Recent Comments

Prev  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  Next

Comments 54451 to 54500:

54451. Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       geoffchambers @94, the reason for using bins is that no single question clearly demarks those who accept AGW from those who reject it. Taking the "acceptors" under my definition. They must have answered three of the global warming questions with a 3, and a third with a 2 at minimum. Somebody who does that is certainly broadly accepting of AGW, but if we used the question that happened to answer with a 2 as a benchmark, we would mis-classify them. Thus, the use of bins is more robust than basing the classifications on a single question. Having said that, I notice that my bins screen rejectors more rigorously than they screen acceptors. That is an error, which I will correct within the next two days.
54452. Tom Curtis at 12:52 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       geoffchambers @92, there is a very simple reason for using multiple surveys. Peoples answers to questions in surveys have been shown to vary depending on the order of the questions. To eliminate this effect, it is not unusual to use multiple surveys asking the same questions, but in different orders. That is a good practice, and is designed to eliminate bias. I do not know that that is what Lewandowsky has done. However, it is a plausible explanation; and no evidence exists which suggests anything more than that.
54453. geoffchambers at 12:44 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Tom Curtis #90 Thanks for the intelligent and well explained analysis. I’m still not sure why you, like manicbeancounter, choose to divide your groups in this arbitrary way by scoring the climate questions. As you say, what you get is bins, instead of well-defined groups assenting to or denying well-defined propositions. If instead you had chosen those who agreed or disageed with one or other of the climate propositions, you would have two coherent well-defined groups, instead of a population spread out over an arbitrary scale. I suppose it must have some statistical justification which escapes the understanding of us ordinary mortals. Your remarks about the excluded middle and the improbability of one person believing in the whole range of conspiracy theories need to be repeated again and again. Would you consider reposting this on one of the sceptic blogs where this is being discussed? I can promise you, from my experience discussing research into climate scepticism with the psychologist and green activist Adam Corner, that the experience of trying to make contact across the nomansland which separates the two sides is a fascinating one. (Foxgoose thinks I’m an idiot to try, but that’s just our little personal difference). You could drop the accusation that Foxgoose and I believe that this affair reveals a conspiracy. We don’t. We say so again and again. We have never accused Lewandowsky of being party to a conspiracy. My belief (I can’t speak for Foxgoose) is that those who believe that every criticism (of Lewandowsky or the IPCC or whatever) is an accusation of conspiracy have a naively oversimplified vision of how society operates.
54454. Daniel Bailey at 12:36 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       So..."skeptic blogs" are not then a subset of "pro-science blogs"? Got it.
54455. geoffchambers at 12:16 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Tom Curtis #87 McIntyre has now stated that he received the reminder on 23rd September, the day that Lewandowsky was announcing his results at Monash University. The questionnaire attached was not the one publicised on the “pro-science “ blogs, but another one. Lewandowsky has never mentioned the existence of a second questionnaire; all his statements, in the method section of his paper and in his blogs, imply (without expressly saying so) that sceptic blogs were to be part of the same survey. In his paper, Lewandowsky says “Links were posted on 8 blogs”. According to Graham Readfearn at desmog blog, who has interviewed Lewandowsky “Some eight "pro-science" blogs agreed to post the link”. Conspiracy? No, simply shoddy science.
54456. Bob Loblaw at 12:00 PM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Tom@87: Well, to be fair, Foxgoose did say "reminder" in his first comment about McIntyre's receipt of the email. Only Foxgoose knows why he wanted to use the later date of the reminder, instead of the date of the original email. He appears to have known exactly what he was doing, though. The comments policy prevents me from expressing my opinion as to why Foxgoose might have done that. Other readers can draw their own conclusions.
