Posted on 10/04/2005 8:27:20 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf
Interesting...apparently, we are in the warming cycle (shucks....I actually like harsh winters) until about 2200 or 2300 before it will switch back over to a cold cycle and cool down again.
No wonder Kansas doesn't have the incredible snows we used to have.
SCIENCE!
Rights, farms, environment ping.BTTT
BTTT
It's always interesting to find out what Fred's up to. I'm trying to determine the best way to respond to this.
Would you mind listing the atmospheric feedback processes you are describing here?
That's incorrect. Read this:
The extent of sea ice in most of the Arctic seas (where the advance or retreat of the ice edge is apparent) has been reliably reported from surface vessels (particularly fishing ships) for decades. The ship captains know where the inlets are, when they open, when they close, etc. This is meaningful data and has been used in studies such as these.
bttt
The answer frequently refers only to the length of the data record, and is not stated as a comparison to earlier periods.
It might be better stated as "this is the warmest period occurring within the period of time beginning in 1880 and ending in 2003." I.e., they aren't comparing to a similarly warm time 120 years ago.
It might be better stated that way, but that's not the way it is consistently stated. At the very least, those questions I raised should be asked in tthe interest of clarity.
The questions aren't asked. The clarity isn't there. I don't know if what they are saying means what I think or what you think. I'll accept either answer - I just want it clear.
It's not clear.
It might be better stated that way, but that's not the way it is consistently stated. At the very least, those questions I raised should be asked in tthe interest of clarity.
The questions aren't asked. The clarity isn't there. I don't know if what they are saying means what I think or what you think. I'll accept either answer - I just want it clear.
It's not clear.
Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?
On page 3: "I argue that the level of DAI [dangerous anthropogenic influence] is likely to be set by the global temperature and planetary radiation imbalance at which substantial deglaciation becomes practically impossible to avoid. Based on the paleoclimate evidence discussed above, I suggest that the highest prudent level of additional global warming is not more than about 1 °C. In turn, given the existing planetary energy imbalance, this means that additional climate forcing should not exceed about 1 W/m2."
The current rate of warming -- unaffected by what could happen if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, which is darned likely -- is between 1.2 C and 2.0 C per century.
Science, Vol 309, Issue 5732, 284-287, 8 July 2005
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans
Abstract: "A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Abstract: "Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_HansenNazarenkoR.pdf
"A caveat accompanying our analysis concerns the uncertainty in climate forcings. A good fit of observed and modeled temperatures (Fig. 1) also could be attained with smaller forcing and larger climate sensitivity, or with the converse. If climate sensitivity were higher (and forcings smaller), the rate of ocean heat storage and warming ‘‘in the pipeline’’ or ‘‘committed’’ would be greater, e.g., models with a sensitivity of 4.2- to 4.5-C for doubled CO2 yield È1-C ‘‘committed’’ global warming (3, 4). Conversely, smaller sensitivity and larger forcing yield lesser committed warming and ocean heat storage. The agreement between modeled and observed heat storage (Fig. 2) favors an intermediate climate sensitivity, as in our model. This test provided by ocean heat storage will become more useful as the period with large energy imbalance continues."
"What does this imply? Firstly, as surface temperatures and the ocean heat content are rising together, it almost certainly rules out intrinsic variability of the climate system as a major cause for the recent warming (since internal climate changes (ENSO, thermohaline variability, etc.) are related to transfers of heat around the system, atmospheric warming would only occur with energy from somewhere else (i.e. the ocean) which would then need to be cooling)."
"Secondly, since the ocean warming is shown to be consistent with the land surface changes, this helps validate the surface temperature record, which is then unlikely to be purely an artifact of urban biases etc. Thirdly, since the current unrealised warming "in the pipeline" is related to the net imbalance, 0.85+/-0.15 W/m2 implies an further warming of around 0.5-0.7 C, regardless of future emission increases. This implications are similar to the conclusions discussed recently by Wigely and Meehl et al.. Many different models have now demonstrated that our understanding of current forcings, long-term observations of the land surface and ocean temperature changes and the canonical estimates of climate forcing are all consistent within the uncertainties. Thus since we are reasonably confident in what has happened in the recent past, projections of these same models under plausible future scenarios need to be considered seriously."
Would you mind listing the atmospheric feedback processes you are describing here?
Primarily that 2-2.5K surface warming predicated on those feedback processes described by Ramanthan (Journal of Geophysical Review, vol. 84, pp. 4949-4958) , Where magnitude and indeed even the sign of the feedback hypothesized to be derived from moisture and cloud cover fail to be realized in any atmospheric measurements. Processes which presumptively attributed to CO2 radiative warming in GCMs must in reality respond to any perturbation to the climate equally.
The problem is measurement does not support anything near the presumed magnitude or even sign of feedback processes hypothesized and implemented into the fabric of the GCMs. And certainly not to the tune of the 10x feedback that is required to make the GCMs work in magnifying the 0.2oK direct radiative heating attributable to doubling of CO2 concentration into a 2-3oK increase in global atmospheric temperature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.