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:
-
skywatcher at 11:06 AM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Bob, looks like we're in perfect agreement, though I like your explanation better than mine! -
Smith at 09:23 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Andy S @9: The priorities you highlight from the article are not listed in an order of precident and I think it is fair to point out that the other two priorities are "Environmental stewardship and climate change" and "Strong and healthy communities". -
Bob Loblaw at 09:15 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith @ 6: "the federal government has increased spending on science and technology in recent years" I'd agree with the comment that the Arctic Research Facility is resource-oriented, and being funded at a time when places like PEARL (noted in the post, located in Eureka) are having to shut down research because of cuts. I also know personally of a research site that is being largely shut down to avoid roughly $200K in salary and operational costs. Shutting it down and removing the unused facilities will cost millions. This is not a good way to save money. Google the mess that has happened over the ozone monitoring in Canada. The Harper government does not respect science. -
Bob Loblaw at 08:58 AM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
None of the inversion-related refraction effects are going to lead to a permanent shift in position - it's all temporary, and variable. As for the change in position: the refraction is purely a vertical shift. Why might someone think it has shifted horizontally? Well, if you haven't experienced a sunset at high latitudes, you'll be very surprised by how long it takes. The change in solar elevation is very slow, while the change in horizontal position is rapid in comparison. Thus, a sun that seems about to set will not set for another half hour, and will have moved horizontally quite a bit by the time it does. Now think of the sunrise: if refraction brings the sun "up" above the horizon early, it might be tens of minutes early, and it will be a different position on the horizon - roughly 15 degrees for an hour, so even 20 minutes would represent a five degree horizontal shift ...or so it would seem. After all, if you think of a society with a primitive technology and no good time keeping, they probably won't think of the sun rising early, because they won't have much a sense of time at that resolution. They will, however, have a very good sense of what their horizon looks like, so to them they don't think "it's higher than it should be at this time", they'll think "it's further left than it should be" without realizing that it's also early. -
David Lewis at 08:19 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
I'm Canadian, although I've lived in the US for the past three years. I am a former Speaker of the British Columbia Green Party. I was most active politically in the period 1988 to the late 1990s. Harper is a right wing ideologue who is elected from Calgary in the heart of Canada's oil province Alberta. He once gave a speech to the Council for National Policy, an American think tank, which illustrates some of the thoughts he has that for the most part he manages to keep hidden from Canadians: He started off with this: "your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world". He comes across in Canada as somewhat of a Bush lite but he served notice with this what he believes. He is a social engineer something like Ryan in the US, out to transform Canada and Canadians because he doesn't like what it is and he doesn't like many of its people: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it" He displayed open disrespect for most Canadians: "if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians" He views his political opponents not as legitimate representatives of people who disagree with his vision but as the Devil incarnate: "the NDP [the federal left wing party] is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men." He claimed he was joking. The NDP is the political party that is credited with enabling Canada to adopt the most popular government program the country has, universal health care. Harper toned all this down when it became apparent there was a chance he could unite the two right wing parties in Canada who seemed to have doomed the right to be a perpetual opposition because they were splitting the right wing vote. He ended up leading the movement and became Prime Minister. He intelligently managed to stifle the wilder voices in his coalition unlike for instance what is happening to Republicans in the US where they are actually sending Ryan into Florida to tell the old folks they must be mistaken, he and the backers of the Republican Party are not aiming to eliminate old age pensions and health care. Compared to Romney, Harper comes across as a political virtuoso. Anyway, study Harper if you like somewhere else. Back to our issue, what's he doing with science. Harper was condemned by Nature magazine in this editorial which was entitled Science in Retreat. I think I would have looked for a title that encompassed Nature's prime concern, i.e. that climate science was on