11 January 2010

New Year, New Question Place

Time for a new place for people to leave their questions.  I don't forget about the older questions, don't worry about that.  Some just take some time to answer -- sometimes I have to go learn something myself.  I like doing so, but it takes time.  Sometimes, fortunately, some readers already know an answer, so you don't have to wait for me.  Of course, other times, I do know the answer and can let you know more quickly.

This is also a place for suggestions of topics to cover.  Those, too, may take a while.  I really do, for instance, want to get hold of the biofilm article that Hank mentioned in the last question place.  Not the easiest thing for me to get.  But it should happen.


Frank O'Dwyer said...

I would like to see a post on what constitutes the 'fingerprint' of AGW (versus GW caused by some other means).

By that I mean we often see in the media and on the net claims that 'AGW theory predicts...'...for example, AGW predicts increased drought.

Is that really a prediction of AGW, or would any kind of GW produce the same result? If there is no increase in drought would that falsify AGW? Or would it merely falsify the claim that AGW implies drought? And so on.

For that matter is there really such a thing as 'AGW theory' or are there several versions?

Unknown said...

Are there any estimates for the forcing for internal variables like ENSO, AO, AMO, PDO, etc?

I was just wondering because I still see people posting graphs with short time intervals, and comparing carbon dioxide concentration to temperature anomalies. I can explain signal and noise, but it would be nice to have some numbers.

How does the radiative forcing of 1.6 Watts m-2 compare say to a La Nina? Or a negative Arctic Oscillation?

I've read elsewhere that these should balance out to close to zero in the long run, it's just that in the short term, all of these competing forcings might make the issue-why short term trends don't give us much information about climate-more clear for some.

Brian said...

I'm spamming various knowledgeable folks for lucid explanations on why GHGs cool the stratosphere.

I actually found a decent one by Roy Spencer, of all people, but wouldn't mind something with more depth.

jg said...

I just finished reading Kopp et al (Nature, 17 Dec 09) "Probabilistic assessment of sea level during last interglacial stage" and have a question. Kopp poses a sea level rise 6-9 meters from a minimum warming scenario (I'll discuss this more on my blog, so as not put some much text here). Kopp and the reviewer cite that the Eemian had CO2 levels similar to holocene (pre-industrial) but orbital forcing put temperatures higher comparable to expected current GHG forcing. The implication is that the Eemian offers an insight to expected sea level rise. I've been wondering about an increase atmospheric CO2 from warming. Since the Eemian had warmer temperatures but similar CO2, can we use the Eemian to constrain the bioshere's contribution of CO2 as a result of warming? specifically, that 1-2 degrees globally with more at the poles would be unlikely to trigger a significant release from permafrost, peatlands, and tundra, since it didn't during the Eemian?