Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 Next
Comments 52901 to 52950:
-
Falkenherz at 23:04 PM on 8 October 2012Climate time lag
Maybe even simpler: Just displace the blue curve in your graph 40 years to the right in order to represent a 40-year lag of global temperature following TSI (i.e. adapting to the new energy equilibrum, ceteri paribus). Does this illuminate what I mean with my speculative point a bit better? Again, all the arguments seem to be there, but for me it does not come together, yet. -
mspelto at 22:58 PM on 8 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
For next week's roundup take note of the change on Thwaites Glacier, Antarctica.Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for the tip. -
Falkenherz at 19:57 PM on 8 October 2012Climate time lag
KR, the difficulty of non-scientist people like me is to understand the arguments I read about, and clarification is the tool. That's why it is great of you guys to offer a comment function and take the time to answer. Truth will answer to any question, and, in fact, it is only fully revealed by questions. I understand that I misunderstood the paragraph I quoted, and the uncertainity expressed cannot exceed the range of TSI given there. In that case, I was mislead by "...incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales..." The key issue I was trying to clarify for me is in your No (5). And there, we seem not to understand each other's points, or my understanding is simply too limited. Maybe one last try: I am not talking about anything "hidden", concerning a temperature lag from long-term TSI. I simply believe that the matter of observing a decreasing temperature trend could be a matter of which timescale you are looking at. If you compare 1850 to 2010, and take 1960 as a "breakpoint" (and assuming that the data showing a declining TSI is indeed correct), imo no one can rally dispute your conclusion. But, would that counclusion be so clear if you looked at 1700 to 2010, with the same "breakpoint" at 1960? Relations might be different then, and what we perceive as "linear" (btw, I did not introduce this word and I don't see the relevance of it in our discussion, in fact, the "hockeystick" is far from linear) over the last 50 years might as well be read a slow trailing off if we wait a bit into the future. And CO2 on top might only be able to prolong ("hide"?) the process of trailing off, but not increase much beyond what TSI did on the long term. behold, a core argument of some sceptics. -
Lanfear at 18:43 PM on 8 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Riccardo@19 "I was referring to the melting permafrost feedback." Ah, yes, then I do agree with you. Sorry for the confusion. With regards to Colose writing, this is largely my understanding too, as there is a whole spectrum of more probable outcomes between what we have now what constitutes a global 'runaway', which I tried to convey in my previous writing (english not being my primary language). wili@20 "Efforts to avoid panic have left us where we are" Again, this may be due to difference in what panic means, but I feel strongly that panic is the least helpful state that people should be in in this (or any) situation, and it seems that this is somewhat reflected in the writings of other people too. Panic IMHO means that individuals throw out their reasoning and goes into a short-circuit mode where the survival instinct rules, resulting in a quick and painful collapse of the society. Nothing can be accomplished in this mode. As a background reference, I am talking as an avid diver and aspiring cave diver where panic equals death. What I would solicit instead is a (rude) wake up call, not much unlike the Samuel L Jackson video 'Wake the f*ck up' backed up with numbers (like what Clinton did). The other part should be a (again rude) confrontation and stripping of any perceived validity of the denialosphere argumentation (maybe in the spirit of Christopher Hitchens). This is why I personally enjoy SkS, but it grieves me that the noise of the lukewarms as well as denialists are assumed by the public as 'equal'. A misanthropist would perhaps think that we deserve what is coming... -
Falkenherz at 18:37 PM on 8 October 2012Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Ah, nevermind, I think I found a good source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.full -
Falkenherz at 18:35 PM on 8 October 2012Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
I am sorry if that seems so much nonsense that it isn't even worth an explanation to you. I know that this article here starts with the assupmtion of water vapour being dominant, because a lot of sceptics say this. But I think you could discern and explain a bit more between the ratiative processes and the evaporation processes and the clouds caused by more water vapour, alll of which are very strong effects of water vapour. The sceptic I encountered refers to the radiative element, which is the only possible wv process for a positive forcing. My first quote is from Held 2000, p. 446 http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/ClimSyn/heldsode00.pdf who is trying to disprove this argument; sadly, I don't get it. The second quote is a translated argument I encountered from a sceptic who seems to know a lot about radiative physics, but then he suddenly comes with queer assumptions like this; and I found so far no source to directly disprove him with a scientific argument (Held 2000, p. 446, was a try, but I cannot quote things which I don't understand myself). As to temperature dominated by stratosphere, I believe this refers to the absorption length, which might not be long enough by just counting the troposphere. Thanks for the referral to Iacono and Clough, but it seem they do not adress this issue directly, but to follow up on it, as they are just "introducing an improved, LW radiative transfer model". I need an explanation why water vapour in the stratosphere is very much driving global temperature. With google I just found articles which report that a recent decrease of water vapour in the stratosphere was the cause of some cooling, but no explanation or experimental proof as to why. -
The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
funglestrumpet - While it's certainly a voluminous writeup on renewables, I would suggest considering that the writer (Leo Smith, MA) has some, shall we say, "skeptic" attitudes:...if you are not Concerned About Climate Change (and let's face it, a world with no electricity at all is a lot more terrifying than one a degree warmer) there's several hundred years of coal, which the Chinese will be burning anyway.
