Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
Comments 58051 to 58100:
-
curiousd at 12:10 PM on 4 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Thanks Tom Curtis. Huh! Then Equate the dFs in 1 and 2 You get dT/0.75 = ln(C2/C1)x 5.35 dT / 4.01= ln (C2/C1) e^(dT/4.01)= C2/C1 = 2^ (dT/X) ; set c2/c1 = 2 and what is unknown X? X = 2.8 Then: equivalently (C2/C1) = e ^ (dT/4.01) (C2/C1) = 2 ^ (dT/2.8) By getting rid of the dF you get that (C2/C1) depends exponentially on dT and the formula with the 2 base shows the doubling temperature (climate constant)perhaps more clearly. So.....this way one can get climate constant into the "exponential growth" section of a basic course. And an exponential growth versus time in CO2 yields a linear growth versus time in dT. -
JasonB at 11:42 AM on 4 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, The paper Chris G linked to simply says that even smart people can employ illogical thought processes. This is self-evidently true, and this site documents many examples. This does not mean, however, that their conclusions are worthy of respect. Invariably there is a flaw in their argument that invalidates their conclusion, which for whatever reason they seem incapable of appreciating, and I'm yet to see a single example that does not suffer from this. My solution to conflicting commentary is to see if the arguments stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the evidence. Almost invariably the commentary that agrees with the mainstream scientific position passes this test -- and on the few occasions when it doesn't, it's almost always the mainstream scientific community that points it out -- while the commentary that does not agree with mainstream views also almost invariably fails the test, often in surprisingly obvious ways. It's hard to put the claims that you have relied on to form your "agnostic" position to that test since you seem reluctant to reveal them, which in itself is surprising. If I had "well-reasoned" arguments from both sides that made it difficult for me to decide who is right, the first thing I'd do is search for existing responses to each argument from both sides (and, obviously, SkS is an invaluable resource in that regard) and, if a response did not address the argument adequately, I would say so in the appropriate location (e.g. the comment thread of one of the posts here). If I could not find an existing response, then I'd be more than happy to bring it to people's attention -- who knows, maybe there is a paper out there that SkS has not addressed that would affect people's perception of the science? Perhaps there is some critical observational data that does not fit with the prevailing scientific theory that nobody here has noticed yet? Hiding it under a bushel doesn't seem to do anybody any good. If they "are all probably refuted on this site at least", why not at least check to see if that is the case? Either the refutation fails to convince you, in which case you can say so and help improve the refutation (or point out its flaw), or it does convince you and you can stop relying on information that is demonstrably false. "What’s the point of that?" So you can make decisions based on sound information, or, if you are correct, so you can help others to make decisions based on sound information. Both seem like worthwhile goals. -
adelady at 11:06 AM on 4 June 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #22
Piling on? I think it's good for casual readers to see that some of the guff that gets posted is promptly and easily refuted by just about any commenter. However ...... If such an exchange continues (some of these people can be quite persistent in ignoring or denying scientific guidance), it can be worthwhile for moderators to intervene and control responses which need to get into seriously technical explication and/or pin down the flailing around of someone who's out of their depth and doesn't know it yet. No easy black and white answer I fear. I'm pretty happy with the judgement of moderators in applying the Comments policy. I doubt there's a concise form of wording available to include such 'exercise of judgement' criteria in a simple guideline. -
Tom Curtis at 08:50 AM on 4 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Chris G @16, I disagree. The time taken for the system to reach the Equilibrium Climate Response (ECR) is likely to be greater than 80 years, and may be over 200. Further, in most models of the carbon cycle, the initial reduction in CO2 is rapid, declining to about 60% (range of about 45 to 80%) within 100 years. That means the initial temperature peak is likely to be equivalent to 45 to 80% of the ECR for the peak CO2 levels, after the negative effects of aerosol forcings are removed. Curiously, the ratio of Transient Climate Response to ECR across AR4 climate models is 0.4-0.8, with a median value 0.55 (Mean = 0.544) (see histogram on third slide)which indicates the ECR to the declining CO2 levels is roughly equivalent to the TCR of the peak level. Clearly, the exact behaviour will depend on the exact values of the TCR, ECR, relaxation time to oceanic equilibrium for CO2, and relaxation time to ECR, all of which are uncertain. Nor can we expect an exactly linear response over the first century after ceasing GHG emissions. But nor should we expect the variation from the temperature leveling significantly beyond that which would occur from leveling plus natural variability. I consider these facts good news. They mean we have longer to cut GHG emissions to effectively zero before passing the 2 degree C "guard rail" than is often supposed. Unfortunately that extra time only means that we might still make that target if we start cutting emissions radically now, rather than already being beyond that point. -
RabbeZ at 08:07 AM on 4 June 2012Toxic mercury, accumulating in the Arctic, springs from a hidden source
