Recent Comments

Prev  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  1161  1162  1163  Next

Comments 57751 to 57800:

57751. Eric (skeptic) at 19:15 PM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       scaddenp, technological progress is always speculative but it is always inevitable. I'm not sure how you can make a thermodynamic argument because as you know, it is chaotic system control problem. The "stability" of the circumpolar circulation is more of a persistence than a stability. The presence of these lows: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/20231.pdf means that natural changes and/or GHG responses are starting to affect the weather and weather control can help that along. As this paper shows http://soap.siteturbine.com/faculty/faculty_files/publications/1082/Kreutz_JGR_2000.pdf the Amundsen Sea low is currently the dominant feature for much Antarctic weather and moisture flux (as opposed to the Antarctic high). The rest of Antarctica will require transitory lows to penetrate the otherwise persistent (not stable) circumpolar flow.
       Moderator Response: [DB] This line of discussion has digressed and is OT for this thread. Please find one of the solution threads if you wish to continue this. Thanks!
57752. scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       Just for further clarity - my understanding of the speculative bit was that some large-scale processes (eg hurricane formation, monsoon path, maybe even ENSO timing) ultimately stem from small bification in chaotic system. However, much of climate is large-scale stable phenomena, bound by thermodynamic constraints. Eg changing timing of an ENSO event might be possible but not holding one back. The circumpolar system would another major stable system. The high pressure systems sitting on the poles are there because its cold, just as low pressure system dominate the tropics. No interference with dynamical systems can change this.
57753. scaddenp at 11:54 AM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       Wild speculation about what might be possible in the future without a single line on the thermodynamics does not translate into "a reason not to worry about sealevel". You assumed "control" of micro processes would allow you violate that thermodynamics boundary conditions which I dont think the author implies at all. Inferring from that discussion that it was "inevitable" to gain weather control, is frankly amazing. The science paper discusses that increasing precipitation (from warming) was increasing snow cover, but as it turned out from the GRACE measurements, the paper was also wrong. There is already increased ice loss from edges, so you have net ice loss. If you want increased precipitation, then you have to move more warm moist air onto Antarctica from surrounding ocean. Where is most of that going to precipitate? Gains would be a passing phenomena only, especially if that precipitation starts falling as rain (making it a effective heat transfer mechanism) eg reported here. I didnt ask my usual question, as it is clear that a heatpump of the magnitude required (the only solution that make thermodynamic sense) would be fundable by the only by those responsible for the emissions.
57754. Bob Loblaw at 11:48 AM on 19 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       curiousd: First, I'd like to say that your process of asking questions and trying to sort out answers is highly encouraging, and I wish more people that come here to ask questions did it in this manner. The help that you are receiving is an example of the kinder, gentler reaction that people get from the regulars here when they are really interested in learning. ...but to get back to Hansen 1981... I think there is a bit of confusion when Hansen et al talk about different models. In essence, they are really just using one model, but they are making different assumptions in doing simulations with the model, which lead to (slightly) different results. The model that they use is a one-dimensional radiative-convective model, and it might help to read the early descriptions of such models, examples of which are in these papers: Manabe and Strickler, 1964. Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. These papers give a much more detailed description of what is in such a model, including examining many of the assumptions that Hansen et al make in looking at model sensitivity. To try to explain a bit more, with regard to the points you make in #40: a) the main purpose is to examine the effect of changing C02, and it is possible in a model to alter CO2 and prevent the model from changing anything else that would classify as a "feedback", so that is how the CO2-only sensitivity is determined. b) a radiative-convective model does not contain a water cycle, so it cannot dynamically determine an appropriate atmospheric water vapour content independently. Consequently, an assumption is required. One assumption would be to hold water vapour constant (i.e., no feedback). Manabe and Strickler covers this. Manabe and Wetherald extended this work to cover the case of keeping relative humidity constant, which leads to increasing absolute atmospheric humidity as the temperature rises (i.e., feedback is present). The assumption of constant relative humidity is reasonable, and many more sophisticated models and subsequent measurements in the past 30 years support this as a good approximation. c) the moist adiabatic lapse rate relates to the rate at which temperature decreases as altitude increases in the troposphere. A radiative-convective model does not include directly-calculated atmospheric motion (it's only one-dimensional!). The models details are in the radiative transfer calculations, but if that was the only thing done, then the model would have an extremely high temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere - unrealistic. Look at Manabe and Strickler's figure 1. A radiative-convective model compensates for this by doing a "convective adjustment" to reduce the gradient to something close to real observations, assuming that convection (vertical mixing) will be doing the required energy transfer to overcome the extreme radiation-drive gradient. Hansen et al's "model" 1 and 2) used the normal observed atmopsheric lapse rate of 6.5 C/km (i.e they force the model to match this), while simulations with the "moist adiabatic lapse rate" (MALR) let the model's lapse rate vary a bit. The MALR is the rate at which rising air cools when condensation is occurring (which releases energy and slows the cooling), and it varies slightly with temperature (feedback!). You can read more about lapse rates here: Lapse Rates Manabe and Strickler, and Manabe and Wetherald give more discussion of this, too. d) [although you didn't call it d)] Cloud heights. Again, a radiative-convective model does not include dynamics that will allow it to calculate clouds independently. Clouds are there as objects with optical properties, and specified altitudes. Under a changing climate simulation, you can leave them as-is (no feedback, Hansen's models 1 and 2), or you can make assumption about how they will move or change - e.g., assume they'll form at a new altitude with the same temperature as before (generally higher) (Hansen's model 4), etc. All these assumptions will lead to the model(s) having different sensitivities. Hansen did include albedo changes in models 5 (snow/ice) and 6 (vegetation).
