Warm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you're going to hit a brick wall, no sense in trying to slow down, wear seat belts or have an airbag. Just keep driving like nothing is happening. That always works.

True. But if you tell someone that there is a brick wall, there better damned well be a brick wall. And if you say, "The brick walls have deadlier" then we would expect to see something to back it up.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>I thought we wanted to reduce the planets temperature "a bit" to prevent
>floods, droughts, wild fires, and hurricanes.

No, nothing will prevent floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes. Reducing the warming from CO2 will just reduce the frequency at which they occur, and reduce their overall severity.

To use an example (not to upset you or anything but) someday you will die. Although that's a given, I suspect you think that delaying that day - and staying healthier until that day - is a good thing. Imagine if someone came up to you and said "why bother with doctors and diet and exercise and not smoking? You're going to die anyway." Would you think they were being smarter than you were?

>Don’t you see the breakdown in rational thought?

Yes, I do. You see in only black and white, and if something cannot be prevented, then it's worthless to try to reduce its impact.

You, my friend, are the binary one. You fail to consider the costs of your hapless global weather control schemes.

[billvon 3,109]

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of floods?

Yes. Even assuming overall climate doesn't change at all, a rising sea level results in more flooding during baseline weather events.

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of droughts?

Yes. Warmer temperatures, even assuming climate doesn't change at all, results in more drought. (Basic weather; hotter weather dries out soil faster.)

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of wildfires?

Yes. Warmer temperatures, even assuming climate doesn't change at all, results in more potential for fire. Fire risk is almost directly proportional to temperature in dry wildfire prone areas in the West.

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes?

In the mid term, yes. Hurricanes are driven by temperature differentials, and as some parts of the globe warm faster than others, storms become stronger and more frequent. In addition sea level rise has made any given storm surge worse. So again, even if you completely ignore any contribution from temperature differentials, a given hurricane will be more severe due to rising sea levels.

[billvon 3,109]

> You fail to consider the costs of your hapless global weather control schemes.

I actually don't have any global weather control schemes. Although it is true I do not have any hap either.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of wildfires?

Yes. Warmer temperatures, even assuming climate doesn't change at all, results in more potential for fire. Fire risk is almost directly proportional to temperature in dry wildfire prone areas in the West.

There's also the "bug factor." Without the severe cold spells in the winter, a lot more bugs survive. There's a type of beetle that is killing off a lot of trees in the northern Rockies. It's thriving because the periodic -30F temps that kill it off are becoming rarer. All that deadwood is making fire season much, much more interesting.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of floods?

>>Yes. Even assuming overall climate doesn't change at all, a rising sea level results in more flooding during baseline weather events.

No http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/midwest-floods-and-unjustified-climate-change-fears/[/url]
>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of droughts?

>>Yes. Warmer temperatures, even assuming climate doesn't change at all, results in more drought. (Basic weather; hotter weather dries out soil faster.)

No http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling/

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of wildfires?

>>Yes. Warmer temperatures, even assuming climate doesn't change at all, results in more potential for fire. Fire risk is almost directly proportional to temperature in dry wildfire prone areas in the West.

No http://www.livescience.com/21249-global-warming-colorado-wildfires.html

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes?

>>In the mid term, yes. Hurricanes are driven by temperature differentials, and as some parts of the globe warm faster than others, storms become stronger and more frequent. In addition sea level rise has made any given storm surge worse. So again, even if you completely ignore any contribution from temperature differentials, a given hurricane will be more severe due to rising sea levels.

Wrong again http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes?

In the mid term, yes. Hurricanes are driven by temperature differentials, and as some parts of the globe warm faster than others, storms become stronger and more frequent. In addition sea level rise has made any given storm surge worse. So again, even if you completely ignore any contribution from temperature differentials, a given hurricane will be more severe due to rising sea levels.

Hurricanes are driven by warm sea surface temperatures. The only temperature difference that makes any difference in hurricane formation is the difference between the sea temperature and the upper atmosphere (convection from surface to upper atmosphere). AGW theory says that the upper atmosphere WILL be warmer, thus decreasing the differential and decreasing storm formation.

Perhaps this accounts for the lack of increase in frequency and strength of hurricanes since 1850. It may be DECREASING since then (no Cat 4 or 5 hurricane has hit our shores since Andrew).

I’m actually disagreeing with you about the mechanism you are suggesting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

If you're going to hit a brick wall, no sense in trying to slow down, wear seat belts or have an airbag. Just keep driving like nothing is happening. That always works.

True. But if you tell someone that there is a brick wall, there better damned well be a brick wall. And if you say, "The brick walls have deadlier" then we would expect to see something to back it up.

Okay, let's say you're driving at night. The it's difficult to see, but it looks like there's something stopped in the middle of the road. You can't be 100% sure. You do know that if there is something there and you hit it, it's going to be pretty bad, but still, can't be 100% sure, it might just be some optical illusion.

Don't you slow down anyway?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,109]

>Hurricanes are driven by warm sea surface temperatures.

They are driven by sea temperatures that are warmER than the upper atmosphere. Storms are driven by temperature differences, not by absolute temperatures; that's where the heat flow that powers the storm comes from.

>AGW theory says that the upper atmosphere WILL be warmer

?? No it doesn't. It says it will be cooler.

AGW is caused by greenhouse gases. These tend to trap infrared energy. Thus while the energy being absorbed by the planet remains the same, the amount emitted goes down. The system must still balance; it does so by warming the planet until the blackbody radiation is strong enough to make it through the increased concentration of AGW gases. At that point the system is back in equilibrium. It is not there yet.

Thus right now the Earth looks COOLER to an outside observer, since it is not radiating as much thermal energy as it used to. This is true to an observer in the upper atmosphere as well. He sees the same radiation coming from the Sun as always, but less infrared radiation coming from the planet. Thus he is a bit colder.

From an article in xplora.org:

=======================================
Stratospheric cooling:

Cooling of the stratosphere is favoured by the ozone reduction. But the main cause of stratospheric cooling is the release of carbon dioxide by humans. Therefore, global warming (= tropospheric warming) and stratospheric cooling are parallel effects. Further cooling of the stratosphere may also have an impact also on the future development of the ozone layer, because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

. . . .

The lower stratosphere seems to be cooling by about 0.5°C per decade. This general trend is interrupted by heavy volcanic eruptions, which lead to a temporary warming of the stratosphere for 1-2 years. Afterwards, temperatures go back to the trend.
Calculations from several research institutes generally find a larger cooling trend for the recent two decades (1979-2000), compared to less cooling during the previous period 1958-1978. See figure on the left.

Why does the stratosphere cool?

There are several causes, why the stratosphere could be cooling. The two best understood reasons are:

1) The depletion of stratospheric ozone
2) The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Cooling due to ozone depletion

The first effect is easy to understand. Less ozone means less absorption of solar UV radiation. Less solar energy is transformed into heat in the stratosphere. Cooling by ozone is nothing else than reduced heating by reduced absorption of solar UV-light. Additionally we have to keep in mind, that ozone acts in particular in the lower stratosphere also as greenhouse gas. Cooling in the lower stratosphere is therefore also reduced heating by reduced absorption of infrared light. In about 20 km altitude the UV-light and infrared light effect are nearly equal. But we have not only to take into account the greenhouse effect of ozone, which become less and less the higher we go.

Cooling due to the greenhouse effect

Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) generally absorb and emit in the infrared heat radiation at a certain wavelength. If this absorption is very strong as the 15µm (= 667 cm-1) absorption band of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas can block most of the outgoing infrared radiation already close to the Earth surface. Nearly no radiation from the surface can, therefore, reach the carbon dioxide residing in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation to space. In the stratosphere this emission becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption. In total, carbon dioxide in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere looses energy to space: It cools these regions of the atmosphere. Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone (as we saw) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), have a weaker impact, because their absorption in the troposphere is smaller. They do not entirely block the radiation from the ground in their wavelength regimes and can still absorb energy in the stratosphere and heat this region of the atmosphere.

. . .

Conclusion

Stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected, not only through radiative processes, but also through dynamical processes, such as the formation, propagation and absorption of planetary waves. At present not all causes of the observed stratospheric cooling are completely understood. Further research is required.
Nevertheless, cooling is observed and expected due to increasing carbon dioxide and decreasing ozone. Further stratospheric cooling would make the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely. We have to keep in mind that CO2 emissions do not only lead to tropospheric warming but also to stratospheric cooling.

http://www.xplora.org/downloads/Knoppix/ESPERE/ESPEREdez05/ESPEREde/www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html
=============================

All that being said, I do not believe that we understand storm formation well enough to predict exactly what a decrease in stratospheric temperatures will do. While increasing this differential will increase the energy available for storms, that requires the storm develop to the height at which significant cooling is seen (approximately 20km or 60,000 feet) - and hurricanes rarely develop that high. Thus I do not think that that effect alone is driving an increase in hurricane strength.

However, a rising sea level definitely makes a bad hurricane worse in terms of damage it can do to a coastal community - even if the storm's wind speed (the most common measure of intensity) is exactly the same.

[lawrocket 3]

Sorry. I shouldn't have said "upper atmosphere."

Stratosphere is cooling. The convection must go from sea through the troposphere, though, where the warming is to occur.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,109]

>Stratosphere is cooling. The convection must go from sea through the troposphere,
>though, where the warming is to occur.

Right. Which is why I do not think that we can say that climate change makes all storms stronger based purely on that phenomena. You could argue that it makes the very largest storms (those that reach 60,000 feet) stronger, but those are a small minority of storms.

[lawrocket 3]

Of course. There's a lot going on there.

But arguing climate change makes certain storms more powerful always has a tendency to be hindsighted. i.e., massive blizzards worse because warm air holds more water. A partial attribution based upon a spin - warm air CAN hold more water but, if it was as simple as "hot air means more water" then Death Valley would be a jungle.