Curious capitalization... A fairly quick look on the InterWebs indicates that the author of this paper has a history of claiming that AGW is an incorrect theory. That doesn't bode well for his other work. I would suggest that you look at some of the SkS threads and references on renewable baseload power, such as here or here. Many of the opinions expressed in the Smith paper are discussed, and (IMO) shown to be mistaken. You might also look at a very interesting study by Archer & Jacobson 2007 - they found that connecting multiple wind plants (19) over a reasonably large geographic area (MidWestern US) would provide between 33-47% of the average output was reliable as baseload power by current availability standards. Add solar (with different availabilities) and that percentage will only rise. Power density? There's enough area to supply our electrical needs hundreds of times over with either solar or wind power. Widely separated power plants are actually easier to balance than large centralized ones. Intermittency/dispatch? See the Archer et al paper above - distributed sites across more than weather pattern can manage quite well. The McKay study (McKay book) he references is quite worth reading on its own - there he looks at area, power density, and the possibilities of sourcing all UK power from available UK renewable resources (hardly a global perspective). And I believe McKay is quite correct that the UK is too densely populated, too small, and rather too far north for that to be possible within UK borders. On the other hand, there's plenty of space in North Africa, and in Eastern Europe - and if the UK finds itself a net importer of energy, it will hardly be alone in the world in that respect. Note: The myth (which you repeat) that renewables require more fossil fuel use than the original fossil fuel plants they replace is complete nonsense, from (mis)analyzing single-site renewable sources, when a distributed grid is the correct system to evaluate. Finally: On a personal point of view, I would much prefer windmills and solar farms to coal strip-mines - eyesores that poison the local water table, and never ever recover to anything approaching the original land quality. I grew up in coal mining country - portions of it resemble a moonscape. Those mines (and oil fields, and fracking regions, and...) represent an unavoidable land area/power that has to be considered in balance to the area required by renewables. Outside my hometown there are a group of windmills on a ridge across the highway from a strip mine. IMO the choice is obvious. -
vrooomie at 15:24 PM on 8 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
Two Commoner books that I read, as part of the requirements at Columbia's Earth Systems classes at Biosphere II, in 1997, were "Making Peace With The Planet," and "The Closing Circle." Those books, among many, were why I began my serious research into this issue, and Barry will be missed. He left a much-unappreciated legacy. -
vrooomie at 15:16 PM on 8 October 201293% of Fox News climate change coverage misleading
Andrew Mclaren@9: That would be "Ailes," not "Aimes." Roger Ailes has a looooooong history of being vehemently anti-liberal and aggressively right-leaning in his stewardship of Fox News. His is an ethic informed by the late Lee Atwater, the modern guru of attack politics, damned the cost. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:59 PM on 8 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
funglestrumpet@48, I have read the paper you linked and found it interesting, but the fact that the author quotes material produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation makes me suspect the integrity of the research. The document is full of typos that would have been picked up by peer review, so it does not impress me with its reliability. Nonetheless, it discusses some genuine problems and provides insights into the thinking of the BAU brigade. -
vrooomie at 10:10 AM on 8 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
funglestrumpet@48, I'll read your linked paper, BUT...this line makes me a bit suss, right off the bat. "...and let's face it, a world with no electricity at all is a lot more terrifying than one a degree warmer." That's opinion and sensationalism, not science. I'll get back to ya..... -
funglestrumpet at 09:17 AM on 8 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors surely have to be part of the mix. I know they need some development, but a Manhattan type effort would bring the time for that development down to a few years. (Surely, the problem deserves such an effort.) They are so much safer than the current fleet. Had Fukushima been of the LFTR type, it would have been a non-nuclear event - still awful, of course, but not from a nuclear standpoint. We cannot rely on solar and wind, so if we carry on as we are and still want a stable supply, we are going to have to have fossil fuel plants to follow the loading variations they automatically create, and upgrade the grid in the process to cope with it (not cheap). The more of those ugly wind turbines we have peppering our once beautiful landscape, the more variable will be the renewable input and so the more we will have to rely on fossil fuels. It is difficult to see how that is going to do much good as far as CO2 reduction is concerned. If we go with LFTRs they automatically are capable of load following. For an interesting paper on renewables, I recommend: http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf With small modular reactors, which LFTRs can easily be, we can distribute them so that they serve local communities. That way, we will hardly need much of a grid. They don't need the copious amounts of water that current nuclear reactor designs do, they are inherently safe (automatic shutdown), they cannot safely be used to make nuclear weapons, they use 99% of their fuel, which is ubiquitous anyway ... the list goes on. And as for being uninsurable, well, being automatically shutdown in an emergency surely goes a long way to solving that problem. All we need to do is get the Greens to shut up about nuclear for a while and we might, just might, save the planet. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:58 AM on 8 October 2012Climate's changed before
Peter, on the other thread you suggested you had read the litterature. On comparing the radiative effects of water vapor and CO2, that would include Iacono and Clough (1995), the MODTRAN and LBLRTM works, numerous papers using the ERBE data, many more papers treating of absolute and relative humidity and why water vapor can't be considered a forcing. Statements that you made are considerably at odds with knowledge of all that litterature, hence the reactions you got. -