57755. Eric (skeptic) at 11:34 AM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       scaddenp, your definition of catastrophic SLR seems reasonable. This idea is not a reason to "do nothing" but one reason among others not to worry about sea level. The paper shows positive ice mass without any intervention, not what you describe. I don't describe this as hope but the inevitable complete control of nature from macro to micro. The question you would normally ask me is who pays for these measures. Part of my answer is here but admittedly will work better for CCS than weather control.
57756. scaddenp at 10:38 AM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       Eric, this would have to be the most extraordinary display of hope that I have every seen. None of the required technologies are even on the horizon so why do you believe that could happen before "catastrophic sea level" rise. (I'd define sealevel rise of 10mm/yr as catastrophic - what is your definition?). Furthermore, the idea that moving precipitation to Antarctica also means that you are moving heat to Antarctica as well. The isolation of Antarctica by circumpolar ocean and atmospheric currents is what is keeping it cold. You could get short term growth in central regions and even faster loss on the margins. The smart strategy is hope something good helps but act on the basis of what is likely. You cant be seriously proposing this as a reason for doing nothing?
57757. Eric (skeptic) at 09:45 AM on 19 June 2012
       New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
       To mitigate sea level rise (possibly completely) we just need to control the weather to dump moisture on the Antarctic ice sheets like nature does http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5730/1898.short. Control of weather, e.g. 5G_2002_Weather_Hoffman_February_2002 will happen well before catastrophic sea level rise takes place. This would not mitigate more acidic oceans, etc.
57758. Eric (skeptic) at 09:01 AM on 19 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       L. Hamilton, thanks for the explanation. I guess the fact that it is just wording in a survey means the questions can be simplified. But to my eye the presence of a number of simplifications implies the possibility of oversimplification.
57759. Bob Lacatena at 08:33 AM on 19 June 2012
       Temp record is unreliable
       ciriousd, The difficulty is that it is no easier to measure the total radiation differential (energy in, energy leaving, over the entire surface of the earth) than it is to directly measure a "global mean temperature." Beyond this, on any one day the imbalance may be in one direction, then another. In particular, counter-intuitively, while a La Niña appears to cool the planet (global temperatures drop) it is in fact warming the planet (because the total energy level of the system has not actually changed, but the atmosphere is radiating less to space, and therefore warming more quickly). Things are further complicated by the need to translate the energy imbalance (measured in W/m2) to some sort of rate of temperature increase. That's pretty much impossible, because how the energy sorts through the system (air, ocean, ice) is just too complicated. So, I'm afraid your simple 3 step approach does no better than simply proving that the earth is warming. It still comes down to a complex interpretation of complex observations of values that vary wildly over both time and three-dimensional space, and yet must be averaged together to get a coherent set of numbers (and trend).