There are plenty of other factors we don't fully understand with regard to the relationships between those factors - the computing power that goes into a weather forecast is mind-boggling. But I appreciate that I am always learning something from you, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Professor of Environmental Studies Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado:
Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately

IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"

Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"

on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

On XTCs "unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones"

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: "low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust"

More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: "current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency"

IPCC on trop cyclones "AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends"

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

More IPCC Ch2: "low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"

More IPCC draft report: Ch2: "there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding" excpt timing of snowmelt

So what happens now to those whose views on extremes run counter to IPCC? Are they now the new "deniers"? Somehow I doubt it ;-)

I have been critical of past IPCC assessments on the science of extremes. But after SREX and now IPCC AR5 SOD the IPCC is 2 for 2. Nice job!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Professor of Environmental Studies Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado:
Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately

IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"

Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"

on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

On XTCs "unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones"

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: "low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust"

More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: "current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency"

IPCC on trop cyclones "AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends"

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"

More IPCC Ch2: "low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale"

More IPCC draft report: Ch2: "there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding" excpt timing of snowmelt

So what happens now to those whose views on extremes run counter to IPCC? Are they now the new "deniers"? Somehow I doubt it ;-)

I have been critical of past IPCC assessments on the science of extremes. But after SREX and now IPCC AR5 SOD the IPCC is 2 for 2. Nice job!

"The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

"Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change"

blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-shows-substantial-warming/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

It is the middle of November and there is close to one foot of snow in my yard. Is this abnormal? No not really, it is in fact normal to have snow on the ground for us at this time of year. I don't see any abnormal warming nor do I see any abnormal cooling. It just seems like the beginning of yet another winter which on some days it will be very pleasant outside and on other days it will be down right nasty.

It is the middle of December and Chicago has yet to have any snow at all this season. The current record for the latest "first snowfall of the winter" is Dec 16, and it looks like that is going to be broken this year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

"Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change"

blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-shows-substantial-warming/

That is not the news. The bombshell is:
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

"Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change"

blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/draft-ipcc-report-leaked-shows-substantial-warming/

That is not the news. The bombshell is:
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

Really? You have a strange idea of "bombshell".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

It is the middle of November and there is close to one foot of snow in my yard. Is this abnormal? No not really, it is in fact normal to have snow on the ground for us at this time of year. I don't see any abnormal warming nor do I see any abnormal cooling. It just seems like the beginning of yet another winter which on some days it will be very pleasant outside and on other days it will be down right nasty.

It is the middle of December and Chicago has yet to have any snow at all this season. The current record for the latest "first snowfall of the winter" is Dec 16, and it looks like that is going to be broken this year.

Well there you have if folks, winter starts late in kallend back yard and it is proof of GLOBAL WARMING, brought on by Hutch's SUV.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."

So Mr. Sherwood doesn't disagree. He just attacks the climate deniers, suggests motivations and hypothesizes about what they'l do next.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It is the middle of December and Chicago has yet to have any snow at all this season. The current record for the latest "first snowfall of the winter" is Dec 16, and it looks like that is going to be broken this year.

"Apparently you don't know the difference between a trend and an outlying data point."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3749895#3749895

Let's practice what we preach here...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

"Leaked IPCC report undercuts anthropogenic global warming by Jonathan DuHamel on Dec. 14, 2012, under Climate change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the process of preparing its next major report (called AR5 for short) to be published next year. The IPCC has been a strong proponent of human-cause global warming via our carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The IPCC has always downplayed solar forcing saying that total solar irradiance (TSI) is too weak to make much of a difference. In that respect, they have a point.
However, the IPCC has always ignored the other, stronger major solar variation, that of the sun?s changing magnetic field which controls the amount of cloud-forming galactic cosmic rays (GCR) reaching our atmosphere.
I reported last year on the CERN experiment which reconfirmed that cosmic rays have a strong influence on cloud formation and hence on climate. In the newly leaked draft report, the IPCC now admits to the “existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” . The IPCC authors “are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don?t know what the mechanism is.” This directly undercuts the case for anthropogenic global warming."

[billvon 3,109]

>on the CERN experiment which reconfirmed that cosmic rays have a strong influence
>on cloud formation and hence on climate.

From the actual report:

==============
Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia.

. . .

The overall experimental uncertainty on [H2SO4] measured by the CIMS is estimated to be −50%/+100%,
===============

Yep. That's rock solid reconfirmation right there.

I mean, the top ten hottest years ever have happened in the past 15 years. But you gotta ignore that because that's not good data.

But an experiment that shows that there are fundamental questions about cloud formation! And results that might be off by a factor of two! You'll have deniers getting tingly sensations all over.

[brenthutch 444]

link please.

[brenthutch 444]

The implication is not that the globe is warming, it is what causes it. If you dig deeper, you will find that the gist of the new data is that global warming is not caused by co2 and that global warming is not the problem that it was thought to be. We should be happy and embrace this new information. We should embrace science and not be an emotional denier.