Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 Next
Comments 53051 to 53100:
-
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). -
wili at 04:29 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Lanfearr @ #16--Efforts to avoid panic have left us where we are--adding ever more carbon to the atmosphere every year. Someone said that US (and I would say it hold for the world) policy has two modes--complacency and panic. Complacency is what we have and it has not worked. When rock-solid scientific evidence is in that the world is now in an unavoidable climate death spiral, I would say it is past time to tilt the scale toward panic. We can all, after all, see clearly now that complacency has failed miserably. (Ah, I found the original: "We have only two modes - complacency and panic." — James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Dept. of Energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy.) To DSL @ #14: We now have rock-solid evidence that the world is in a climate death spiral and your main concern is that people not think you eccentric by your reactions to it?? To ranyl @ #17: Unfortunately, there is no, one, agreed-upon definition of 'runaway' in this case, as far as I know. To me, once feedbacks have kicked in to the extent that, even with total cessation of the original forcing (here, CO2 from human burning of ff, cement production, land use...), the system continues to move in the direction it was forced (toward ever higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, ever greater global warming, in this case)-- that is when you have a runaway condition: the momentum of the system has "run away" from our ability to stop it getting worse by stopping the practices that got it started; it has become a self-perpetuating cycle--a death spiral. (This does not, of course, mean that it will run away forever. Eventually--when all the stored carbon in permafrost, methane hydrates, soils and other accessible sources have entered the atmosphere--there will be nothing more to drive the cycle. Of course, by that time, we will have a much, much hotter planet--assuming there is a "we.") For the record, I still think, in fact more than ever, that we must have a crash global program of getting off of fossil fuels immediately, just in case there is some unknown unknown 'negative' (damping) feedback that may come along and save our sorry @$$es in spite of ourselves, if just given the chance. Such a program will, at this very late date, involve massive disruption, suffering, and even death. But, in my book, better to incur limited suffering now in the hope that the worse may be averted eventually, than to continue earth-annihilating behaviors that will absolutely assure total destruction in the (not too distant) future. But perhaps that's just me? -
Riccardo at 04:14 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Lanfear I was referring to the melting permafrost feedback. In this case it means that the effect is self-sustaining, that it's beyond the point at which it won't stop (untill there's no more permafrost, of course) even if we cut our emissions. As for the runaway warming you refer to, there's an interesting post by Chris Colose here. Please post there any further comment. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:14 AM on 7 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
On an old thread I tried to point out that the environment absorbed about 2% of our excess CO2 over some equilibrium which used to be preindustrial, but rises as the temperature rises. One of my comments was here but in the comment that immediately follows, Tom Curtis pointed out that the "50% of annual emissions" was closer to the truth. I tried to answer that in the post following his. Whether I was closer or farther from the truth in that thread (the answer lies between the two extremes) matters to this thread. If the ocean as a system (including turnover) continues to absorb 2% or some significant fraction of CO2 over equilibrium, then CO2 from the Arctic does not matter except as a new source which is currently much smaller than the manmade 9 Gt/year. That new source is projected to increase with various sensitivities (as shown in the graphs) and presumably arctic amplification (not mentioned as a variable above). The fact that we are not about to stop producing CO2 makes my discussion academic however. -
vrooomie at 01:21 AM on 7 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
AndrewDoddsUK@13: at least in the USA uranium is a well-quantified mineral. The organization for whom I work (and have processed samples of) did a pretty exhaustive exploration and characterization of it. Info here. -
ranyl at 21:40 PM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
"However hopeless the situation might be we always have to find the best thing to do, the best possible way out of the mess." (Riccardo,15) Community Adaptation Transformation, aim Peak CO2 400ppm, 350ppm by 2100, change all world civilization systems and functions that need changing to enable that to happen. That means setting a realistic carbon budget (i.e. one where we have ~2-3 years or current emissions left) and therefore means a massive volentry power down as there isn't enough carbon to buy loads of power (renewables all have a large carbon cost), and use or imaginations and creativity to create an equitable world that is sustainable and eco-system enhancing rather than waiting for a techno silver bullet that isn't coming. How carbon is safe to spend on buying energy for the future considering to extreme urgency of the situation? Basically things like renewables are not carbon saving they are a carbon and environmental cost to provide power for 10-30years depending on breakdowns etc. Make the impossible possible by acting now immediately starting at home, i.e. stop flying full stop!????? -
Lanfear at 19:06 PM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Riccardo@15 "many suspected that the risk of a runaway effect was so near." Out of my ignorance, what is the definition (and end result) of runaway effect in this case? Is it a planet where the temperature has risen to the degree that the ice caps have melted but the system is stable (in a couple of thousands of years) and may (due to other forcings) decrease, or gone the Venus-way which can no longer sustain any life as we know and will not decrease anymore? The reason I'm asking is that my simple model of various limits, the runaway-option (at least my version of it) is the far end, well beyond ~7000ppm (taken from the historical reconstructions). And just to note that the scenario where we humans move back to the proverbial cave or go even extinct is well before that. -
Riccardo at 16:09 PM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
wili you can be sure that many of us put this results in our "mental “oh shit” folder", to use climatesight's words. We alredy knew about this thawing permafrost feedback but probably not many suspected that the risk of a runaway effect was so near. But then, the rational response to a threat is to stay calm and don't let people panic. However hopeless the situation might be we always have to find the best thing to do, the best possible way out of the mess. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:01 PM on 6 October 2012Skeptical Science Android App update
"sorry Blackberry users, no happiness for you). ...oh. I must have misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the SkS app. :-) Have neither an iPhone or an Android phone, but kudos and thanks to the Shine Tech people for their contribution. -
