Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Comments 101 to 125 out of 405:

101. JMurphy at 05:55 AM on 21 January, 2011
     Sasquatch wrote (on the Could Global Warming be caused by Natural Cycles thread) : "I'm currently pursuing a M. Sci. in Environmental Systems Engineering at a major liberal arts university in the US." Do you describe some of your universities as "liberal", in America ? What does that mean ? Sasquatch also wrote : "I do not personally believe that increased levels of CO2 can initiate major changes in the climate." What do you mean by "major changes" and where have you found the sources for your belief ?
     Response: [muoncounter] Liberal arts is a catch all term used in universities to describe general studies in the humanities, math or science. It must be a fairly large university to offer a Master's in 'engineering' as well as liberal arts. It is not a political term in this context.
102. Eric (skeptic) at 23:24 PM on 26 January, 2011
     I finally cracked open my new weather calendar. It starts with two rambling pages by Gregory McNamee detailing a few disasters but constantly pointing out benefits (e.g. dust storms fertilizing the oceans) and claiming that scientists are lowering their predictions of sea level rise. Some of what he says is ridiculous, like heavy rain being good for ducks. He ends with "Climate change is a fact. The numbers suggest other facts as well, among them that even if the world's governments too every step possible to counter that change, temperatures are likely to rise worldwide by an average of 3.6 Fahrenheit (2.6C) by the beginning of the twenty-second century. This may well profoundly alter the way our kind conducts its life on Earth. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be as catastrophic as some people fear - and that may be the best good news of all, even as we dream up news ways to keep alive, and even flourish, under a climate change regime."
103. Bibliovermis at 07:03 AM on 27 January, 2011
     If the good news is that the worst of the projections probably won't happen, then the bad news is that the best won't either.
104. michael sweet at 07:19 AM on 27 January, 2011
     Bibliovermis: MIT just updated their forecast and doubled their estimate of temperature rise. The next IPCC report will more than double the sea level rise estimate. The Arctic sea ice and the Great Ice Sheets are melting faster than the worst projections. Why do you have optimism that the worst will not happen? We need to change from BAU in order to be optomistic.
105. Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 27 January, 2011
     Re: 103 & 104 "If the good news is that the worst of the projections probably won't happen, then the bad news is that the best won't either." "Why do you have optimism that the worst will not happen?" It won't take all of the worst happening. Some will be quite enough. BAU merely guarantees enough of the worst for overkill purposes. We live in interesting times... The Yooper
106. Bibliovermis at 07:29 AM on 27 January, 2011
     I was replying to the irrelevance of Eric's quote, not giving my opinion on where reality (e.g. changes to BAU) will fall in the spectrum.
107. Eric (skeptic) at 14:05 PM on 3 February, 2011
     David Horton, you noted in the other thread that I am in your shoes because I live on earth. I live in Northern Virginia, a climate somewhat moderated due to the Appalachians to the west, but still can be cold and dry in the winter. In the summer it can be hot and humid. I think about winter cold a lot, so I have plans for that: a southern exposure on which I already use passive solar: foundation painted black, with some acrylic (a mistake) covering and warm air intakes. I have heat mass in the crawl space. I heat with wood. There's a lot more I could do and will as I have time. I also think about summer heat and have started five shade trees. I don't worry about drought, my well is 200 feet below the river and the river will never go dry. I don't worry about floods on the river 80 feet below. My summer electric bill peaks about $50 / month with central air so I haven't done much. There simply isn't as much to do about heat except perhaps water some plants, put up shade cloth, etc.
108. scaddenp at 14:35 PM on 3 February, 2011
     eric. that's nice. I'm not expecting Apocalypse tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. However, the papers by Matthews and Weaver, and Hare and Meinshausen for instance lead me to conclude that even if we start making changes now, it will take a long time to turn the climate ship around. There are significant risks associated with change that becomes too rapid as well - instability from climate refugees, effects from failures in food production, in particular - that I suspect will effect everyone on planet however isolated from direct effects they may be.
109. John Hartz at 10:55 AM on 4 February, 2011
     Is it just me, or did the comment thread for both the basic and intermediate versions of this rebuttal become intertwined?
110. John Hartz at 11:01 AM on 4 February, 2011
     Is it possible for someone to clean-up the formating of the "Cites" bibliography in the Notes section? PS -- I favor a space between each cite.
111. muoncounter at 11:26 AM on 19 February, 2011
