The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming update: hot with a lot of ice > Comments

Global warming update: hot with a lot of ice : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 10/1/2014

Other measurements contradict the Bureau of Meteorology claim that 2013 was Australia's hottest yet.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
lies lies and statisitcs. Please Mr Abbott along with the ABC make cuts to BOM so they can only report facts. Something very hard for those holding the gw faith to do.
Posted by runner, Friday, 10 January 2014 11:02:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is a typical example of pseudo science nonsense adulterated by pretty cartons.

For example the scientists are currently trying to figure out why the observed diurnal temperature range is well in excess of that predicted by models.

In any event the diurnal temperature difference has far more to do with cloud cover than AGW.

Again we have the same old rubbish about the tropical hotspot. This is not evidence for or against AGW is simply an expected response from higher surface temperatures whatever the cause of the heating. The reasoning is simple higher surface temperatures are expected to lead to higher rates of evaporation. The extra water vapor will on condensation will boost temperatures at altitude. Now this process is what is called a negative feedback that is it to say it would moderate surface temperatures. If it is really not present then we can expect even higher surface temperatures
Posted by warmair, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"AGW is now a catch-all phrase, devoid of evidence into which certain people pour their discontent and frustrations. It is also an outlet for the vanity and egos of general mediocrities who can gain status by declaring they are saving the world and are better than those spoil-sports who want real evidence, reliable science and who don't want to fund the indulgences of a pack of whingers." Thus spake Cohenite!

One day, soon, he will have to eat his silly, extremist words just like the proponents of the Flat Earth Society eventually had to.

"A wise man never speaks of certainties in a world that is filled with natural imponderables, frequent disasters AND stupid humans."
Posted by David G, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well you are wrong about the DTR as the link to AR4 shows but let's talk about the THS. It is clear that the IPCC expected a THS to happen; see Figure 9.1, page 675 of AR4:

http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg

It is plain that a THS from AGW is different from any other heating source; to say other wise is to contradict AR4.

There is some confusion about the THS amongst AGW scientists. Peter Thorne for example, a prominent AGW scientist in a 2008 paper concluded that the model predictions and observations about a THS were in good agreement and that pre 1979 radiosonde temperature data, which is from weather balloons, had been responsible for any disagreement.

However, in his second 2011 study Thorne et al concluded that the observations since 1979 disagreed with the model predictions but when the observations from the radiosondes from 1958 were added the models and observations were in reasonable agreement.

Everyone is allowed to change their minds.

However, Thorne's latest paper disagrees, in varying ways, with studies by Paltridge 2009, Christy et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2011, McKitrick et al 2011 and Fu et al 2011.

You are correct in saying a THS is a negative feedback. The reason for that is THS is really a function of water vapor feedback, not a first order forcing.

You would therefore not see a THS in MODTRAN as implemented on line because a surface temperature offset entered in MODTRAN only affects the temperature up through 10 km and it’s constant.

You get the THS only if the lapse rate decreases as temperature goes up because the moist lapse rate gets lower as specific humidity goes up (higher energy content/kg). So a decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapor is supposed to more than make up for that.

And this where arguments that a THS is not essential for AGW are disingenuous and so irritating because AGW says there will be increased RH and SH so a THS would be inevitable. But it isn’t there.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claiming Antarctic land ice loss is not in decline is a highly dubious claim, by taking only one study out of the numerous that have been done, which relies on laser altitude measurements, when we have data from a number of other sources such as the grace satellites is highly suspicious.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.Us9ZqtIW2Cl

Numerous studies have been done on Antarctic ice.
The general conclusion is that ice loss from the east Antarctic ice sheet is minimal due to increased snow fall, but when combined with the west Antarctic the ice loss has been substantial. It has also certain that there has been an increase in the rate of ice loss since 1992.

(Shepherd and others, 2012).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
Quote abstract.
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively

The tropical hot spot.
Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.
If the hotspot is not there then it means surface temperatures have not risen. Given a choice of believing we can measure the air temperature accurately to within 0.1 deg C and 50 feet at an altitude of 12 kilometers or accepting that the surface temperatures are wrong I will go with the go with the surface temperatures being correct.
There is no reason why GHGs should affect the moisture levels in the atmosphere at any point other than the surface.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 10 January 2014 1:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't really matter whether AGW due to CO2 is true or not.
Note CO2 emissions in the US and some other developed countries has
fallen because the price of fossil fuels has increased.

Towards the end of this decade there should be a marked fall in CO2 emissions.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 10 January 2014 1:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy