Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 Next
Comments 58551 to 58600:
-
miffedmax at 03:14 AM on 19 May 2012David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
Good grief. Even if the fuzzy, right-brained, marketing/advertising world where I work we know that "raw data" (as in marketing numbers, impressions, etc.) is just that. Raw. The idea that there are people who are so even clumsier with numbers than I am is frightening. -
mfripp at 02:43 AM on 19 May 2012David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise
The statement "Sunlight entering the upper layers of the ocean is the only means by which the oceans are directly heated" seems to be too strong of a statement. There is volcanic activity as well as human-generated heating. While these other means for directly heating the ocean are minor compared to sunlight, you might want to soften the statement to be more technically accurate. -
Adam C at 02:17 AM on 19 May 2012Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
It looks very likely to me that they plotted the 2004 data point and mislabelled it 2006, possibly by accident. This would make it an egregious example of cherry-picking rather than fabrication. If they were willing to simply fabricate the data, why would they have held themselves to a single point? -
KR at 01:46 AM on 19 May 2012CO2 has a short residence time
Martin A - The important thing to remember is that regardless of residence time, the vast majority of CO2 molecules entering the ocean are simply swapped with another molecule. The rate of importance is how fast total concentration (not individual molecular identities) changes. If you (from your intuitions) get this point wrong, you're going to obtain wildly wrong answers. As a rather brain-dead computation (an example - please do not consider this authoritative, as it skips so many factors): Currently oceans and the biosphere are absorbing ~2ppm of our slightly greater than 4ppm emissions. If the equilibrium for oceans and atmospheric CO2 is 285 ppm, we're currently at 395, and absorption rates are scaled by the imbalance from equilibrium, then 2/110 = ~1.8% of the imbalance is absorbed every year. That's the difference between ocean absorption and ocean emission via CO2 exchange. If we were to stop emitting right now, with that simple 1.8% decrease per year, we're looking at an e-fold (1/e) decay time of about 55 years. Not 5. Again - the residence time is not directly related to the sum flow into and out of climate compartments, the adjustment time. That comes from the differences between flow rates. -
John Hartz at 01:42 AM on 19 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Suggested reading: “Ka-Ching: Big Oil’s Mighty First-Quarter Profits: Keeping Tax Breaks for Biggest Oil Companies Is Ludicrous,” Center for American Progress, May 1, 2012 To access this article, including financial data for the 1st Quarter of 2012, click here. -
muoncounter at 01:20 AM on 19 May 2012Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
A recent senior thesis at MIT (not as good as a PhD thesis, but still no slouch), Quintero 2010 calculates the Cerenkov threshold energy for muons in air as 4.4 GeV; this depends on angle and index of refraction (n). It would thus be far more likely to see the Cerenkov effect as these particles pass through water (higher n). -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:16 AM on 19 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Helena's "it's always easier to take risks ("subsidies for risk-taking new ventures and startups") with other people's money." Well indeed, as that seems to constitute the bulk of the activity in stock exchanges these days... -
Martin A at 23:26 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 has a short residence time
DB Thank you for the link. I've downloaded the Bolin and Eriksson paper and I'm now reading it. It's often the earliest papers that give the deepest insight, perhaps because they had to sort things out from basics. Tom Curtis Thank you for the Archer recommendation. I have sent for a copy. From a quick peek via Amazon, if seems to be a descriptive introduction, avoiding the use of mathematics. It's quite true that life is to short to do everything but I'm determined to get to the bottom of the point I'm trying to understand in this case. So far as I can see, injecting a mass of CO2 into the atmosphere results in an exponential approach to a new equilibrium with a time constant equal to the avererage atmospheric residence time of a CO2 molecule. This seems to conflict with what I've seen in several places, including the statement at the top of this page. Dikran Marsupial Thank you. "the adjustment time is essentially independent of the residence time" This is the key point that I believe this SkS page makes, and which I have not been able to reconcile with my own intuition nor with my calculations of a simple model. I believe I have correctly formulated the differential equation, for my simplified case where there are zero emissions other than a one-off injection. [dx/dt = rate CO2 exits ocean - rate CO2 exits atmosphere, where x = CO2 in atmosphere]. I've emailed you a request for a reprint of your paper and maybe it will help me pin down the discrepancy between my understanding and what I've seen stated here and elsewhere. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:34 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 has a short residence time