57760. Bob Lacatena at 08:28 AM on 19 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       curiousd, Look at it this way. The direct response of temperature change to a doubling of CO2 is a log function. For every doubling of CO2, you increase the temperature (directly, by CO2 alone) by 1 degree C. This is based on the physics, I believe, but I can't find a straightforward explanation for why. Climate sensitivity has to do with how much extra warming you get per degree of warming from a forcing (in our case, doubling CO2, but you could also get it from the equivalent change in solar output or other factors). That is a linear multiplier. When you talk about climate sensitivity, you are talking about specifically that linear multiplier. Double CO2 --> 1˚C increase direct --> times 3˚C climate sensitivity --> total temperature increase. The two are separate. Doubling CO2 (or increasing solar insolation, or whatever) is a "forcing." This forcing is multiple by feedbacks. How much it is multiplied is known as "climate sensitivity," and while it is useful to put a linear scalar factor on that, the reality is that doing so is a useful simplification of a complex system.
57761. dana1981 at 07:09 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       MA @6 - I did use the F&R trend of 0.17°C per decade in comparing to the Hansen model-projected warming. Bear in mind this is a very rough climate sensitivity estimate, since we're looking at transient temperature changes right now, but talking about equilibrium model sensitivities.
57762. curiousd at 05:26 AM on 19 June 2012
       Temp record is unreliable
       Hi, I can think of another approach (possibly) to combating the folks claiming its not getting hotter here on the earth, and to do this for an audience. Has the advantage that you don't have to mess with a bunch of different graphs, contrasting Artic to Antarctic, etc. 1. Actually demo the water going into a funnel with a hole and coming out a stopcock which can be closed slightly (analogous to more CO2). As Hanson point out, and is evident from Toricelli's theorem, the water will slowly rise to a new level until the input flow equals the output flow.I am about to make one of these things. 2. Then I say " Maybe thousands of smart people all over the globe are measuring the energy input coming into the earth ,and also the energy leaving. And guess what? The power coming in exceeds the power going out. Its like the funnel with a larger rate of flow coming in than is going out the hole" 3. Therefore, the temperature of the earth is rising. Q.E.D. Whaddya think?
57763. KR at 05:14 AM on 19 June 2012
       Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
       thepoodlebites - The discussion here is regarding the Hansen 1988 scenarios, A, B, and C, not the more recent IPCC scenarios. Aside from that, I cannot make out what your objection is.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Poodle has pursued this agenda before, back in July and in December (comment deleted due to moderation complaints) of 2011.
57764. MA Rodger at 05:02 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Should we not be factoring in the ENSO, insulation & volcanic effects (as per Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)? Jan-Erik Solheim's "whopping 150% wrong" pronoucement, show here to be actually "about 40%," would thus shrink further still to something like 20% and also suggesting climate sensitivity is (worryingly) somewhat higher than ~3.0°C.
57765. dana1981 at 04:55 AM on 19 June 2012
       Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
       thepoodlebites @7 - I don't follow what you're trying to say. There is no Scenario C in the IPCC SRES, and we're talking about Hansen's emissions scenarios here anyway.
57766. thepoodlebites at 04:52 AM on 19 June 2012
       Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
       Why use predicted forcings instead of predicted/observed temperature change for IPCC scenario C? Predicted forcings assume what is being debated. I don't understand the reasoning here, please see IPCC scenario C.
57767. michael sweet at 03:16 AM on 19 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       In this article in press Hansen discusses estimates of climate sensitivity over a large range of past climates. The climate sensitivity varies somewhat depending on the surface conditions. Hansen gives references to other papers that make similar estimates. When I said "Few people seem to care if all the great cities of the world are gone in 300 years." I did not mean to include posters at Skeptical Science.
57768. Dennis at 03:10 AM on 19 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       ralbin @15: The point you're making follows up nicely with what I was asking Tom. There are precious few conservatives left in the USA who are willing to disgree (in public at least) with their bottom line argument that government can do nothing right. It's become an ideological litmus test for them that didn't exist twenty years ago. Hence, people like Adler and Wehner are few and far between. And I would bet that they don't get much funding for their work from self-identified conservative sources. A good example of type of person who once used to be considered reliable to at least recognize facts and offer a conservative response to them is George Will. But look at how he gets smacked down for misuse of facts (e.g., Arcic ice, the 70's "consensus") when he does try to deal with science.
