equilibrium concentration of anthropogenic CO2 for a given atmospheric CO2 perturbation.
About 30% of the anthropogenic CO2 is found at depths shallower than 200 m and nearly 50% at depths above 400 m. The global average depth of the 5 _mol kg_1 contour is _1000 m. The majority of the anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean is, therefore, confined to the thermocline, i.e., the region of the upper ocean where temperature changes rapidly with depth. Variations in the penetration depth of anthropogenic CO2 are determined by how rapidly the anthropogenic CO2 that has accumulated in the near-surface waters is transported into the ocean interior. This transport occurs primarily along surfaces of constant density called isopycnal surfaces. The deepest penetrations are associated with convergence zones at temperate latitudes where water that has recently been in contact with the atmosphere can be transported into the ocean interior. The isopycnal surfaces in these regions tend to be thick and inclined, providing a pathway for the movement of anthropogenic CO2-laden waters into the ocean interior. Low vertical penetration is generally observed in regions of upwelling, such as the Equatorial Pacific, where intermediate- depth waters, low in anthropogenic CO2, are transported toward the surface. The isopycnal layers in the tropical thermocline tend to be shallow and thin, minimizing the movement of anthropogenic CO2-laden waters into the ocean interior.
Some more background:
Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH
Carles Pelejero,1*. Eva Calvo,1*. Malcolm T. McCulloch,1. John F. Marshall,1 Michael K. Gagan,1 Janice M. Lough,2 Bradley N. Opdyke3
30 SEPTEMBER 2005 VOL 309 SCIENCE
The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a È300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over È50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.
Regardless of the mechanism controlling reef-water pH, our results suggest that corals at Flinders Reef have experienced a relatively wide range in pH (È0.3 pH units) over the past È300 years. As a result, these corals have also experienced equivalent changes in the aragonite saturation state (Warag), one of the main physicochemical controllers of coral calcification. Changes in Warag have been derived from the Flinders pH record (Fig. 2D), with Warag varying from È3 to 4.5, assuming constant alkalinity (10, 24). This encompasses the lower and upper limits of Warag within which corals can survive (37). Despite such marked changes, skeletal extension and calcification rates for the Flinders Reef coral (Fig. 2E) fall within the normal range for Porites (38) and are not correlated with Warag or pH. Therefore, the Porites coral at Flinders Reef seems well adapted to relatively large fluctuations in seawater pH and Warag.
The d13C data for the Flinders Reef coral and coralline sponges, Ceratoporella nicholsoni (Jamaica) (25) and Acanthochaetes wellsi (Vanuatu) (26), show a progressive depletion of 13C in surface seawater, which can be ascribed to the Suess effect.
Our findings suggest that the effects of progressive acidification of the oceans are likely to differ between coral reefs because reef-water PCO2 and consequent changes in seawater pH will rarely be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Although the relatively large variations in seawater pH at Flinders Reef suggest that coral reefs may be resilient to the shorter term effects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is unprecedented relative to B natural[ levels. Additional paleo-pH records are required from a range of coral reef ecosystems to improve our understanding of the physical and biological controls on reef-water pH, and the long-term impacts of future ocean acidification.
***************
Response to Comment on “Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH”
Carles Pelejero,1* Eva Calvo,2* Malcolm T. McCulloch,3 John F. Marshall,4 Michael K. Gagan,3 Janice M. Lough,5 Bradley N. Opdyke6
SCIENCE VOL 314 27 OCTOBER 2006
As stated in (2), the pH variability of our reconstruction represents Flinders Reef seawater, not the open ocean. Local pH values can change considerably, especially within coral reefs where changes in calcification, photosynthesis, and respiration have been shown to induce large variations of pH over diurnal and seasonal time scales. Yates and Halley (3) reported diurnal pH changes from 7.82 to 8.42 units in a Molokai reef flat, with associated ambient seawater PCO2 values of 170 to 935 matm. Ohde and van Woesik (4) found diurnal changes of up to 0.7 pH units in a coral reef atoll close to Okinawa, with concomitant changes in PCO2 of 100 to 900 matm. Suzuki et al. (5) reported diurnal variations of up to 1 pH for a stagnant coastal reef, and Schmalz and Swanson (6) reported diurnal changes of about 0.15 pH units for the Enewetak atoll, an open-ocean reef similar to Flinders Reef. This latter variation is similar to the seasonally resolved change observed in Flinders Reef, based on our high resolution coral d11B data [figure 2C in (2)].
