tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1849555213770098853..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Greenland 2015: Anthony Watts denies Arctic amplificationSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23931979270658054872016-06-14T22:58:06.555+10:002016-06-14T22:58:06.555+10:00Possibly an echo from the WUWT coverage -- I recei...Possibly an echo from the WUWT coverage -- I received this surprised note from a scientist at Columbia University today:<br /><br />"An amazing set of comments on the Lamont Blog page<br /><br />I have been totally amazed by the incredibly uninformed and strident comments on this blog about melt in Greenland from a study Marco published on. I am not sure how this got connected to this set of respondents but it is pretty incredible - I have not seen a Columbia blog circulated and commented on like this although we have many on climate."<br />https://www.facebook.com/Lamont.Doherty/posts/1166377243382601?comment_id=1169085773111748&reply_comment_id=1169410676412591L Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08402287979212116506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68480696712401376032016-06-12T15:50:04.953+10:002016-06-12T15:50:04.953+10:00Is there an election going on somewhere?Is there an election going on somewhere?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69843077750738197312016-06-12T10:32:09.830+10:002016-06-12T10:32:09.830+10:00It looks like angech did a driveby comment - they ...It looks like angech did a driveby comment - they have not return to defend or clarify. They also posted a similar comment on the WUWT blog.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17809512784425094152016-06-12T09:04:14.283+10:002016-06-12T09:04:14.283+10:00angech,
More Antarctic weirdness, Schmithüsen et ...angech,<br /><br />More Antarctic weirdness, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full" rel="nofollow">Schmithüsen et al. (2015)</a> look into its central highlands:<br /><br /><i>CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.</i><br /><br />Which is an extremely interesting result. However, lest anyone get too excited:<br /><br /><i>The analysis carried out by Chapman and Walsh [2007] and Steig et al. [2009] did not result in any statistically significant surface temperature trend on the East Antarctic Plateau during the last decades. They even found a slight (but statistically not significant) cooling trend for the centre of Antarctica. Our findings cannot be understood as explanation of this phenomena but show remarkable similarities with the observations.<br /><br />It is important to note that these results do not contradict the key statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Solomon et al., 2007; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; IPCC, 2013], namely, the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth's climate. Yet we showed that for the cold Antarctic continent some care needs to be taken when discussing the direct warming effect of CO2.</i><br /><br />I'll add that this does absolutely nothing to challenge positive *Arctic* amplification as a response to increased CO2 unless one wishes to compare apples and pears.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75253577225770528372016-06-11T07:52:56.528+10:002016-06-11T07:52:56.528+10:00angech - assumes that since the arctic and the ant...angech - assumes that since the arctic and the antarctic are both elements of polar amplification that they must both manifest effects on the same timescales.<br /><br />Of course anyone that sits down and thinks about the differences between the NH & SH high latitudes quickly realizes this is unlikely. I.e., one is water surrounded by land and the other is land surrounded by water.<br /><br />Cecilia Bitz wrote a <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/" rel="nofollow">RealClimate post on Polar Amplification</a> 10 years ago where she spells out what the models show regarding polar amplification. Note, this was before the arctic sea ice crash of 2007 and then 2012. Arctic temperatures have warmed at an even faster pace in the past decade.<br /><br />As Bitz says, "<i> Predictions with climate models indicate that Arctic amplification will be significant (above the 95% confidence level) in one to two decades, while significant Antarctic polar amplification will take much longer."</i>Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19615586542488725232016-06-11T07:11:31.557+10:002016-06-11T07:11:31.557+10:00Of course, angech is from denier central. Plenty o...Of course, angech is from denier central. Plenty of prior art on other sites.metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85018475997693785082016-06-11T02:47:16.407+10:002016-06-11T02:47:16.407+10:00Suki Manabe again...incredible!