57769. michael sweet at 02:54 AM on 19 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Curiousd, "The only calculations I am doing is taking the climate sensitivity for the various effects as calculated by Hansen, et all, and plugging into C2/C1 = 2 ^ (t/tsensitivity). What is wrong with that? " The fast feedbacks include the time it takes for the ocean to reach equilibrium with the new atmospheric temperature. This is difficult to estimate, but shall we say 90% of equilibrium after 40 years. You need to take into account that the ocean cools off the atmosphere until it reaches equilibrium. The ocean has such a large heat capacity that it takes a long time to equilibrate. Your equation assumes that equilibrium is reached instantaneously. Dana at 37 suggests that the transient climate response, which is what you are calculating, is about 2/3 the equilibrium response. Most people do not try to estimate climate sensitivity after all the ice has melted. The climate will be so different then that the error bars would be very large. The sea level would rise 70 meters!! That would cover the first 20 stories of the buildings in New York! At some point you have to say it is too far out to work on. The fact that there is even a small possibility of all the ice melting should get people concerned. Few people seem to care if all the great cities of the world are gone in 300 years. Good luck with your class, it sounds like a challenging crowd!
57770. L. Hamilton at 02:43 AM on 19 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       Eric, those polar questions were designed by other researchers back in 2005-6, for use on the 2006 and 2010 GSS. I've taken a different, very specific and present-oriented tack when designing new questions for 2011 and 2012 surveys. But in terms of the general conclusions, it appears that details of question wording matter less than one might think.
57771. dhogaza at 02:39 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       dana1981 - wording's better, thanks.
57772. Composer99 at 02:34 AM on 19 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       ralbin: With regards to: So, what are the legal barriers and how would they be reduced? How would permitting be simplified? In the USA, this would mean reducing reducing local and state authority and de facto strengthening federal authority. Equally important, Adler's suggestion would likely involve reducing the ability of existing property owners to use court systems to obstruct wind developments. Again, this would tilt authority to administrative bureaucracies, most likely Federal level ones. This is hardly a libertarian, "conservative" approach. As far as I can see, from a logical perspective the "de facto strengthening" of federal authority does not follow from reducing local or state authority. In addition, you appear to be omitting the property rights of the wind farm developer in your statement about the property rights of nearby owners. Logically, reducing the ability of non-owners to override the developer's property rights (by interfering with a wind farm development) does not, of necessity, require additional bureaucracy or administration.
57773. dana1981 at 02:12 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Lloyd @1 - I agree, the reason this myth persists is that certain individuals desperately want Hansen and co. to be "wrong", so once they arrive at that desired conclusion, their brains shut down and they don't investigate further to see what Hansen being "wrong" means (what it means is that fast feedback climate sensitivity is ~3°C, which is what Hansen currently argues). I still have yet to see a climate contrarian perform an intelligent and throrough analysis of Hansen's 1988 projections. Solheim, Michaels, Christy, etc. all stop when they reach the convenient "Hansen was wrong" conclusion. dhogaza @2 - fair point, I re-worded that sentence, although as Kevin notes, it's not quite as simple as just having better coverage. The point I was trying to get at is that Solheim should not be using HadCRUT3 when it has a known cool bias and has been replaced by HadCRUT4. There is absolutely no reason to continue using an outdated data set like HadCRUT3, unless of course the outdated data are convenient for the argument you're trying to make.
57774. Kevin C at 01:42 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       Except that HadCRUT4 didn't really address the coverage bias either.
57775. dhogaza at 01:33 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       "most likely from HadCRUT3, which due to its cool bias has of course been replaced by HadCRUT4..." This could be worded better ... it can be read as though HadCRUT4 was created for exaclty the reasons denialists claim adjustments are made to various temperature datasets, to make things seem worse than previous work indicated. HadCRUT4 was released because it has better coverage. Which just happens to remove the cool bias HadCRUT3 suffered from because of more limited coverage ... Anyway, call me paranoid but we don't want to toss the denialsphere things that can easily be quote-mined, right?
57776. Lloyd Flack at 01:23 AM on 19 June 2012
       Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
       This is an example of what happens when you try to win rather than understand. Rater than try to understand Hansen's calculations and then criticize based on that understanding Solheim has read Hansen maliciously, looking to find fault and missing context and reasoning. Hardly the only denialist that I have seen do that. In fact most of their rebuttals of climate science pieces suffer from this flaw, at least in my experience.