Bob Loblaw at 13:54 PM on 6 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde: "No! An "economic incentive" is a tax break or subsidy. Carbon pricing is imposing a cost on the emission of greenhouse gases. Calling it carbon pricing is a way to avoid calling it a carbon tax. Raising taxes on something doesn't encourage the free market." I think I'm beginning to see your problem. You can't work the issue in more than one direction. - You feel that a tax break is an incentive, because it encourages people to do the thing that the tax is reduced on - i.e. it costs people (or corporations) less to do that, so they are more likely to select that option. - yet you think a tax increase is not an incentive. That's odd, because a tax increase makes that option more expensive - and although that means a tax increase is a disincentive to do that thing, it is an incentive to make other choices; i.e., people are more likely to choose the less costly option that has not seen a tax increase. Every "incentive" to do one thing is a disincentive to choose an alternate. Every "disincentive" to do one thing is an incentive to choose an alternate. For example, your level of debate is growing tiresome. Is that a disincentive for me to continue discussing things with you, or is it an incentive for me to do something better with my time? Or is it both? -
Bob Loblaw at 13:37 PM on 6 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde: "You can choose to not buy anything from China, but that doesn't make China do anything. Sure it does. It forces them to find another buyer for that item, or leave it unsold. It forces them to do without my money. They may easily find an alternative, but their world without my purchase will not be exactly the same as the one in which I buy from them. Loss of one sale may not be much, but loss of many will - it's just a matter of enough people being motivated. You're back to pretending that China is the only party at the table that can make choices. You're still wrong. -
DSL at 12:50 PM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
Wili, what I knew before upset me. What do you want me to do? I can't save the world by myself. If I start jumping up and down and wringing my hands, screaming obscenities, I'll get thrown in the nuthouse--figuratively and/or literally. Cultural momentum is more powerful than the sun. -
wili at 11:14 AM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
You all seem to be taking this very well. Look again at the left-hand side of figure 3 and at the section headed: "Why even this bleak prospect may be optimistic." Put those together. What do you get? Unless you think it highly likely that climate sensitivity is well below 3 degrees C for every doubling, combining figure 3 with the section I referenced means that we are going to see _increases_ in CO2 levels even if we stopped _all_ CO2 emissions by _next year_. This is the scenario that many of us have called "run away global warming," and this study basically proves that we are already inside that doomsday scenario. Does this not upset anyone else? Even a little? Am I missing something? Please tell me I am (but also tell me what that is). -
dana1981 at 06:11 AM on 6 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde, with all due respect, you're just wrong. Your analogy to a income tax is totally nonsensical. I don't have much choice but to earn an income. I do however have a choice regarding how much fossil fuels I consume. For example, I can buy solar panels, I can get a more efficient car or even an EV, I can simply change my behavior to use less energy, etc. As it so happens, I personally have taken all of these actions. If you put a price on carbon emissions, it provides the incentive to reduce those emissions. Suddenly there's greater demand for low emissions products because people are aware of the true cost of their choices. It's pretty basic economics. -
M Tucker at 05:48 AM on 6 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
Rachel Carson was working to reform the pesticide industry. Today we are working to reform the fossil fuel industry. In early 20th century America, reformers were often called muckrakers and most proudly wore that label. Today the label is no worse than alarmist and most cringe at its mention. We wring our hands over concerns about scientists advocating for action and condemn them for being too political. Main stream media outlets give more coverage to deniers than to those who are in the streets advocating for change. If you want government to take action then it is a political issue. We can no more ignore the political nature of this reform than we can the dire consequences of inaction. Agitate, agitate, agitate! -
The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Clyde - "No! An "economic incentive" is a tax break or subsidy. Carbon pricing is imposing a cost..." A cattle prod is still an incentive - providing motivation to change behavior. Demonstrating the cost of leaving the field. All of your arguments in this regard ignore the "Tragedy of the Commons" cost of carbon fuels, distributed across the economy, not paid for by the emissions sources. If you properly account for the monies paid out for health, for environment, for agricultural changes, all due to emissions, renewable options are currently less expensive, and will gain in advantage as that portion of the economy expands. The various economic remedies discussed simply attempt to apply those emissions costs more directly to those who induce them, rather than forcing everyone else to pick up after them. Your path, of Business As Usual, is in reality the more expensive choice. -
Clyde at 04:36 AM on 6 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
@Bob Loblaw I thought that name sounded familar. How you doing? Trivial to do on the personal level. Remember that you said "Nobody is gonna make China do anything". I can easily make them stop selling stuff to me, so your statement is blatantly wrong. With all do respect it's your statement that's blatantly wrong. China is not forcing you or your sister to buy any of their stuff. So you can't make them stop selling you anything. You can choose to not buy anything from China, but that doesn't make China do anything. ---------------------------------- @dana1981 Clyde says let the private sector solve the problem - that's exactly what carbon pricing does. It gives the private sector an economic incentive to solve the problem via the free market. No! An "economic incentive" is a tax break or subsidy. Carbon pricing is imposing a cost on the emission of greenhouse gases. Calling it carbon pricing is a way to avoid calling it a carbon tax. Raising taxes on something doesn't encourage the free market. If the state or fed govt raises your income tax do you have the incentive to work harder? It will take some of your purchasing power out of the economy & lower your standard of living. ------------------------- Just think if a carbon tax/carbon pricing was in place. Soaring gas prices across California have forced some station owners to shut off their pumps while people change their driving habits or, in some cases, avoid driving all together. Read more here. Now if anybody thinks (not saying any of you have) the solution is to raise the cost of things so high it puts folks out of business & others to lower their standard of living is a good way to solve the problem i respectively disagree.
Prev 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 Next