54457. Bob Loblaw at 11:53 AM on 6 September 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       In comment 48, I provided a graphic of the daily change in sea ice extent using the IARC/JAXA data, showing how this year's melt was continuing to a greater extent than is typical. I also said I'd update the graph. Here it is, with data up to yesterday. Same caveats as before: a five-day running mean, running off the end so that the last few days are incomplete. One slight modification: the most recent day in the IARC/JAXA data set seems to always get updated to a larger value the following day (Tamino has mentioned this), so this time I've left it out, as it really kicks the end of the 2012 data downward. If you compare this graph to the one from a week ago, you can see that the last bit of last week's graph has come up - due to the dual effects of the incomplete running mean and the last subject-to-revision data point. A bit of clarification: someone at Neven's blog mentioned that this doesn't show much other than what you see on the direct extent graph. It shouldn't - it's the same data, just visualized a bit differently. What does become clearer in the graph here is that the rapid decrease in ice extent is quite unusual this year. The early August storm shows up clearly - and this was the second period of rapid loss this season. Only 2007 shows a similar drop. This year's data around day 230 is not nearly as dramatic as it appeared in the earlier graph, but it does show that the melt rate was at or past the bottom end of anything seen before for that time of year. Once the line reaches zero and passes into positive numbers, we'll basically be making the passage into freeze season. (Yes, I know: this is extent, not area, so an increase in extent could be less ice spread over a larger area, but the big numbers will be dominated by freezing.) Currently, ice melt continues, but now at rates that are pretty common for this time of year - the line is in the middle of the pack (pun intended) compared to previous years. Other blogs have mentioned that the arctic weather forecast is showing chances of another good storm in the next few days. It will be interesting to see if this has any effect. If something odd shows up, I'll try to post another graph.
54458. Tom Curtis at 11:02 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       I have followed up on my analysis, with the following results: First, as regards the possibly scammed nature of the two outliers, I split the data into three groups based on responses to the climate change questions. The groups are the rejectors of AGW (mean score less than 1.34), the undecided (mean score greater than 1.34, and less than 2.67), and the acceptors (mean score greater than 2.67). The distributions for all responses, and for each of the various groups are as follows: {-SD {Mean }Mean }+SD }+2SD }+3SD }+4SD }+5SD }+6SD Total 203 473 319 104 34 8 1 1 2 {1.34 18 23 18 5 4 0 0 0 2 1.34-2.67 15 42 41 11 7 3 0 1 0 }2.67 170 408 260 88 23 5 1 0 0 (Note:I have used { to mean less than, and } to mean greater than to avoid problems with html code.) In each case, the mean is the arithmetic of all responses to conspiracy theory questions, excluding YClimateChange; and the SD is for the all responses likewise. We can expect outliers, but we expect most outliers in the groups with the largest populations, and with the broadest distribution. We do not expect the two most extreme outliers in the smallest group, especially when that group has a narrow distribution. Given this more detailed analysis, I must continue in my belief that the to most extreme outliers are the results of attempts to game the survey. This is particularly the case given that adherents to conspiracy theories tend to follow conspiracy theories favourable to their ideologies, so that adherence to some conspiracy theories will be negative predictors for adherence to other conspiracy theories. My limited reading in the professional literature, and extensive experience debating conspiracy theorists leads me to believe that a conspiracy theorists who strongly believes all of 14, not closely connected conspiracy theories are rare. The belief that two such rarities decided to grace the survey with their presence lacks any warrant. Second, as regards whether the two outliers have an impact on the results, I split the data into three bins as above and determined the mean acceptance of conspiracy theories for each bin. It is not clear to me whether a large number of agreements, or a few number of strong agreements should be given more weight on this issue, so I repeated the analysis using the the Arithmetic, Harmonic, and Geometric mean. In all cases, as can be seen below, rejectors were less accepting of conspiracy theories than the undecided. More importantly, if the two outliers were included, rejectors where more accepting of conspiracy theories than acceptors, but if they were excluded, rejectors were equally or less accepting of conspiracy theories than acceptors. N= 1.34- N= 1.34-(Excl) N= 1.34-2.67 N= 2.67+ ArithMean 70 1.6 68 1.53 120 1.66 955 1.53 Harmean 70 1.42 68 1.35 120 1.48 955 1.37 Geomean 70 1.5 68 1.43 120 1.56 955 1.44 (Note: in this and the following table, x- should be read as less than the number, x; while x+ should be read as more than the number x.) On a hunch I repeated the experiment for the arithmetic mean only, and using only two bins (less than 2.1 and