Martin A - if you can't access the paper itself, send me an email (at the address given on the publishers website) and I can send you a pre-print. My paper has a mathematical derivation of what you are looking for (at least a crude first-order approximation). I suspect the problem in your model may lie in the magnitudes of the steady state fluxes into and out of the atmosphere at equilibrium. Even when they are balanced, these fluxes are very large and are what causes the residence time (the average amount of time an individual molecule stays in the atmosphere) to be only 4 or 5 years (as the fluxes are about 20-25% of the volume of the atmospheric reservoir). However the rate at which the atmospheric concentration rises or falls depends on the difference between total emissions and total uptake, which is much smaller (about half the size of anthropogenic emissions), so the adjustment time (which characterises the rate at which the atmospheric concentration rises of falls) is much longer. As my paper shows, the adjustment time is essentially independent of the residence time, and focussing on the fates of individual CO2 molecules encourages one to "not see the wood for the trees). HTH -
Composer99 at 22:28 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
With regards to It means the government is trying to pick winners instead of the market. Better to give citizens their taxes back and let them choose as raised by scaddenp In point of fact, due to a number of factors, most especially: (a) negative externalities of fossil fuel use (which are the main point of this site given its focus on the rapid global overheating caused by fossil fuel CO2 emissions) (b) the information asymmetry between producers & consumers of energy products (c) various perverse incentives that can exist when the interaction of energy producers & consumers results in collective action problems I would suggest that markets aren't very good at picking winners in cases where these three phenomena are at work: they are well-known market-distorting effects (negative externalities especially, since they lead to over-production of goods with externalized costs). IMO quite obviously, the fact that factor (a) is in play at all suggests that markets can easily pick - and stubbornly hang on to - 'loser' energy generation technologies. With regards to my point was that the 557 bn $ figure is money from countries that are free to do whatever they want, buying social peace through energy subsidies and allowing the development of the poorest being two examples as raised by Helena, I should note that not a lot of social peace has come from those energy subsidies taken on their own, then (e.g. Egypt & Saudi Arabia), and I am sure I would appreciate a reference showing that energy subsidies, in and of themselves, are sufficient to alleviate widespread poverty (especially when one considers the climate-related disasters that, say, Russia & Pakistan recently had to contend with). -
Helena at 22:09 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Muon, my point was that the 557 bn $ figure is money from countries that are free to do whatever they want, buying social peace through energy subsidies and allowing the development of the poorest being two examples. I guess scaddenp's point would be that it's always easier to take risks ("subsidies for risk-taking new ventures and startups") with other people's money. -
JMurphy at 22:00 PM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
matzdj wrote : In the 1950's the population was about 5000. Anyone who brings up that number has obviously got it from somewhere dodgy, to be polite ! Either that or it has been taken without any checking or any real sceptical questioning. Have a look here for an investigation into that very suspect number. Actually, there isn't really any basis in fact for it. -
les at 18:45 PM on 18 May 2012Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
122 - ibir The 'shock waves' of relativistic particles is called Cherenkov radiation. It's quite easy, given the momentum of the particles, the refractive indecies etc. to work out the radiation spectrum... normally it's towards the ultraviolet and higher - you can then look at the absorption spectrum of CO2 etc. to calculate it's impact. Using e-m radiation to 'shake out' heat sounds interesting but I've no idea what that means. Stimulated emission? Something a bit fancier? Is this a totally wild idea? you'd have to do the maths to find out. -
ibir at 17:29 PM on 18 May 2012Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse
Everyone use cloud formation as proof of connection between GCR and climate, whatever direction it is, as it is the one and only possible cause. What if there is another? In the lower region of the GCR energy spectrum, 10MeV-1GeV, where the flux is high, it is still able to create air showers of relativistic speed. In this region solar activity modulate the flux of a factor 10 between minimum and maximum. What if the shock waves of the secondary particles (muons mostly), even if not strong enough to create air ions, but to "shake the extra heat" out of water and CO2 molecules, in order to increase the loss of stored greenhouse energy. That is, making the night radiation into space to vary between solar minimum and maximum. Or put another way, solar activity modulate the degree of greenhouse effect. Is this a totally wild idea? -