Yes, a rather large portion (25% ??) of the global mercury cycle is natural (volcanic). http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/report/chapter6.htm and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080629081932.htm (from some newer papers i have understood that there is still some small controversy about the budget, but thereabouts). Seems to be a very interesting and important paper, shame its behind paywall. Nice that SkS highlighted this topic. -
Chris G at 07:24 AM on 4 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Peter42, I thought the polarization paper was interesting because it steps away from the trap of thinking that people that don't come to the same conclusions as you must not be as smart. Smart people often come to different conclusions, and sometimes this in despite a preponderance of evidence on one side. The mind is not deterministic like a computer, and Spock-like rationality is not a trait many people have. Looking at the "Working out climate sensitivity" post (linked above), I tend to agree with mostly with Ranyl's conclusions, even if I don't agree with all points. Ice albedo feedback is already figured in to paleo studies of CO2 sensitivity; any additional CO2 feedbacks change the CO2 level, on which the temperature sensitivity is based. The climate sensitivity estimates for temp record and last millennium in Figure 1 indicate to me that the earth is a bit behind equilibrium with current levels of CO2. Those two are lower than all the others. Geoengineering: I believe it will be attempted, and I believe it will be messy, as Glenn says. Thorium: Yes, for the points mentioned. Sooner or later though, regardless of energy source and climate, population will have to level off simply because of finite resources. My two cents: Climate change will transform a leveling off into a bottleneck. Tom C, I don't think your quote from David Archer that gives a 2-20 century ocean equilibrium timeframe supports any model that shows a temperature leveling within 100 years. It is a bit tricky because a temperature equilibrium could occur prior to an ocean CO2 sat equilibrium as the ocean draws down atmospheric CO2, which is why I'm saying 100 years rather than extending out to the 200-2000 window. -
kampmannpeine at 06:14 AM on 4 June 2012Toxic mercury, accumulating in the Arctic, springs from a hidden source
it seems there are even more consequences of climate change than rising temperature, rising sea level, rising acidity ... where will we end??? Hope there is a natural explanation! -
Tom Curtis at 04:49 AM on 4 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
curiousd @18, the standard formulas are: 1) dF= ln(C2/C1)*5.35 2) dT=0.75*dF The margin of error for the first constant is +/- 10%. That for the second is approximately 0.55-1.1 dF is change in forcing in W/m^2, dT is change in temperature in degrees Kelvin, C2 and C1 are as per your definition. Clearly these formulas are simple approximations. In particular, the first formula cannot be valid for very low atmospheric concentrations or else forcing would be infinite. It is, however, approximately accurate for the range of CO2 concentrations that may have been experience on Earth over the last 600,000 years (150-8000 ppmv) and therefore also over the range of CO2 concentrations humans are likely to produce in the atmosphere. -
curiousd at 04:38 AM on 4 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Tank you Dana. If you don't mind another question, from other answers to my questions I gather that no matter what the CO2 concentration, doubling the CO2 produces the same change in temperature. I think this means that C2 = C1 x 2^(delta T1/3) if 3 is the "climate sensitivity" as is called in your field. But so far I have not come across this expression. Am I correct here? In other words if delta T = 3 , C2/C1 = 2. If in the future C3/C2 = 2 then C3 = 4C1 so that C3 = C1 x 2^(2 deltaT1/3). In other words, CO2 concentration varies exponentially with temperature change. Do I have this correct? -
Tom Curtis at 03:41 AM on 4 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
ranyl @14, your view is far too pessimistic. Modelling studies have consistently shown that a cessation of CO2 emissions results in the rapid draw down of CO2 concentrations as CO2 partial pressure equilibriates between surface and deep layers of the ocean. According to the most recent such study by David Archer (PDF):"The models agree that 20–35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2–20 centuries). Neutralization byCaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on timescales of 3 to 7 kyr."
Below are the model results for a 1000 Petagram pulse (1 trillion tonne) Carbon pulse of CO2, an amount widely recognized as a upper limit on cumulative emissions to avoid greater than 2 degrees C temperature increase above pre-industrial levels:
As can be seen below (fig 1a, blue line), Matthew's model is, if anything, pessimistic on these grounds. That is partly because of the decay of other,short lived green house gases to CO2, and further outgassing from the surface ocean as ocean temperatures rise. However, it probably also reflects a slower draw down of CO2 than is typical of other models:
(Source)
The consequences I would expect from a complete cessation of CO2 emissions would be an approach to the equilibrium temperature change of the remnant of CO2 in the atmosphere within a century or so, followed by a slow rise to the Earth System Response as the effect of changing albedo due to melting ice sheets becomes noticable. Ball parked as a funtion of the Transient Climate Response to the peak CO2 concentration, that would represent 1.5 (ratio of Equilbrium response to TCR) * 0.33 (increased CO2 concentration above preindustrial levels after equilibriation with the ocean) * 1.5 (ratio of Earth System Response to Equilibrium Climate Response). Very roughly, that represents 0.75 of the peak temperature reached, but could be only half of that, or equal depending on the precise value of fairly uncertain figures. Matthew's results are certainly plausible, although on the pessimistic side of that range.