more than 2.1). In the two bin case, the group least supportive of AGW also had the greater propensity to accept conspiracy theories. I suggest that this result is an artifact of the very small number of true rejectors (N=70) relative to the number of undecided (N=120) and supporters (N=955). N= 2.1-(Excl) N= 2.1- N= 2.1+ 154 1.6 156 1.63 989 1.53 It should be noted that among the undecided, those that lean towards rejecting AGW (N=86) significantly outnumber those that lean towards accepting AGW (N=34). Therefore slight changes to the binning algorithm may have significant affects on the apparent acceptance of conspiracy theories by AGW rejectors, and also on the robustness of the result. However, the acceptance of conspiracy theories by the undecided leaning towards rejection is almost identical to that of those leading towards acceptance. Therefore any signficant changes in this result as a consequence of changing the binning algorithm is likely an artifact of the very disparate sizes of the various groups. N= 1.34-2.1 N= 2.1-2.67 86 1.67 34 1.63 All in all, I cannot see how this data supports the claimed correlation between rejection of climate science and acceptance of conspiracy theories. Certainly it supports far better the more interesting result that firm opinions about climate science in either direction are negatively correlated with acceptance of conspiracy theories. There is, however, no discussion of that fact in the paper. For those people trying to find a conspiracy in this incident (geoffchambers; foxgoose), it seems far more likely to me that the "errors" in analysis in this paper are the result of insufficient care in allowing for the very disparate numbers between acceptors and rejectors of AGW in the responses. I place "errors" in inverted commas as it is still not certain that Lewandowsky cannot explain why his result in fact follows from the data, although I am dubious that he will be able to do so. Thirdly, with regard to surveys with no neutral option. Speaking as a taker of surveys, there is no doubt I feel manipulated whenever the neutral option is denied to me. My strong impression is that surveyors taking that option are not interested in my actual opinion, but only in forcing me into their own predetermined categories. The logical fallacy of the excluded middle does not magically become sound because it is used as a survey technique.
       Moderator Response: TC: This post contains a substantial error, which has been corrected @100 below. Most important is the correction to the tables for section 2. The corrected tables are as follows: The corrected table for part 1 is as follows:
54459. scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       "As far as I'm aware, there has never been a precedent in free democratic societies for science to be politically directed to reach a specific conclusion" Very funny. Now where is your evidence to support that assertion at all? The IPCC summaries science, it does not fund nor does it direct. I can state catagorically that no scientist in my institution working on climate-related science was directed by anyone to reach a particular conclusion. Your belief that this is so seems to rather confirm Lewandowsky results.
54460. Doc Snow at 09:22 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       Excellent post, Dana!
54461. Philippe Chantreau at 07:45 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       This would funny if it wasn't also pathetic. It is also somewhat typical. In the absence of anything they can latch on in the real science that would lead to a serious revision of the consensus model of Earth' climate, so-called skeptics make a target of one tiny, marginally relevant item and try to show all the possible evil they can think of in that item. With passionate self-righteous outbursts to boot. A hurricane in a thimble. And the inevitable acusations against IPCC, of course. These are so self defeating as to defy how any intelligent person could even go that route. Let's think about where the political pressures could come from in IPCC: China, Russia, US, the emerging nations? Russia, a huge producer/exporter of fossil fuels, is already drooling all over the opening Arctic Ocean. China, with enormous reserves of dirty brown coal that they're so glad to have as it dispenses them from importing too much from, say, Australia. The US, a gargantuan powerhouse of fossil fuel burning, where lobby groups for coal, oil and natural gas spend millions of dollars and maintain full time crews to influence the political process. Let's think of who else is in he UN: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, etc, etc. How about Europe? Which one of the European countries does not have a huge infrastructure geared for fossil fuel use? Which one has an agriculture that isn't on a lifeline of fossil fuel? But all of these countries together exercise political pressures in a direction pointing to the eradication of the industrial scale use of fossil fuels. That makes perfect sense. The immense green conspiracy has managed to gather more means and more influence than industries generating billions of dollars in profit every month. They've thwarted the KGB, CIA, overwhelmed Exxon Mobil and Koch brothers, while developing that stupendous power all in secret. Of course, perfectly plausible. How could such a theory not be true? The idiocy of it all greatly reduces the entertainment value...