Old Mole at 06:18 AM on 8 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
wili @32 "Anyway, thanks for all the fish." I seem to remember that preliminary to that, there was some sort of guide that prominently said "Don't Panic" on it. To me, SkS is exactly that sort of guide. Best wishes, Mole -
Bob Lacatena at 04:49 AM on 8 October 2012There is no consensus
Peter, I'd just like to point out that your opinion of the IPCC is based entirely on what other people have told you to think, based on their own opinions and misunderstandings. -
LarryM at 03:36 AM on 8 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
Barry Commoner, a leading environmentalist and some might say the successor to Rachel Carson, died about a week ago. He felt strongly that scientists have a duty to share their knowledge with the public: "Commoner insisted that scientists had an obligation to make scientific information accessible to the general public, so that citizens could participate in public debates that involved scientific questions." Thomas Jefferson would surely agree with that sentiment. That statement and a good summary of Commoner's life, work, and contribution to humanity are in the article Barry Commoner, Pioneering Environmental Scientist and Activist, Dies at 95. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:52 AM on 8 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
This new paper: Impact of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice simulations from 1990 to 2007, Flocco et al. 2012, Abstract:The extent and thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover has decreased dramatically in the past few decades with minima in sea ice extent in September 2007 and 2011 and climate models did not predict this decline. One of the processes poorly represented in sea ice models is the formation and evolution of melt ponds. Melt ponds form on Arctic sea ice during the melting season and their presence affects the heat and mass balances of the ice cover, mainly by decreasing the value of the surface albedo by up to 20%. We have developed a melt pond model suitable for forecasting the presence of melt ponds based on sea ice conditions. This model has been incorporated into the Los Alamos CICE sea ice model, the sea ice component of several IPCC climate models. Simulations for the period 1990 to 2007 are in good agreement with observed ice concentration. In comparison to simulations without ponds, the September ice volume is nearly 40 % lower. Sensitivity studies within the range of uncertainty reveal that, of the parameters pertinent to the present melt pond parameterization and for our prescribed atmospheric and oceanic forcing, variations of optical properties and the amount of snowfall have the strongest impact on sea ice extent and volume. We conclude that melt ponds will play an increasingly important role in the melting of the Arctic ice cover and their incorporation in the sea ice component of Global Circulation Models is essential for accurate future sea ice forecasts.
discussed at Climate Central, looks helpful for understanding rapid changes in the Arctic. -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:47 AM on 8 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Eric (skeptic) as I have pointed out to you before, the constant proportion taken up by the environment is a result of anthropogenic emissions rising roughly exponentially, it is not a natural law. The carbon cycle can only be roughly approximated as a first order differential equation (implied by your 1/50th assertion). In reality, the carbon cycle is more complex than that, and such simple "spreadsheet" models are useful for qualatative understanding of the very basics, but nothing more than that, especially not quantative analysis. -
DSL at 01:19 AM on 8 October 2012Climate's changed before
Peter, you said "The truth of the matter is" -- that never fails to ring the warning bells. You said you were new to the site, but then you made some claims about some really basic stuff. When you ask a basic question about the relative strength of water vapor and CO2, and then you make a broad claim about what climate science doesn't understand, your broad claim can't be taken seriously. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:17 AM on 8 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Dikran, we have emitted CO2 into the atmosphere far in excess of equilibrium. Nature is absorbing roughly 1/50th of the excess. If we stopped (again I must caveat, completely academic because we are not stopping), then the situation has not changed. We will still have manmade CO2 in the atmosphere far in excess of equilibrium and nature will still absorb roughly 1/50th of it. As you pointed out in your first reply to me, there is now a higher flow of CO2 from new sources, mainly Arctic outgassing. That flow will increase with thermal inertia. What that means is that the nature will absorb less than 1/50th into the future. I don't know how much less. There are a lot of factors involved (e.g. continuing Arctic amplification). -
DSL at 01:11 AM on 8 October 2012There is no consensus
Peter, the "peasants" didn't need an interpreter, but when they went off on their own, they still assumed the god of their ancestors existed. In other words, they carried their cultural assumptions with them as they went to try to understand the mind of god. This is precisely why many non-experts doubt anthropogenic global warming. Humans have never had such control over the Earth before, things are developing nicely for us, these guys over here say that some of these scientists are frauds, and everyone knows that sensationalism is the way to catch a buck these days. Business as usual. Not really a rapid shift in climate of the type that humans have rarely had to deal with (and certainly not in the historical period). I find it odd that you would characterize SkS as a "priesthood" site. It has comment streams. You can ask questions. You can go directly to the science itself. On this site, there are more direct links to the science than at any other climate science site on the net, IPCC included. This is, in fact, the best place to inform yourself. All we need are links to atmospheric science textbooks, but there are links to science of doom, which is about the same thing. Now consider sites like WUWT. These are the new priesthood you describe. The owners/mods and especially the news sites that are plugged into places like WUWT assume their audience is incapable of understanding the science. They post articles containing really basic errors, and then sit around while the comment stream cheers them on. They engage in rhetorical games like "climategate." The "climategate" allegations, never formalized, are wholly fraudulent, except for one claim (Jones being mean to Soon and Baliunas, but even then there's much, much more to the story). Yet these people knew that their allegations would be swallowed whole by their congregation. They depended on it. And that congregation did not disappoint. They bleated the news far and wide, never once actually checking the claims against what Jones and Mann (and the various independent investigations) had to say. No, people don't need interpreters. They believe they need interpreters--talk radio, CNN, Anthony Watts. -