     First comes snow, then comes the floods of snowmelt. But this year may be worse due to the already saturated ground. NOAA Hydrologic Center: North Central U.S. Spring Flood Risk Heavy late summer and autumn precipitation (twice the normal amount since October in parts of North Dakota and Minnesota) have soils saturated and streams running high before the winter freeze-up. Another winter of above average snowfall has added water to the snow pack on top of the frozen saturated soils in the North Central US. NWS models show this snowpack containing a water content ranked in the 90 to 100 percentile when compared to a 60 year average. These factors have combined to create some of the highest soil moisture contents of the last century. NWS one-month climate forecasts show chances favor a colder than normal last month of winter across the entire North Central U.S., while precipitation patterns appear to be near normal.
112. Daniel Bailey at 23:49 PM on 14 April, 2011
     It's only a negative if you want your beer cold: Climatologists: "We drink beer because we care" The Yooper
113. Gilles at 18:49 PM on 17 April, 2011
     so as it is the right place, I post here my question : since the average population, GDP, improvement of standard of living, etc... growth has been positively correlated to temperature up to now, it must be that some other factor (whatever it is) must have been stronger, so that all drawbacks have been offset in a way or another. My question is simple : does our knowledge allow to make a definite prediction of when the correlation will be the opposite ?
114. Dikran Marsupial at 20:25 PM on 17 April, 2011
     Gilles@113 First, as was pointed out on the previous thread, correlation does not imply causation. A more likely explanation for rising population and rising temperatures is that they both share a common cause, namely increasing economic growth through exploitation of fossil fuels. Economic growth leads to better nutrition and healthcare, which supports a larger population. Fossil fuel use leads to carbon dioxide emissions that you have said you are prepared to accept leads to warmer temperatures (how much we can leave for the climate sensitivity thread - not to be discussed further here). Of course an increase in population leads to greater fossil fuel use, greater carbon dioxide emissions and hence higher temperatures. So if anything the causal arrow goes from population growth as the cause to temperature increase as the consequence, rather than the other way around. As to your particular question, see the work of Malthus. Populations grow until they reach the limits of what the environment can support. Agriculture, improving health care, fossil fuels have all led to increased population and prosperity. That doesn't however mean that increase continues indefinitely. If climate change leads to a disruption in agriculture (for instance), then the Malthusian limit gets pushed back and we end up with at least part of the world population subject to famine. It seems to me to be quite likely that the world population is close to or at the Malthusian limit already, which is why climate change is likely to be a big problem. In short, temperature rise is no great problem for human population growth provided (i) it is not too rapid for easy adaption and (ii) the population is not close to its Malthusian limit already (that is the point where the correlation is likely to reverse). As to what we do about it, personally I would say we can't do anything quickly about population levels (doesn't fit in with my idea of ethics anyway!), so the obvious thing to to is to try and prevent the Malthusian limit on population being brought down by climate change by limiting our fossil fuel use in order to prevent great hardship (mostly in the third world). Of course that won't be pleasant for any of us, but it is better than the alternative.
115. muoncounter at 01:08 AM on 18 April, 2011
     Gilles#113: "since the average population, ... growth has been positively correlated to temperature" Seeing something in such correlation is specious at best; at worst, it leads to yet another faulty conclusion based upon simple-minded extrapolation. One could just as easily say that population growth correlates well with a stable range of temperatures, or more importantly, a near-zero rate of change of temperature. Once out of that range or in excess of that rate of change, you have no further correlation. Another factor that is obscured by your faulty use of correlation is how interdependent the world is now. During the LIA for example, malnutrition in Europe did not necessarily impact the quality of life in Central Asia. In today's world, a problem in one continent has drastic implications on conditions around the world.
116. Berényi Péter at 06:57 AM on 26 April, 2011
     Would you please update this reference under Environment in the Intermediate version of the post? Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010) It is thoroughly debunked (see all three Brief Communications linked on the paper's page at the Nature site, April, 2011). Phytoplankton in fact is not declining.
     • Is there a decline in marine phytoplankton?
     • Does blending of chlorophyll data bias temporal trend?
     • A measured look at ocean chlorophyll trends
117. Albatross at 07:12 AM on 26 April, 2011
     Please note, re the critique of the phytoplankton paper by Boyce et al. (2010) cited @116: Boyce et al's response to the critique was, of course, not linked.
118. Berényi Péter at 08:17 AM on 26 April, 2011
     #117 Albatross at 07:12 AM on 26 April, 2011 of course, not linked Here is the full exchange (open access).
119. YayYay at 10:18 AM on 10 June, 2011