54462. Tom Curtis at 07:34 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Foxgoose @73&77, McIntyre did not receive the email requesting that he post notice of the survey on the 23rd of Sept as you claim, but on the 6th of Sept. He received a follow up email "two weeks later", which is vague enough that it may have been the 23rd, but equally, may have been as early as the 17th. It seems to me that you are fishing for problems rather than observing the facts for problems that actually exist.
54463. scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 6 September 2012
       Models are unreliable
       For the modellers and the funders of modellers, the point is not see if the science is right - way past that and as Sphaerica says not needed. What the models can do that other lines cannot, is evaluate the difference in outcomes between different scenarios; estimate rates of change; predict the likely regional changes in drought/rainfall, temperature, snow line, and season on so on. Convincing a reluctant joe public that there is a problem is not the main purpose. And yes, I do agree that we need to understand the limitations but the IPCC reports seems to be paragons of caution in that regard.
54464. Mal Adapted at 06:17 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       funglestrumpet @ 31: DesmogBlog maintains a denier database. Their entry on Pat Michaels is here. It includes some funding info.
54465. Same Ordinary Fool at 06:03 AM on 6 September 2012
       Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
       Expanding your comparison from summer to 'whole year' permits a broader speculation (though the maps are largely the same). One can imagine a cooling effect from air pollution (mostly from coal burning) carried eastward by the prevailing winds. Which shows up over the longer period, post 1895, in relatively cooler temperatures downwind. But over a shorter period, post 1970,the cooling outcome resulting from the earlier warmer temperatures would not be included. So in our simple post-1970 story, the warming effect of increasing CO2 is acting alongside the effect of the 1970 Clean Air Act.
54466. funglestrumpet at 04:21 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       dana @ 33 Thanks! Just a thought: if scientists disagree, I am sure I am not alone in taking the advice 'to follow the money' to heart. Perhaps a permaneant link to those other sources of such information might help all those who come here for clarification on this issue. There are many for whom this issue is recognised as more than academic; they see it as their and their children's future.
54467. DSL at 04:07 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Doug, there's built-in irony here, too. Consider the intense scrutiny of Lewandowsky on the one hand and the complete lack of scrutiny of the "climategate" allegations. As gallopingcam . . . err . . . Geoff Chambers (sorry, mixed the two threads) said, the damage is already done in the public mind. So too with climategate. Does GC think we'll be hearing about Lewandosky in the climate-related comment mainstreams, perhaps to the same extent that climategate is mentioned? Not a chance, even though the basis in reason for the SL paper is much more sound than that of the climategate allegations. Has Bishop Hill, WUWT, CA, or any of the usual suspects ever issued a standing statement of rejection of the climategate allegations (and reminded the garbage floating in their comment streams)? If not, nitpicking over the SL paper does seem slightly . . . Foxgoose, are you suggesting that the hundreds of scientists of the IPCC who are summarizing the work of thousands of climate scientists (a whole branch of science) are twisting that science to meet a pre-defined (by politicians) conclusion? And all while none of the scientists whose work has been used are making substantial complaints about that twisting? Or is it that the scientists had been coming to that conclusion for decades and only recently have politicians decided to what sort of consensus and consequences might be at hand?
54468. Doug Bostrom at 04:00 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Foxgoose, I wonder if you're familiar with the Monnett case? As an exercise, could you indulge us by diagramming the path of apparently undetectable yet simultaneously powerful and specific political direction leading from the United Nations down to the level of Monnett? Perhaps you can think of another example to show.