dorlomin at 01:07 AM on 8 October 2012Arctic Sea Ice Loss Has a Larger Impact than Antarctic Sea Ice Gains
Slightly off topic but of value for the discussion. I was looking at IPCC's 1st assessment report and spotted this. "Most model simulations suggest that the warming north of 50°N in the winter half of the year should be enhanced due to feedback effects associated with sea-ice and snow cover (Manabe and Stouffer, 1980, Robock, 1983, Ingram et al, 1989) In the Southern Hemisphere, results from simulations with atmospheric GCMs coupled to ocean GCMs do not show this enhancement (Bryan et al , 1988, Washington and Meehl, 1989, Stoutlei et al , 1989)" http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_08.pdf So a divergence is pretty much what was expected by mainstream science from the early 90s. -
chriskoz at 00:14 AM on 8 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
Interesting to note is that the cranks at WUWT must go back 33Ma in search of some cherry (or rather statistically insignifficant straw-data in this case) to support their pre-conceived viewpoint that CS must be low. We know they deny a well understood and far more accurate, ice-core data supported research for the last 800ka. I don't need to mention how irrational is to look for answers about CS in Miocene hothouse and try to project results at today, as Miocene climate was totally different. I wonder how far those cranks would have to reach for some new straw data, when paleo guys start obtaining better proxies for Miocene and better quantifying the differences between then hothouse and now interglacial climates. -
John Hartz at 23:30 PM on 7 October 2012There is no consensus
@Peter A #518: The body of scientific evidence about anthropogenic global warming is not an “idea”, it is a body of scientific evidence. It would take years for the average person to sift and winnow through each and every cell in this body of evidence in order for him /her to make an informed decision. If your personal physician determines that you have an illness and recommends a course of treatment, do you sift and winnow through the entire body of scientific evidence about that illness and about the recommended treatment before deciding whether to proceed? If your personal physician tells you that a specific treatment for your child’s illness is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, do you challenge him/her to explain why he/she is deferring to a higher authority, -
John Hartz at 22:16 PM on 7 October 2012Climate's changed before
@ PeterA #316: Using a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being “know absolutely nothing” and 10 being “know absolutely everything”, how do you rate the scientific understanding of the Earth’s climate system? -
Riccardo at 21:50 PM on 7 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
After a cursory reaading of the paper I noticed the following. The conclusions stands on essentially two choices. 1) the time intervals. In the paper Asten admit it's not based on any sound criterion. He first says: "Following the temperature drop to a minimum at 33.4 Ma a step change of duration about 150 000 yr is evident on the smoothed data." In other words, eyeballing the smoothed curve he sees a step change and that's good enough. Then, assuming the step change, he makes "some subjective choice on the position of time segments labelled a, b, c on Fig. 1, [...]". Again, we have to live with it. 2) CO2 concentration. The three segments are supposed to be "representative samples before, during and after the temperature change associated with the CO2 pulse shown in Fig. 4." But looking at fig. 4 they do not match, segments a and b have the same, higher CO2 concentration. For some reason, Asten averages the CO2 concentration during time intervals a and b (see table 1) contraddicting what he said on the step change between segments a and b. But then he added one more time interval before a to average its CO2 concentration with that of segment c. Either the rationale of this procedure is beyond my comprehension or I'd call the conclusions rather weak. -
chris at 19:45 PM on 7 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
As Rob has pointed out the Lindzen and Choi analysis is completely unreliable as an estimate of climate sensitivy both because of fatal methodological flaws but also due to the fact that his method (analysis of immediate changes in radiative response at the top of the atmosphere due to changes in surface temperature) can address only the rapid atmospheric response and doesn't say too much about responses occurring on the decadal (let alone 1000's of years!) timescale. Several papers have addressed the flaws in Lindzen's methods and these should certainly be known to a scientist making an honest and informed foray into this topic. The Chylek estimate cited by Asten is highly flawed (cherrypicked timepoints) as described by Hargreaves and Annan in Climate of the Past. The Douglass and Christy estimate is simply silly - they determine their estimate from the temperature variation during the period of satellite observation 1979-2007. …and so on… You simply can’t cite papers in the scientific literature that have been shown to be fundamentally incorrect, as if these still constitute valid elements of the evidence-base that informs current understanding. I expect these aspects of his paper will have to be fundamentally redone before the paper is considered suitable for publishing. And that’s not to address what may or may not be fundamental flaws in the work itself (I’ve only seen the paper for half an hour!). Dr Asten has published a smattering of scientific papers since 1973 largely in fields related to studying microseismic behaviour. No evidence in his published work over 40 years that he has any particular expertise in analysis of paleo data for addressing climate sensitivity, and judging by the work he’s cited he hasn’t got a very good understanding of the strengths and limitations of previous work on this subject… -