In summary, the arguments proposed by Matear and McNeil are based exclusively on open-seawater behavior of carbon system parameters. By contrast, our reconstruction focuses on seawater properties of a coral reef, where local processes can induce large variations in pH. Our study (2) clearly demonstrated the potential of boron isotopes in massive coral skeletons to contribute to our understanding of how the world’s coral reefs will respond to future ocean acidification. Given that instrumental records of seawater pH exceeding a single decade are not yet available, the boron isotopic composition of long-lived corals currently offers the only practical means to determine such changes back through time.
So what does all this mean :
(1) Anthropogenic CO2 can be readily detected in the oceans
(2) It’s above the thermocline
(3) Mixing isn’t that simple or ready
(4) More effect in tropical waters
(5) Reefs aren’t open ocean – so more complexity
(6) Given long term pH studies not available – have to use paleo coral data – paper cross checks pretty well
(7) Corals are pH adaptable (to an extent) and pH in the reef varies considerably.
(8) Interdecadal Oscillation influences can deliver moderating influences or sudden double whammies
i.e. “Although the relatively large variations in
seawater pH at Flinders Reef suggest that coral
reefsmay be resilient to the shorter term effects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many
reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is
unprecedented relative to natural levels.”
(9) Therefore ocean acidification is a major concern that could very quickly manifest itself very quickly as the IPO turns.
(10) Simplistic notions of CO2 in the ocean and in particular reefs themselves simply don’t work !!
I also await a reasoned retort on albedo and exactly what is so “awful”.
Are not these effects factored into climate modelling.
Are not land surface schemas and land-surface feedbacks the subject of considerable research investment?
Pinxi, Pinxi , Pinxi – “…it is the trend that is important”.
That’s what I wrote above – plain as the nose etec etc.
Clear?
Just a few minutes on Google delivered the following;
German Environmental Minister Jurgen Tritten ; “Greenhouse gases have to be radically reduced worldwide. The US has, up until this point, had its eyes closed to this emergency.” He linked Hurricane Katrina to global warming and America’s refusal to reduce emission.
Boston Globe journalist and author Ross Gelbspan ; “The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.” Gelbspan goes on to write, QUOTE “Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.”
The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly
Al Gore
So Big Al is full of it eh?
Jim – from their understanding (and therefore I’m guessing what they’ve read) – yep they have it wrong and have gotten too wound up. Unless they had read Trenberth ! (see above) which I suspect they had not.
Yes we should be circumspect about putting undue emphasis on every individual calamity or any single extreme temperature. But hot spells and cold snaps are just stuff of climate variation.
(of course if they were totally beyond any reasonable experience of climate like 50C – then eyebrows might be raised.
It’s the trend in the end !
And just to make this worse we have never really discussed thresholds or abrupt climate change on the blog. Some trends might take a very quick jump. Attribution is a fun issue.
So Luke how do responsible AGW advocates such as yourself counter these distortions/misrepresentations?
The claim that AGW alarmism and exaggeration is evident in the media is something you would support then ?
Acknowledging the scaremongering and hype makes the AGW proponents more credible?
D’accord?
Well it’s a real problem getting it right. In defence you will see Stoat and Realclimate sometimes saying some alarmist stuff isn’t right and stating things properly and not overstating.
For example: see
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/monbiot_and_monckton.php
William Connolley (aka Stoat) handing out some stick to both Monckton and Monbiot (very different sides of the argument). Both got a serve.
