Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 Next
Comments 53101 to 53150:
-
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. -
It's not us
Carbon500 - In some respects the graph you posted earlier is very interesting. Go to the Temperature Trends tool here, and look at GISTEMP (I will note in passing that you did not identify the source of your graph, or the selections from which it was generated - very bad form). Set a starting point of 1996 and smoothing of 1 month, as per that graph (source identified only from the URL), and look at the trend. 2σ uncertainties are calculated with added uncertainty due to autocorrelation, so this is a reasonably conservative estimate. Trend: 0.123 ±0.130 °C/decade (2σ) What does this set of data mean? There is a temperature trend of 0.123°C/decade, but it is is not quite statistically significant over that period. More data, more time is needed to truly distinguish that trend from the null hypothesis of no warming. But even your "no warming" example actually shows warming consistent with 30 and 40 year trends. Your claim that "this sixteen year old record cannot be ignored" is a strawman argument (it's not ignored, but it's not statistically significant - it's part of the data that is statistically significant), and indicates that you are lacking in statistical insight - as your presented evidence contradicts your claims (since it indeed shows warming). In other words, your use of that graph in an attempt to claim no warming is (IMO) quite demonstrative of denial myths - myths that sources like SkS are (I am happy to see) working to dismiss as the silliness they are. Finally, regarding experimental evidence of CO2 trapping heat - take a look at Harries 2001 directly showing energy entrapment at CO2 frequencies, which is discussed here regarding incremental effects as well as here regarding empirical evidence. If you disagree with the evidence, present your evidence on the appropriate threads. WRT water vapor, search using the SkS "Search" box for water vapor, or look at Google Scholar. Your claim that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas hasn't been experimentally proven is, to be blunt, complete and unsupported nonsense. -
Carbon500 at 03:39 AM on 6 October 2012It's not us
KR: The point I made is that ice melting depends on many influences, and I think that caution is needed when attributing ice melt extent to CO2. That’s why I gave the Omstedt and Chen reference as an example. Regarding global temperatures, I am of course aware of the other graphs you mention, and the argument that the current stalling of warming is too short a period from which to draw firm conclusions – and yes, I am aware of the difference between weather and climate. (-snip-)? Sphaerica: (-snip-). Skywatcher: We agree that warming has in essence been in progress since the 19th century, but I’m more cautious than you about the 20th century. (-snip-). Another reason for my caution goes further back in the climatic record. (-snip-) Clearly Nature can surprise us. (-snip-) (-snip-). (-snip-)?Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple off-topic and inflammatory snipped. As constructed, this comment comprises a Gish Gallop. Future such comments will be deleted in their entirety. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:08 AM on 6 October 2012Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Falkenherz, do not waste your time with arguments that rea not supported. This: "The level of temperature is dominated by factors in the stratosphere. We have very little water vapour in the stratosphere, so it in fact cannot be a dominant driver of global warming." Is nonsense. The first part is, and the second as well. There is enough water vapor in the stratosphere to make it a major factor in the stratospheric radiative balance, see Iacono and Clough (1995). -
Bernard J. at 01:41 AM on 6 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
I've just had a bit of a vent on the "Oh Shit" thread at Open Mind about the necessity for scientists to be heard on the issue of global warming. By way of analogy, in many states of Australia teachers and other professionals with similar responsibility are required by legal mandate to report suspected cases of child abuse. Now, it's not the responsibility of teachers and other professions to explicitly go out and police child welfare, but they have a professional duty to report any possibility of harm when they become aware of such. If the same principle applied to scientists there would be no antipathy to them speaking out on matters in which they have expert understanding - indeed, governments and the community should be listening with full attention, and tabloid current affairs reporters should be chasing fossil fuel executives in the streets and over fences. It just goes to show what we want to hear, and what we don't. -
villabolo at 01:01 AM on 6 October 2012Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback
I imagine that as the temperature of the permafrost increases so does the metabolism of the methanogens. Microbial organisms are always sluggish at colder temperatures but their metabolism increases (exponentially?) as the soil temperature goes up. Has this factor been considered? -
Jim Eager at 00:38 AM on 6 October 2012Arctic Sea Ice Loss Has a Larger Impact than Antarctic Sea Ice Gains
Chris, early last year Tamino looked at eccentricity vs a vis obliquity and precession in three posts, Glacial Cycles, part 1 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/glacial-cycles-part-1/ Glacial Cycles, part 1b http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/glacial-cycles-part-1b/ and Glacial Cycles, part 2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/glacial-cycles-part-2/ -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz - Several notes, and a comment. (1) Efforts by 'skeptics' aka deniers to claim that recent climate change is due to the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases, fail. Either via bad/outdated/distorted TSI trends (the Washington Times Soon/Briggs article you asked about), or by disconnects between forcing and response times (as I pointed out in a previous post) invoked to cover the fact that insolation hasn't matched recent temperature changes.