54469. Composer99 at 03:58 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Foxgoose, your claims regarding climate science & the IPCC are completely and unequivocally false. (I originally wrote 'as far as I can see' but decided upon review to omit that qualifier as it appears unnecessary.) I might add they are quite off-topic for this thread. Searching for 'IPCC' in the search box will lead you to an appropriate thread where you can further develop your claims if you wish. If you wish to persist, please demonstrate, with reference to methodologies, techniques, and data analysis, that a significant fraction (say, 5%) of papers contributing to any given IPCC report are inadequate, and that these inadequacies follow from the IPCC's "politically led and inspired 'science'", on an appropriate thread. I have seen claims similar to yours advanced in the past (such as by Donna Laframboise), and such claims inevitably end up being so much hot air for lack of substantiation.
54470. Doug Bostrom at 03:47 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       As far as amusing threads go, I think the "waste heat" threads are in close competition, especially as they've also got the feature of built-in irony.
54471. Foxgoose at 03:39 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       doug_bostrom at 03:16 AM on 6 September, 201
       Moderator Response: [DB] Further block quoting of entire comments will result in summary deletion of your comment. Adherence to the Comments Policy is not optional, waivable by personal fiat. Your continued posting privileges are not a right.
54472. Daniel Bailey at 03:20 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       This is perhaps the most amusing thread I have ever read at SkS.
54473. Doug Bostrom at 03:16 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       A great many people are sceptical, however, of the politically led and inspired "science" which grew out of the UN inspired IPCC. But let's be clear, not a conspiracy. Sounds like a conspiracy, has the same effect as a conspiracy, but is not a conspiracy.
54474. Doug Bostrom at 03:13 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Further to CBDunkerson, it's not just one branch of science that's supposedly included in the conspiracy. As knock-on effects of geophysics reverberate into biology and numerous other arenas of inquiry, researchers in those fields who notice and then remark on observed changes are dragged down into to the mental pit being dug by the conspiratorially-minded sect of ostriches. They have to be, because in order for the plot to make sense in its own hermetic way the envelope of inclusion needs to be expanded to accommodate and explain away new findings. As Lewandowsky's case shows, things become really interesting when social scientists become intrigued by climate change. We're now seeing the emergence of something of a Klein bottle or the like in the way of conspiracy thinking; the conspiracy is being folded back on itself into a weird and tortured topology order to explain away the conspiracy itself. There's really no end to it, except increasing embarrassment for everybody.
54475. Foxgoose at 03:11 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 6 September, 2012 How can being 'skeptical' of an entire branch of science, conducted by thousands of scientists over the course of centuries, not in and of itself constitute belief in a conspiracy theory? I don't think anyone is sceptical of any "entire branch of science". A great many people are sceptical, however, of the politically led and inspired "science" which grew out of the UN inspired IPCC. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a precedent in free democratic societies for science to be politically directed to reach a specific conclusion - although there have been several precedents in totalitarian societies.
54476. Foxgoose at 03:00 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Correction to post 73. "August 23rd" should of course have been "September 23rd"
54477. dana1981 at 02:59 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       funglestrumpet @31 - while we might mention an individual or group's funding sources in a blog post, SkS is above all else about the science, which is why we focus on scientific statements and not funding. If you're interested in information about funding sources, sites like SourceWatch and Exxon Secrets are good resources. This is probably what you were thinking of regarding Pat Michaels.
54478. CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Geoff wrote: "The survey is all about linking scepticism of climate science to belief in conspiracy theories." How can being 'skeptical' of an entire branch of science, conducted by thousands of scientists over the course of centuries, not in and of itself constitute belief in a conspiracy theory? The only way you can arrive at 'skepticism' of the overwhelming balance of data is by imagining a vast scientific conspiracy. Heck, Foxgoose is advancing a conspiracy theory about what Lewandowsky hypothetically would have done had 'skeptic' blogs responded to his request and provided different results. Face it. Lewandowsky's survey just stated the obvious.