Harper's hit list, that also managed to convey that any science that comes up with data likely to make it more difficult for any industry to operate is also on that hit list. Otherwise you might be able to make the case he likes science. Harper made sure he didn't attend a ceremony honoring Canada's members of the IPCC who won the Nobel. He eliminated the position of science advisor so he wouldn't have to listen to warnings about climate, and he issued the order to muzzle scientists on the federal payroll, i.e. those working for Environment Canada, who now have to have bureaucratic approval before they can speak to the media. The muzzling was the kind of thing NASA scientist Hansen brushed off when Bush/Cheney tried it on him, but in Canada, Harper got away with it. Canadian scientists might learn something from that. Standing up without a disguise to speak publicly is what it takes. Weaver's newspaper article you link to in your post confirms it is climate and environment science that is under attack there, not science. Caution: political discussion follows. I think Weaver is making a mistake channelling his energy into the Green Party in BC. There is no proportional representation in BC or anywhere in Canada. Its all first past the post winner take all. As Harper and his right wing coalition discovered, if you split up into a number of little right wing parties, your opposition just mows you down each election and runs the country forever. The Liberal Party of Canada held power for more years in the last century than any party in any developed country in the world, while types like Harper languished in the shadows. Now there was a referendum on proportional representation in British Columbia that was narrowly defeated. Incredibly, the leadership of the Green Party opposed the system and advised British Columbians to vote against it. The margin of victory was so narrow, less than 2%, I am convinced had the Green not opposed, there would now be proportional voting in BC, and there would be pressure in Canada that the feds change their system of voting as a result, which would have legitimized Green politics in BC and Canada and in BC given the party the balance of power given historic voting patterns. Since the Greens opposed, I say they should fold up their tents and stop splitting the progressive or left vote. Canada tends to follow political trends in the US and we can see clearly what the Republicans in the US have become. Canadian Greens should work to unite the left in Canada to eliminate Harper and his ilk. The last time I appeared to try to enter a Green Party meeting in BC I discovered that the Leader of the Party had removed my name from the membership rolls and I was barred at the door. I was trying to debate with them before the vote took place on that referendum for proportional voting. -
Andy Skuce at 06:41 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith When you look at the priorities for the new Arctic research station, the top two priorities are promoting resource development and sovereignty. That's entirely consistent with Harper's message on the Arctic. And when you look at the price tag, $189 million over six years, cutting costs does not seem to be the motivator here. It may well be the case that the Harper government has responsible policies in areas of science apart from environmental sciences; I haven't paid much attention to what they are doing in, say, medical research or atomic physics, I admit. But it is clear that any science that gets in the way of resource development agendas will be muzzled and risks having its funding cut. I think that most people would agree that political meddling in any area of science is deplorable and amounts to an attack on all of science, since it undermines the principle of free enquiry and open communication. -
michael sweet at 06:35 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenhurst, Who are these mythical "serious skeptics" you refer to? Please name names. If they have posted on the web we will be familiar with their arguments and you will no longer have to interpret for them. Without specific names it appears that you are raising red herrings with your speculations about "serious skeptics". You appear to be hiding your own notions behind a smoke of "someone else serious said this". -
IanC at 06:10 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz, Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Suppose we ignore GHG for now. Let's say 20 years ago the earth is in equilibrium with solar radiation. TSI starts increasing, and the earth warms. Now if TSI drops back to to its original value today, are you suggesting that it will continue to warm for several decades due to the lag? -
Smith at 06:09 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Mr. Painting @7: So in reality you and others have concerns with Canadian science in climate related matters, and not concerns about Canadian science in general. Is this a fair assessment? If so why is the headline about science in general? Clearly, if Federal government spending on science is up, it is hardly fair to make the assertion that they are anti-science. With regard to the Canadian government controlling information released to the public, the PMO even keeps a tight leash on its own MPs, so I hardly think it is out of character and IMO not targeted at climate science communications. Harper runs a tight ship, that's all. Some don't like it and that's fine. I suspect this is as much about politics as anything else. -
