Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 Next
Comments 53801 to 53850:
-
New research from last week 37/2012
Just for balance, let's include the diametric opposite of scientific research: Anthony Watts appears on PBS. Yes, that is an open invitation to let PBS know what kind of hit their reputation has just taken. -
Sceptical Wombat at 13:38 PM on 18 September 2012Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
If I understand it correctly the related issue is the warming of the Arctic which causes slowing of the jet stream, which causes wider meanders which themselves move more slowly and hold weather patterns in place for longer. Hence both hot spells and cold spells can last for longer which in turn greatly magnifies their impact. -
bjchip at 13:09 PM on 18 September 2012Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
They might not notice... complementary - not complimentary no ? -
skywatcher at 12:37 PM on 18 September 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Steve, I have responded on a more appropriate thread. -
skywatcher at 12:37 PM on 18 September 2012Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Steve, from another thread - remember that climate changes only with a forcing. The following illustrative image, created by Robert Rohde, helps describe temperature variations since the end of the last glacial stage:
The forcings that drove the glacial cycles, and that drove our last deglaciation (~10000 years ago) reached a peak at the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8,000 years ago. These forces are now operating in reverse, driving a slow trend towards glaciation. Small variations on that slow trend to glaciation have given rise to periods of regional warmth and cooling, popularly known by monikers such as the Roman Warm Perod, the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (in some areas, known as the Medieval Warm Period), and the Little Ice Age. Common causes for these small variations are increased periods of volcanic activity and reduced solar activity. The Little Ice Age was no "Ice Age", but just the latest episode of slightly cooler climate within this overall trend, most noticeable in northern Europe, and associated with both reduced solar activity and increased volcanic activity. When looked at over the whole Holocene, the LIA and MCA are just part of the overall trend towards slightly cooler conditions, largely driven by orbital forcing and most noticeable over NW Europe. But of course, the world is not actually cooling any more...
Release of geologically-stored greenhouse gases by humans has given the climate an almighty kick upwards from that slow trend to cooling. As you can see from the inset figure, global temperatures have shot upwards towards the Holocene Opitmum levels, and are on a trajectory to go a very great deal higher than that. At the scale of the main graph, a conservative projection of 2C warming by the end of the century (similar to present warming rates) would have us off teh top of the graph only a couple of pixels to the right of the Y-axis - a nearly vertical rise on this graph scale. It is perhaps the fastest known warming in geological history, much faster than deglacial warming. That is due to the forcing of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we have injected into the atmosphere.
I would second Bernard J's suggestion (other thread) that you spend some time perusing this site for informative articles (Eric linked to a couple on the other thread), and perhaps even reading the linked peer-reviewed papers. That the slow cooling through the Holocene abruptly ended as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution is no coincidence: it was predicted as long ago as the dawn of the 20th Century by Arrhenius, and is a consequence of the inescapable physics of triatomic molecules that do not precipitate out of our atmosphere.
-
Doug Bostrom at 12:29 PM on 18 September 2012Otto and Donat Weigh in on Human Contributions to Extreme Heat
Extreme weather is coming to a theater near you. A free ticket to performances with every tank of gas! No reserved seating; the hall is big enough for everybody. -
Chookmustard at 10:35 AM on 18 September 2012New research from last week 36/2012
Hii guys. Thanks for the posting Ari! Can someone please interpret the Berkelhammer & stott paper re tree growth ring data above? The terminology was above my head! Thanks Adrian -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:59 AM on 18 September 2012It's not bad
I note that AHuntington1 continues to fail providing scientific references to his assertions. His argument seems to consist of associating a supposed higher efficiency of mitochondria when exposed to higher levels of CO2 with overall benefit for animal and human health, together with increased oxygen delivery due to the vasodilatory effect of CO2. It seems a little self contradictory, is beyond a stretch and is not supported by the litterature as far as I could tell. In fact, the whole argument is rather confused and conflates different reactions as well as apparent assumptions. AH1 asserts that people living at high altitude experience an increase CO2 to O2 ratio in their blood compared to low altitude dwellers. I could not find articles supporting that assertion. All known adaptations to high altitude, whether short or long term, are responses to hypoxia and physiological solutions to hypoxemia. I searched "lactate paradox" and found rather a lack of knowledge than anything allowing to make sweeping statements on whole body response, let alone mitochondrial metabolism. Interestingly, one study found increased mitochondrial efficiency, but associated with low levels of carbon monoxide. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041836 As I could recall, vasodilation/constriction regulation is quite complex and involves both O2 and CO2, but also NO, and effects are different at the central and peripheral levels. If regulation is normal, there is no reason to believe that the range of O2 and CO2 will vary from what we need, since regulatory response will keep the levels where they need to be. People with COPD, who live with high levels of CO2, are not known to derive benefits from the higher CO2. This treats of O2 mediated vasoregulation: http://ajpheart.physiology.org/content/295/3/H928.full I have so far not found articles treating of mitochondrial metabolism's response to increased CO2. Other chemicals, however, are the subject of intense study. Studies of high altitude functional adaptation do not make much mention of mitochondrial metabolism either. However, it is worth noting that prolonged stays at high altitude lead to decreased density of mitochondrial populations, as well as reduced muscle mass (references below). The possibility of increased mitochondrial efficiency has been proposed but, to my knowledge, not investigated, and in any case would be associated with a decreased mitochondial population density, so the overall benefit is highly dubious. It has more signs of being an adaptation to the intense stress of hypoxia. Here are a few references on the subject, and about the so-called "lactate paradox", which does not appear to show in all situations. http://jap.physiology.org/content/83/2/661.abstract http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Dickens/Dickens.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139048 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1623889 It also appears that ventilatory response to CO2 is not significantly different among altitude acclimated subjects, although it is slower. Some hypotheses as to why that may be are briefly discussed at the end of this paper: http://jap.physiology.org/content/94/3/1279.full.pdf -
mspelto at 08:31 AM on 18 September 2012Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
William the mountains are high everywhere in these ranges. It is that the Karokoram is less affected by the summer monsoon and has a greater percentage of total snowfall occur during the summer that makes them different. The glaciers around the highest mountain in the world are all retreating, Imja Glacier, Ngozumpa Glacier, Khumbu Glacier etc -
scaddenp at 08:14 AM on 18 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Old Mole - further to this. An example of an international treaty that worked well would be the Montreal accord on CFCs. Just because a naval treaty didnt work, doesnt mean that all treaties are futile. I would lay the blame for Kyoto failure squarely at door of the non-signatories. I would consider GATT and WTO as the proper place to work out the international carbon pricing. A per-capita carbon tariff is absurd. You price carbon internally and you charge tariff on any import for the carbon cost that is less than that internal tariff. That way you have a level-playing field for international trade. If you want less tariff imposed on your goods, then eliminate carbon from your manufacture. Because internally carbon is taxed at source, (ie the manufacturer pays it in his energy bill),this is not a tax on exports and so doesnt violate your constitution as far as I can see. (I am not in US so I defer completely to you on such matters). -
william5331 at 06:36 AM on 18 September 2012Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
Isn't this just about what one would expect. If climate change is causing more precipitation, glaciers which are high enough and hence cold enough should grow while lower glaciers should retreat. As the temperature ramps up, higher and higher glaciers will be retreating. Here in New Zealand, two of our glaciers, Fox and Frans Yosef flow down into temperate zones. They can only manage this because of the stupendous amounts of precipitation as snow where they start. Over all they are retreating but a particularly high snow fall leads to advances a few years later. -
scaddenp at 06:30 AM on 18 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Mole, my apologies. Since the article was "step by step", I took your reference to a first "step" to be a reference to the original article. -
Kevin C at 05:25 AM on 18 September 2012New research from last week 37/2012
Here is Weather Underground's documentary on the Al Azizia temperature record. Interesting stuff: UHI, station moves and reanalyses. -
Wyoming at 03:08 AM on 18 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Those who favor Carbon Pricing schemes might find the following post from The Oil Drum enlightening. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9485#more If you have not read much about the current state of coal production in the world there are a number of links in the article which will lead you further. -
shoyemore at 02:32 AM on 18 September 2012New research from last week 37/2012
Interesting papers about the former "World's Hottest" record being overthrown in favour of the Death Valley 1913 record. However, there may be a problem with the Death Valley measurement as well. I seem to remember on Jeff Master's blog him saying that at least one authority doubted the Death Valley figure because it was made during a sandstorm. Pieces of warm sand may have become jammed in the thermometer, skewing its measurement. So we may see another revision in a few years? -