54479. Doug Bostrom at 02:43 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Very scientific, Foxgoose. "I think things might/might not have been different, if something else was different." A concrete case if ever there was one. As the wag on Lewandowsky's site remarked and extending the point, if McIntyre spent more time reading his own mail and less time burrowing into email not addressed to him, McIntyre's acolytes could have been part of the survey and then we'd be able to see your speculation resolved.
54480. KR at 02:42 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Foxgoose - The facts of the matter are that McIntyre did not respond, and that Lewandowski announced based on the data he had. You are also, IMO, making an unwarranted assumption that McIntyre's responses would have materially changed the results - that's merely speculation on your part. And as Tom Curtis noted, any response from McIntyre now would be inevitably biased by the preliminary results. --- My impression (my opinion only) is that the complaints by GeoffChambers and Foxgoose are driven more by the results of the Lewandowski study than the methodology. Which, in itself, is supportive of Lewandowskis conclusions...
54481. John Russell at 02:35 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       Hey Bert, #28, that was an interesting link -- I'd never come across 'brinicles' before. Thanks!
54482. Foxgoose at 02:28 AM on 6 September 2012
       AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
       Tom Curtis at 08:50 AM on 5 September, 2012 (-Blockquote of entire comment snipped-) Well, we know from Steve McIntyre today that his reminder email asking him to post the questionnaire came on August 23rd, the exact day of Lewandowsky's presentation - so I guess you'll agree there is a problem. You seem to be a fair minded chap, Tom - can you honestly say you believe that, if Stephan had received later responses from sceptics blogs which invalidated his "preliminary conclusion", he (-snip-). (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Presumptions of intent to deceive snipped. Further willful violations of the Comments Policy would be ill-advised.
54483. CBDunkerson at 02:14 AM on 6 September 2012
       CO2 lags temperature
       opd68, the 'upswing and downswing solar forcings' are actually just the onset and completion of a single cycle. That is, as the Northern hemisphere tilts more towards the Sun it receives more sunlight and then as the tilt swings back it receives less. I'm not sure what you mean about 'breaking the equilibrium'. By definition if you have a forcing you don't have equilibrium. When the 'sign' of the forcing changes the feedbacks do so as well. There is no 'barrier' which needs to be broken in order for this to happen. There are several reasons Antarctic temps rose faster than the global average. First, it was experiencing warming due to the shutdown of Atlantic circulation (which basically pulls cold water North) plus global warming from rising CO2 levels... A+B > B alone. Second, there is less water vapor in colder climes and thus increased CO2 levels have a greater warming impact in those areas than they do in warm areas. Third, melting ice exposes darker land and ocean beneath... which absorbs more sunlight and thus warms faster than areas which had exposed land/ocean to begin with. As to the 'warming plateau', this period is generally called the Younger Dryas and there are a number of theories on its cause. All involve some other forcing coming in to play and temporarily offsetting the ongoing solar forcing / CO2 & ice feedback trend. It is anomalous compared to most previous interglacial periods and thus generally considered some kind of random (rather than regularly recurring) event... asteroid impact, increased volcanism, huge freshwater Lake Agassiz suddenly draining into the ocean, et cetera. So the warming trend was really a 'single ongoing event'... just temporarily interrupted by something else.
54484. funglestrumpet at 01:55 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       I seached for any information regarding any funding that he might have received from what might be considered 'undesirable' sources, but found none. I think such information would be valuable. I found something about Patrick Michaels recently, but have forgotten where. I think I just assumed that should I need it again, this site was bound to have it. Wrong! This information would help in forming an opinion regarding someone's veracity and it would best be found under their'skeptics' section entry. If none is known, then perhaps it should clearly state 'no known funding issues' or such like.
54485. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:42 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       NSIDC has just issued another report on the Arctic sea ice - click here. Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice.... ...In 2012, the rate of ice loss for August was 91,700 square kilometers (35,400 square miles) per day, the fastest observed for the month of August over the period of satellite observations. In August 2007, ice was lost at a rate of 66,000 square kilometers (25,400 square miles) per day, and in 2008, the year with the previous highest August ice loss, the rate was 80,600 square kilometers (31,100 square miles) per day.