Rob Painting at 05:29 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith - Canadian government scientists cannot directly communicate with the media over climate related matters. Interviews are vetted by bureaucrats, whom also dictate what can and can't be said in such an interview. These tactics, and seemingly targeted funding cuts, are the basis for such claims. Do you have evidence of similar government tactics in other government-funded sectors? -
Smith at 05:02 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
There has been a lot in the media about Harper and the Federal government being ant-science, as this article illustrates. I think it is important to note that "the federal government has increased spending on science and technology in recent years" Some areas of spending have been cut while some areas of spending have been increased. Some areas of spending have even been newly created, like the new $200 million arctic research centre. The fact of the matter is that in the current global economic environment, smart nations need to make extensive cuts to the bloated bureaucracy. All levels of Canadian Government are making deep funding cuts to many different programs. Which programs get cut depends on the priorities of the party platform and the mandate they received from voters and evaluation of the efficiency and benefits of any given program. All those who are being affected will, be they teachers, nurses, environmental scientists, jailers, police, etc. invariably protest and claim nefarious motives and attract the attention of opposition politicians and advocacy websites. And that is fine. But when the headline suggests that "science" is under attack because of spending cuts, when spending for science is actually up, it is my opinion that it is no more than typical political rhetoric and will be dismissed as such by the public. -
M Tucker at 02:27 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
The Canadian government is more interested in all the billions of foreign investment, mostly from China and Middle East governments, this resource represents. They are having a big fight over this. Should they sell controlling interests in their vast tar sands fields to foreign state owned oil companies? Should they allow foreign workers into Canada to exploit the resource? Should they rapidly extract all that nasty gunk at the expense of the environment and water resources or should Canada nationalize the resource to better control its development? Having negative scientific studies just confuses and complicates these issues and their vision of vast wealth flowing into Canada. So, step one: push the scientists aside, ignore their concerns, discredit their studies, and never ever mention climate disruption. All oil, coal and natural gas rich nations are basically the same. They are going to develop that resource no matter what science has to say because it is really about trading climate and environmental security for short term economic security. -
dana1981 at 01:52 AM on 28 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
barry @26 - thanks. SEARCH is kind of confusing in that in some places it talks about predicting the minimum, and in others it talks about predicting the September average. It seems you are correct - this won't change the general results of the post, but will change a few of the numbers slightly (Figure 8 in particular). I've added a note to the top that the post will be revised when the September monthly data are out. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz, you make a typical error in assuming that forcing (the Watt per square meter value, aka the extra energy per time and area input to the system) has something to do with climate sensitivity (roughly: the expected warming, aka temperature, for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere). "Serious" skeptics like Lindzen, whom you seemingly refer to, claim that climate sensitivity is low and that we should already have observed more warming. However, as you can explore by follwing the link to "Lindzen Illusions" up left, he (and others) has failed to provide conclusive evidence for his hypothesis. Instead, there are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is roughly 3+-1 K, and you can explore that here . If other "serious skeptics" claim that solar forcing has a huge time lag while CO2 forcing has not, they should present that evidence. Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To demand more knowledge is just another moving the goalpost move to prevent addressing the issue in the first place. -