57777. curiousd at 00:20 AM on 19 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Hi Sphaerica, Sure, all kinds of surprise effects might come about - like releasing methane from the Arctic....but my motivation here is just to find out: Is the temperature increase, including all effects long and short term, always given by concentration proportional to exponential of the increase? This academic question is of interest to me because my path to do my bit here runs through education and includes being able to explain this stuff accurately to people most of whom have PhDs in physics, but none of whom have much of a clue about climate science. They will think this exponential dependence of the concentration on temperature increase is really neato in a geek like way and quite unexpected, but will ask questions. The first question likely will be: if this relationship includes the effect of the ice albedo, then how can you continue to have the same exponential dependence, in principle, even after the ice is melted? I think the discussion you give in post 38 tells me that "No, the exponential relationship cannot be in principle constant over the very long term with unchanging climate sensitivity." Tom Curtis, Your post was extremely helpful. So in my post 38 all I did was to use the exponential dependence and apply it to the climate sensitivities calculated by Hansen, and then I found out that only if one includes the effects of the Aerosols in 1951 - 1960, as is proper to do and is what they did by their normalization of the baseline, then the predicted temperature increase is bang on what happened. But Dana, none of that 2.8 degrees in the 1981 paper was a long term effect.
57778. curiousd at 22:46 PM on 18 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Hi, Dana and Michael and everyone else here, I am trying to pin this down, that's all. So I understand it. In the 1981 Hansen calculation he used a succession of models and his 2.8 climate sensitivity included (a) CO2 alone (1.2 degrees) (b) water vapor feedback by holding the relative humidity constant (1.9 degrees)(c) something called the moist adiabatic lapse rate - which I have no clue about yet (down to 1.4 degrees) , and "Clouds at fixed temperature levels so they move to higher altitudes as temp increases" (back up to 2.8%) so that 2.8 % does not contain any long term feedbacks!! Elsewhere on this site I have been told that indeed the 2.8 does not contain the long term ice - albedo feedback. The only calculations I am doing is taking the climate sensitivity for the various effects as calculated by Hansen, et all, and plugging into C2/C1 = 2 ^ (t/tsensitivity). What is wrong with that?
57779. Eric (skeptic) at 21:13 PM on 18 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       From the paper about the survey: "Hunting is more likely than climate change to make polar bears become extinct.” It's a trick question. Before polar bears could be hunted to extinction in the 1970's there was a treaty banning their being hunted from airplanes, etc. and they were not endangered by climate change at that time. Similarly, efforts to prevent their extinction from climate change would be similarly successful although with the criticism that it would result in a limited preserve and not a geographically wide and sustainable habitat. In general the survey is biased against respondents who believe in adaptation, e.g. "“Sea level may rise by more than 20 feet, flooding coastal areas.” By when? Hundreds of years from now?
57780. pvincell at 20:12 PM on 18 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       To elaborate, my experience thus far leading public discussions on climate literacy suggests that respect for differences will open the door to a populace that is more accepting of the scientific consensus on climate change. Most conservatives are people of good will, just like most liberals. I don't see how I can play a role in opening minds to the science of climate change if I am criticizing or demonizing people with ideologies that differ from mine. Furthermore, while I may not agree with the solutions my conservative friends propose, they have a right to bring to the table, those solutions that fit their values.
57781. redscourge at 18:31 PM on 18 June 2012
       Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
       I would not be such an opponent of the carbon trading schemes if [snipped accusations of dishonesty]
       Moderator Response: TC: Posting at Skeptical Science is a privilege, not a right. Please review the comments policy and ensure your posts comply so the privilege is not withdrawn.
57782. redscourge at 18:29 PM on 18 June 2012
       Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
       @funglestrumpet: This sort of thing is why the skeptics claim that they are being silenced; because people such as yourself are actively wishing for them to be silenced, and others who happen to be in higher places are [snip]! if they're wrong, they don't need to be silenced, just shown to be wrong.
       Moderator Response: TC: All caps snipped. Please review the comments policy and ensure your posts comply with it to avoid moderation.
57783. DSL at 13:16 PM on 18 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       Gillian et al., I've had decent success when I avoid using absolutes (labeling, categorizing, using terminal rhetoric) and when I ask questions. The paid-for machine gains traction on the closed minds of those who want the silly memes to be true. Work on some of those minds publicly in comment streams and in face-to-face discussion. Open them up to the possibility not that AGW is real, our responsibility, and bad, but simply that it's possible that you can be reasonable, that someone who accepts the theory is not actually an ideologue or memebot. Model reasonable dialogue. Find common ground. Pop a few hypotheticals. Draw the person out from behind the curtain of ready-made opinion. Even spending a week working on one person in a public venue is worth it, because of the sharp contrast it provides to the Rush Limbaughs and Christopher Bookers of the world -- the opinion-makers. And, of course, modeling effective and respectful dialogue is a gift that keeps on giving. In the last few weeks, I've been able to move people from very loud and cliched claims of hoax to being open to talking about solutions to the problem. Of course, this has typically been something like, "Well even if you're right the carbon tax will be a total fail." It has taken a lot of time, but I'm pretty sure I'm not just working on one person at a time. It also confirms and informs the people who accept but don't understand the details. It's better than a "Shut up, you Repubnutter."