Bob Lacatena at 02:29 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz, Just for reference... the IPCC does nothing more than accumulate and report on the state of the science. When you say "the IPCC says..." what you really mean is "back in 2007, based on the state of the science at that time, the IPCC reported that..." The main takeways are: 1) The IPCC is merely reporting the primary belief of scientists in the field at the time, based on published and un-refuted papers. 2) The science and the world keep advancing. There have been a large number of studies since 2007 that affect both the value (0.76) and how that value is interpreted (e.g. Huber and Knutti 2011, Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). Any time anyone takes the approach "The IPCC says..." that should immediately give you pause. Quoting an IPCC statement on the state of the science 5 years ago, as if time is frozen and the IPCC are themselves experts declaring truth, is just wrong. -
Falkenherz at 01:31 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
.... aaand my english becomes more and more horrible, sorry for that, this kind of shows my confusion. Let me restate with some corrections: "So... the answer to my original question is; ACCORDING TO CURRENT DATA, the TSI should not GO upward during the last few years, but even IF THERE WOULD still be AN upward TREND on a longer time axis, THIS ALSO cannot explain the increasing decadal trend of rising global temperature???" [I hope that is a slightly less horrible english] I stop posting now, but am grateful for all answers. -
Falkenherz at 01:25 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Uhm... I think I lead myself astray from the original question. I came here because of the WP graph, which shows a continuous upwards trend of TSI, as does also the graph "historical TSI reconstruction" on http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm So... the answer to the original is, the TSI should not got upward during the last few years, but even it it may still be upward on a longer time axis, it still cannot explain the increasing decadal trend of rising global temperature??? -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:18 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
"the whole report is about AGW, isn't it." well actually, no, it discusses both natural and anthropogenic climate change. The Technical Summary makes it very clear that both natural and anthropogenic forcings are necessary to adequately explain the observed patterns of climate change. -
Falkenherz at 01:17 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
KR, yes I hunt for any stick, because I want to be able to reply to any sceptic argument. So I am assuming the role of one, here. You can be sure I do the opposite on a sceptic website. So let me summarize so I can use this in discussions: - global temp increase from 1850 to 2005 is about 0,76 Degree - TSI factors into this figure, but latest since 1965 cannot explain the increase by the observed amounts ... aaaand I am back to what puzzled me and why I started commenting here: How much of those 0,76 Degree is TSI and what is GHG (before/after 1960)??? It is just, as KR pointed out, I don't really seem to understand how to put this decadal trend figures into context. At least roughly speaking, there should ne some connection between absolute rise between absolute increas and the the calculated decadal trend figures? How? Why do IPCC and others throw them together without making at least a distincion? -
Falkenherz at 01:05 AM on 18 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Hey, thanks for the explanations and links. IPCC should really ready the next report and be a bit more clear about this part. They filed 0,76 Degree under "Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change", so yeah, they did not directly attribute it to AGW, but neither they did to other factors, and the whole report is about AGW, isn't it. Also, in the passage I quoted, the IPCC speaks of a linear warming trend of 0,13 Degree per Decade over the last 50 years, which in sum would be 0,65 Degree for 50 years. So, putting numbers together as IPCC placed them, not more than 0,09 Degree (0,65+0,09+0,74) was caused by TSI before GHG became a dominant factor from 50 years ago. That again seems to be too much the other way around, and this result is also in conflict with the temperatures shown in the graphs by KR here, at 06:15 AM on 15 September, 2012. And if I put that together in an incorrect way (because you probably cannot add up trend figures to an absolute total?), this shows for me that the data was presented in an incorrect context. I think, all the explanations are fine and sound kind of logic, but the data needs to be presented in a clear and coherent way, first. Again, thanks a lot for the explanations. -
Bernard J. at 00:48 AM on 18 September 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Steve at #209:I would like to see how the temperature of the earth has increased since the last ice age and whether we are seeing an increase that has been happening for a long time rather than just during the industrial era. I haven't heard anyone explain the global warming that began at the end of the mini ice age in the middle ages.
