Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Claims of Drought-Driven Declines in Plant Productivity, Global Food Security Refuted: Modeling Errors Produced Exaggerated Claims
Aug. 26, 2011 — A new, comprehensive study by an international team of scientists, including scientists at Boston University in the US and the Universities of Viçosa and Campinas in Brazil, has been published in the current issue of Science (August 26, 2011) refuting earlier claims that drought has induced a decline in global plant productivity during the past decade and posed a threat to global food security.
I already posted them. They are numerous. And all assume "business as usual" emissions will warm regions such as the Midwest by 7C by 2100 which is complete nonsense.
Actually it kinda does. "The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955"- Levitus 2012.
Are you serious? I'm guessing you only read the abstract and not the whole paper? Are you somehow confusing air temperature with ocean heat content (OHC)?
From the Levitus paper:
"The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m
layer increased by 24.01.91022 J (2S.E.) corresponding
to a rate of 0.39 W m2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a
volume mean warming of 0.09C. This warming corresponds
to a rate of 0.27 W m2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The
heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer
increased by 16.7 1.6 1022 J corresponding to a rate of
0.27 W m2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume
mean warming of 0.18C
We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a
volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer
of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to
the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a
volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F)..
This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system
simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide
a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system
has undergone since 1955"
Do you not understand the significance of that much energy storage? That's 136 trillion Joules per second over 55 years!
I copied this graph directly from the Levitus study:
I colored the part that matters since you tried to illustrate a moot point Plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of Joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith.
But I don't deny the oceans are warming and that co2 will have a role. However, the warming is not new.
Quote:
New comparison of ocean temperatures reveals rise over the last century
Ocean robots used in Scripps-led study that traces ocean warming to late 19th century
A new study contrasting ocean temperature readings of the 1870s with temperatures of the modern seas reveals an upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years.
The research led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego physical oceanographer Dean Roemmich shows a .33-degree Celsius (.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth. The increase was largest at the ocean surface, .59-degree Celsius (1.1-degree Fahrenheit), decreasing to .12-degree Celsius (.22-degree Fahrenheit) at 900 meters (2,950 feet) depth.
The report is the first global comparison of temperature between the historic voyage of HMS Challenger (1872-1876) and modern data obtained by ocean-probing robots now continuously reporting temperatures via the global Argo program. Scientists have previously determined that nearly 90 percent of the excess heat added to Earth's climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans. The new study, published in the April 1 advance online edition of Nature Climate Change and coauthored by John Gould of the United Kingdom-based National Oceanography Centre and John Gilson of Scripps Oceanography, pushes the ocean warming trend back much earlier.
"The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years," said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. "This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years."
Although the Challenger data set covers only some 300 temperature soundings (measurements from the sea surface down to the deep ocean) around the world, the information sets a baseline for temperature change in the world's oceans, which are now sampled continuously through Argo's unprecedented global coverage. Nearly 3,500 free-drifting profiling Argo floats each collect a temperature profile every 10 days.
Roemmich believes the new findings, a piece of a larger puzzle of understanding the earth's climate, help scientists to understand the longer record of sea-level rise, because the expansion of seawater due to warming is a significant contributor to rising sea level. Moreover, the 100-year timescale of ocean warming implies that the Earth's climate system as a whole has been gaining heat for at least that long.
Depends how old you are I guess. And depends on what you mean by 'catastrophic' . If you mean 'the end of the world is nigh!' then I don't think any serious scientist is saying that.
Hansen is a serious scientist to you right?
Quote:
If global warming approaches 3°C by the end of the century, it is estimated that 21-52% of the species on Earth will be committed to extinction
That would be defined as "catastrophic" right? But are we really headed to 3C warming in the next 75 years? Doesn't seem so. I'm not saying we won't eventually warm by that much, we probably will because I have studied paleoclimate and know that during the Pliocene the earth was 3C warmer than today with atmospheric Co2 levels between 365-410ppm , but the oceans are still much cooler than that time period, and there is a **** load of ice on the planet.
Quote:
Your "beef" with the models seems to be garnered from what denialist sources SAY about the models. And they have a habit of misrepresenting them.