muoncounter at 13:28 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Helena: "also kill all subsidies to renewables ? " Not a real comparison. Subsidies exist to encourage companies to take risk. The coal industry got land grants. Oil depletion allowances have been part of US tax code since the 1920s, when the oil industry was still in its developmental stages: The federal government has always been in the energy business, and with good reason. Private capital may be good at identifying and incubating new technologies, but bringing those technologies to commercial scale often requires significant public capital. Land grants, for instance, helped build the coal industry, Depression-era spending created hydroelectric dams, and the Defense Department helped develop the first nuclear reactors. The oil and gas business benefited hugely from tax breaks like the oil depletion allowances that go back to the 1920s and were intended to encourage production in what was then a risky game. You can't compare subsidies for an established, highly profitable industry to subsidies for risk-taking new ventures and startups. -
GillianB at 13:01 PM on 18 May 2012Climate Change Consequences - Often Unexpected
Lonnie Thompson link is broken. Please note that it leads to a PDF. Thanks... -
DSL at 12:38 PM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
skywatcher @76: "It is a constant failing of skeptics that they rarely go and do their own original work, complete with robust validation of the work, before they make unsupported assertions." The following should probably be added to that: "all while demanding airtight methodology and impossible precision from working scientists (and yelling 'fraud!' when they don't get it." -
scaddenp at 12:21 PM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Yes, if there is any. (None here). Again, that puts government in the position of picking winners. If price support is necessary for de-carbonizing then price carbon accordingly. Use pigovian tax on carbon to keep the libertarians happy. ETS is another way, (we have very half-hearted version slowly coming in) but I am not convinced it is effective nor cost-efficient. I would consider supporting "subsidy" in way of R&D, particularly into say next-generation nuclear where there are hurdles that make normal market mechanism for funding difficult. It would depend a lot on the detail of the R&D. -
Helena at 11:58 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
"It means the government is trying to pick winners instead of the market. Better to give citizens their taxes back and let them choose." Would you also kill all subsidies to renewables ? -
scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Why? Beats me. Usually someone with a lot of pull in government is reason for subsidies. It means the government is trying to pick winners instead of the market. Better to give citizens their taxes back and let them choose. Why right-wingers support subsidies is beyond me. My country pretty much went cold turkey on subsidies on anything other health care and education during 80s and 90s. I note we (NZ) are still listed as subsidizing to tune of NZ$14M in management of data,R&D and data aquistions; and $38M in fuel duty exceptions for off-road vehicle use -(justified by fact duty is levied to pay for the roads). How does your country do? -
Bob Lacatena at 11:41 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
60, matzdj, Your post is full of contradictions. First, before we get there, you missed the point of all of the links I gave you. For the down escalator, the choice of BEST over UAH is not relevant. All temperature sets show mostly the same thing. Interestingly, when doing the escalator with UAH, I could not make the trend for the last 10 years go down! No matter how hard I tried, no matter what end points I picked, the actual trend (not the line you draw with your eyeball, but a true mathematical trend) goes up! Click on the image to go to woodfortrees.org and try for your self.
You comment that a 10 year analysis is too short for climate. I agree. But the lack of temperature increase over the period 2002-2012 when there was accelerating CO2 emissions certainly doesn't do anything to confirm the CO2 vs T relationship.
This is a non-sensical. You say you agree that 10 years is too short, and then you draw a conclusion from it... or rather, you draw an anti-conclusion, which is to say that the period fails to prove warming. Look at the escalator! That's the whole point of that post. At any point in time in the past 40 years you could draw a trend line that "doesn't do anything to confirm the CO2 vs T relationship." So what? There's nothing of any value in that statement.I can accept noisy data. What I can't accept is a 15 year set of data that is cyclical, but around a...