Rob Painting at 19:03 PM on 7 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
From Peru - Seems very much like problematic material. Asten cites Lindzen & Choi (2011) without any discussion of its many flaws - see Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009. That should immediately raise concern. On a positive note, the paper is still open for comments, so those inclined have an opportunity to submit a reply. I suspect the paleo data, like Lindzen & Choi, has been cherry-picked to arrive at a pre-determined destination. Indeed, Asten's public comments on this topic (see here) are at odds with the bulk of paleo research. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:48 PM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Eric (skeptic) wrote "will, nature is currently a hefty absorber of CO2, therefore any study cannot correctly project increased CO2 from Arctic outgassing or any other source if we stop." This is nonsense; the uptake of CO2 by the natural environment is governed by the laws of physics, and those same laws will continue to apply if we stop emitting CO2. As to buying papers, given the lack of basic understanding of the carbon cycle you have already demonstrated on this thread (c.f. my previous post), you would be better of buying some books on the basics, David Archer's primer is a good start. -
From Peru at 16:03 PM on 7 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #4
I found in WUWT this paper that claims to found paleoclimate evidence (from the Eocene-Oligocene transition)for a 1ºC climate sensitivity: New paper on climate sensitivity estimates 1.1 ± 0.4 °C for a doubling of CO2 Is based on this paper: Estimate of climate sensitivity from carbonate microfossils dated near the Eocene-Oligocene global cooling I have read the paper, and it seems weird to me. The author seems to have just picked some data from other papers, in particular: Zachos, et al. (Paleoceanography,1996) "High resolution (104 years) deep-sea foraminiferal stable isotope records of the Eocene-Oligocene climate transition" Pearson, et al. (Nature 2009) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene-Oligocene climate transition" From the first one the author got the deep ocean temperatures (from deep sea sedimentary cores in Antartica and Namibia) and from the second he got the approximate CO2 concentrations during that time. The main claim of the paper is that 33 million years ago there was a rapid (in less than 50 000 years) pulse of CO2 increase, from 780 ppm to 1140 ppm (about half the amount of CO2 liberated during the PETM) yet the deep southern Ocean just warmed little over 1ºC. Any idea about the reliability of the data or about what happened 33 million years ago? -
wili at 15:49 PM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
DSL, I could not have said it better. My experience exactly. But I consider my family extremely smart, concerned, activist...but they still have the same set of assumptions as to fundamental right to fly to wherever they can afford to go etc... I pretty well alienated myself from them when I opposed my mother's plans to set up an annual family reunion of a very far flung (around the world) family. Let's just say that, in an extended family that usually makes much of each and every birthday, that year I spent my 50th alone with a bottle of scotch. (My immediate family was traveling, too.) I have had at least one student tell me that my presentations of climate facts radically altered his plans--last I heard he was working with a city-wide bicycle rental group. Yes, the heavy lifting is mental and cultural. The brutal facts of climate reality is part of it. The novel "Ishmael" seems to help some to realize deep assumptions and start to question them. But mostly, I feel as if I have utterly and totally failed to communicate anything effective to pretty much anyone. It gets to be hard to know what is worth doing or saying at some point...even what is worth refusing to do or say. At this point, I think I'll just pretty much start screaming at everyone all the time till they put a bullet through my head. Anyway, thanks for all the fish. -
Peter A. at 15:46 PM on 7 October 2012There is no consensus
If someone is concerned enough about this issue, then they will find the time and motivation to 'do the maths and read the literature'. They do not 'need an interpreter'! This is reminiscent of the view widely held not so long ago that in order to 'know the mind of God' one needed to consult a priest who could act as an 'interpreter' of his will, thus keeping the poor peasants in the dark. Who would you choose to be your interpreter? (-snip-). My 'other comments' make it clear that I have not 'read the literature'? Really? In your opinion only.Moderator Response: [DB] Please read the Moderator Response to you here before placing further comments in this forum. Sloganeering snipped. -
Peter A. at 15:32 PM on 7 October 2012Climate's changed before
Okay, I'm sorry, I haven't read all of the comments here, I'm new to this site (just found it today). However, I did qualify my claims with statements like 'As I understand it' and 'correct me if I'm wrong'; this is not an 'argument from ignorance' or any other such pseudo-fallacy. The information I provided is accurate, 'DSL' (above) mentioning the fact that most of the gases within the Earth's atmosphere being non-absorbers of infrared radiation, which is true, but I also did mention the fact that water vapour is a greenhouse gas is never mentioned in the mainstream media. That was my point there, and all I did was question why this is the case. 'Peter, correct yourself. The answers to these questions are all over this website. Read a little before you make claims with the kind of tone that suggests you have access to the absolute Truth (and gosh aren't we all a bunch of idiots).' - DSL (-snip-). I never claimed to be the bearer of 'absolute truth'; don't quote what I did not write.Moderator Response:[DB] Please refer to this site's Comment Policy before lodging charges of ad hominem (snipped above). The link is adjacent to the comment box.