Do you think Spencer and Christy are deniers or just skeptics as all scientists should be?
How is this misrepresented?
Quote:
The figure above compares the three major global surface temperature records to 105 unique runs involving 42 different GCMs used in the upcoming IPCC report. It shows the 5th and 95th percentile of model runs in light grey, and the 25th to 75th percentile in dark grey, with a black line representing the average of all models. While surface temperatures have generally remained fairly close to the multi-model mean in the past, the recent pause threatens to cause surface temperatures to fall below the 5th percentile of models in the next year or two if temperatures do not rise.
Quote:
The current slow-down also stands out sharply if one looks at the full range of model projections, from 1880 to 2100. However, it’s important to remember that all models are not created equal. Some inevitably will have more realistic parameters, better physical models, higher resolutions, etc. Simply averaging all the models together may not provide an accurate picture of variations in individual model performance.
Quote:
The figure above shows all 105 model runs, and reveals significant differentiation among the models. Generally speaking, models that are more consistent with recent temperatures tend to have slightly lower climate sensitivity than those that predict higher temperatures over the past few decades. A 2013 paper in Environmental Resource Letters used recent observations to argue that some of the highest sensitivity models may be inconsistent with the observational record.
There have been a number of new papers that use recent atmospheric, ocean, and surface temperature observations to argue that climate sensitivity may be lower than previously estimated (e.g. closer to 2 C than 4 C). These studies tend to be rather sensitive to the time period chosen, and a future warm decade could considerably change the picture. As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the current slow-down continues, the more questions will arise about whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong. What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.
John Christy (another so-called denier) actually built climate model data sets, so his opinion on their skillfulness should be valid
Quote:
You changed from "Anthropogenic Global Warming believer" to 'luke warmer'.
I said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
When he did that video 3 years ago, he was a "luke warmer". Nowhere does he refute the hockey stick, just the methodology in producing it.
and in 2004 Muller said this:
Quote:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do),
So yes, he was a believer in AGW, when he made that video, and not a denier, but I used the term "lukewarm" as in not knowing what contributions of the recent warming are manmade, and how long intermittent cooling periods may mask longer term warming.
Quote:
He called himself a "AGW skeptic" back then when he did that video.
Above I quote him from 2004 saying the exact opposite. He did indeed believe in AGW. Actually he distinguishes the "skeptics" from the "deniers".
Quote:
He isn't now. He also said some pretty ignorant things about the supposed 'climategate' and Mann's work that showed he didn't really know much about the methodology in climate science at the time or about Mann's work. You also seemed to be trying to diss Mann's work by using that video.
He was skeptical of how the hockey stick was created. Not ever a denier that man has made a contribution to the earth warming over the last 50 years.
Quote:
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections." - Richard Muller 2011.
The Best reconstruction only examines temperature records from 1800 on wards. So how does this validate a tree ring proxy study that reconstructs temperatures for the last 1000 years is beyond me. If you are trying to convince me that it has warmed since then, you are preaching to the choir. I know we have warmed. However putting comparing tree rings with actual instruments on the same graph gives you the illusion, that they are of the same accuracy which they are not.
Here is a video of the Best data reconstruction Berkeley Earth
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 12-08-2013 at 09:15 AM..
Extreme weather...including both hot and cold. Nice cherry picking on just one part.
But... but....but ... Al Gore said children in England would live to see snowless winters....... Did he forget to tell us about AGW causing severely cold weather?
OK, so which is worse: palm trees on the banks of the Mississippi in Minnesota, or a MILE THICK SHEET OF ICE over the northern half of the continental US?
Have you ever tried to chip an inch of ice off your windshield? How about a foot of ice? How about a MILE of ice? I'll take the palm trees, thank you.
Duh.......Nice cherry picking...Did you intentionally leave this part out?.......Heatwaves will be lethal and the sea level will rise, leaving coastal towns at risk of being swamped by storm surges.
Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for next THIRTY years
Mr. Peabody: Sherman, set the Wayback machine to 2000 AD:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of Joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith.
. If you mean 'the end of the world is nigh!' then I don't think any serious scientist is saying that.
Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for next THIRTY years