RC hosing down a totally wrong Atlantic Conveyor story:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/
And for contrast the good guys have to keep the dark forces in balance too
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2006-08-03-1
Operational non-retired CSIRO staff are generally fairly conservative.
I don’t think it’s scaremongering or hype. I think people’s concerns are genuine.
Of course any moderate views or well worded statements will be exploited by denialists and contrarians as chinks in the armour/story.
What you do have to remember is that humanity is already very poorly adapted to coping with climate variation – droughts, floods, hurricanes. It’s not like we’re moving from a nice rosy position into a disaster – it’s already quite problematic coping with the background variation. Want some more ? or more often? More severe? Can we adapt? Is there a positive side?
The difficulty with this issue is whether to wait till it’s 100% clear as day – then it will be too late. We’ll be committed to whatever we get !
since no-one seems to have bothered, I thought I’d share this from Wikipedia –
“Today “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies of the Ronald Reagan administration, known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term “supply-side economics” was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[2]
The term “trickle-down” comes from an analogy with a phenomenon in marketing, the trickle-down effect.”
…..not good enough Rog?
thanks varp, I know well the history of trickle down, the results and the subsequent development response, but as I concluded above, a waste of time. I knew rog could easily be proven wrong but he’s not interested in learning and he’ll just retort with misconstructions and then cheap shots.
I’ve written many a time about these issues and the comprehensive approach needed in undeveloped economies but, even with evidence, rog keeps yelling ‘free markets free markets’ incessantly anyway. He has no support for his claim that free markets alone are a panacea but he believes it. He refuses to connect the dots to consider the implications and assumptions of his recommendations even when you point it out clearly. There’s no reasoning with the unreasonable
Jim & Luke, we all agree with each othr after all on claims about direct causality. How nice. Puts us back at square 1 yet again.
I appreciate yours and Lukes comments in particular here on this blog Pinxie. You both seem hip to principals and systems that can be explored to counter the extremes of all these other laissez-faire advocates that would have us back in the dark ages. If you get into politics, you both got my vote.
I checked out an Oz survivalist forum (very scary place….)a while ago and I’m beginning to wonder if some of the posters there aren’t some of the same posters here.
Rog wrote “If AGWers cannot identify a single event that is caused by GW then there is no need to act to halt GW.”
From this I infer that rog agrees we have GW, but is skeptical of AGW. It is impossible to identify a particular event, by which I assume rog means something like a freak storm or prolongued heatwave, but why would anyone want to when we’re discussing climate, not weather. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of long term “events” providing hard evidence of GW, though not necessarily AGW. One of the more obvious being retreating glaciers. This physical evidence is also supported by temperature measurements over the past 100 years. So what remains is to provide an irrefutable link to AGW. It is entirely reasonable that an incremental change in atmospheric composition through human activity, notably increasing CO2, will have an incremental affect on the earth’s heat balance. A change in the heat balance means a change in temperature. The question is by how much? There may also be an underlying natural cycle at work, which may add to or subtract from the expected AGW factor. The natural cycles we know of from Vostock ice core data, which show no parallel to today’s level of CO2 in 400,000 years. That data also suggest we are due for an ice age, though the onset of one could still be many thousands of years away. Moreover the positive correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot be dismissed in the absence of other evidence. The statement should be, “if anti-AGWers cannot identify why the earth has warmed up so rapidly, there is need to act to drastically cut GHG emissions, also because fossil fuels are not a sustainable energy source”
Varp thanks for your supportive comments.
Robert – couple of points
– no ice age soon – actually a really really long time
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
The CO2 evidence is much more than simple correlation – good models of known physics and a number of papers experimentally measuring the effect. (posted blog archives. You may not have been exactly suggesting this – but anyway !
Cheers to you varp. Luke and I have been lonely for the company of balanced commenters. We tried hanging out with the greenies for a while but they shunned us for raising the right arm to ask a question. Wise mums always said don’t walk in the middle of the road, you’ll get hit by traffic from both directions.