57784. sidd at 13:08 PM on 18 June 2012
       New research from last week 22/2012
       Further, re Rignot, can we derive a figure for the amount of ice sliding into the ablation zone ?
57785. chuckbot at 11:58 AM on 18 June 2012
       Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
       I think that fingerprinting is a powerful attribution tool, but occasionally I run into someone who claims that the GHG signatures (upper atmospheric cooling, night/day and winter/summer trends) are caused by increased humidity, which is ultimately caused by the sun. Of course, this is contradicted by observations of the solar activity, but I am curious if there are other problems with this hypothesis? One answer might be that model results don't show the same fingerprints from solar forcing, even though they do show the effects of increased humidity (eg, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends ). But then again such people tend to dismiss model results. Any other ideas?
57786. Eric (skeptic) at 11:36 AM on 18 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       GillianB: "the main game is persuasion, not classification" I am glad that other people see that. There have been other threads here that discussed potential ways to appeal to conservatism like promoting self sufficiency and getting government out of the energy subsidy business. Seems to me that a steady dose of persuasion along with some facts about inevitable long term consequences and the carbon commons will be more effective than horse trading to try to win over politician by politician.
57787. From Peru at 10:53 AM on 18 June 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       Hmmm, unlike things like "sustainable growth" , sustainable development is not an oxymoron. Of course if "development" is identified with the economic model that rules the world since the Industrial Revolution, that is, an endless economic growth that depends on the intensive use of limited and non-renewable natural resources, sustainable "development" is an oxymoron. However, if "development" is identified not with identified with things like the GDP growth, but with the quality of life of the common people (health, a purchasing power that permits everyone to cover at least the basic needs, social equality, education, etc) then not only sustainable development isn't an oxymoron, but sustainability becomes a necessary condition for development.
57788. Riduna at 10:12 AM on 18 June 2012
       Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
       Unlike the RGGI, the Australian Carbon Tax ($23/tonne) is far more pervasive, affecting all parts of the economy and comes into effect on 1 July, 2012. The relevant legislation was strenuously opposed by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. every step of the way. Its application continues to be bitterly opposed by him and his Party with dire warnings of economic doom, loss of export markets, food prices escalating, entire towns being wiped off the map, industries closing, mass unemployment, the nation being driven into poverty. Unprecedented drivel coming from a supposedly responsible politician who aspires to become Australia’s next Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is of course rubbing her hands with glee, knowing full well that none of these outcomes will result from introduction of the carbon tax, a tax which is levied on the 500 or so largest GHG emitters, not on individuals. The Australian price on carbon is much higher than that levied by other countries and, unlike the RGGI has far wider coverage and applies nation-wide, so it will be the one to watch over the next year or so. Its effects on the economy are predicted to be zilch and that being the case, we may see Tony Abbott loose his position as Opposition Leader and prospective Prime Minister. Where global warming and its effects are concerned, Abbott makes the Tea Party look moderate!
57789. GillianB at 09:28 AM on 18 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       ralbin@15 & 18 -- "Trying to be nice to these people in hopes of persuading them to come to your side is a delusion." Yes, it certainly appears that no amount of persuasion will convince the right. Indeed this is almost a definition of "the right" these days. Far-right and central-right in the US and Australia seem prepared to cause a lot of damage on their way to getting and keeping power. That makes for an asymetrical power struggle because the left isn't prepared to trash the economy, the environment and science itself. Thanks for the perspective on the right in post-WWII Europe. It makes sense. I think Germany's position is also bolstered by the fact that Angela Merkel is scientifically literate. As was Margaret Thatcher.
57790. Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 18 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       curiousd @34 and 35, on page 958 in the article, Hansen writes:

       "The radiative calculations are made by a method that groups absorption coefficients by strength for efficiency. Pressure- and temperature-dependent absorption coefficients are from line-by-line calculations for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4, including continuum H2O absorption. Climatological cloud cover and aerosol properties are used ..."

       That means aerosols equivalent to the average over the period of climatology (probably 1951-1980, although I am unsure) where used in the model. This means changes in aerosols after that period are not included in the model, but because of clean air acts in Western Democracies in the 1970s, and the collapse of Eastern European industry with the fall of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany, the increases in aerosols have been small over that period.