If you haven't "seen" anything or "heard" any explanation, then you are simply demonstrating that you are ignorant of the science. There's a whole Interweb out there with which you can UTSE, or you could go through Skeptical Science's own archives to find the relevant commentary. -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz - ...we are basically not talking about a GHG-attributed warming of 0,8 Degree increase in 100 Years, but about a 0,2 Degree increase in 50 Years. Where are you getting that? The 1901-2005 land global temperature trends in that table are 0.84, 0.68, 0.69, and 0.69 C, with ocean global temperatures increasing over that period at 0.67 C. Over the more recent 25 year period of 1979-2005 the numbers are much higher: ~0.31 C per decade land, ~0.134 C per decade ocean - certainly not 0.2 C. I believe you have misread something; and claiming miscommunication from the IPCC based upon misreading a table is quite inappropriate. Actually, without human activity, based on the natural forcings, we should have seen roughly a 0.2 C decrease in temperature over the last 100 years, or a difference from current temperatures of ~0.8 C. --- I really hate to say this, but you seem to be hunting for any 'sticky' skeptic point possible - and in the process not fully reading the references, or looking at the data. If you consider the full set of data, you will not (IMO) find any significant support for the 'skeptic' arguments; the data, the evidence points all but a tiny minority of climate researchers towards AGW. -
CBDunkerson at 23:42 PM on 17 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz, your central argument seems to be that because there are other factors in play it is incorrect to attribute all of the 0.8 C observed warming to GHGs. The problem with this is that research indicates that the net effect of all those other factors has been cooling... such that without them the impact of GHGs alone would have been greater than 0.8 C. Milankovitch cycles involve a lot of factors, but the primary glacial/interglacial trigger corresponds to an orbital tilt. Basically, when the tilt of the planet causes the northern hemisphere to be angled closer to the sun the net absorption of sunlight increases (because there is more land in the northern hemisphere than in the southern) even though the total amount of sunlight reaching the surface hasn't changed (the SH gets just as much less as the NH does more). The 'no warming since 1998' bit is an outdated statistical fallacy even when properly constrained to the surface atmospheric temperature. It was derived by taking the anomalously high temperature in 1998 as a starting point and then pretending that because the trend of increasing temperatures after that point had not gone on long enough to reach 95% statistical significance yet (i.e. passed a mathematical test to indicate that the observed trend was likely 'real' rather than caused by random 'noise' in the data) that there 'was no warming'. That was nonsense to begin with... but it is now outdated nonsense. The increasing temperature trend since 1998 now does pass a 95% statistical significance test. Try 'no statistically significant warming of the surface atmosphere since 2005'... the next really hot year in the record which is still too recent to pass 95% statistical significance. It'll still be deceptive nonsense, but not outright false like the 1998 claim you were repeating. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:36 PM on 17 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
27, Falkenherz, Some points of reference for you to research: 1) Milankovitch cycles overall only fractionally change the amount of energy received by the Earth. What changes, rather, is the distribution of that energy over the globe in space and time (i.e. how much at what latitudes during what season). Look here. 2) The atmosphere has warmed since 1998. And both 1998 and the end of 2011 are cherry picks, because 1998 was the strongest El Niño in memory, while 2011 was a La Niña. It's like comparing your income on the day you work two jobs to the day you sleep in. It says nothing about how much you are likely to make in a year. Look here. And here. And here. 3) "I still need to understand which factors make the models..." Yes. Look here. And here. And here. 4) "...but all models advertise that they match up with historical data." Yes. Look here. [And I wouldn't put too much weight behind what Pielke Sr. (or Jr.) posts on the subject.] -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkneherz, you seem to expect a linear response from changes in GHG forcing. I suggest doing a little more research on transient climate response and equilibrium climate response. What the article I linked to was pointing out, as gws notes, is that solar was the dominant forcing in the early 20th century, and GHG forcing was dominant in the last half of the century. GHG forcing became detectable during the 1940s, but it didn't overwhelm solar variation until the early 1960s. That also doesn't mean that the solar signal has no effect on the trend. That's why studies like Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) are so important. F&R removes the signals of solar, aerosols, and ENSO from the last 30 years of the major surface/lower trop temperature analysis ensemble. If no AGW exists, F&R should have found a slightly bumpy flat line or an insignificant trend. Instead, they found a trend of about .17C per decade over the period. -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz, I cannot answer in detail all your questions as that would be equivalent to reciting much of the AR4 and associated literature. But I shall make an attempt at some of your inquiries. - TSI is the measured "output" from the sun; it changes on geological time scales based on the nuclear reaction cycle in our star, which is and has been very stable; as you can see from the y-axis in your own link, its relative change (sun spots cycle, impacting radiation arriving at Earth on "short" time scales) is small - no, the atmosphere has further warmed since 1998, check, e.g., here - the IPCC has not attributed all observed warming ("0.8 deg C") to increased GHG alone - you are making the mistake of wanting to assign a single measure to a single cause; observed warming is a combination (sum) though between different forcings, and while the GHG forcing is currently the largest one, it is counteracted by an also anthropogenically caused increase in atmospheric aerosols; some people use the term "masked" to characterize the apparent lack of more warming caused by aerosols vs GHG only - these facts enter the IPCC graphs you see above to create the "match" between model and observations, and the lack of such when ignoring GHG forcing - aerosol levels are not expected to continue increasing much further (that will be reevaluated in light of rapid FF development lacking particle filters in Asia), while GHG levels are -