So, you are saying Reagans budget director formed the hypothesis of “trickle down” economics?
Varp omitted the first (important) bit
“Trickle-down economics” and “trickle-down theory,” in United States political rhetoric, are characterizations by opponents (principally Democrats) of the policy of lowering taxes on high incomes and business activity.”
So my challenge to pinxii still stands, substantiate your claim or not.
Interesting that until Varp cherry picked Wikipeadia pinxii had no idea how to defend her absurd accusation, the blind leading the blind.
Interesting to note that Wikipedia confirm that the term “trickle down” was a borrowed marketing term;
“The term “trickle-down” comes from an analogy with a phenomenon in marketing, the trickle-down effect.”
Repitition does not make a lie true.
Why should Pinxi substantiate anything. Do you?
Or do you normal answer a question with a question?
Luke, I had a response to your standard word dump much earlier but it dropped out and then the cricket won my attention.
You still do not appear to grasp the fact that the Revelle factor and Thermoclines operate in a context of deep ocean circulation.
Themocline in the tropical Eastern Pacific is only 50m deep while the Western Pacific is 160 to 200m. In non-tropical regions a permanent thermocline is found between 200m and 1000m.
Thermocline in the Eastern Pacific is shallow because of the huge deep ocean upwelling there so any attempt to simply assume that CO2 uptake is limited to the volume of the mixing layer above 50m is wrong. The water from this upwelling is moved by surface currents to other locations where the Thermocline is much deeper.
According to Peter Brewer in the innaugural Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture, http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/talks/revelle/text.htm the deep waters of the worlds oceans are replaced on average of 500 years.
This is at the low end of the often quoted 500-2000 years that is used to justify leaving this circulation out of the carbon uptake modelling. And apparently Brewer does the same.
The actual span for the Indian Ocean is only 250 years and 275 years for the Atlantic. And this means that any model that attempts to determine CO2 uptake by sea water must include the portion of deep ocean circulation that takes place during the period of the projection.
The UK Royal Society did not do this. They simply assumed a constant 100m depth of mixing layer and projected out to 300 years which obviously came up with a concentration of carbon, and therefore acidity, that was grossly exaggerated.
As the average depth of oceans is 4000m then the top 100m is only 2.5% of total volume. But as average deep ocean replacement is 500 years then a modelling of uptake over a century must include 2.5% plus 100/500 x total ocean volume to produce a contributive volume of 22.5% of total ocean volume.
And while each annual increment of deep ocean upwelling may only be 0.2% it is the cumulative value that makes the difference, especially as it has low initial carbon levels and therefore has greater capacity to absorb CO2.
In the above case, a century of uptake would involve a volume that is 9 times greater than the UKRS assumptions and produce a ninefold dilution of absorbed carbon and a commensurate reduction in the change in acidity.
What this means is that there are variances in revelle factors all over water bodies. They are not constant and only operate as a limit on carbon uptake on the portion of the mixing layer
that is not subject to replenishment by upwelling.
And I am very pleased to note that RC now agrees with my much earlier posts on the Atlantic Conveyor scare. But I seem to recall that you and/or Phil were a little slow on the uptake. Indeed, I seem to recall that it was that post by me that initiated your now rather boorish and repetitive references to the “back of my envelope”.
At this stage it is my envelope that has the runs on the board.
sure rog, 3 bags full rog.
as rog so astutely observed, varp thanks also for alerting me to the existence of wikipedia
“Repitition does not make a lie true.”
Only from the distant and isolated Person’s Democratic Republic of Rogga could we receive such hypocritical rogaganda. Pray tell us why then rog you insist on repeating your rogaganda lines until you believe them yourself. No-one else is convinced or defending your inane rogisms. Given your rogged refusal to reason, you can rog off. I’m roggered if I’ll waste any more rogging time.