Further, this site is devoted to advancing the understanding of climate science and exposing the myths and skeptic memes commonly found about it. As such, many thousands of threads and blog posts exist here, all with links to the primary, peer-reviewed literature.
As such, if you differ with the commentary found in a blog post, it is then incumbent upon you to provide a link to the primary, peer-reviewed literature which supports your position. It is insufficient to merely offer up unsubstantiated assertions which run counter to the accepted literature.
Lastly, it is presumed that when placing comments on comment threads here that you will have already read the OP and the previous comments made prior to yours. In many threads, much clarification is given in the comments threads that often subsumes and obviates the need to place a comment or question covering something already asked.
-
DSL at 14:33 PM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
My "oh shit!" moments come when I talk with my in-laws. They are solid middle-class, Southern US, Leave it to Beaver types. Everyone who works hard (making other people work hard) deserves two cars, 3000 sq ft. of poorly insulated but beautiful home, lots of air travel, and a wide variety of local, regional, national, and international food choices. Take any of that from them, and you take their Freedom. They will not talk with me any longer about the issue. I had a freak out on them at a family gathering. I laid it all out. Some wandered away. A few gave me the Rush Limbaugh lines. Some grinned dissonantly at me. Who knows, maybe that rant is still resonating. Yet every time I visit them, I see the same old same old high-energy choices -- the attempt to live the "good life" (composed of a series of bucket list products). I see that momentum steamrolling right along, and I think, "oh shit." The college students with whom I speak are, for the most part, concerned, and at a highly-selective liberal arts (though public and not that small) university that's not surprising. However, pushing it to the level of "really f_____ concerned!" is difficult, because they're also thinking about jobs. Some have the vision to see that life is not stabilized when one has all four limbs on the career ladder. Most see employment as a kind of womb, protective and distracting. I've had very good conversations with some of these students, and they get it. Some want to get a job working directly on the problem. It just takes a lot of work to re-train oneself from the typical high school experience. It takes a lot of work to live more simply -- not physical labor, but hard mental and cultural work. When your friends and family look at you like an oddball, it's not easy to shrug off. I can make it look easy, but it's not easy. -
DSL at 14:14 PM on 7 October 2012There is no consensus
Yah, true Peter. However, there are a whole lot of people who do not have the time, energy, training, and/or motivation to do the math and read the literature. They need an interpreter. Who should they choose? Upon what basis should they make such a choice? You yourself have not read the literature -- that is clear from your other comments. Again, upon what basis do you speak so confidently? -
DSL at 14:10 PM on 7 October 2012Climate's changed before
Peter, correct yourself. The answers to these questions are all over this website. Read a little before you make claims with the kind of tone that suggests you have access to the absolute Truth (and gosh aren't we all a bunch of idiots). I'll answer one part. You claim CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. True. However, about 96-99% of the atmosphere is O2, N2, and Ar. These gases do not absorb/emit radiation in the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed Earth emits. If nothing in the atmosphere prevents thermal radiation from escaping Earth, then the Earth should be about 33K cooler than it is. Fortunately, much of the remaining 1% of the atmosphere is composed of gases that do, in fact, absorb/emit within the thermal infrared range. Those gases intercept outgoing thermal radiation, and those gases then emit or conduct the energy in random directions (effectively half up/half down). Increasing the concentration of those gases effectively increases the energy temporarily stored in the system. Energy in temporarily does not equal energy out. The system warms. As for CO2 vs. H2O as a greenhouse gas, see Lacis et al. (2011). -
DSL at 14:02 PM on 7 October 2012The Debunking Handbook Part 1: The first myth about debunking
Peter, you sound like you're trolling. Let's hope not. Climate myths, as used here, are those claims that are used as evidence against the dominant theory. If you had gone to the page for that myth, this would be obvious. SkS is very much obviously not making the claim that climate hasn't changed before. As for "brainwashing," do a little research. Brainwashing is a systematic process that requires isolating the subject and submitting the subject to a careful reconditioning. What do you find heinous in the quoted passage? Understanding how people think is critical to delivering effective and efficient communication. Would you rather everyone floundered about? As for incorrect information, what is your method for generating "knowledge"? Is it science? Upon what basis do you choose one claim over another? -
Peter A. at 14:00 PM on 7 October 2012Climate's changed before
'This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2.' Yes, correct. As I understand it, CO2 comprises 0.057% of the Earth's total volume of atmospheric gases, so why all the hoopla about CO2? Presumably industrial CO2 output is a fraction of this tiny fraction (correct me if I'm wrong about this), so even if the atmosphere of the Earth is extremely sensitive to changes in overall composition it cannot be said with the certainty with which it is said that an increase as large as a 'doubling' of CO2 will have 'catastrophic consequences' (as so many in the media would like us to believe). 'However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour.' Yes, water vapour, we must not forget about that, and yet it is hardly (if ever) mentioned in, for example, the popular press. Why not? 'There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.' In other words, we just don't know. The truth of the matter is that our atmosphere is such a highly complex and (inherently, over the long term) unpredictable system that we really, in spite of how much progress we have apparently made over the years towards understanding it, know next to nothing about it. Why are the words, 'I don't know' so difficult to utter?Moderator Response: [DB] You put forth an argument from personal ignorance. As DSL counsels below, perhaps you would be better served with a bit more study interspersed with questions to elucidate better understanding before pontificating. -