Don't you see what you are doing? You are interpreting noise as signal. You are listening to a cacophony of sirens, car engines, and pedestrians and declaring that you can hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony being played by the sirens, cars and people.I will seriously try to understand Foster and Rahmstorf , but I would much prefer to add all those exogenous effects into the model...
But they are noise! Why do you insist on trying to model noise into your calculations? That's like an airplane designer deciding he's not happy with his plans until he's accounted for every possible manufacturing imperfection that might happen when they build it. Or a stock trader refusing to invest in a stock that's sure to go up over the next two years, because he can't entirely predict whether the stock will go up or down on the 5th of May.Data manipulation can lead the most sincere analyzer to put his biases into the manipulation.
You need to study statistics. There is a difference between proper statistics and "data manipulation." There is a difference between looking at the data objectively and seeing what you want to see (and before you jump on that, you're the one who is seeing what you want to see... you see the noise, and turn it into signal, and walk away whistling). You need to learn a lot more about what you can and cannot get, and what you should and should not take away from limited datasets. -
Helena at 11:40 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
"All that matter is that it stops." Why do you think those subsidies exist in the first place ? "You should end of paying more for energy if you use fossil fuels but less in tax." Not sure to get it... -
scaddenp at 11:29 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
The IEA database doesnt cover many developed countries yet. You can get OECD consumption subsidy estimates here and in spreadsheet form here. Note USA at 15 billion in consumption subsides. I'm not exactly sure why you think it matters who is subsidizing. All that matter is that it stops. You should end of paying more for energy if you use fossil fuels but less in tax. OECD estimate of producer subsidies are around $100B and detailed here. -
Helena at 11:23 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Guys that's where the 557bn $ figure comes from ! Just click on the links of IEA website, all the numbers are there : http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies_slides.pdf Last page, just add the numbers up. So, are we gonna ask those countries (to my knowledge most people here are from US/Canada/EU) to cut their subsidies ? Ranking in bn $ (2008) : Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Egypt, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina, Iraq, Uzbekistan, UAE, Pakistan, Ukraine, Malaysia, Kuwait, Algeria, South Africa, Thailand, Chinese Taipei, Turkmenistan, Ecuador, Bangladesh, Libya, Qatar, Vietnam, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Angola, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Peru, Brunei, Korea, Philippines. Sum = 557 bn $.Moderator Response: TC: Added link. -
Composer99 at 11:19 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
I'm assuming Helena's list is derived from one of the metrics used by the IEA database. Is that correct? -
Composer99 at 11:05 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Helena: The list you provide is nowhere to be found in the 2-page PDF scaddenp links to. The online database available at the IEA website (the database itself is here). The database appears to corroborate your list. That said, that the IEA does not provide detail on any major economies does not in fact mean that they do not subsidize their fossil fuel industries (suggesting the IEA estimate may be an underestimate) in at least some cases. For example, Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars links to an article documenting the effective tax rates and tax subsidies of the largest companies in major industries in the US. Of note, over the period 2008-2010 the "Utilities, Gas & Electric" category pays a mean effective tax rate of 3.7% (surely a subsidy in its own right) as well as receiving $31 billion in subsidies, and the "Oil, gas and pipelines" category pays a mean effective tax rate of 15.7% as well as receiving $24 billion in subsidies. (Those effective tax rates are contrasted with the nominal corporate tax rates all US corporations are expected to pay on profits of, as I understand it, 35%.) -
Helena at 10:17 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Energy subsidy dataModerator Response: [DB] Considering that the majority of the globe in the linked source you provide has invalid data, the needed context to derive any substantive conclusion is entirely missing. And thus no weight should be given to it. -