On that last point, Luke, I take back my compliment to RC on Atlantic Conveyor bumf. These guys are not even in the vicinity of the truth because they seem to be continuing with the meltwater changing the density of the descending water theory. This, you may recall, is a change in salinity and therefore density that would only be possible if the entire greenland ice sheet melted in a century.
Fat chance as the current rate would take 11,000 years for it to melt away.
Ian – so you’ve taken little on board re acidity. The speed of rise is greater than any mixing and coral lagoons are not the open ocean. Chose not to read and think eh? Sigh.. ..
The isopycnal layers in the the tropical thermocline tend to be shallow and thin minimising the movement of anthropogenic CO2 ladens waters into the ocean interior. (Rip up envelope).
The recent Atlantic conveyor scare – WTF – “slow on the uptake” – the recent report that it had stopped was quickly squashed by RC as a journo error and I was incredulous that it could be. So you seem to recall wrong !
On the conveyor – the paleo data discusssed this blog before indicates period of low flows. And Dansgaard–Oeschger cycles.. .. RC have advanced other hypotheses too – so you know zippo ! Your explanations?
P.S. On another unrelated matter – When the rural separatist movement gets a few 1000 votes then I’ll take notice. Still waiting. I’d be surprised if you’d get 100 in an election setting.
It’s worth restating again that the imputed surface ocean pH is already 0.1 units less than preindustrial values. But not believed by property rights activists with Pentium envelopes. Why –
They also estimated preindustrial [CO32 – ] from the same data, after subtracting data-based estimates of anthropogenic dissolved inorganic carbon (from World Ocean Circulation Experiment and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study) from the modern dissolved inorganic carbon observations and assuming that preindustrial and modern alkalinity fields were identical (see Supplementary Information). Relative to preindustrial conditions, invasion of anthropogenic CO2 has already reduced modern surface [CO32 – ] by more than 10%, that is, a reduction of 29 mol kg-1 in the tropics and 18 mol kg-1 in the Southern Ocean. Nearly identical results were found when, instead of the data-based anthropogenic CO2 estimates, they used simulated anthropogenic CO2, namely the median from 13 models that participated in the second phase of the Ocean Carbon-Cycle Model Intercomparison Project, or OCMIP-2
Two methods – both check out. ONLY ONE is modelled !
Ian burn the envelope ! You’re gone !
from:
Nature 437, 681-686 (29 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04095
Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 and Andrew Yool18
Today’s surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.
Luke asks me “do you normal answer a question with a question?”
What can I say?
Pinxii asserts, yet again, that she can not be bothered answering me. Just how often will she repeat this lie?
Was that supposed to be an intelligent response, Phluke? You trot out the crap about coral reefs not being the same as deep ocean as if it was some sort of rebuttal but I made no mention of coral reefs. Did you just throw that in so other readers would think you were making a considered response?
You also did the same thing with talk of thin isopycnal (pressure)layers preventing mixing of CO2 in the thermocline (layer below the mixing layer) but have not given any response to the issue of deep ocean cycling.
So quoting some study that passed its own (modelled) test of validity is nothing but a classic bail-out.
So lets just repeat this once more for blind freddy, shall we? If average deep ocean replenishment takes 500 years then 0.2% of the volume of the deep oceans are being exchanged with the surface each year.
And if this is taking place as upwelling then obviously, there must also be some sort of descent of an equal volume of CO2 laden surface water somewhere else.
This 0.2% may not seem that much but if the surface mixing layer is only 100m deep, or 2.5% of total ocean volume, then this 0.2% annual exchange will mean a complete exchange of the 2.5% surface layer every 12.5 years.
And given the variance in capacity to absorb CO2 between deep ocean water and surface water, this is a very significant factor which cannot be ignored.
Now there is no doubt that you and your anal retentive mates are quite capable of sampling and modelling to give you the absolute certainties that you apparently need to have.
Any bozo can take samples at the same point over a number of years that show similar outcomes. But if those samples are being taken at a fixed location that an ocean current is passing by then you are not measuring the same bit of water.