54486. dana1981 at 01:08 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       Kevin @26 - thanks, I've updated the graphic in the post.
54487. Steve Case at 01:03 AM on 6 September 2012
       Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
       There's Climate at a Glance: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
54488. Doug Bostrom at 00:48 AM on 6 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       Just as a helpful point of comparison and ignoring a few peripheral but important issues of packaging etc. diesel yields some 45MJ/kg, just-within-view lithium/air rechargeable batteries ~9MJ/kg. Figuring in the Carnot cycle's annoying features, that puts batteries in shouting distance of diesel, ignoring logistical issues such as charging batteries versus refueling w/diesel, etc.
54489. Bert from Eltham at 00:37 AM on 6 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       I kmow this is only vaguely connected but it is worth a look. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15835017 Bert
54490. John Brookes at 00:27 AM on 6 September 2012
       Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
       Nice graphs. Thanks!
54491. Bernard J. at 23:17 PM on 5 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       

       It's funny, we're all looking for some SF techno fixes when there are so many carbon neutral technologies available.

       There was an old woman who swallowed a fly...
54492. opd68 at 23:08 PM on 5 September 2012
       CO2 lags temperature
       Thanks CBD although note an underlying frustration. Please note that these are honest questions and not intended to do anything other than improve my own knowledge. So, to clarify, in reference to the first question/response am I correct in saying that there is a solar-related forcing to trigger the upswing, and a (obviously different) solar-related forcing to trigger the downswing? The warming trigger is enough to break the equilibrium and then the temp/CO2 feedback/forcing continues to a higher equilibrium via the process described in the Topic (as you describe also). The cooling trigger is then enough to break from the higher equilibrium and the equal but opposite (?) feedbacks occur until a lower equilibrium is reach. Re: the second question, I both read and understood the Topic, my thinking was more about: (a) after the initial trigger why does the Antarctic temp continue to rise faster than the global average? Once the CO2 kicks in (well-mixed globally as you note) why the continued difference between hemispheres? and (b) the fact that there are (seemingly) a couple of separate warming events or stages - one at 18k yr ago and then another at about 13k yr ago (after a bit of a plateau. In both cases it looks like the Antarctic Temp increase precedes the CO2 increase. Are these actually separate events with separate triggers, or is it just a break in the forcing/feedback cycle, or just not significant given the data/time-scales?
54493. CBDunkerson at 22:31 PM on 5 September 2012
       CO2 lags temperature
       opd68, you say you understand how warming can precede rising CO2 but also ask how cooling can precede falling CO2... the two are exactly the same. Atmospheric CO2 levels do not just magically rise and fall on their own... something has to cause them to do so. Temporal causality holds that this cause must precede the effect. Ergo, in the past CO2 levels have risen and fallen in response to orbital solar forcings as described in the article above. Your second question, about Antarctic temperatures, is also covered in the article; "The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect." All this per Shakun et al 2012, which is obviously a very new study and requiring further confirmation. However, there is nothing surprising about some parts of the planet warming faster than others. The solar forcings of the Milankovitch cycles impact specific hemispheres and only have a net effect because of the differing amounts of land in the two hemispheres. CO2, on the other hand, is well mixed throughout the atmosphere and thus impacts the entire planet 'global mean temperature' (presumably your 'GMT').
54494. opd68 at 21:48 PM on 5 September 2012
       CO2 lags temperature
       Likely these queries have been asked before, however I can't find a description. My apologies if it's a repeat. (1) re: Figure 1 of the Topic post - what is the current thinking on the mechanism for cooling which seems to precede CO2 decreases? (2) re: Figure 2 - I understand the trigger for warming being able to precede CO2 increase and then the feedback, but why does the Antarctic temp continue to (seemingly) precede CO2 increases even though the GMT lags it? To perhaps save time, I am a skeptic and still officially uncertain on the big picture. But consider myself a true one (i.e. inquiring, open mind rather than with preconceived ideas either way).