[Source]
(2) Note as well that CO2 and the sun are not the only influences on climate. Aerosols, land use, ENSO, and internal variation all have roles in the forcings, and in the climate response. Therefore, do not expect exact tracking of any particular forcing component.
(3) There are multiple response times, multiple lags in the climate (thus keeping this on topic here), in response to a forcing change. As a quick summary, the atmosphere responds quickly, while the oceans with a much larger thermal mass respond slowly. Tamino has discussed this at some length: multiple exponential decay factors here, and applying a two-box model to both modeled and observed temperatures here. A single lag model simply doesn't match the climate response to forcings, but a two-lag, two-box model matches quite well - and is supported by the physics. Air temperatures demonstrate quite fast swings WRT forcings - the oceans slower response shows larger changes over a longer period of time.
(4) The IPCC 2007 statement you quoted clearly states that while uncertainties remain, estimates of insolation have improved over time. The estimate of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W/m^2 since 1750 expresses and encompasses that uncertainty - but even the most extreme TSI within that range is far too small to produce recent climate changes. Check the numbers - uncertainties are expressed with ranges, and you cannot take a statement of uncertainty as license to assume values far outside those uncertainties.
(5) Important: You do not seem to have recognized the linear warming/linear forcing issue that Sphaerica and I discussed in comments from here to here (it goes unmentioned in your last response). The temperature pattern over the last 40-50 years is one of near linear increase, more than half a degree C. If the climate were responding to a halted TSI increase from mid-20th century (the observed insolation pattern) there would be a decreasing temperature trend towards equilibrium. The linear trend directly indicates a continually increasing forcing over that period. Claiming (as you are, again) that accumulated TSI may have hid out somewhere, and is now returning in what appears to be a linear pattern, is simply a leprechaun level argument. And hence dismissable.
Comment: You seem to be searching quite hard, over multiple threads, for a 'skeptic' argument that holds up. While these conversations are quite pleasant, and may lead to additional clear discussions of these topics, I have to say that with just a little work on your part you would be able to find, or read, or understand, the collected information regarding and debunking these 'skeptic' arguments.
Please - read the responses, read the opening posts, use the "Search" box here, or Google/Google Scholar. If there was a 'skeptic' argument that held up, that matched the data and the physics, that would become part of the mainstream theories - there isn't, and they aren't, for very good and well supported reasons.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:35 PM on 5 October 2012Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Falkenherz, I'm having a hard time parsing either of your quotations. Can you direct me to an actual place where a skeptic makes either of these claims (more clearly)? Right now they both look (to me) like pure gobbledygook. It's hard to argue against complete nonsense. [Changes in the global hydrologic cycle? Temperatures is dominated by the stratosphere? Huh?] -
chriskoz at 22:37 PM on 5 October 2012Arctic Sea Ice Loss Has a Larger Impact than Antarctic Sea Ice Gains
Great article by Tamino. Even better comment thread on Tamino's site, which is a must read if you want to understand the details of insolation variances discussed. I have a question re counter-intuitive result of total solar energy input in NH vs SH being unaffected by orbital eccentricity (the Earth being on eliptical orbit closest to Sun in Jan). Eccentricity cycle of 100ka does match the last few glacial cycles. Based on that some poeple argue that changes in eccentricity have been dominant forcings in glacial/interglacial triggering model. But the fact that eccentricity does not affect the total insolation suggest that paradoxically, the forcings we are talking about here are very weak at best. Therefore other forcings must explain the triggering of glacials. Other orbital cycles (tilt and precession) are 41ka and 26ka respectively, so how do they coincide with 100ka glaciations? Tamino mentions Peter Huybers having the explanation, but does not provide the source. Does anyone have a pointer to this source? Thanks. -
Arctic Sea Ice Loss Has a Larger Impact than Antarctic Sea Ice Gains
This is a great article. I had no idea that the insolation at the poles at midsummer is higher than all other latitudes, although getting sunlight for 24hrs makes it understandable. The other bit of info that stands out for me is how massive the impact of the albedo change is: 0.1W/m2 averaged over the whole world, and its impact is focussed on the Arctic. No wonder the temperature there is rising so much faster than elsewhere. -
Falkenherz at 22:01 PM on 5 October 2012Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Hi! Would you be so kind to include something on the following points: "To the extent that evaporation dominates over the surface-sensible heat flux, one can, in fact, argue that changes in the net radiation at the surface control the sensitivity of the global hydrologic cycle (the mean rate of precipitation or evaporation) rather than the sensitivity of surface temperatures." and "The level of temperature is dominated by factors in the stratosphere. We have very little water vapour in the stratosphere, so it in fact cannot be a dominant driver of global warming." Both are arguments from sceptics, but I did not find any hints here how to put them into context. -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:20 PM on 5 October 2012New research from last week 39/2012
My pleasure, thanks for the interest. :) -
Falkenherz at 18:19 PM on 5 October 2012Climate time lag