     In economics, it's all really a matter of perception. The following is how a typical, greedy corporate who- I mean dude, could see it. Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries Is positive for rich, high latitude countries. The poorer these countries stay, the less you have to pay for the workers in these countries. Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure Repairing this damage can be a great source of money for many companies. Reduced water supply in New Mexico Selling water to New Mexico can offer great amount of not only money, but political power. The less water they have, the better they can be ripped off. Increased risk of conflict (Zhang 2007) including increased risk of civil war in Africa (Burke 2009) If anything, then this is good for United States military complex and hence USA economy. As long as there are people who think like this, global warming, just like anything else, isn't going to go away.
120. DSL at 04:55 AM on 21 June, 2011
     The IPSO report is out today here. Bad news: "the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."
121. Chris G at 04:52 AM on 29 July, 2011
     Pirate, Sally Moore, et al, I think Malthus will eventually be proven correct, simply because energy available to the human species is finite. (With infinite energy, we could terraform Mars, but let's not get fanciful.) In a broad sense, the agricultural revolution was possible because we leveraged fossil energy to produce more food. Now we are bumping into other limits: a reduction in the availability of fossil fuels to produce fertilizers and pesticides and drive tractors, arable land, and changes or exhaustion of supplies of water for irrigation. At the same time there is a shifting of climate zones and general disturbances in weather patterns which can only hurt the yields of industrial agriculture. How much we degrade our food supply depends a lot on how much climate change we induce. It is not going to be just agriculture, we are already severely stressing oceanic fish, and acidification represents a threat of food web destabilization. Whatever numbers you project, an increase in population at the same time as a reduction in food supply is some uncomfortable math. Given the current state of things, and the lack of any progress in the last decade, my guess is that a bottleneck in human population is inevitable. In that light, I understand Pirate's attitude. However, how much of a bottleneck remains to be seen, world war level, black plaque, something less, or something more. If we can avoid an anoxic ocean event, the species will likely survive. But, just because you believe you can not avoid a car wreck is no reason not to shift your foot from the gas to the brake. It might make the difference between minor injury at one end of the range of possibilities and death at the other. Since we have no record of changes to the climate as rapid as the one we are causing, we only have educated guesses as to what will happen. Skeptics decry the uncertainty of climate models, but I don't know of any credible ones that paint a rosy picture. As has been said before, uncertainty is not our friend. How many of us survive is still important. Thinking of yourself, your friends, and family, is it better that 1 of 20 die, or 3 of 10? Continued BAU for too long increases the likelihood of that first number becoming zero. So, Sally, I'm not a scientist, but I also worry, a lot. My sister has decided not to have kids. I'm more optimistic, or maybe I just don't want to give up, or maybe it was a biological urge I could not resist, or maybe I'm egotistical enough to think the world is better off with more people like me. I raise my own kids to be as strong and independent minded as I know how, with as broad an experience and educational background as I can give them. Parents have always done this, but I think the coming generations will suffer more than most past generations have from living sheltered lives.
122. apiratelooksat50 at 05:13 AM on 29 July, 2011
     Chris G @ 121 Nicely written. I am not callous. Just realistic. Human history is rife with events that reduced our population size on regional and global levels whether it be plagues or natural disasters. And, we should absolutely be good stewards of the earth. I think it is smart for you to teach your kids to be strong and independent. I do the same with mine and I am trying to teach them survival skills. I am sorry your sister has decided NOT to have kids. The Earth is a dynamic planet. Changes are always occurring. We have the capacity to adapt and will. Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet.
123. muoncounter at 09:59 AM on 29 July, 2011
     pirate#122: "Human survival many generations from now, may depend on us leaving the planet." Whoa! That science isn't settled. Which planet would we go to? Planets would have to be 'rated' by an independent authority, preferably someone with no actual expertise in planetary science. And the cost of leaving the planet would destroy our economy. 'Scientists' involved in space flight would get rich on the free-flowing government money. Anyone who questioned leaving the planet would lose their job. It all sounds like a c--spiracy to me.
124. Zeph at 10:51 AM on 10 August, 2011
     In a spirit of refinement: Under "Polar Melting" the last sentence (as I write) is "Melting of the Antarctic ice shelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing." If ice shelves are floating ice (rather than land based ice), why would their melting per se particularly add to sea-level rise? What scientist has predicted that? Suggest removing that sentence. Sea level rise is covered under another bullet point anyway. (Yes, there could some side effect of speeding the adjacent land based ice's speed of travel to the sea - but that's more indirect and less solidly demonstrated and generally not what the sentence says or needs to say).
     Response:

