Comments on: Koutsoyiannis tests if Global Climate Models are scientific

By: freemind

freemind — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:31:40 +0000

SCheesman:
Nope, I was rather referring to the stuff in the later post about the trend of warming since 1998 (and explanations for it.)
In terms of Cosmic Ray Flux, one of the more interesting Denialist arguments, I will concede that it’s possible (however speculative) that Cosmic Ray intensity can influence cloud cover, and therefore temperature to some small degree. But it just can’t explain the warming trend of the last few decades. Direct measurements of Cosmic Ray Intensity over the last 50 years show no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming. While indirect measurements of Cosmic Rays (based on the atmospheric isotopes they form) suggest that intensity fell between 1900 and 1950, a lag between a sudden jump in a climate ‘forcing’ and it’s full effects on temperature shouldn’t be longer than a few years, and the effects on temperature of such a jump would’ve tapered off long ago (rather than growing more extreme.)
Regarding the Iris Hypothesis, I see no reason to put any trust in it whatsoever. Considering the only evidence in it’s favour seem to be Spencers’ papers, and Spencers’ past record on interpreting data, it seems like speculative wishful thinking to me. Even if it is proven to be true, I see no reason to attribute to it the significance some do.

By: SCheesman

SCheesman — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:32:12 +0000

DLH: Great Powerpoint!

By: SCheesman

SCheesman — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:20:33 +0000

Emkay: freemind is correct, the amount of water the atmosphere can hold amounts to a few inches, and the incremental amount it would hold due to even a large temperature increase would be small in comparison to the rise in sea level due to increased temperatures, so as a “negative feedback” it is not really effective.

Freemind: Ad hominems and snottiness are not generally my style. If you did not intend snottiness, I am happy to let it go. I do not believe I ever used an ad hominem, and if my “wearily” appeared intemperate, I apologise.

As for responding to the points you raised, was it this one:

Perhaps the warming is due to some mystical supernatural force? Perhaps it was intelligently designed!

I would say no. I expect cosmic ray flux and its affects on cloud formation are the primary factors. So mystical, perhaps yes, but supernatural, no. Intelligently designed, undoubtedly!

Do I deny that CO2 has any role? Of course not. With DLH, I expect it might contribute up to a degree F, but expect that negative feedbacks are operative, including the iris effect in cloud cover.

As for the 9/10 vs 8/10, after I submitted my remark, I thought, after looking at the graph (by gosh, I think it is 9/10), so thank-you for setting me straight about it being 8/10!

By: DLH

DLH — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:15:08 +0000

See the new post: Beneficial Natural Warming-31,000 Scientists especially the related link to the technical review: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide See especially their very useful Powerpoint slides.

By: freemind

freemind — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:59:17 +0000

SCheesman:
I apologise for seeming to be sneering. However, while I admit that the point was made with a certain degree of incredulity, it wasn’t meant viciously, and I think it wasstill valid. I would also point out ‘wearily’ that some of your own comments above could be interpreted as pretty damn snotty. Don’t preach what you can’t practice. I would also note that you have yet to respond to the points I made following that argument. Is Ad Hominem you preferred fall back?

Emkay:
That’s an interesting point. I think evaporation rates might well increase. But I think the time that the water spends in the atmosphere (as water vapour or clouds) would still be limited, so I can’t see it making that much difference overall. I think the more evaporation you get, the more rain, and so although the hydrological cycle might well be affected, you’d still get roughly the same amount of liquid back over a similar time period. I’m not sure about that though.
Also, temperatures wouldn’t have to rise so dramatically as to melt the ice totally. That’s something I should’ve factored into my above comment. It would be enough just to soften the pack ice keeping the whole thing up, allowing the ice sheet to slide in. This would lead to the rise in sea level, but the ice sheet needn’t necessarily be totally melted, as long as it was in the sea. It could be broken up, but not totally melted. Once the reflective surface of the sheet was reduced, a further feedback would follow, from greater ocean absorbtion of the sun’s rays. This would lead to greater warming, greater melting etc. But the temperature really doesn’t have to increase by that much.

By: Emkay

Emkay — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:48:56 +0000

freemind, SCheesman: I showed the kid your comments. He wonders, since the supposed ‘global warming’ temperatures would be high enough to cause such massive melt, how much ocean evaporation would arise as a result of the same temperatures and neutralize the expected sea level rise?

By: SCheesman

SCheesman — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:53:04 +0000

A small clarification to the above affect of water temperature on volume. The concern, of course, is that with global warming the entire ocean’s water volume would rise in temperature, not just the run-off from melting glaciers.

By: SCheesman

SCheesman — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:48:55 +0000

Emkay: Two more points to add to freemind’s, are: the physical expansion of the water due to the increased temperature, which would serve to increase the water’s overall volume, and thus increase the height; and the second affect, which is much smaller, is isostatic rebound. Areas losing ice tend to rise in elevation (as much of the northernmost part of North America continues to due since the melting of the continental ice sheets), while the oceans would tend to sink (VERY slightly, and VERY slowly) as the weight of water at any point on the ocean floor increased.

Finally; freemind, your sneering is barely disguised (point #3 above). Argue like an civlised adult or find some playground to push kids around in instead.

By: freemind

freemind — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:30:12 +0000

Emkay:
Your nephew is right, ice (because of it’s crystalline structure) does take up more space than water. If it was simply a case of ice floating in the sea, we would have nothing to worry about.
But that’s not the case with most of the Greenland ice sheet, or glaciers. We’re talking about run-off from the land. Similarly with much of the Antarctic ice sheet, we’re not just talking about ice bergs floating in the sea here. We’re talking about large land based ice sheets, which are held in place by sea based pack-ice. When that melts, there’s a real danger of whole chunks of the ice sheet becoming de-stabalised and sliding in, adding much more potential liquid to the equation. Your nephew’s experiment doesn’t seem to represent this very well.
Perhaps more appropriate would be if he balanced a huge meters thick sheet of ice at an angle on the edge of a tub of salt water, packing the top layer of the tub with ice to prevent the sheet from sliding in. I suppose the ice sheet would have to be on some sort of tilted funneled platform so that as it melted, the run-off would flow into the tub (which is what happens in the real case.)
If, after all the ice has melted, the level of the water still hasn’t risen, then :
1. I haven’t thought of all the things wrong with your experiment,
2. You didn’t do it right.
3. You(or your nephew) have made a discovery worthy of the nobel peace prize! After all, if that Al Gore douche can get one, you should be a shoe-in!

By: Emkay

Emkay — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:12:53 +0000

SEA LEVEL RISE DISPROVED

My genius 12-year-old nephew has designed an experiment he says conclusively proves that sea levels would not rise “one bit even if all the ice at the North and South poles broke off into the sea and melted in two days.”

He applied the very complex scientific formula known as Archimedes Principle. He put a chunk of ice in a jug, and filled the jug up to the brim with salted water. As expected, about 90 per cent of the ice remained submerged.

He left the jug and its ‘iceberg’ at room temperature for about an hour until the ice melted.

He reported: “There was no water spill over, and that proves that polar ice, most of which is already in the sea causing displacement by volume, can not lead to a rise in sea levels once it melts.

“Water takes up more volume as ice than as liquid.”

He challenges anyone to try his experiment.