skywatcher at 00:45 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenhertz, which "serious" climate skeptics would you be talking about? The forcing from GHGs is much larger than the solar radiative forcing (see for example here). It is the dominant component forcing climate at the moment. Feedbacks (water vapour, carbon cycle, albedo etc) operate in response to any forcing, and do not select one forcing over another. "they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation" ... the theory of climate is based on an awful lot more than speculation (also here and here) - you may want to check that your sources have not been feeding you fairy tales. ... as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched. Do you seriously thing that othertheorieshypotheses have not been thoroughly researched? -
Riccardo at 00:33 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz could you please elaborate on the claim that 0.25 W/m2 of TSI increase in a couple of centuries should have more impact than 3.4 W/m2 in 50 years? I can't see how one can reach this conclusion. -
Tom Dayton at 23:00 PM on 27 September 2012Models are unreliable
New study of seven climate models finds skill demonstrated for periods of 30 years and longer, at geographic scales of continent and larger: Sakaguchi, Zeng, and Brunke. -
Wadard at 22:36 PM on 27 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
C99, I agree. Wouldn't true conservatives conserve? Surely a real conservative would follow the precautionary principle? Be risk adverse? I'm saddened to hear that a scientist has to hide behind a mask to draw attention to the fact he can't follow his vocation unfiltered from the public view. -
Falkenherz at 21:52 PM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
BTW, I am not entirely sure; is the 3,4W/m2 current data or the calculated rate for a CO2-doubling? -
Falkenherz at 21:50 PM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
The climate sceptics I consider more serious argue that the known forcing of 3,4W/m2 is associated with a too high climate sensitiviy, and the part of global warming actually caused by GHG is much lower. Their main argument seems to be what I tried to reproduce here, that long-term TSI increase and lags of its transformation in global warming are not considered properly as an explanation (basically, since the little ice age, hundreds of years of increase of TSI should have more impact than a 50 year CO2-development of +3,4W/m2). As uncertainty cuts both ways, they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation, as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched. -
skywatcher at 20:50 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
With a little astronomy and cold climate experience, I am unaware of any obvious explanation for mirage effects that would optically displace the Sun and stars laterally. I've seen Fata Morgana mirages, but as mentioned before, they displace objects vertically. Events like June's spectacular Venus transit, which happened just as predicted centuries in advance, tell us that the Sun and stars have not actually changed their position of course! But as mentioned, there's absolutely no reason to doubt the honesty of the Arctic observers. There's another possible explanation for an apparent lateral shift: If there is some kind of change in local conditions producing a strengthening or weakening of surface refraction (and it would only be apparent in Arctic areas where there are particularly stable surface layers), it might be possible for this effect to cause a apparent lateral shift in the object's rise point. In the Arctic, the Sun, Moon, stars and planets rise at a very shallow angle to the horizon. If a given level of refraction is causing the Sun to apparently rise in a particular location at a particular time, a change in the strength of the refraction would cause the Sun to appear to rise some distance to the left or right of the previous rising point. Because the rising angle is so shallow, a small change in the refraction strength would lead to a large horizontal shift in apparent rise position, rising a little earlier or later than expected. I cannot imagine that the surface conditions are sufficiently consistent for this change to be perfectly repeatable, but if the air temperature is on average X degrees warmer, perhaps the change in refraction strength is on average Y degrees in elevation, and consequently the rise position is moved +/- Z degrees laterally? All conjecture of course, but an interesting phenomenon to explain. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz, it is hard to follow you and to know what you actually mean. For instance, I don't believe you "cannot read mathematical formulas". Your paragraph starting with "Could it be ..." is not a theory, but speculation. That this speculation is not supported by any evidence is answered by yourself in the next paragraph. The two numbers you listed, called climate "forcings" are different, and unless you assume that 0.25 is bigger than 3.4 (note that the unit is the same, i.e. the impact on the planet is not another degree removed from this number), I do not see how you can make it support your speculation. Perhaps if you listed those "more serious sceptics" you talk about, it would be easier for us to understand what it is you want to get at. And just in case: People claiming that GHG forcing is much smaller than the number you listed are not "serious sceptics". Regarding very early Earth history, there is no reason to assume that high CO2 (likely not in "spikes" though) concentrations in the atmosphere had much different physical impact then than today. That it was not extremely warmer such as would be expected from its greenhouse properties, can indeed be explained by a fainter sun. That we may not know the "exact relations", better said the exact concentrations of CO2, levels of T, and TSI, has to do with the fact that scientists cannot retrieve these values with as high confidence (or not at all) from the proxies used as they can from younger Earth ages. Your conclusion "then CO2 necessarily must have had less effect than assumed" would only be supported if we knew T and TSI for these ages well enough and could exclude that TSI was below a certain value. Remember: Uncertainty cuts both ways. And because uncertainty for the climate during these Earth ages exists des not undermine what we know about CO2 and climate at present time. -
Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
The refraction angle is dependent on the slope of the temperature inversion. If said inversion has not changed over time in the morning, but was altered due to warming (in a very general sense) in the evening, it may indeed explain the Inuit observations. Inversion strength is affected by surface radiative properties (T, emissivity), cloud cover (more clouds, less surface cooling), and (warm/cold air) advection. Historical vertical temperature observations would help ... Here is another another thought: If the Inuit live by the seasons instead of by a calendar as we do, then the lateral position shift could be explained by a shift in season lengths. In other words, the "sun sets in a different position" on 15 Sep compared to 10 Sep, and if the seasonal change observed by the Inuit and are used to now occurs on average on 15 Sep instead on 10 Sep, their interpretation may simply be reversed if they assume the seasons remain unaltered in their timing. This would be symmetric, however, if season expansion is symmetric ... -
Falkenherz at 17:10 PM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
IanC, thank you very much, your explanation helped also for understanding a lot of other things which puzzled me (I cannot read mathematical formulas). Regarding the lag: I understand that a decrease in radiative imbalance from TSI is countered by a raising GHG-forcing. The point of the more serious sceptics is that they don't deny GHG-forcings but believe that it is overestimated and GHG is only a lagged "top-up" to (also lagged) TSI-forcings. So, we have two temperature lags to account for: TSI-lag, and a top-up CO2 lag. Could it be that TSI had a slow but constant increase over the last 150 years, and rising GHG-levels continue the resulting upward trend of global temperature for a little while before the imbalance from dropping TSI causes global temperature to finally drop? This would result in a long term curve similar to those seen in the arctic ice cores. If that was true, then we should see that, despite still raising CO2-levels for the next centuries, the global temperature should nevertheless drop after, say, another 50-100 years: As I understand from the ice cores, CO2 was still raising about 800 years while temperature was already dropping, but the known effects of CO2 implies that TSI must have been dopping x years before the temperature actually dropped. (I don't know if I explained that clear enough) So far the theory; but I think I also read that the radiative forcing of CO2 alone is about 3,4W/m2 (compared to ~ +0,25W/m2 TSI since 1700)? I also understand that rising CO2levels are large part antropomorphic. However, I am not sure if these factors would contradict said theory or just result in a longer raise of CO2 and temperature before finally temperature has to follow the downwards trend from a long term weaker TSI (which I am not sure we can assume after just 50 years of exact measuring and another 150 years historical approximations). (Another argument and excurs: We have had huge spikes of CO2 in early earth history, x thousands of ppm, and it is said it was "countered" by a very much weaker TSI at those times. But we don't know the exact relations; for example, if TSI at those times was a bit stronger than we believe, then CO2 necessarily must have had less effect than assumed.) Sorry, a lot of different thoughts, and I admit it is difficult to keep things apart. -
barry1487 at 16:18 PM on 27 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the 2012 minimum of 3.4 is the daily extent minimum. The SEARCH predictions are of the average extent for the month of September. We won't know what that is until early October. It sticks out even more because of the word 'Actual' appended to the value. Can this be amended until the real figure comes in? As it happens, there was a late entry in this year's SEARCH predictions, which did consider the absolute (daily minimum). Late Summer Update -
Bernard J. at 14:54 PM on 27 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
Scrap that last. I opened new tabs instead of refreshing, and found the comments, and this by way of explanation:Moderator Response: As a general note, comment numbering is off on this thread due to Mr. Keyes opting to recuse himself from all participation in this venue.