-
bath_ed at 03:24 AM on 4 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
While Justin's comment at 6 is almost comically flawed, I don't think it falls into the strict category of not even wrong as its premise (that the Himalayas are still rising due to plate tectonics) is at least correct. A not even wrong idea would be one based on a premise that is already known to be wrong, such as seeking to explain the melting of the Himalayan glaciers by some mechanism that involves a flat Earth. Nevertheless, climate science appears to attract such bizarre objections, in particular those that confuse processes that have a great magnitude but unfold so slowly that they cannot explain recent changes. It is as if one were to explain a London-New York passenger flight being half an hour later than usual by by appealing to the fact that the Atlantic is getting wider due to plate tectonics. -
Tristan at 01:34 AM on 4 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter In what way is this post unreasonable? What further evidence do you require to accept the post's veracity? -
michael sweet at 00:09 AM on 4 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
Justin, In reviewing your posts on this thread I see that you have not made or referred to a single cogent argument in support of your position. You just make assertions of what you think is correct. Since Skeptical Science is a data based web site you need to support arguments with data, not rhetoric. Note how Tom and Muoncounter supplied data to support their positions. If you want to score points on people who are "easy targets" go back to WUWT where they like that type of ignorant word play. If you want to learn more you will find that you come across better if you ask questions instead of making rude comments. If you had said "I do not understand how the picture of the helicopter relates to Global Warming research" Tom could have made the same points and you would look reasonable. There are currently several posters who ask these questions. In post 11 you said you would present a cogent argument in support of your position. Now is the time. Please support it with data and not just empty hand waving. If you cannot support your claims with data I suggest you go to the home page and read the "Start Here" button. Ask questions on the relevant thread. -
Michael.M at 20:10 PM on 3 June 2012It's not bad
New Research, showing decrease in fertility: "...Our findings imply that climate change affects aboveground–belowground interactions through changes in nutrient availability." Interactions between above- and belowground organisms modified in climate change experiments Stevnbak et al., Nature Climate Change(2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1544 -
ranyl at 19:04 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
"Constant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to continued warming for many centuries, whereas the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions leads to approximately stable or decreasing global temperature." This is the caption from the blue line graph in the Nat.Geo publication, and this seems rather to totally unrealistic to me purely on the GHG front. Why? Well from the latest carbon models if CO2 emissions stopped today the fall atmospheric CO2 concentrations aren't falling by much for 1000's of years and as they do fall CO2 stored in the sinks is re-released delaying the fall even further, so stopping emissions today won't see any drastic fall in GHG in the atmosphere in the short term. The rate of drawn down from the recent models is ~0.2ppm per year so a fall of 20ppm in 100years, hardly removing the heater, and that doesn't take many things into account either...e.g. permafrost melt. Also what about the CO2 that is always released when the earth warms up, ~14ppm a 1C, what has happened to that? And does the albedo feedback just stop? Snow lines are moving north, the arctic is melting (~same size of the N.America Ice sheets when they were present), permaforst is melthing another source of CO2, the CO2 fertilization effect will equalise (see face trials it don't last long anyway) and decrease as soon as CO2 falls at all. Then there is the stopping of the fertilizer affects from man's agricultural practices which as been boosting the land CO2 sink considerably (this would all be lost actualy releasing CO2 as things equilibriated)and overall causing a slight cooling due to this and NO, methane and ozone interactions, and then of course there is the sudden lack of dimming as said which will be significant especially considering SO2 atmospheric concentration haven't actualy fallen world wide since 1980 and have started to rise again in th elast few years as India and China industrialise and finally ther eis the release of methane from melts permafrost and increasing wetlands. And what about the warming already stored in the oceans, which most people put at another 0.5-7C to come? According to Hansen the earth heats up 6-80% of its full potential in 100years then the additional 20% takes 1000years or so, so how can warming stop immediately, especially as the heater isn't turned off by stopping emissions it is stopped but reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations! And lets no forget the CFC's. HFC's. NF3 additional GHJG which last for eons and eons. Sorry but I find it totally incredulous that zero CO2 emissions from tomorrow would just stop warming in its tracks, and would suspect the model being used is grossly overestimating CO2 drawn down and not taking the stored oceansic heat content into context. Bottom line is to prevent 2C we don't just need to stop emissions we need to actively build-up land and oceanic sinks to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere. Remember which ever you look at it, when the sun was dimmer than today, the world's geography basicaly the same, a CO2 of 350ppm cuased the world to be 3-5C hotter, so how is stopping at 400ppm going to stop us warming to this full potential??? SO basically overall saying stopping emission will halt warming is not realistic and actually gives false hope. We need to actively get to 350ppm by 2100, and the only way to do that is to stop all emissions for sure and by 2017!!!!!!, and then actively remove CO2 to get to 350ppm by 2100, which if the early Pliocene data is correct still means 1.8-2.4C by 2100.....in Hansens lastests papers this is more like 1.4-1.6C, but he has th eearly Pliocene only 2oC warmer as he uses deep ocean temepratures with a conversion factor whereas all other studies have 3-5C and CO2 concentrations of ~350ppm, upper limit 400ppm but with more specific CO2 proxies only 325ppm.... Sobbering, but entirely possible, just take everyone to realise it and also realise that 2C isn't dangerous because of potential tipping points but because the climatic shifts and severe weather events, drought s and floods have no mercy on crops or water availability! and a direct threat to us all not just those in other parts of the world. -