57791. Bob Lacatena at 06:45 AM on 18 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       CuriousD, Concerning this comment:

       How can there be a constant climate sensitivity, including long term feed backs, if large fractions of the world ice were gone? If there were no ice left would there not be an "as bad as it can get" effect on the climate sensitivity? No ice left means no ice-albedo feedback anymore? (Yes? No?) I am completely on board with the notion that AGW is probably an existential threat exceeding all out nuclear warfare, but for me it is really, really important to have all my ducks in a row when teaching this stuff. So I do not see how the idea of a constant eventual increase in temperature is associated with CO2 doubling if you compare the situation with lots of ice left (now) with no ice left (eventually BAU), because of the "as bad as it can get effect in terms of "ice melting - albedo lessening feedback".

       You seem be making two errors in your general appreciation of the situation. First, you seem to have latched onto the ice-albedo feedback as "the feedback" (possibly because it is something that is very easy to visualize and conceptualize). Second, you seem to think that climate sensitivity is a hard and fast "universal constant." There are many feedbacks in both directions. The feedbacks for any particular configuration (starting temperature, type of forcing, continental and ocean current configurations, etc.) are very, very different. Those parameters affect the exact feedbacks that occur, and that in turn varies the climate sensitivity. No two scenarios have exactly the same climate sensitivity. It's not a simple linear equation. It's an extremely complex, multi-dimensional problem with thousands of variables. There is no way to truly know exactly what the climate sensitivity is in our particular situation... short of running the exact experiment we're running right now, which is to apply a forcing and then see what happens. What we do know is that: 1) Studies of immediate observations point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. 2) Studies of models, which attempt to incorporate as many factors as we can, as best we can, point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. 3) Studies of many past climates -- admittedly all different from today's, as they all must be -- point to a climate sensitivity between 2.5˚ to 4˚ C. It's never going to be a scenario where you can say "well, ice albedo feedback will do exactly this, and methane feedback will do exactly this, and... it all adds up to exactly this." [As an aside, concerning the Arctic... suppose all of the ice does melt? What about all of the methane that is stored, on land and in the oceans? What temperature change would it take to release that, and how much might be released? Part of the problem here is that one can't necessarily anticipate all of the feedbacks, and properly quantify them. No matter what you think of, you're likely to be in for some rude shocks.]
57792. WheelsOC at 05:23 AM on 18 June 2012
       Seagrasses Can Store as Much Carbon as Forests
       I'm wondering if there's an appreciable ecological difference if the carbon being sequestered came from dissolved CO2 or from the carbonates in the water. Lots of hardwater and marine plant species take carbonates in preference to CO2 for their metabolism, and if the seagrass is removing more carbonates that CO2 from the water to store in the soil, isn't that making the stuff less available for organisms that depend on carbonate skeletons and shells?
57793. zinfan94 at 03:58 AM on 18 June 2012
       Seagrasses Can Store as Much Carbon as Forests
       The next step: Estimate the amount of carbon that could be sequestered if we rebuilt the Mississippi River delta and the Gulf of Mexico coastline. Then do a cost analysis that would allow us to carry out this important task. Then examine river deltas around the world, to see if similar actions are warranted.
57794. dana1981 at 03:08 AM on 18 June 2012
       Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
       Russ - I guess that depends on what's considered 'significant'. Transient climate response tends to vary fairly proportionately to equilibrium sensitivity, so a lower sensitivity also means a lower transient response, and a smaller short-term warming. Not a huge difference, but like I said, it depends what you consider 'significant'.
57795. dana1981 at 03:05 AM on 18 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       curiosd - as michael sweet notes @36, the 2.8°C climate sensitivity value is an equilibrium value. That's how much the planet will ultimately warm once it reaches a new energy balance. That takes time because of the heat storage in the oceans. This is called the thermal inertia of the climate system. It takes many decades - even over a century for the new equilibrium state to be reached. What you're looking at is called the transient climate response - how much the planet warms immediately - which is roughly two-thirds of the equilibrium response.
57796. L. Hamilton at 01:23 AM on 18 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       Lloyd, you might check our Polar Geography paper cited above for a different take on these issues, based not on worldview but on self-identification ranging from 1=extremely liberal to 7=extremely conservative. We also use the 11-item GSS "science literacy" scale, different from the 8-item science literacy (w/o old-Earth questions) + 15 math word problems that Kahan et al. use for "science & numerical literacy." Anyway, our findings (highlighted in our Figure 1 and Table 3) replicate theirs in certain respects while differing in others. A journalist asked me recently for a more detailed comparison. That could appear online as a footnote somewhere soon, I'll link to it here if so.