-
Bernard J. at 14:48 PM on 27 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #38
Sorry to treat this like an open thread, but I was wondering if anyone else was having trouble seeing the comments on threads at Lewandowsky's "Shaping Tomorrow's World"? All I see are the original posts, with the page numbers below but no comments. -
Doug Hutcheson at 14:42 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Thanks Bob and DB. My experience of mirages is average, but I do not recall one in which the image was displaced laterally to any degree. I have only experienced them when the false image was directly above or below its true position. In the Inuit movie, elders say that the sun is setting in a different lateral position from where it used to occur, but sunrise is normal. I am having trouble conjouring up a scenario in which a lateral-shifting refractive illusion exists in just the same manner day after day, which would mean the atmospheric condition causing it is exactly the same day after day and, at the same time, did not occur 'in the old days'. That is not what I have seen, but it could be possible and I am just curious as to whether a lateral displacement of an image is possible, or is a reasonable explanation for what the elders are seeing. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:10 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Doug H: The upside-down mirage effect (there is, I think, a name for it, which I can't remember at the moment) is more common in the morning, after a long, cold night leads to strong inversions. It can, however, also be caused by something like an ice flow (cold) in warmer water. I have seen it most pronounced in very flat, but not perfectly flat, terrain, where a slight hollow with no air drainage leads to a pocket of cold air: you see the effect looking across the pocket of cold air. Depending on weather, you could get the right conditions at sunset - just less likely. It is most pronounced with the sun on the horizon: think of refraction when looking at a stick in the water: you don't get refraction if you are looking straight down through the water - only when you look on an angle. When the sun is high in the sky, the sun's rays pass perpendicular to the plane of constant density (like the water-air surface in the stick example), so refraction doesn't happen.Moderator Response: [DB] Fata Morgana? -
Composer99 at 13:43 PM on 27 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
I fear Dr X will not be difficult to unmask, and retribution will be swift in coming. TheGovernment of CanadaHarper Government is not, insofar as I have followed its relations with the civil service, known for tact or valour. The stereotype in politics is that one becomes more conservative as one ages and has children. As I have grown older - and especially since the birth of my son just over a year ago - I have become increasingly intolerant of the policy promulgated by Canadian conservative parties. I wonder if that is because I am going against the stereotype, or because the Conservatives are. I fear it is the latter case. -
Composer99 at 13:32 PM on 27 September 2012Sea level is not rising
Ahhhhhh. I think you are correct there: the myth Monckton promulgates in the 'Monckton Myths page' is different than the myth he promulgates at the top of this article (surely a Monckton vs Monckton moment if ever there was one). However, your point stands: when Monckton claims sea level isn't rising, this is the article to go to. When he claims, as per myth #1 on the Monctkon myth page, that sea level rise is not accelerating, surely there is another, better rebuttal to use. This one might do. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:58 PM on 27 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Elizabeth May's newspaper article lists a sorry litany of science avoidance by the Harper government. Is shooting the messenger a valid part of prudent governance today? It used to be the action of a fundamentalist religiosity and enlightened Western governments were supposed to be above such stupidity, but now the inmates seem to be running the Canadian asylum. No doubt such awesome leadership is soon to be coming to a conservative government near you. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:39 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Thanks for the clarification, Bob. Would the effects of changed refraction include sunrise position being normal, but sunset being apparently shifted? This was mentioned in the movie linked by David @ 12 above. I intuitively thought the effect would be consistent at all times of the day, if it was pollution related. I suppose the heat of the day could cause the air to warm enough to change its refractive properties and cause sunset only to shift, but I am curious about the apparent difference in effect. Nevertheless, whether the sunset position and star locations have changed or not, the effects of melting up there are pretty dramatic. Interesting that a couple of speakers in the movie think the polar bear population is increasing, whereas environmental scientists are telling us the population is in decline. I suspect the lack of sea ice is concentrating the remaining population on the land, where there is likely to be more interaction with people, but that is a totally unqualified guess (I am not a scientist). It is tough on the Inuit to be the canary in the mine for the rest of us. My heart goes out to them. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:18 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Doug H: Under standard atmospheric conditions, when the sun is on the horizon there is about a 0.5 degree shift in apparent position due to atmospheric refraction. This is due to the changing density between the surface (more dens)and the upper atmosphere (less dense), and is well-known. The refraction follows the curve of the earth, so that the sun appears slightly higher than it really is. The amount of refraction does depend on atmospheric conditions. The most obvious example is the mirage: over a hot surface, light follows a curved path (opposite to the earth's curvature), so that when looking at what should be the ground in the distance you actually see sky. The heated air at the surface is much less dense than that above (opposite to normal), Our brains interpret this as a reflection, making us think the surface is covered by water forming a reflecting surface. Less common (for most people) is the opposite of a mirage: a very cold layer at the surface (inversion) refracts light the other way (light path follows the curvature of the earth), and it is possible to see things that are supposed to be below the horizon out of site. Think of it as normal vertical density changes on steroids. I have personally seen the following, under these cold inversion conditions: a) short buildings or trees in the distance, looking like Manhattan sky scrapers or huge trees. The vertical exaggeration can be quite spectacular. b) two sunrises - one early, because of the refracting layer making the sun visible several minutes before it officially rises, followed by a second when the sun rises normally above the shallow refracting layer. This is really neat to watch: the sun rises, then just kind of disappears, then reappears higher in the sky (still very close to the horizon) and continues to rise normally. Several early arctic explorers were fooled by a), thinking that they saw towering mountain coasts in the distance when it was really probably just some ice floes on the horizon that were expanded upwards due to the refraction. No need for further research - well-known for about a century. -
Stevo at 12:02 PM on 27 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
"Replacing evidence based policy making with policy based evidence making." How beautifully said! That one is going into my lexicon. Dr X is worried about loss of funding. So much for the world government, green conspiracy and its umpteen gazillion mega-bucks whose origin nobody can explain. Maybe the scientists actually have a case! -
scaddenp at 11:32 AM on 27 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
Peter Lang. You mention the issue of uncertainty. Having the ice cap melt faster than climate models have predicted is surely a cause for concern when you consider the other implications of the same models? -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:49 AM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
David @ 12, I am not convinced about the apparent position of the sun and stars being affected by temperature inversions, because it seems to make no sense at first blush. Perhaps this is a field for further research by scientists. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, Inuit elders saying this has happened have no obvious agenda that would be advanced by reporting the matter incorrectly. The warming and subsequent melt are more easily accepted, as they conform with what science expects. Writing off all the elders testimony just because it is hard to accept everything they say, without scientific backing, would be very imprudent. I predict, therefore, that this will be one of the reactions by those well-balanced folks that inhabit WUWT etc. -
David Lewis at 09:00 AM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
One thing that Inuit communities all over the North believe is that the sun and the stars have changed their position in the sky. Many scientists discouraged them from bringing the attention of the outside world to this observation because, as NASA explained to the makers of the movie Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, it was impossible. This has been the attitude of many scientists to Inuit knowledge. But NASA was wrong. Pollution has altered the atmosphere in the Arctic creating inversions in the North which makes it look to observers on the ground that the sun and the stars have changed their position. Toronto Globe and Mail article on the subject is here. The Inuit might tell us some other things, like we should not destroy the stability of the climate system, but I suppose what we're saying collectively by our inaction is that's another thing we think is impossible. -
Antwerpenaar at 08:53 AM on 27 September 2012Sea level is not rising
Composer99: thanks for the very useful reply. However for clarification: my citations are copied directly from the table on the front page of SkS 'Monckton Myths', hence my comment about these seeming muddled. Could I suggest a clarification? -
yocta at 08:31 AM on 27 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