Kevin C at 22:01 PM on 17 September 2012Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
Actually, this video brings up an interesting point: There is a distinction between effective in-group and out-group communication. This video is an excellent example of in-group communication - it communicates powerfully to people who already accept its message it contains. It forms a mechanism for social bonding, motivation and worldview reinforcement within our group. I'm guessing however that it wouldn't make much impression with out-group members - those who reject the message. By contrast, outgroup communication is communication directed at people with a different worldview or social network. It can be for collaboration, proselytization, or even conflict. To communicate to out-group members you generally have to identify their worldview (Lewandowsky uses the term 'mental model' here), and communicate using the signs, symbols and narratives of that worldview, although other strategies are possible. The fact that we find this video compelling says nothing about whether it is effective for outgroup communication. The effectiveness of a messaging technique for outgroup communication is something which has to be raised with every effort at communication - and can't be judged by in-group members, except sometime by those who are gifted at thinking outside their own worldview. There will normally be multiple outgroups, and strata within those groups - for example some climate skeptics regard themselves as science-sympathetic, whereas others are simple hostile to science. Interesting question: What are the target worldviews of SkS, ETOM, Potholer54, Tamino, Climate Crocks and other resources? How effectively do they communicate to those worldviews. -
Falkenherz at 22:00 PM on 17 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
gws, let's not start with polemics, I am seriously interested in AGW, what I just do is trying to link things together. These here are some factors I don't understand. I think I understand now the way GHG work, but TSI still is a topic I have to learn about. So sorry when I confuse TSI with Milankovitch cycles, I just assumed TSI is what arrives from the sun as measurable on earth, whether it comes from sunspots or from a shifted orbit or axis. I also understand that oceans still have warmed since 1998, and the total is still a warming. But at the same time it is also a fact that the atmosphere has not warmed any further since 1998, right? But that was not my point in my above post. I just wanted to say that it makes sense that a dropping TSI could lead to a non-warming up atmosphere because it is the fastest feedback, compared to the ocean. My point in my last comment was, that I always understood and read about 0,8 Degree/last100years attributed to AGW. But, based on what I read here and in the IPCC report, that is not really true. Can you confirm that at least that? The essay linked by DSL says in its conlusions: "At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day." So, they also do not start at 1890, but at 1940 (again a different date, instead of 1960). But, bottomline, that only that is my point, we should rather look at and communicate the historical amount of GW that can really be attributed to aGHG. This seems to be less than 0,8 Degrees so far, even though I know we are not in equilibrum yet. I still need to understand which factors make the models match the facts that ~0,2 Degree in the past 50 years leads to a possible new equilibrum at +3-6 Degrees for a CO2-doubling. Models might not extrapolate historical data, that would indeed be too simple, but all models advertise that they match up with historical data. So first let's clarify the observable historical data. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:30 PM on 17 September 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Steve, this post Is sea level rise accelerating? shows an acceleration in sea level rise corresponding to recent CO2-induced warming on top of the ongoing rise since the end of the LIA in the 1800's or so. The explanation of the global warming that ended the LIA is here -
How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
@Estiben This is being done in some form since years. You can read a bit at this link (no endorsement intended) -
Kevin C at 20:39 PM on 17 September 2012Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
Four truly great science communicators, and great composition too. Chriskoz - I think you are on to something interesting there. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:24 PM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1 Sorry this is getting tiresome. I asked for evidence that the mechanism you mention actually has a significant benefit in vivo and you still have provided precisely nill. Epidemiology of those living at altitude is not evidence that the differences between population are due to differences in CO2, so it is a non-sequitur. I am willing to accept your point about increased metabolic activity, but you are still expecting me to take your word for it that (i) the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has even a measurable effect on metabolism and (ii) that increase matabolism is purely beneficial. If there were a measurable effect from the sort of changes in CO2 that are likely to ocurr due to anthropogenic emissions then it should be a cause for some skepticism for you that you don't seem to be able to point to a study that directly proposes this mechanism or demonstrates evidence to suggest it is significant. -
Solar cycles cause global warming