54495. John Russell at 21:28 PM on 5 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       @CBD You're completely right. But... Mine was a simple exercise. I took a tractor as it is today and worked out the weight of batteries required to give and it the same functionality and performance as diesel power provides. Are you aware that when, for instance, ploughing, a tractor has to be refuelled several times a day; and, when harvesting or silaging, a break for a recharge is not an option? I agree that sophisticated technologies might overcome these objections but given the slow uptake of GPS technology for automated field operations it's going to be a slow change. And I come back to my last point. The move from cheap fossil fuels is going to push the cost of food much higher.
54496. Bostjan Kovacec at 21:18 PM on 5 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       It's funny, we're all looking for some SF techno fixes when there are so many carbon neutral technologies available. People used to plow and harvest with horses, cows and buffalos, in fact, in some parts of the world they still do. No batteries, no wars for resources... Just common sense!
54497. CBDunkerson at 21:01 PM on 5 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       sailrick, that is one of several factors which have been proposed as contributing to the accelerated ice loss; 1: Warmer water rising to the surface and causing more 'bottom melt' 2: Warmer water making its way in from the Atlantic and Pacific and causing more 'bottom melt' 3: Increased export of ice out of the Arctic due to greater breakup and stronger currents 4: Increased melt due to 'physical processes' such as waves and storms increasing as the ice cover retreats 5: Black carbon pollution settling on the ice and increasing absorption of sunlight 6: Changes in precipitation resulting in less white snow and thus more solar absorption 7: Possible errors in basic melt calculations such as underestimating the amount of sunlight absorbed by ocean water through thin ice. Et cetera. My money is on increased bottom melt and physical breakup being the most significant factors, but the way it is going the ice will be gone before they can gather enough data to get a definitive answer.
54498. CBDunkerson at 20:49 PM on 5 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       John Russell, you're making an absolute statement after considering only one variable. What kind of charge duration did you assume? From the answer you came up with it seems like you assumed that this hypothetical electric tractor would need sufficient battery capacity to run as long as it could with a full tank of diesel. Yet those aren't guaranteed requirements. Consider advances in self-driving cars and then apply the concept to tractors. The only thing self-driving cars have not mastered is every possible unpredictable thing human drivers could do... a non-issue for a tractor in a field. Thus, there is no reason that an automated tractor could not be built with current technology. Which means it could run 24 hours a day. Which means it could have a smaller battery and stop to recharge as needed. OR advances in microwave power transmission or inductive charging could be applied and you could have a tractor that is continually charged with only an insignificantly tiny battery. OR ongoing advances in battery technology that significantly reduce cost and weight could be applied. Then there are other aspects of food price to consider. One of the major components is transport costs. Those go down when the transportation runs on electricity rather than gasoline... especially if some of the other technologies above are applied as well. If we get to self-driving electric trucks then nationwide shipping costs drop to a tiny fraction of current prices. So no, it isn't viable to say "Anyway you look at it". There are factors in play which could make 'electric farming' less expensive than current... and certainly less expensive than 'diesel farming' will eventually be as the price of oil continues to increase. All that said, there is also no reason farming couldn't continue using fossil fuels if mass transportation and power generation stopped doing so. If we only used fossil fuels for a few energy intensive industries like farming and air travel natural sinks would be able to absorb all of it AND some of the atmospheric excess each year.
54499. Kevin C at 19:01 PM on 5 September 2012
       Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
       NSIDC August average extent is out. I believe this to be a fairer comparison than the original. Click for full size version. Conclusions are unchanged.
54500. John Russell at 18:41 PM on 5 September 2012
       Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
       @Estiben #58 writes... "Farm machinery doesn't have to be fossil fuel powered." As an exercise, a few years ago, I estimated what weight of batteries an electric tractor would need to have the same capability as one diesel-powered. Using the then latest Li-ions the answer was 6 tonnes. I'll leave you to work out the additional cost. Anyway you look at it, once farming moves away from fossil fuels, the cost of food produced will sky-rocket.

Prev  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  Next