Peter42 at 19:03 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @33 & #36, (13.40 pm and 13.51 pm 3 June 2012): Thank you for your courteous response, and for taking the time to look over the Chris-G paper. I agree very much that conformance to group values is indeed not the way to guide our future. One implication is that one must be prepared to stand up and express one’s view, regardless of its acceptability to the group, a challenge for climate change sites of every persuasion. I am encouraged by your comments. How do I deal with conflicting commentary? Simple question, difficult answer. The hard part is not to be upset by any emotional overtones – my own, and others. Try to understand where they’re coming from. Test the reasonableness. And sometimes just wait, for more evidence. I’ve had to do this often in my life – why should I approach this very important question differently? I’m simply not prepared to rely on models as much as others are so prepared. I’ve had a little to do with them over time, and recognise their value and risks. Does that address your question? Concerning your second paragraph, many who have made public statements about the risks of climate change have not noted sufficiently the assumptions and limitations. I really haven’t enough time to sit down and carefully document them. I'm sure they can be found on other sites. I have a life as well, as I know you do. I don’t think the problem lies primarily with the scientific papers, but I do think there have been a number of occasions when public statements referencing those papers have not reflected the original scientists’ assumptions and reservations. May I make a comment concerning your response to Eric (#35)? Eric is clearly in a better position to confirm this, but I have lived in the USA at an earlier time (not in Virginia, but Michigan), and I can imagine that many of the people who have to travel some distances to find work, have dependent children at school, and other kinds of local ties, quite apart from financial constraints, that make relocation quite difficult. People such as those of us who have the facility and luxury of time to meet on this site, are generally far better educated and qualified to find jobs that are both convenient and relatively sustainable (in the sense you note). This is part of the balancing in viewpoint that I find useful. -
funglestrumpet at 18:41 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
PhilMorris @ 8 I couldn't agree more, Thorium nuclear reactors are an excellent way to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining our current standard of living, which is something that many will not sacrifice if they can put off the nasty effects of Climate Change untill later, much later. Let's face it, there are a lot of questions raised about just how good renewables really are. This link (if it works - never put one in before!) takes you to a TED talk on the matter. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:43 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Aerosols from China, India and similar countries are certainly a cooling factor at the moment but we don't have good enough data on their distribution and what the mix of aerosol types is to quantify the effect that well. Infortunately we haven't been able to successfully launch a satellite to start measuring. Current moves to gas instead of coal in many parts of the world may have some interesting implications if the scale keeps ramping up, especially if gas is actually replacing existing coal plant. Gas produces less CO2 than Coal for the same amount of net energy produced. So a modest positive in reducing emissions. But Gas burns pretty clean, without generating the same levels of aerosols. So it would contribute to drawing down aerosol levels in the atmosphere and thus removing some of their masking cooling effect and revealing more warming. Personally, I think that is a positive occurance. Not that there is more warming, because that warming is already locked in, it will be revealed eventually when we stop burning fossil fuels. Rather the more the eventual warming occurs sooner rather than later, the more that can help influence public opinion towards action. Ultimately it is the eventual warming that is the issue. But action seems to need warming now as the basis for action. Kate's post also highlights one of the problems with GeoEngineered mitigation of AGW. Even if GeoEngineering results in mitigation of global average temperatures, there will still be substantial regional climate changes. This is potentially a legal (and even military) mess. Country A unilaterally starts some GeoEngineering activity, injection of aerosols into the atmosphere being an obvious example. However, even though A's efforts do bring about a net positive benefit globally, County B happens to be a big loser in this, with negative climate changes being dumped on their region. What does Country B do? Just live with it? International legal action against A? Military strikes against A's aerosol dispersal infra-structure? How does B weigh up its responsibilities to it's own citizens vs it's responsibilities to the world as a whole Messy! -
scaddenp at 17:32 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
"However, it is indeed possible to identify some earlier statements that have been made about predicted climate change effects, which so far have not eventuated." Hmm, to which papers are these predictions that refer to? Some early statements had climate sensitivity too high (for well-understood reasons), but the papers noted these assumptions and limitations so are hardly "disproved" by data. I would still you like to describe your process for dealing with conflicting commentary. This seems to me to be the most constructive way to continue a discussion. The decision making outlined in the Chris-G nature paper (conformance to group values) is not what we want to guide our future. -
Peter42 at 15:51 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @33 & #36, (13.40 pm and 13.51 pm 3 June 2012): Thanks for the background (from yourself and others) on the use of “catastrophic” in this context; I now understand better how the term has been used derogatively, and as I’ve noted elsewhere, the terms “alarmist” and “denier” are similarly unhelpful. My apologies to all. On the data records, yes, I do read interpretations of the significance or otherwise of these records. However, it is indeed possible to identify some earlier statements that have been made about predicted climate change effects, which so far have not eventuated. I do accept that the latest official statements are those we should reference today, not yesterday’s. On the issue of assessing the significance or otherwise of flat or declining temperatures, I’ll read thoughtful analyses from both sides, and continue to note progressive observational data. To Sphaerica @37 (14.29 pm 3 June 2012): An interesting paper noted by Chris G @7 (5.24 am 3 June 2012) “Modelling the Apocalypse” discusses the point you make about differing views on global warming. Worth reading. The analysis included the educated. Are we to conclude they are all ill-motivated? Also, there is indeed at least one place between acceptance and disagreement on any issue – in a religious context, it is known as agnosticism. I see on sites supporting one side or the other, the tendency for like views to gather, with opposing views treated dismissively. That doesn’t help either side. -