Thank you for the clarifying the "sphere calculation". With regards to the "thought experiment" and Bob #334; we are indeed "in the mind of a sceptic". So, my question was answered as such that we do not have direct global temperature data from before 1850, but only proxies. So, what do the proxies say? We are still at the point where a sceptic can say that we look too much on short term effect, which could be cause of climate chaotics, and we don't take into account strong but incremental long term TSI effects. The aerosols would be a very typical example of short term influences and as such does not connect to the point I am trying to explore. The question was, what is the relation between the temperature rise from 1700 to 1960, compared to 1960 to 2000? This is a way to answer the question, whether we see +0,6 degree since 1960 as mainly CO2-forced, or if there is a physical possibility that a TSI-lag from the last 3 centuries of raising TSI, which stopped in 1960, could still prevail. On the answer from KR #331: "you see almost no climate lag before the middle of the 20th century - and the invocation of a 50+ year lag suddenly kicking in once insolation starts to decrease" I cannot follow here; a "suddenly kicking in" can only be seen if you look at and compare the last 150 year period with the last 20 years. But I asked for the long term perspective, as any events from the last 20 years could probably be also attributed to accumulating factors of climate chaotics, as opposed to everything regarding TSI, which seems to be a very long-term process. KR, your other point I understand is that before 1960, we saw not much of a lag to TSI, but very immediate correlations to global temperature. This could be a very valid point. Could you please elaborate a bit more on this or give a link whith research on that topic? I admit this might be a little bit a loaded question, so I quote the IPCC to emphasize the direction of my inquiries, and please note the high degree of uncertainty expressed repeatedly: "The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-4.html (Maybe I should go back to discuss this under the article "it's the sun", but the topic seems to be a hybrid of there and here.) -
Kevin Hood at 18:03 PM on 5 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
The landmark environmental laws of the United States, such as the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and others, were passed in part due to activist scientists engaging in the issues. As long as scientists remain inactive: 1) People will figure that climate change is not that big of a deal (otherwise the scientists would be acting out, right?); 2) The active voices will be filled by denialists and lukewarmers; 3) Business as usual will prevail and the needed solutions will not be reached. Rachel Carson is a great example of an astute scientist who sought to change the dominant harmful paradigm - and did. Jim Hansen is another such hero. The time for complicity is long gone. -
Riccardo at 17:47 PM on 5 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
To spread knowledge is part of the work of any researcher, surely they are not paid for having fun in their labs for themselves. And the National Academies of Sciences have been founded to speak on scientific issues relevant to societies. We want them to speak. It's also a duty for any human being to alert others in potential danger. I really don't see any reason why someone should ask people not to ring the alarm bell if they have good reasons for concern. It would be kind of immoral. -
adelady at 12:46 PM on 5 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
John I wonder if Rachel called an alarmist and if that made any difference? Rachel Carson was seriously attacked during her lifetime - and you'll still see some people sneer at her in conversations about environmental issues. There was one gift she could bring to the table that very few people, let alone scientists, could do. Read "The Sea Around Us" to get the idea. She wrote like an angel. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:42 PM on 5 October 2012The Economic Damage of Climate Denial
Phil,...lack of means for this generation of westerners to be held accountable for damages in other countries...
In other countries? What about their own? Other generations? What about their own? The only thing that ever stopped polluters was regulation. Most industrialists will pollute the heck out of their next-door neighbors if it turns a profit, and there is no financial incentive to avoid stomping on people who don't affect your profit margin, outside of regulation. The private sector can only solve problems that involve direct, measurable profit. National defense, education, health care for the elderly and chronically ill, and pollution control have no direct, measurable profit and so cannot be handled by a free market system. Free market capitalism is not a magic wand that solves every problem. That particular conservative fantasy is going to lead to a very, very bad place. -
chriskoz at 12:17 PM on 5 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
M Tucker@13, Rachel and here collegues were called "big alarmists" in late 50s by chemical companies who had vested interest in producing and selling as much DDT as possible. It's sad that she did not live up to her vindication that came in 70s. If Rachel lived today, she would just laugh how precisely the "deja vue" history repeated itself with tobacco companies denying cancer from smoking, CFC refrigerant producers denying ozone hole, and now FF lobby denying AGW. It's just a human nature to deny the problems caused by addictions, especially the addictions that are hard to ferret out. And FF addictions are the hardest type of addiction humanity ever dealt with. -
John Brookes at 11:09 AM on 5 October 2012Nate Silver's Climate Chapter and What We Can Learn From It
As for scientists being activists, I'm puzzled by this. We all have a right to participate in public life. Is there some sort of rule that says that people who are expert in any one area should not put their views out there? So teachers should not talk about education, and doctors should not comment on health care, and fire fighters should butt out of debates about emergency services?
Prev 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 Next