Peter A. at 13:39 PM on 7 October 2012There is no consensus
'The fact that there are so many Academies of Science endorsing the global warming position is probably the strongest argument for supporting it.' - Will Nitschke, on the 21st Dec. 2007, post 3. No, that's not a good reason at all. You've basically stated that if enough authority figures, from prestigious institutions, endorse an idea then we, the general public, should accept it. I can think of a better reason to accept an idea; examine the merits of it, the evidence both for and against it, weigh the probabilities of it being true, and then come to an independent assessment of its likelihood. If the idea in question is far more likely to be true than not - then, and only then, should you accept it. -
Peter A. at 13:27 PM on 7 October 2012The Debunking Handbook Part 1: The first myth about debunking
'Refuting misinformation involves dealing with complex cognitive processes. To successfully impart knowledge, communicators need to understand how people process information, how they modify their existing knowledge and how worldviews affect their ability to think rationally. It’s not just what people think that matters, but how they think.' That sounds like a brainwashing technique to me. Oh, wait... it is! It gets worse. 'First, let’s be clear about what we mean by the label “misinformation” - we use it to refer to any information that people have acquired that turns out to be incorrect, irrespective of why and how that information was acquired in the first place.' Any information that turns out to be incorrect. I shouldn't have to point this out, for it should be obvious to everyone with a functioning mind, but what if it turns out that the one trying to modify a person's beliefs (i.e the brainwasher) is the one who is actually mistaken, but doesn't realise it? For example, I've noticed on the left a column titled 'Most Used Climate Myths' and the list of ten 'myths' which are actually... well, TRUE! 1. 'Climate has changed before' - yes it has, and it will continue to do so as long as we have a climate to speak of. And so it goes. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:10 PM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
will, nature is currently a hefty absorber of CO2, therefore any study cannot correctly project increased CO2 from Arctic outgassing or any other source if we stop.. However because we are not going to stop producing CO2 tomorrow, that part of the study does not matter. What matters is that we will continue BAU and we will eventually reach the point where Arctic outgassing will become a major if not dominant factor. There's some uncertainty in the timing and the amounts and I have not studied permafrost thawing enough to say anything really useful. If I could change one thing in the OP, it would be to add some description of assumptions and conclusions regarding Arctic amplification and its effect on permafrost. I'd also like a non-paywalled paper, I buy some papers but I don't have an unlimited budget. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:13 PM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
I can't say I've ever had a specific "oh shit!" moment in climatology - I've been studying it since the late 1970s, from undergrad through grad and faculty positions, and on into post-academic climate research. My "oh, shit!" moments tend to be reserved for the extremes from the denialosphere, but I refuse to place them in the "climatology" or "climate change" category, because they aren't. Daniel: an optimist believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears that this is true... -
Daniel Bailey at 11:47 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Wili, my personal "Oh, Shit!" moment came years ago. The sum of the trajectory we have coursed for ourselves by our fossil fuel emissions, coupled with the ongoing demise of the Arctic sea ice (a visual symptom) and the thermal inertia of the oceans painted an outcome which was altogether undesirable for my children and grandchildren (to be, hopefully). So I put myself to work here at SkS, helping others much more talented than I (both in the SkS and climate science community) to help raise awareness of the extremis we find ourselves in. My personal opinion is that, pending a global reconstitution of our ways of living, is that we're screwed. The optimist in me refuses to give in to that, however. -
wili at 11:23 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Thanks, Andy S. I think you hit the tone about right for this blog. I was really mostly surprised that there were no "Oh shit" responses yet from any of the commenters so far. We are all greatly in your debt for bringing this to a larger audience than has ready access to complete Nature articles. I see that it has been picked up by Climate Progress, Climate Central, ClimateSight, tamino's blog, and in the comment sections of some other blogs (and I've probably missed some). Unfortunately, even all these are basically a rather closed group. How do we most effectively get this out to the broader public and to decision makers? This should be the clarion call for immediate and (what in other circumstances might be seen as) drastic action on a global level to halt un-sequestration of further carbon, and to rapidly scale down our collective footprint in the most humane, equitable way possible. So do we go to the UN? To congress, local officials? NGO's? Corporate big wigs? Major media outlets? Other sources of power and influence? What next? Erik, read the article again. The study directly disproves your final claim. Are you just spouting stuff you want to believe? Or do you really want to engage with the facts as they are presented to you? -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:08 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Dikran, thanks for the information. I agree that Arctic CO2 will matter at some point. Andy, all I am saying is that nature is a hefty net absorber at the moment. The simplest spreadsheet can show the present, although it can only account for net amounts (e.g. the Arctic could be releasing more and some other location absorbing more temporarily and I would not know that). So if we performed the academic thought experiment of stopping CO2 emissions today, the Arctic is being offset elsewhere today and nature would immediately draw down atmospheric CO2 perhaps 1 or 1.5 ppm per year pretty much independently of other factors (e.g. sensitivity) -