Falkenherz, even if we assumed your discovered "serios and intentional miscommunication from IPCC" were true, your following statements are non sequiturs (logical fallacy): - past temperature increases are not extrapolated forward by the climate models; the models are based on atmospheric physics not statistics - because some relationships existed in the past (increasing CO2 being a feedback) does not mean that it has to be like that now (CO2 being a forcing agent) - correlation is not equal to causation As the responses to your comments above and the IPCC report you studied explain, the increase in TSI can possibly explain early 20th century warming, but not late 20th (and current) century warming. Current warming has not yet reflected the observed CO2 increase, aka we are in equilibrium yet. Your hint towards "it has not warmed since 1998" is a myth dealt with on another thread. If you find a way to get your hand on TSI data covering the glaciations, and a way to show that it was rather TSI not Milankovitch cycles driving them, make sure you publish that. (sorry for the satire, but your comments have drifted into trolling) -
Falkenherz at 18:20 PM on 17 September 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
KR, DSL, thanks again. So, taking into account of what we think we know about TSI, we are basically not talking about a GHG-attributed warming of 0,8 Degree increase in 100 Years, but about a 0,2 Degree increase in 50 Years. I looked up the 4th IPCC report summary to confirm this, here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html (the average from the table should be around said 0,2 Degree) 0,2 Degree is something very different to 0,8 Degree. Nevertheless IPCC includes the latter in its summary here (first bulletpoint): http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html This is for me a serios and intentional miscommunication from IPCC. So, setting things straight, the current models take those 0,2 Degree and extrapolate from it a future GHG-induced rise of 3 Degrees for 100 Years. I must admit that makes me now much more sceptical than I was before. How can this possibly fit to the icecore-data, where CO2 lags behind (=still rises up) and temperature nevertheless is falling in accordance with the TSI, maybe even with a lag to declining TSI which would correspond to what we observe today? Where can I find more information on TSI data related to the icecore-data? -
jake7351 at 18:10 PM on 17 September 2012Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
an interesting visualisation of PIOMAS arctic sea ice volume data -
Steve7543 at 16:32 PM on 17 September 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hi, I know that there have been ice ages in the past, and even during the middle ages (mini ice age). I would like to see how the temperature of the earth has increased since the last ice age and whether we are seeing an increase that has been happening for a long time rather than just during the industrial era. I haven't heard anyone explain the global warming that began at the end of the mini ice age in the middle ages. Just to put this in perspective, the sea levels during the last ice age were hundreds of meters below the current level and I see nothing that links those levels with the current levels and the changes is sea levels and temperatures over the long term. -
Estiben at 16:12 PM on 17 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Say, don't we have more than enough evidence to bring lawsuits against those who appear to be deliberately obstructing mitigation? It worked against the tobacco companies, eventually. Even if that tactic may be too late to help much, the suits and trials would bring more credibility to climate change, in the public eye. At least in the US. -
Old Mole at 11:49 AM on 17 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
scaddenp @47 The "Gentlemen" to which I was referring in the "run by the Chinese" remarks were the posters preceding me in the thread, not the original poster. Perhaps I could be more clear and you could be less obtuse, pick one or both. As to international treaties proving things, I would suggest that within a few years, the Washington and London Naval Treaties record for well-meaning futility in avoiding catastrophe will be equaled by Kyoto. There is one set of international bodies that does have real swing weight, however ... one that you touch upon yourself ... the (-snip-) World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). I considered the idea of carbon import taxes to persuade China into greater compliance myself, for about a minute and a half ... at which point I realized that in any possible scheme of carbon tariffs, they would be issued on the basis of per-capita carbon emissions rather than net emissions. I suspect that the Chinese would be all for such an arrangement, since we would be facing tariffs four times as high as theirs, effectively strangling US exports of practically everything. Not that it isn't a good idea, mind you ... I think just such a proposal, phased in over a reasonable number of years, might get our country off the dime ... but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for us to propose it. Please recall that the Constitution expressly forbids levying any tax on exports, so we really couldn't get around it ... nor would a scheme that acted on the Chinese (and Indians, presumably) and not us fly with GATT and the WTO. Best Wishes, MoleModerator Response: [DB] Inflammatory term snipped. -
GrahamC at 11:27 AM on 17 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #37
Re: other tools. Have you investigated using rbutr. It only works on Google Chrome at the moment, but it's coming to Firfox and IE. I've already added some SkS posts as rebuttals. -
JasonB at 10:40 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1,If you think that mitochondrial efficiency is not beneficial, I don't have much to say.
I have no idea if it's beneficial or not because you haven't presented any actual evidence one way or the other. If my cells are getting all the oxygen they need, making it easier to get more probably isn't going to make a difference. If you're trying to convince others of something, saying "I don't have much to say" is an odd tactic to use when you haven't yet provided any evidence to convince them.Do you really think that less ATP is better than more?
I don't know, but I suspect there is probably a point where more ATP provides no additional benefit, in the same way that providing more water to an organism beyond a certain point provides no additional benefit. What I don't know is whether we are ATP-starved and there is additional benefit to be had, and what that benefit might be.Look at the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes and the epidemiological data regarding these people.