dana1981 at 15:11 PM on 3 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Hi curiousd. I believe Figure 6 is a plot using Model 4, actually. If you look at the top of page 3 of the paper (page 959 in the journal), it says Model 4 has the climate sensitivity they're using of 2.8°C for doubled CO2. Prior to that they note that they didn't have enough knowledge at the time to include the vegetation feedback for Models 5 and 6, so 4 was advanced as they could get with reasonable confidence. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:29 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, CAGW is only used as a debating tactic, in an effort to cast the science in as a "Chicken Little" exercise. There is no point whatsoever to including the C unless you wish to subtly imply that it is something so outrageous as to not be worth consideration. And the "disagreement," "debate," or any other faux-polite term you want to use doesn't exist, except in the minds of uneducated or ill-motivated people. The science is very, very solid, and now the only questions that remain are "when" and "exactly how much" and "what how much will actually mean." Most of your comments seem to imply a tone of "well, yeah, the science looks interesting... but the data doesn't show enough warming yet..." Spoken like the man who jumped from the top of a skyscraper, and was heard to say every time he passed an open window, "so far, so good." Please look up the definition of "concern troll". -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, a further thought. If you read a blog commentary that says AGW is wrong because temperatures are flat or declining and then read a commentary that says temperatures are doing exactly what climate theory expects them to, then how do you decide which one is correct? What is the process? -
scaddenp at 13:49 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Eric, well the sensible sustainable solution is live close to where you work, or vice-versa. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:46 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
scaddenp, we sometimes have a peculiar definition of poverty in the U.S. which includes what other people consider luxuries or gross inefficiency. People in my area will drive to work in a truck getting 15 mpg or less and drive 40 or 50 miles each way for a job paying $10/hour. At the recent $4 per gallon, fuel eats up 30% of their gross income. So they might switch to an old 25 mpg sedan or just work some odd jobs locally. -
scaddenp at 13:40 PM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, "Catastrophic" is a highly subjective term. To one person it may mean enhanced mortality from droughts and for another its more government/tax. Instead it is best to separate the science (that anthropogenic forcings are the dominant player in current climate change) from the effects, which are also described by the science (the IPCC AR4 report being the best current reference). Whether you think the effects described there are catastrophic is up to you, but lets stick to what those reports state not what Greenpeace or any other group says. As to why ask, well because any useful discussion of the science requires that the science be read. When you say that the temperature records (which all show warming) give you pause, then you are demonstrating that you do not know what the published science expects from these records, and are believing misinformation about significance of short term changes. If you read what the science actually says (and that is what counts), then you wouldnt be rehashing same arguments. -
Ger at 13:15 PM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Would local heating at the south pole and local cooling at the north pole not introduce more transport of heat from south to north? It will take quite some time, sure. Assuming the whole 'rich' world did economical collapse and there is hardly economical activity which is burning fossils. Tanker ships will still be around going from unfriendly (for humans) areas in the south to almost even unfriendly areas in the North. One way of enhancing the transport from north to south would be creating liquid NG from coal deposits and store it up north in empty gas fields.Power to create (hydrolysis of coal with hydrogen) the LNG derived from sun and wind in the south (guess weather does get more violent, so more wind to harvest). Driver to make sense is the temperature difference, a 4 to 5 degrees on the whole range of a 210 degrees difference (from liquid CH4 to room temperature) just a 4% to compensate for transport. -
Peter42 at 11:59 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To Daniel Bailey @29 (09.25 am 3 June 2012): Sorry, I didn’t realise CAGW was evidently pejorative, nor that I used it with zeal; I had simply thought that most scenarios predicted as a result of continuing and greater emission rates, indicated catastrophe, and that the acronym was simple and accepted use. As for the term “debate”, would you prefer the term “disagreement”? I certainly find great disagreement across the internet, as well as in discussions with those around me. Please also see my note on polarization below. To scaddenp #31 (10.18 am 3 June 2012): May I refer you and Daniel (above) to my Post#10 (10.34 am 3 June 2012) on polarization (Modelling the Apocalypse) on this site? I don’t see any point in citing contrary references I find of interest, because you and others can all find them readily, and have probably been through them. They are all probably refuted on this site at least, and so a continuing discussion of those would be a re-hash of the same arguments, with perhaps quite a deal of emotive disparagement thrown in. What’s the point of that? Part of what gives me pause, are observational data, such as CRUTEM4, GISS Surface Temperatures, NOAA Global Mean Temperatures over Land and Ocean, UAH Satellite-based temperatures over the Global Lower Atmosphere, and RSS Middle Troposphere Temperatures. These are not the only official sources I peruse. I find this NOAA site interesting: http://tidesand currents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html . I’m looking forward to more objective data from the ARGO floats, so we can see over a reasonable period what’s really happening in ocean temperatures from 2000 metres to the surface. (Ice? I’m putting it on ice for the moment, but it does appear there is a continuing decline in Arctic ice coverage, whereas it appears coverage is stable at present in the Antarctic. There’s dispute about volume, and I need to investigate that more.) -
YubeDude at 11:48 AM on 3 June 2012Toxic mercury, accumulating in the Arctic, springs from a hidden source
Hasn't the planet always had cycles where mercury levels in the Arctic Ocean spiked? Isn't this just another benign natural process that's just earths way of telling us don't worry, be happy? Will I have to cut back on the amount of Arctic Char or King Crab that I consume? Is my post totally facetious? -
Peter42 at 10:34 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
To Chris G @7 (5.24 am 3 June 2012) Thanks for the reference to the excellent paper on belief polarization, which I’d also recommend for helping us to understand better how others (and ourselves) might think about (-snip-) AGW. (-Snip-) (-Snip-). To PhilMorris @8 (05.59 am 3 june 2012) I agree very much that R & D on thorium should be pursued vigorously.Moderator Response:[DB] Offensive terminology snipped.