57797. ralbin at 00:07 AM on 18 June 2012
       Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
       GillianB@16. The game is developing sensible policies to meet the challenges of global climate change. Encouraging the (-snip-) of individuals like Adler is potentially self-defeating as these long-falsified libertarian ideas are part of the problem. This problem has two dimensions; one is the actions and influence of sincere but misguided individuals like Adler. The second and greater dimention is that "(-snip-)" like Adler provide the ideological justification for what would otherwise be transparently exploitative actions of the wealthy. This is a major feature of public life for the past few decades. For a concise and actually prescient account, try David Harvey's short history of neo-liberalism. Developing sensible climate policy requires combating these powerful and deeply entrenched special interests, An important aspect of such efforts is discrediting their ideological support. Lloyd@17 - Thatcherite Britain was one of the major sources of neo-liberalism, though I agree that the strong evangelical component of American conservatism is a pretty distinctive feature. When you refer to the pragmatic secular conservatism of the rest of the world, I suspect you are mainly thinking about Europe (possibly Australia as well, I'm not competent on this point). The relative moderation of conservatism in much of western Europe is an interesting consequence of WWII and the nature of the postwar reconstruction of western Europe. The catastrophe of WWII had the general effect of discrediting a large spectrum of right wing politics, pushing the political center leftward. There is a nice discussion of this point in Tony Judt's fine book Postwar. Conservatism in Europe and America has been consistently obsessed with attacking the left for approximately 2 centuries.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
57798. michael sweet at 23:14 PM on 17 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       Curiousd, Geoengineering schemes have been proposed using sulfates to lower surface temperature. The Chinese have started implementing these efforts ;). One side effect of this scheme that is not often mentioned by proponents is that it significantly lowers evaporation from the ocean surface. This causes drought. Sulfates also make ocean acidification worse. Choose your poison: heat or drought. The 3C climate sensitivity is an equilibrium change. You are doing your calculations using only the realized temperature change. The climate is not in equilibrium so you are substantially underestimating the sensitivity. All the observed change so far is from the "fast" feedbacks. These take decades to come to equilibrium. Remember, we are talking about the entire Earth. The slow feedbacks, like melting ice sheets, take decades or centuries to come into play. These are difficult calculations to make. Read more before you make any conclusions based on your own calculations. For myself, I rely on Hansen's papers (and the IPCC) and do not attempt to check the calculations.
57799. Lloyd Flack at 22:47 PM on 17 June 2012
       Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
       I think their world view measures both confound some different variables. Is communitarianism a concern for and identification with the community as an entity itself that should be cherished? Or is the community seen as a means to look after the welfare of its individual members? That is, is it really universal altruism? A couple of the questions used to measure it were definitely the latter. The others could be measuring either. Is egalitarianism a desire for equality of outcomes? Or is it a desire for equality of rights and opportunity? Or is this axis about authority and responsibility? Some of the questions concern the first of these. Some concern the second. None as far as I can see have much to do with the third. The way these axes were conceived and the questions asked reflect the political viewpoints and concerns of those who asked them. In this case it looks like how a progressive would frame things. Interestingly, I've seen libertarian attempts at a two dimensional array of political orientations. These are motivated by not feeling that they are accurately represented by the usual left-right political axis. Quite fair enough, but what they choose for axes does reflect their concerns and others may see them as not the most useful ones.
57800. curiousd at 22:32 PM on 17 June 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
       O.K. Tristan. Maybe I see it? They normalized their zero point on the graph to 1950, and by the 1940s there had already been a lowering of temperature due to aerosols. So the predicted 0.8% increase was by this kind of normalizing, taking the aerosols into account. So if I am right that 2.8% climate sensitivity would have produces a 1.3% increase with no aerosols, maybe this means that the aerosols we have contribute about half a degree cooling? BTW the sensitivity doubled in their model four when they put into the model that clouds move to a higher altitude as temperature increases. Does this mean we can fight global warming by having vehicles/factories that produce as much of certain kinds of obnoxious smog emissions`as possible? Only partially kidding, here.

Prev  1148  1149  1150  1151  1152  1153  1154  1155  1156  1157  1158  1159  1160  1161  1162  1163  Next