Andy Skuce at 08:03 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
wili When I first read this paper, I had my own "oh shit" moment, which prompted me to write this article. I felt that the results need to be made accessible for people who don't have access behind the Nature pay wall. As you acknowledge, it's difficult when writing about matters like this to get the tone right. The objectivity of the article could be marred if too much subjective emotion is included. On the other hand, if it's just a recounting of dry facts, the real message might also be lost. Also, balance is required in conveying an appropriate degree of alarm, without creating an impression that everything is out of our control and resistance is therefore futile. With a diverse audience, it's impossible to get the tone right for everyone. But that's one good reason why comments threads are important, so that readers can provide their own impressions, as you did. Thanks. -
wili at 06:40 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
DSL, thanks for your thoughtful response. Without going into too much detail, I have been learning about, teaching about, and doing activism at various levels on GW issues for over 20 years. I really was just looking for someone here at least saying that this was a 'holy sh!t moment' for them as it was for me, and as it is for the host and most posters at ClimateSight, the other site that seems to be discussing this article in some depth. Since we both seem to work face to face with people on this issue, I would be interested to know if you have seen any shifts in people's perceptions of gw in the last few years. I see less resistance to discussing it among college students, but this may be due to changing views of how to interact with perceived authorities. I constantly struggle with the question of how to present these issues, as they get more and more grim, to others, so any insights you have would be most welcome. I think people need to start hearing some alarm in peoples voices that speak about it, or they will assume that, if the people who know about it don't seem alarmed, they needn't be either. Of course, there is always a possibility, probability that some/most people will reject the message and/or the message no matter how you present it. Search "ethos, pathos, logos" for discussions of how to match the tone of what you are saying with the information you are conveying. -
Andy Skuce at 06:20 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Eric @ 18 It's not clear to me what your point is. The modelling done by the UVic people fully takes into account the carbon cycle response of the oceans and Arctic amplification, among many other things. Doing our own spreadsheet calculations and back-of-the-envelope calculations can be helpful in terms of learning and understanding, but the results such efforts can't seriously be considered to undermine the conclusions that arise from sophisticated modelling performed by experts and published in distinguished peer-reviewed journals. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:14 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Eric (skeptic) (i) the new equilibrium isn't higher because the temperature is higher as much as because there is simply more CO2 flowing through the active carbon cycle. IIRC, it will stay that way until chemical weathering permanently sequesters all of the excess back into the lithosphere. The Arctic CO2 does matter, as it is substantial compared to the difference between natural emissions and natural uptake, and so will have a substantial effect on the rate at which atmospheric CO2 will rise. -
DSL at 05:59 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
So, wili, what are you doing? Why are you here talking on the net when you could be out there jumping up and down and looking like a nut? If people outside the science had their opinions shaped by fair representatives of the science, we, as a species, would already be thoroughly engaged in mitigating and robust development of alternative energy. The disconnect in understanding between you and the middle-class junior accountant driving by the corner where you're jumping up and down is enormous. To the accountant, the problem is as serious as CNN thinks it is -- maybe two, minute-long spots per week. What's permafrost? Shrug. To the Wal-Mart manager driving by, you're everything that's wrong with the world, and Rush backs him up (or leads him, if he could see it). I talk to people about this situation face-to-face every day, and my goal is one person convinced per day -- and convinced enough to think about immediate personal and democratic change. Note how many people protested the war on Vietnam. Note how effective it was. Note how many were squashed and became disillusioned. The comparison deserves a more comprehensive analysis, but for the moment I stand by it. If the US population could have been convinced that Vietnam was readying a war machine (or WMDs), the resistance to the war would have been much less significant. People need to be convinced that a direct threat to their way of life is at hand. A specific set of events needs to be in the pipeline. Until then, the postmodern condition rules the day, that condition of being ethically and physically isolated from the consequences of one's economic decisions (except for the bank balance).
Prev 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 Next