Off-topic snipped.
-
curiousd at 10:25 AM on 3 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Newbie physicist here, not climate guy, trying to understand. Try as I might I cannot figure out which of the models are used in the important Fig. 6 of the seminal 1981 result (Science, 213, pp. 957-966)I have read the paper a lot. Is the "model two" plotted which uses the CO2 temp increase then constrains relative humidity to be constant? Or 5/6 models which have albedo feedback? Apologize for the fact this post duplicates another I made in a less appropriate thread. I teach kind of a "Physics of Environment 101" at a University and am trying to sharpen up. -
Lou Grinzo at 10:21 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Someone please correct me if I have this wrong, but as best I can tell from when I last dug into the aerosol whiplash issue, the EU and the US have made some very good progress in reducing sulfate aerosol emissions, and China is (much more recently) getting serious about controlling them. (I don't know off-hand what the story is with India on this point.) This is very bad news, despite the obvious and positive effects from lowering air pollution and acid rain, and it's one of the purest examples I know of the phenomenon I describe by saying "timing is everything, and it's not on our side". Probably the least convenient fact of all is the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2, making those emissions a one-way ratchet in terms of normal human planning horizons. -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, until you can nominate some science that you consider supports an alternative to the consensus climate theory, then I find it very hard to accept your sincerity about alternatives. "Commentaries" in my experience are misinformation foisted on those unwilling or unable to check the scientific sources. Do you have published papers or dont you? Just pick one that you think convincing. -
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Eric, high-priced petroleum is inevitable whether you hasten the process with carbon pricing in some form, or take it later as production squeeze continues. Either an alternative is developed or you accept the structural changes- that what you are seeing around is the consequences of development based on unsustainable resources. Rather like ghost towns that follow a mine running out. However, managing climate change is mostly about coal not petroleum. It's a little ironic talking about fuel poverty in the US compared to rest of world when you look at the price paid.In UK US$2.07/l. In New Zealand, US$1.46/l while in the US it's US$0.99/l -
Daniel Bailey at 09:25 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42, it is noted the zeal with which you continue to employ the denier term CAGW and to continue to intimate the existence of a (scientific) debate. The first term is a non-sequiter strawman, considered derisive in scientific forums. The second postulates a false equivalence by framing the discussion as a "Debate". In reality, those who embrace science, the scientific method and centuries of research also embrace that global warming is a fact, and that humans are the primary cause of that warming over the past 40 years, on a level of certainty equivalent to the "theory" of gravity. Those that deny the science, the scientific method and centuries of research supporting it are bereft of position in scientific forums and are considered the functional equivalent of shaman poking at chicken entrails. On that there is no debate. -
Peter42 at 09:12 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @#24 (12.31 pm 2 June 2012): The polarisation in the CAGW debate is quite dispiriting. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the physiological human need of tribalism, at the more extreme end expressed in xenophobia, at the more cheerful end (generally), in sport. After reviewing quite a number of contrary opinions some time ago, I decided I would concentrate on data sources and some of the scientific papers in IPCC reports. I use scientific commentary from both sides of the debate, to broaden my understanding. What I have reviewed so far is only a very small part of the literature. I imagine that many of the more substantial contrary sources have been reviewed under this site’s “Climate Myths”. There’s little value in my nominating any particular contrary sources, as that will lead to restatement of arguments, or references to their rebuttal. For data sources, I seek out clear and accurate presentations of the formal published observational data, the same data used by the IPCC. Re CBDunkerson @18 and 27, and Eric (skeptic) @26: Thanks to the former for your clarification. I see there’s an OECD project to analyse fossil fuel subsidies, and develop options for phasing them out. Eric’s point about complexity is sound. Timescale is another. That prompts my recollection of a seminar I attended at a nearby university recently, on carbon dioxide emissions tax schemes. At question time I asked “If we were to find that the rate of global warming, for whatever reason, was not changing as fast or as much as we expect, or even not in the same direction, what should we do differently (to the proposals so far discussed at the seminar)?” One response from the seminar panel was that such taxes were a form of risk management (the participants were mostly economists); another expressed how excellent were that to be so (i.e. reduced, slower or nil further global warming). Neither appeared to consider the substantial impacts of such change in energy sourcing over a short period (and the focus of the seminar was on carbon dioxide pricing in the developed world). Another was more pragmatic: the response was “that is why I propose we move in small steps”. It does seem to me that the more convinced that people are about the existence and urgency of a problem, the more they propose what appear to be simple solutions, which in fact are bound to be very complex. -
Tom Curtis at 07:54 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
Justin @14 below is a chart of the aborptivity of the most common green house gases in the atmosphere at different wavelengths:
(Source)
You will notice at about X 3 & 11 micrometers X some "windows" in which the absorptivity of all gases is very low. It was USAF research that mapped the absorptivity functions of the various GHG. It was, consequently, USAF research that enabled them to design heat seaking missiles and IR imaging equipment that exploited the window they discovered to give them maximum range and clarity. Consequently, it was also USAF research that shows the "windows" in the absorptivity function of the various GHG narrow with increased concentrations, thereby proving that the greenhouse effect was not saturated.