Looks like some goalpost shifting is underway. It's the Antarctic that 'skeptics' have moved their attention too. -
Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
I feel it's my duty to point out that Tamino has a pretty good dressing-down of Dave Burton's sea level "analysis" over at Open Mind. -
IanC at 04:11 AM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz, In Wang 2005 they are reporting the solar constant S, which will be the flux of energy received by a flat disk facing the sun. However as the earth is a sphere, one will need to adjust this in order to make proper comparison with black body radiation and greenhouse gas forcing in simple climate models. For the earth with radius R, the rate of energy intercepted by the earth is given by S*π*R^2 (in Watts). In simple conceptual climate models this is assumed to be evenly distributed on the earth which has a surface area of 4*π*R^2, and thus the solar irradiance is in fact: S*π*R^2/4*π*R^2 = S/4 The solar constant S is about 1366W/m^2, which translates to about 341W/m^2 in the context of radiative balance for the earth. In addition the change in solar forcing is only 1/4 of the change in solar constant. In figure 15 of Wang et al. 2005, the bottom curves is the estimation from Lean 2000, whereas the Wang et al. approach gave the top two curves, which has an increase of less than 1 W/m^2 for S. Diving this by 4 gives an increase of at most 0.25 W/m^2 in solar forcing. THe 0.17W/m^2 figure quoted in this article is likely based on the thick solid curve in fig 15 of Want et al. 2005. Regarding the lag: I think the point is that if the current warming is solely a response to the increase in solar irradiance prior to 1950, then we should've seen a decrease in radiative imbalance over a period of 25-50 years, but radiative imbalance is in fact increasing (according to Hansen 2005 for example). -
vrooomie at 02:12 AM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
LarryM@10: perhaps we ought to start a fund? Someone who may have contact with Ms. Baikie could ask if she'd like to take a trip to DC/Canberra and speak to the folks there. If so, I'd chip in for it.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed spelling. -
LarryM at 02:06 AM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Thanks very much for this article on the human side and the immediacy of climate change impacts. Periodically the U.S. Congress holds climate-change-related hearings that often feature fake-skeptic speakers. It would be great if they could occasionally hear from directly impacted persons who have the eloquence of Ms. Baikie. -
Falkenherz at 01:43 AM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
On the time lag... I don't understand two things here from the article: First, the TSI increase is said to be only "between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007) since the Maunder Minimum". In the essay from Wang 2005 , I found this graph in figure 15, where you have the TSI from three studies compared, and you can eyeball an increase from 1 W/m2 to 2,5 W/m2 from the different curves. Second, it is said that "Hansen 2005 estimates the climate lag time is between 25 to 50 years", and then "climate reached radiative equilibrium around the late 80's (give or take a decade)". If I count from 1960 onwards and assume 50 years, there could be a lagged warming until 2010 (which of course does not exclude additional warming by GHG). -
vrooomie at 01:39 AM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Bernard J@8: took the words right out of my mouth. Well-said. -
Composer99 at 23:51 PM on 26 September 2012Sea level is not rising
Antwerpenaar: If only you were correct. The summary of the myth is ambiguous but when combined with the graphs that are part of the SPPI document I think the meaning is clear. At any rate, I suspect you have inadverently mis-paraphrased the myth statement, which cites Monckton as claiming:Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data. [Emphasis mine.]
When combined with the SPPI graphs, it is IMO clear that Monckton is claiming sea levels are not rising at all. I assume you have cited an actual quote by Monckton as well (in fact, it would not surprise me if it was from the same document that this rebuttal cites), which is probably par for the course from Monckton. -
Bernard J. at 23:17 PM on 26 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Sadly, in the scheme of Western social response to the climate damage our culture has wrought, people such as the Inuit will simply be regarded as a bit of collateral damage in our progress to... somewhere. My heart breaks for Caitlyn's people, and their melting world. -
vrooomie at 23:07 PM on 26 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
woops..I meant to state "Decreasing our individual carbon footprint." -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz, the NASA study (Willson et al. (2003)) found that a slight trend (0.5%) was beginning to occur in the valleys of the 11-year cycle. As they say, "Although the inferred [total] increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more." Not also that the study is ten years old. It doesn't take a precise analysis to tell that the most recent valley does not support the proposed trend.
Prev 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 Next