Manabe and Wethera...Suki Manabe again...incredible!<br />Manabe and Wetherald 1967<br />Manabe and Weatherald 1975Tokodavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34097191709691760822016-06-10T23:33:12.324+10:002016-06-10T23:33:12.324+10:00totally agree DC Petterson - they fundamentally mi...totally agree DC Petterson - they fundamentally misunderstand scientific progress through scientific enquiry<br /><br />and that being wrong and understanding why, gets you closer to being right<br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50128208602094669972016-06-10T22:32:54.328+10:002016-06-10T22:32:54.328+10:00@Harry Twinotter,
"I agree, the models revie...@Harry Twinotter,<br /><br />"I agree, the models reviewed by the IPCC got the Antarctic wrong, this is clear. ... But this in itself is not evidence that the models got the Arctic Amplification wrong."<br /><br />A favorite denialist argument is that if a theory or model got Detail A wrong, that must mean the entirety of that theory or model is nonsense.<br /><br />It's a variation of the argument, "If we don't know everything, that means we know nothing."<br /><br />Science is self-correcting, because when further observations reveal an existing hypothesis is inaccurate in one area, those observations are used to improve the model, and it becomes more accurate. <br /><br />Deniers use the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise as an argument against science itself, claiming the lack of perfect knowledge and perfect understanding <i>a priori</i> means no portion of any theory can be trusted, ever.<br /><br />What is the alternative? Clearly, the only alternative to scientific inquiry is a faith-based flatulence, which claims perfect knowledge and perfect understanding even in the absence of, and even in contradiction to, observation. This position can never be falsified, because any contrary observations can be dismissed with a shift of goalposts or a rococo conspiracy--a conspiracy which can be proven to exist by the lack of any evidence for it, thus showing how really good the conspirators are.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31342601630050044102016-06-10T16:09:51.913+10:002016-06-10T16:09:51.913+10:00A couple more (h/t DS):
Manabe and Stouffer 1980
...A couple more (<a href="https://twitter.com/DumbSci/status/739363598150074370" rel="nofollow">h/t DS</a>):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf" rel="nofollow">Manabe and Stouffer 1980</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf" rel="nofollow">Manabe, R. J. Stouffer, M. J. Spelman and K. Bryan 1991</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28816989454330919992016-06-10T15:26:01.671+10:002016-06-10T15:26:01.671+10:00Good to read a couple of studies that back up my o...Good to read a couple of studies that back up my opinion. I was aware that warming in the Antarctic peninsular is quite fast, even if the average warming over all Antarctica is non-existent, and may even be cooling a bit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71746463145451900602016-06-10T15:07:37.046+10:002016-06-10T15:07:37.046+10:00http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372...<a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2019/20130040" rel="nofollow">http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2019/20130040</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-801769765686893332016-06-10T15:01:14.622+10:002016-06-10T15:01:14.622+10:00The main points arising from the regional assessme...<i>The main points arising from the regional assessment were that the Arctic is extremely vulnerable to projected climate change—major physical, ecological, sociological, and economic impacts are expected. Because of a variety of positive feedback mechanisms, the Arctic is likely to respond rapidly and more severely than any other area on Earth, with consequent effects on sea ice, permafrost, and hydrology. On the other hand, the Antarctic would respond relatively slowly to climate change, with much smaller impacts expected by 2100, except in the Antarctic Peninsula. ...</i> - IPCCJCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27601164599311123752016-06-10T14:46:54.018+10:002016-06-10T14:46:54.018+10:00The WUWT article did not mention Antarctic amplifi...The WUWT article did not mention Antarctic amplification, but I will ignore that for sake of argument.<br /><br />Anthony Watt's claim is wrong. He is basing his argument on personal incredulity and a misrepresentation of the study ie a straw man.<br /><br />"Arctic amplification can also occur from local factors otherwise known as weather or natural variation."<br /><br />For 15 years (as the chart shows)? If it is not Polar Amplification, then what is it?<br /><br />I agree, the models reviewed by the IPCC got the Antarctic wrong, this is clear. The IPCC report says so. But this in itself is not evidence that the models got the Arctic Amplification wrong.<br /><br />"Either way, until we have a bipolar agreement[funny/sad in medical terms] on what and which form of Arctic Amplification we are talking about, WUWT does have a legitimate point."<br /><br />The WUWT article did not make a claim about Antarctica. So you are the one making the claim - do you have any references to support this claim?<br /><br />My opinion about Antarctica is there has not been enough time for global warming to affect the Antarctic mean temperature. There are other things going on (such as the ozone hole). It will take a while before the global warming signal gets strong enough to overwhelm the natural variability.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89311234341603069552016-06-10T14:13:55.226+10:002016-06-10T14:13:55.226+10:00I don't get what you are trying to say, angtec...I don't get what you are trying to say, angtech. What legitimate point do you think WUWT has and who at WUWT has made it?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19221509962656621942016-06-10T11:45:11.445+10:002016-06-10T11:45:11.445+10:00Arctic amplification is what I've seen predict...Arctic amplification is what I've seen predicted, not Antarctic -- at least not until we convert a good part of its summer ice to something darker.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81339719965144035172016-06-10T10:26:54.412+10:002016-06-10T10:26:54.412+10:00Hm,
"I don't think Anthony knows what Arc...Hm,<br />"I don't think Anthony knows what Arctic amplification is"<br />Polar amplification is the expected warming at both poles [repeat both poles] expected of GHG increased warming of the world.<br />Arctic amplification is a phenomenon at one pole only.<br />It can occur as part of Polar amplification [expected], but as the graph you provide shows is not occurring.<br />Arctic amplification can also occur from local factors otherwise known as weather or natural variation.<br />A third possibility is that the arctic amplification is real but the Antarctic disamplification is occurring from local factors otherwise known as weather or natural variation.<br />Either way, until we have a bipolar agreement[funny/sad in medical terms] on what and which form of Arctic Amplification we are talking about, WUWT does have a legitimate point.<br /> angechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843502144151902195noreply@blogger.com