It appears that your post was necessary, not because muoncounter left him self an easy target, but to reveal the depth of your ignorance of the relevant science.
Edited to provide clearer examples.
-
Rob Painting at 07:41 AM on 3 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Justin - your comment falls under characteristic No.5, the logical fallacy. More specifically, you have put forth the argument of false equivalence. Can you provide one example where a mountain of congruent scientific evidence, like climate science today, has been overturned by an individual, or group, that doesn't even have a competing hypothesis? -
michael sweet at 07:24 AM on 3 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
Curiousd, There is a nice article on climate sensitivity here by Dana1981. As Spherica said, short term (perhaps 50-100 years) climate sensitivity is about 3C per doubling. Long term (hundreds of years) is estimated at double that. Usually only the short term sensitivity is discussed. If you care about life in 300 years the picture is worse. -
PhilMorris at 05:59 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
chriskos@4 Fusion energy go uncontrolled? It cannot happen! Fusion is entirely different from fission (which for current designs in production can and have gone uncontrolled). Fusion requires energy to maintain reactions. But there are fission reactor designs that are inherently safe, such as the Liquid Thorium designs, but they were not supported by the US military in the 60's because thorium reactors are very poor at producing the raw materials for nuclear devices. Yes we do have an insatiable appetite for energy; that is a natural consequence of humans wanting to better their living conditions, and the inevitable growth in populations (inevitable because that is the nature of life, even human life). Short of a non-greenhouse gas emitting source of energy, no matter how much we reduce consumption, without a dramatic, no, apocalyptic collape of human society, we won't significantly affect the generation of greenhouse gas. So better hope that fusion, and/or a major investment in throium based reactors happens soon. -
Chris G at 05:24 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
On the odd chance that it is of any interest, here is a cross-ref to my blog in the local paper. It is a repeat of this comment, plus contains a link to a paper on the polarization of beliefs at the start, which I thought interesting, as well as guesstimates of local climate change impacts, at the end. -
Justin at 05:22 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
I'm sorry; that last post was unnecessary but muoncounter made himself an easy target. The objective is to remain 'on-topic' and answer the question as to whether or not burning fossil fuel effects the future of the Earth as we know it. Does anyone have a problem with this? I mean, will I be 'snipped' if I try to address some of the issues by asking a few questions such as, where does the free oxygen we breath come from?Moderator Response:[DB] "that last post was unnecessary but"
Yes, very unnecessary (no "buts" about it). As unnecessary as your posting privileges will be if you continue to ignore this site's Comments Policy; adherence to which you shall receive no more warnings nor admonitions...