skywatcher at 09:50 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Dave, I see you still haven't gone away and read the links I suggested in #62, quite apart from the excellent information given to you here by many others. More critically, you still haven't gone and performed a statistical analysis of the data to determine whether there has been any significant change in the trend. Until you do such analysis, or point to a location where somebody has done such an analysis, including appropriate evaluations of uncertainty and statistical power, you have no leg to stand on. It is a constant failing of skeptics that they rarely go and do their own original work, complete with robust validation of the work, before they make unsupported assertions. If you simply let your eye be fooled, you'll keep thinking the world is flat. -
Helena at 09:43 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
scaddenp77 : "Now tell me how killing those subsidies is costing the economy? " Have you even looked which where the countries subsidizing fossil fuels on the link you indicate ? 1. Kuwait 2. Iran 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Qatar 5. Venezuela 6. Lybia 7. UEA 8. El Salvador 9. Turkmenistan 10. Algeria and it goes on and on, with no OECD country. So are you saying we should ask those countries to stop subsidizing fossil fuels ? Why do you think they are subsidizing fossil fuels in the first place ?Moderator Response: [DB] Please provide a link to the source you used to derive the above list of countries as it does not appear in scaddenp's linked source. -
skywatcher at 09:41 AM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Dave, the report is still based on much more substantive material than your opinion, which places its conclusions much higher up in the scale of credibility. As scaddenp suggests, stick to the science, and not rhetoric, as yet you have provided not one shred of evidence to support your assertions other than disliking a report's conclusions. Do you actually have evidence that polar bears will be fine? Or do you, like many skeptics, just continue to snipe at the hard work of others whose conclusions disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion? -
muoncounter at 09:14 AM on 18 May 2012Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
Robinson and co. is not the only miscreant in this farce. We saw Soon and Balliunas had a hand in it here. -
Tom Curtis at 08:43 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 has a short residence time
Martin A @118, while I commend your determination to understand the processes involved in the carbon cycle, I suggest you, as the saying goes, learn from other peoples mistakes, for you will not live long enough to make them all yourself. To that end, I recommend purchasing "Global Warming: understanding the forecast" which is the best general introduction to the science of the green house effect and carbon cycles available. It is doubly useful because it has an associated, free online course with associated video lectures and models. The model which will most interest you is the Geocarb model, described as "an on-line zero-dimensional descendent of the Berner & Kothavala (2001) GEOCARB III model". -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Dave, I have responded to "trillions spent just in case" on a more appropriate thread. Please keep comment here to topic. -
scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
"Trillions of dollars on things aimed only at reducing CO2 emissions, just in case?" So tell me what the cost of adaption will be if you are wrong and who will be pay for it? The polluters - or those affected? All the science says tells you it is happening. It is not "just in case". Desperately trying to find excuses for inaction is fooling yourself. Try a first step. The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008. Now tell me how killing those subsidies is costing the economy? -
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
"How can we be focusing on Polar Bear longevity when 250,000 children die every year from lack of a clean water supply." What is this piece of rhetoric supposed to imply? The campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions are just about saving polar bears? Come on! Have a look at Dai 2010 and tell me whether not controlling emissions is going make things better for children needing drinking water. Stick to the science. -
Composer99 at 05:59 AM on 18 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part three - Manabe to the present day, 1966-2012
I hope this feeds the debate in a positive way. Since you have provided absolutely no data or analysis to back up your assertions, instead relying on prima facie ridiculous claims of researchers helplessly reliant on government largesse: no, no positive debate-feeding. IMO your comment has baldly violated the Comments Policy and is best consigned to the rubbish bin (along with mine).Moderator Response: [DB] let us take the higher path, for now. -
Justin at 05:54 AM on 18 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part three - Manabe to the present day, 1966-2012
In reply to the article by john Mason. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory and off-topic snipped.