If you really want to find out what is happening to a body of water then you need to tag the particular parts of a column and monitor the movements and the changes in composition over time.
The current modelling is like researching the life story of humans by only interviewing 19 year olds over a number of years. Yes, you discover constants but in the overall scheme of life they mean jack squat.
But lets just confirm one thing for the record. Do you accept that all ocean waters are cycled through thermohaline circulation over some time period? Do you accept that this period averages 500 years?
Lets just sort this basic bit out before we go anywhere else?
I vaguely remembered some argy-bargy years ago about the term “trickle-down” so I was prompted to have a squizz.
While it is a bit chicken and egg as to who invented the term, I think you will find it was David Stockman who first employed it to describe his now discredited “supply side Reaganonics”. He says here in the interview with Greider –
“It’s kind of hard to sell trickle-down economics, so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really trickle down.”
Since the principle was proved ineffective, the term was given derisive currency by those who opposed it, not necessarily the “looney left” as Rog likes to stereotype anyone with a counter argument.
I think that’s the way it goes Rogney.
I can see Ian’s dander rising as the real world doesn’t behave like an envelope. You can see the verbal abuse growing as Ian’s processor is going “but but but .. .. it can’t be.”
Mate you are done like a dinner and this calls your judgement totally into question. All these studies point one way.
You calm yourself right down and read it again. It ain’t mixing. It’s happening fast. The carbon down there matches the modelled answer. Validated both ways. Woooooooo hooooooooooooooo !!!!
And think about the headlines – lone property rights activist defeats record numbers of research institutions.
“Well it was easy ” said a shy Mr Mott. “I did while watching the cricket and having a beer actually”. “Anyone could have if you weren’t lazy and had a half a brain”. “I’m having a few mates around Saturday and we’re computing the mass of the Higgs Boson” “I mean how hard can it be”. “It’s only a little bastard”.
The President of France said “Sacre bleu – le digrace – M Motte est un geni-arse. Formidable !”.
The following institutions could not be contacted for comment.
1. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS, CEA Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
2. Department of Biological Sciences, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California 92096-0001, USA
3. Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Centre IRD de Bretagne, F-29280 Plouzané, France
4. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1543, USA
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, USA
6. NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA
7. Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095-4996, USA
8. Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Yokohama 236-0001, Japan
9. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
10. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (AOS) Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0710, USA
11. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000, USA
12. Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
13. CSIRO Marine Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
14. Astrophysics and Geophysics Institute, University of Liege, B-4000 Liege, Belgium
15. Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-5013, USA
16. LOCEAN, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75252 Paris, France
17. Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
18. National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
19. †Present addresses: Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, UMR 5566 CNES-CNRS-IRD-UPS, F-31401 Toulouse, France (P.M.); AOS Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0710, USA (K.B.R.); The Met Office, Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK (I.J.T.)
Not a sidestep Luke, a blatant cop out. Supply a list and maybe some sort of moron will think you have a brain.
“It doesn’t mix”, indeed. So what about thermohaline circulation then? What about all this fresh water in the north atlantic that is supposed to stop mixing and stop the deep ocean circulation?
You provided a quote above about a conference that reported on the results of megabuck monitoring systems to actually measure these movements (that are supposed to be driven by descending cold water) and you now claim that it doesn’t mix?
What a “AAA” rated scrubber.
Ian you’re a bozo – read the papers again ! I’m not claiming anything more than has been observed.
It clearly not mixing quickly enough on relevant time scales globally. Otherwise you would be seeing the buildup of anthropogenic CO2 observed.
What a total tosser. You don’t understand oceanography. No idea on chemistry. You don’t read anything. You don’t attempt to reconcile observation with hypothesis. Piss poor effort. I really love it when you guys dig in and don’t read up. Sucked right in and caught with your pants down. Your massive ego prevents you from observing anything not within your world view. Hence the property rights nonsense won’t get 100 votes or 100 yards. More bad judgement.