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:17 AM on 3 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
curiousd, The short answer is "both." The way it works (and remember that 3˚C is an estimate that doesn't apply exactly in all cases, but each case could be a little more or less) any doubling will increase temps by 3˚C. So if temps were at 288˚K at 280 ppm (the pre-industrial level), then if we double that to 560 ppm then we should expect temps to be at 291˚K (add 3˚C). CO2 levels are currently at 400 ppm. This implies that we have already committed ourselves to an equilibrium temperature increase of 1.54˚C, or a new "setting" of 289.54˚C. The planet hasn't reached this temperature yet, but if we held CO2 levels constant starting now, that is the temperature we'd expect the planet to reach. Given that, if we then doubled CO2 levels from the current 400 ppm up to 800 ppm, we should expect to add another 3˚C when the planet reaches equilibrium, for a final temperature of 292.54˚C (289.54˚C + 3˚C)... a total increase since pre-industrial levels of 4.54˚C. -
Justin at 04:50 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
Dear muoncounter, That Heat Signature on the Chinook; tell me, what was the CO2 content of the air at the time when that locked-on? Was it 0.03954% or 0.03953%? Does it matter? Well, here's a tip: You might get a very large grant from the Government to find this out. Lockheed itself might have once paid you a lot of money to find this out. Problem is; they know already. CO2 has no effect on missile performance whatsoever. But you would have known that. -
Chris G at 03:49 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
I have a variation of these models in mind. Let's imagine that the leading industrial nations, China, the U.S., Germany (God bless you for your self-imposed limits to growth (gaseous fuels at least) so far.), etc., decide this year to take aggressive action to shift off of fossil fuels. How long would that take without wrecking their economies, which we can assume they are unwilling to do? I'll ballpark 2-3 decades to shift the energy infrastructure to a new paradigm. Let's assume that these leading industrials influence others to follow suit, and so we can map global emissions along the same path. As a rough estimate, we can say that for this approximately 25 years, emissions will be half of what they are now. (Just figure a steady decline from where we are now to zero.) Currently, we are increasing CO2 ppm at a rate very close to 2ppm / year, and in context. So, assuming action this year, halved CO2 output, over 25 years, leads to a ballpark of 425 CO2 ppmv by the time we could level it off, even given a strong desire to do so. Climate sensitivity estimates are narrowing in more and more toward about 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, based on both models and paleoclimate studies. Another source for this estimate is here, complete with about 30 peer-reviewed references. That amount of CO2 puts us close enough to 2 degrees C of warming to make me nervous, and does not factor in any feedbacks, like melting permafrost or destabilized clathrates. Judging by the lack of any real progress at any of the recent climate change talks, it will be some more years before we get serious about reducing CO2 emissions. So, we are likely going to hit 2 C warming, plus whatever feedbacks ensue. I'm not trying to give credence to those that say there is no point in attempting mitigation, because it is not the case that 2 C of warming will be as bad as 3 C, or 4 C, and so on. -
CBDunkerson at 03:20 AM on 3 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42 wrote: "Incidentally, in comparing subsidies for fossil fuel and renewables (where you consider subsidies for the latter as negligible), do you mean total subsidy costs, or subsidy rates in proportion to energy produced?" The 'in proportion to energy produced' comparison does indeed go in favor of fossil fuels.... it's just a ridiculously invalid comparison given the developing nature of solar power vs the long established use of fossil fuels. Unless you are going to pretend that solar subsidies would require the current 'subsidy dollars per unit energy' rate forever (which declining solar costs clearly indicate to be false) such a construct serves only to present a distorted result. When fossil fuels were first introduced the subsidy costs per unit energy were much higher there as well. Solar subsidies are currently much lower than fossil fuel subsidies in total monetary figures. They are also lower than the (inflation adjusted) initial start up costs of building fossil fuel infrastructure. Finally, the total subsidy dollars which will be spent to make solar power a viable worldwide power source are vastly lower than the amounts already spent on fossil fuels or the additional amounts which will be spent if we continue to use fossil fuels through 2100... yet the total amount of energy which solar power would then be able to provide is vastly greater than all fossil fuel power past and future. -
curiousd at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Never Mind......Newbie here...I was digging around in another part of this web site and I think I am correct that eventually the CO2 already there is expected in the long term to drive up temperature to about 3 degrees. This is a great web site but it is getting hard to keep track of who says what on all the different threads. One practical question.....now that the nay - sayers - at least perhaps the published ones - have ceded there is AGW, haven't we reached a point where: (1) Those who have an idee fixe that nothing should be done will never advocate action. (2) But people open to the evidence will be sure action is much needed? Thus, Spenser originally published an estimate of climate sensitivity of about half the 3 degrees? He was wrong but even 1.3 degrees instead of 3 degrees only delays any particular nasty consequence by about a factor of two?? The scary thing to me is the fear people will continue as at present, eventually burning through all the oil, all the coal, and all other fossil fuel sources to the last drop. If this fear is justified, what difference would a factor of two in climate sensitivity even make?? -
Justin at 02:16 AM on 3 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The important thing to remember with the "The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism" is that all five characteristics can be equally applied to people on both sides of the argument. Denialism (or 'repudiation' to use the correct English term) is absolutely essential to the advancement of knowledge. All the great discoveries were made by individuals repudiating the scientific consensus fashionable at the time. -
Composer99 at 02:07 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
IMO phrases such as: claim made by AGW advocates shows the degree to which climate pseudoskeptics are prepared to misinterpret or misrepresent the science and those who support it. While doubtless there are some limited exceptions (people who seriously believe the Earth as a whole is a living entity bent on destroying humans as payback for ontological misdeeds), no person accepting the science behind global warming or the imperative for action the science reveals actually wants global warming to happen. Given that, calling a supporter of climate science an "AGW advocate", as if such a person found the unwelcome changes brought on by climate change to be desireable, is IMO simply ridiculous. As a final note, I would like to wish Justin the best of luck with: I will, in due course, try to present a cogent argument why I believe you, and all those who believe that the climate of the Earth is being affected by the burning of fossil fuel, are mistaken. Many have tried, and none have succeeded. -
Bruce at 01:29 AM on 3 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
If models predict 8 degrees antarctic heating for our 550 gt carbon load what projections for Antarctic heating can we expect for the additional 450 gt we will likely emit within the next 3 decades?
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