     [DB] Thanks for taking the time to add to the discussion. 

     "If ice shelves are floating ice (rather than land based ice), why would their melting per se particularly add to sea-level rise?"

     Excellent, thoughtful question.  Obviously, floating ice itself cannot add to SLR as it melts.  A general answer is that the floating ice sheets of Antarctica act as buttresses, inhibiting/slowing the downstream flow of the ice sheet proper in response to gravity.

     A loss of the floating ice sheets will lead to the oceanic edges of the ice sheet to exposure to the much warmer waters of the Southern Circumpolar Current.  This will then lead to greater rates of calving at the leading edges, which then leads to an increase in icestream flow downhill.  This vector change in icestream speed eventually propagates upstream along the entire channel of ice.  The result is dramatically increased rates of calving of ice leading to the demise of first the WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet).  Given enough warming and enough time, the EAIS (East Antarctic Ice Sheet) will also be vulnerable.

     Remember, the base of the WAIS and most of the EAIS are well below sea level.  The body blows the ocean can land without the blocking arms of the ice shelves can wreak terrible impact.

125. muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 27 August, 2011
     Continuing from here. ClimateWatcher: "our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate" Tell that to the Anasazi: Climate change is thought to have led to the emigration of Chacoans and the eventual abandonment of the canyon, beginning with a 50-year drought in 1130. Tell that to the Akkadians: Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse, implicating a sudden shift to more arid conditions as a key factor contributing to the collapse of the Akkadian empire. Tell that to the Mayans: A seasonally resolved record of titanium shows that the collapse of Maya civilization in the Terminal Classic Period occurred during an extended regional dry period, punctuated by more intense multiyear droughts centered at approximately 810, 860, and 910 A.D. And tell it to whoever these folks were. A severe drought in parts of low-latitude northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia ~4200 yr ago caused major disruption to ancient civilizations. Seems like drought is a common theme in these 'troubles'. This drought forecast should be troubling: Or as one Texan put it more succinctly,

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.