Since you’ve been cleaned up here – you owe me on albedo.
“would not be seeing” .. ..
Oh, so you do actually accept that it takes place?
Then you must also accept upwelling and downwelling doesn’t take place uniformly all over the world so there will be locations where the uptake of CO2 is anomalous and parts of the deep oceans where CO2 levels are also anomalous.
And as the actual data sets are only of short duration then they are hardly likely to provide anything conclusive.
And that, of course is the essence of most global warming scepticism. You and your doctrinaire mates are claiming certainty while we are still waiting for some conclusive evidence.
And no, you won’t distract me. And your recourse to insult only highlights your tenuous position and a distinctly second rate mind.
Now Ian – you have the least to complain about insults as insults are your tool of trade. I’m not insulting you – this is simply a robust discussion in your preferred style.
Ian – you ought be rattled enough to want to chase it down. But you’re not. That says heaps.
I’m not claiming certainty – you are ! You are certain that you are 100% right.
And your standard approach is to put shit on the scientific community as a quick draw response and belittle the argument. Of course this isn’t a scholarly journal – it’s a blog so we can amuse the spectators (if more then 2 are still with us) and call each other dickheads.
Most of these articles conclude with “more work to be done”. But jeepers – are these problems simple. They’re grand challenge.
You are confusing an equilibrium position with a transitional problem.
The data are from 95 cruises and some 9518 hydrographic stations over the 1990s. It was conducted in 3 north south transects in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. It represents the most accurate and comprehensive view of global ocean inorganic carbon distribution available.
The delta carbon tracer method was used to separate the anthropogenic CO2 component from the measured dissolved inorganic carbon concentrations. So the data sets might be short term but they INTEGRATE the location of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century.
PONDER THAT !
5 years of data preparation since 1998 before analysis.
As you would expect the most vertically integrated concentrations are in the North Atlantic. By contrast the Southern Ocean south of 50S has very little integrated anthropogenic CO2 concentrations. Becuase anthropogenic CO2 invades the ocean by gas exchange across the air-sea interface, the highest concentrations of CO2 are found in the near-surface waters. The global atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a steady rate from burning of fossil fuels.
The bit you have not pondered is at what speed the carbonate ion concentration will decreasse – the Revelle factor increases and the ability to absorb more CO2 decreases. So the long term view is that maybe the capacity of the ocean to act as a CO2 sink is compromised. More CO2 in the atmosphere eequals more warming – think upper end climate scenarios more likely.
The authors conclude that the mixing and stratification issues are complex, the export production and calcification rates of the ocean are not well enough known.
One can easily get a scenario wherein the short term transition we damage reefs and southern ocean food chain then in the longer term reduce the capacity of the ocean to be a sink.
So don’t think equilibrium – think transition. What happens at what levels in what time frame. That’s why you’d have to model it.
And of course locally our terrestrial silicate export in the oceans, a component of local ocean alkalinity has decreased markedly. Unknown implications but apparently now getting fertiliser like responses to sugar cane from silicate application. Probably a rounding error in the scheme of things – but globally – I don’t know. Has been raised.
So does all this mean a case for alarm. Maybe not. But certainly enough for “concern” if you’re interested in politics and the environment as to be here in this place. Dismissing out of hand – which is your CERTAINTY indicates a closing off of thought processes – development of a growing barrier of cognitive dissonance among industry advocates such as yourself just when we need some attentive buy-in to keep moving the science. I urge you to consider your responsibilities as both an advocate for producer land rights and a person of influence in the environmental debate.
Interesting, Luke. So tell me, how does the delta carbon method distinguish between CO2 from a bushfire (deemed non-anthropogenic under IPCC) and CO2 from a wood fired stove (which is)?
And I am seriously pondering how anyone could assume that they know the current location of a body of water in a series of surface and sub-ocean currents that absorbed CO2 from the trees cleared by convicts at Botany Bay? And am also pondering how your experts can distinguish that CO2 from the fires lit by blackfellas all over the rest of the country?