Gladly. Where is it?One positive example is the generally lower mortality rates among them. This is good evidence to support the hypothesis that a higher metabolic rate is beneficial.
I look forward to seeing that evidence. I was under the impression that higher metabolic rates led to more oxidative stress and shorter lifespans, and that this was why animals that were slightly starving all the time lived notably longer than animals that were well fed (without being overweight).He attacked a big straw-man, and then painted a picture of me literally mocking a starving and dehydrated human being crawling through the desert. If Sphaerica wasn't displaying an irrelevant appeal to petty emotionalism, I have never seen one- and that behavior is not appropriate in any discussion, let alone a scientific one.
Note that Spaerica was making the very valid point that all else is not equal, and that given the other effects of higher CO2 levels include drought and heat, it's a bit pointless telling an organism suffering from those other known effects that they should be glad of the possibly slight beneficial effect they are also experiencing. It wasn't an appeal to emotionalism, it was putting your claims into context so the net effect of higher CO2 levels is more apparent. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:38 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1, I have no intention of re-reading your posts, because they weren't worth reading the first time. Your high opinion of yourself does nothing to raise my opinion of you. Fact 1 is not opinion, it is something you need to disprove if you want to advance your pet theory. Your complete dismissal of facts 2 through 4 demonstrate that you are living in a fantasy world of denial, which explains how you can present the amazing Gish Gallop that has taken you to this point and still expect to be taken seriously...then we basically agree, and you will stop posting strawmen, yes?
Thanks for that closing comment, because it perfectly illustrates my point that your posts are full of debate tricks. You are playing games with words and any reader that cares to step back and look at what you've written can easily recognize this. Thanks for making it so obvious. Given this, please spell out the strawman argument that you claim I have created. Fact: The influences of climate change on crops, temperature and water availability, and hence the dangers to the human food supply, far, far, far outweigh any tangential and as yet ill-defined (by you) supposed benefits of improved respiration. Hence, your entire argument falls flat. You've spent hundreds and hundreds of words arguing about what amounts to an inconsequential detail. -
CBDunkerson at 10:36 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1 wrote: "Fact 3 is true, but also irrelevant as I did say all else being equal (I have been repeating this to no avail)" Yes... because it is observed reality that all else is not equal. Ergo, your entire line of argument is a meaningless diversion into fiction. Yes, if gravity did not exist then people could 'fly' about with ease... but why exactly do you want to talk about things which are not true? So yes, truth and reality are "irrelevant" to your position. Which is rather the problem. -
anon1234 at 10:23 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
Stephen Baines, I might have slightly misunderstood your question. Co2's ability to dilate the blood vessels allows for more blood (with less O2) to flow, equalizing the loss of O2 per hemoglobin. Contrast this with more O2 (in relation to Co2), which causes blood vessels to constrict and hemoglobin to horde O2. -
anon1234 at 10:03 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
Dikran Marsupial, i did miss that point; I also never mentioned that humans who live in cities/ use air conditioning would be the primary organism to benefit from elevated Co2. If Co2 levels are significantly elevated in cities and/or houses with ACs the organisms who would primarily benefit from increased atmospheric Co2 would be those furthest from modern development. Rising atmospheric Co2 does increase internal exposure to Co2 (as soon as a person becomes acclimated, and stops hyperventilating); the internal Co2 level is affected by atmospheric conditions and rate of breath. This is seen when people are acclimating to higher altitudes- increasing internal Co2 can cause temporary respiratory acidosis, or hyperventilation can cause respiratory alkalosis. Once people become acclimated they breathe normally, increase internal Co2 to O2 ratios and become more efficient sugar metabolizers (lactate paradox). If you think that mitochondrial efficiency is not beneficial, I don't have much to say. Do you really think that less ATP is better than more? Look at the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes and the epidemiological data regarding these people. One positive example is the generally lower mortality rates among them. This is good evidence to support the hypothesis that a higher metabolic rate is beneficial. Stephen Baines, you said "explain to us why that does offset the effect of increased O2 loss from haemoglobin to tissues" Because the tissues will always be more oxygen starved, and acidic than the lungs and the blood that just pick up O2. Therefore the freshly oxygenated hemoglobin in a higher Co2 environment will always be able to pass oxygen to the tissues (which by definition, must always have less O2 and more Co2 or acidity than the freshly oxygenated blood and lungs). John Hartz, I wasn't playing "gotcha". He attacked a big straw-man, and then painted a picture of me literally mocking a starving and dehydrated human being crawling through the desert. If Sphaerica wasn't displaying an irrelevant appeal to petty