And I still ponder how you can use localised, specifically North Atlantic problems of Revelle effect to conclude that we have a Global problem?
You have toned down your language but you are still expecting me to make a leap of faith. I accept that there MAY be a probability of a problem developing but given the disparity in absorbed CO2 levels from ocean to ocean and within oceans and within strata and columns, then there are sufficient grounds for simply saying, “yet to be established”.
Uncertainty is always the only certainty.
As for your 95 cruises and three large transects, etc, thats fine, but we really need to trace some emissions right through the “system” over time like a barium meal. All this static point data is nothing more than a base line.
And even if we do get to a point where localised ocean volumes can no longer absorb CO2 then we will then need to see how the wind will intervene in a changed local airmass.
Your cause is also not helped by the fact that there is a continual supply of people like Al Gore who’s slimy deceptive body language and communications “techniques” tweak every single button of an experienced, and once well paid, liar detector like me.
And I invite every other reader of this trail to go back over it to see who was escallating the invective.
bushfires – not relevant to the issue. We’re talking about the fate of the fossil fuel CO2 – which has a fingerprint – where have all the emissions ended up? They’re not all in the atmosphere. The ocean is a big sink.
The Revelle effect is the buffer capacity. Not just a North Atlantic issue. Low Revelle factors in warm tropical and sub-tropical – high factors nin cold water high latitudes. CO2 uptake inversely proportional to the Revlle factor. Hence lower the factor the more equilibrium concentrations in the surface can be for a given level of atmospheric CO2. i.e. CO2 effect more in tropics.
Again reefs themselves have their own special localised factors.
A big difficulty in our discussion is about four issues – absolute point samples, rates, flux balances and integration. You have to think what you’re arguing. Then you have to decide what happens in what time frame, what spatial dimension geographically, and what vertical dimension and with currents, complicated by the fixing of mixing. So after 200 years it ain’t gone too far and atmospheric CO2 is still increasing.
Think again about the issue of “a base line”. It’s has measured the “fingerprint” of industrial activity since 1800s – the CO2 from the fossil fuels in the ocean can be identfied from isotopic tracer techniques – it is not uniformly distributed – see above discussions. So it’s a base line OK – BUT also an INTEGRATION of 200 years of fossil fuel CO2 sloshing around the system.
I’m not an Al Gore fan. His movie can simply be assessed on a right/not right/maybe checklist. He doesn’t do too badly. 100% better than opposition efforts. Methods and politics though are another issue. He’s probably on balance a divisive character.
Agree on low revelles at equatorial zones but this is balanced by movement of surface water from tropics to temperate zones where mixing zones are deeper. The modelled future CO2 uptakes do not account for the changed weighting of these elements.
Nor do they appear to include any responses of nature to these new levels other than increased temperature. An increased speed of ocean cycling and an increased speed of atmospheric cycling would seem to be the most obvious responses.
And these, given the existing range of natural variation in these phenomena, are quite capable of impacting on the outcomes of the modelling.
And before someone wants me to mortgage the house to the hilt to fix this “problem” it is the least they can do to supply detail on the sensitivity of modelled outcomes to these other, entirely plausible, and highly probable outcomes.
That, at its core, is the problem. The GW proponents are fundamentally pessimistic. And that means the glass is always half empty and getting worse. Minds like yours have been clinically proven to have reduced capacity to assess or even identify mitigating or positive variables. The same can also be said in respect of optimists capacity to recognise adverse or negative variables.
That is why we have debates and that is also why there are few things more dangerous than a bunch of pessimists telling the world that the debate is over when it clearly is not and claiming that any sceptics are either nutters or paid hacks.
Ian, I glad you have overturned the laws of therodynamics.
Therodynamics says that work! (wind, currrents) actually must increase as temperature gradients increase. But due to differential warming (for whatever cause) the polar regions are warming more than equitorial regions, this should reduce the temperature gradient and hence reduce energy transport by wind & currents.