emotionalism, I have never seen one- and that behavior is not appropriate in any discussion, let alone a scientific one. Sphaerica, I do not "Gish Gallop" alot. The facts that I present are completely relevant to the points I am making. If you can't understand how, I recommend re-reading my posts, and learning about metabolism (and logic). Fact 1 is clearly your opinion (as ultimate ends, and values are not scientifically testable). Fact 2 is true, but irrelevant. Fertilizer and water also "help weeds too", would you recommend eliminating their use in agriculture? Fact 3 is true, but also irrelevant as I did say all else being equal (I have been repeating this to no avail). Ditto for fact 4. Basically I am getting tired of repeating myself and defeating straw-men. Everyone else seems capable of rational discussion; why are you constantly changing the subject? you said "if climate change doesn't raise temperatures, increase droughts, and drastically change agriculture on the planet, the increase in CO2 will be great!" ..then we basically agree, and you will stop posting strawmen, yes? -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:17 AM on 17 September 2012It's the sun
Rob, I don't quite understand the post that you wrote, but if I can't figure it out, I will ask about it there. As for Bob's explanation, the equilibrium times of the different layers makes much more sense than talking about a lag. Thanks for the explanations. -
chriskoz at 08:43 AM on 17 September 2012Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
dagold @5, I think 'the problems that attack us' slogan was used for a good reason. The nature of homo sapiens mind is to fight (or self-defend) against visible agressor. When there is an identifiable agressor, there is mobilisation and action. that's why people were able to overcome WWII and later the communism (in Easter Europe). The enemy was visible and well identified. On the other hand CO2 is so invisible that most people are confused because they don't know who they are fighting with. Even those who are supposed to be intelligent enough to well understand the problem (e.g. REP party including their presidential candidate) are confused, and the knee-jerk denial (no visible enemy) myotatic response overides the rational thinking by the cortex. That's why the existence of enemy must be constantly reminded by such slogans so that people like Romney will finally start "feeling it". -
mspelto at 08:28 AM on 17 September 2012Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
SOF is correct it is not correct to refer to the Karokoram as the western Himalaya. The headline also gives the idea that there is a balance between those retreating faster and not. This is also not true, note the quite detailed look at inventory data from across the region published in BAMS 2011 but at SkS too. The retreat is widespread and getting more rapid as far west as the Himachal Pradesh, 1000 km west of Mount Everest. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:02 AM on 17 September 2012It's not bad
AHuntington1, Yes, but "all else being equal" doesn't at all apply in this case, so what's the point of the entire line of thought, except to beat a dead horse or to mislead the unwary? As far as what is appropriate to a scientific debate... you say this as if you are being perfectly rational and even in your approach, which clearly you are not. Your posts are full of debate tricks (not the least of which is an excess and as yet unearned degree of hubris). Your position is categorically untenable. You Gish Gallop a lot, "speaking" with an authoritative "I know, listen to me, children" tone, but you prove absolutely nothing. In the end, you expect people to accept your position simply because you declare it to be true. Fact: Increased CO2 levels, while beneficial in some cases, are not that beneficial. Fact: Different plants respond better than others to increased CO2... are you sure that it will be productive crops and not the weeds that really enjoy the elevated CO2 levels? Fact: Water availability is far more important. Droughts, expanding deserts and other ramifications of climate change will be far, far more important than whatever meager benefits are derived from "improved mitochondrial respiration" in some plants. Fact: Temperature is far more important. Increased temperatures, which change the range of temperatures that impact a plant in various seasons, will be far, far more important than any benefits derived from increased CO2. You have failed to prove your point, and your point amounts to sleight of hand... if climate change doesn't raise temperatures, increase droughts, and drastically change agriculture on the planet, the increase in CO2 will be great! -
scaddenp at 07:06 AM on 17 September 2012How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
Mole, I find a statement like "your first step is to establish a totalitarian world government (presumably run by the Chinese" a rather counter-productive way to begin a debate and frankly one that smacks of ideological projection. The article nowhere talks of totalitarian, let alone world government. The numerous global treaties out there show you can have global cooperation without any global government. The US government is really the best one to act. Carbon pricing/cap is firstly an internal manner and you deal with countries that refuse to put up fair carbon pricing by hitting them with carbon tariff at the border. Because the US is such a large market, that would more or less push the Chinese into following suite. You dont even need Chinese cooperation. The cheaper product will be the one without the carbon tax which should rapidly drive manufacturing away from coal-fired generation.
Prev 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 Next