-
Martin A at 05:29 AM on 18 May 2012CO2 has a short residence time
Thanks to all for taking the time to reply to my question. I think I should have made clearer what I am trying to understand. It is the basics where (according to this page), the average life of a CO2 molecule is different from the average time for the system to return to equilibrium following the injection of a mass of CO2 into the atmosphere. (If I have understood the SkS statement correctly. I think I have come across similar statements elswhere.) What I still want to find is a reference that explains it in detail, using mathematical analysis rather than verbal explanation. Below, I've tried to make clear the conundrum that I'm trying to resolve. Sorry it is long - I could not see how to make it shorter. KR: Thank you for the Bolin and Eriksson 1958 reference. The link does not lead to the paper itself and I did not manage to locate the paper. (I don't have access to library facilities.) I am aware of the Bern model but my query is related to understanding the fundamentals, not the details of the results used by the IPCC and predicted by the Bern model. Tom Curtis: I have not considered volcanic CO2. But, as I said above, at present I am trying to understand the basic principles, I am not attempting to produce realistic results. Dikran Marsupial: Thank you for the link to the abstract of your paper. I read the words which seem to reiterate the statement at the head of this page but, as I said before, my calculations seem to differ from this and I am trying to resolve the discrepancy. The SkS comment is: "Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean." My understanding is that this means that it takes much longer for the system to reach equilibrium than the residencetime of molecule. My calculations give the same average lifetime in the atmosphere for a CO2 molecule in an injected mass of CO2 as the average time for atmospheric CO2 to reach its new equilibrium following the injection. This differs from the SkS statement, if I have correctly understood the latter. Here is what I have done. I have taken a very simple case but I am simply trying to understand the basics, not produce realistic results. I have considered a case of two finite boxes, atmosphere and ocean (let's say). I have made assumptions as follows: 1. The rate of diffusion from atmosphere to ocean (Gt/yr) is proportional to the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the atmosphere and is independent of the mass of CO2 in the ocean. 2. The rate of diffusion from to ocean to atmosphere (Gt/yr) is proportional to the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the ocean and is independent of the mass of CO2 (Gt) in the atmosphere. Note: Assumptions 1 and 2 imply that the system is linear. 3. The system is initially in equilibrium, so that, initially, the rate of diffusion from atmosphere to ocean equals the rate of diffusion from ocean to atmosphere. 4. I assumed a significant total mass of CO2 (in ocean and atmosphere) and calculated the equilibrium mass of CO2 in atmosphere from the diffusion rate coefficients. 5. I then assumed that an additional mass M (Gt) of CO2 is injected into the atmosphere. I calculated: - the equilibrium mass in the atmosphere and in the ocean when the system once again reaches equilibrium, with the additional M Gt in the system. The equilibrium levels will have changed because I have not assumed the ocean is infinite. - I solved the 1st order differential equation giving the atmospheric CO2 as a function of time, to find the time constant with which the atmospheric CO2 reaches the new equilibrium in the presence of the ongoing equilibrium exchange. Then I repeated the calculation, but this time assuming that initially there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere and zero in the ocean. So, physically, the injected molecules of CO2 leaving the atmosphere cannot be being replaced by CO2 from the ocean - there was none in there. I solved the differential equation to find the average time for an injected mass of CO2 to reach the new equilibrium (for a system containing no other CO2), and it was the same as for the initial calculation of the average time to reach equilibrium (for a system with CO2 present in atmosphere and ocean much greater in mass than the injected CO2). This was not unexpected, as the differential equation is linear, so the response to an input (the injected mass) should be independent of the response to other inputs (such as the ongoing equilibrium interchange)simultaneously present. I hope the foregoing makes sense. What I am still hoping to find, is a paper that explains (using mathematics, rather than verbal reasoning) how it is that the average lifetime of an injected CO2 molecule differs greatly (or differs at all) from the average time it takes for the system overall to reach equilibrium following the injection of a mass of CO2. Thank you for any help you can give me.Moderator Response: [DB] KR's link itself had a further link to Bolin and Eriksson 1958. -
MarkR at 05:25 AM on 18 May 2012Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
#1 70rn , this does appear to be a common way for 'skeptics' to analyse palaeoclimate stuff. I covered a different record here a while ago. I mentioned 3 'tricks' used to 'hide the incline' which are changing the temperature scale, ignoring/hiding/deleting recent measurements and picking one region and implying (or even just saying) that it's a global record. That's what a number of 'skeptics' did with Hubert Lamb's paper tracking UK temperatures up to the 1930s, and with the Sargasso Sea reconstruction it sems that they've added 'including made-up data' to their repertoire. Although I agree with Utahn, people make mistakes and confirmation bias is a more likely reason than just fabricating the data. -
Dennis at 03:42 AM on 18 May 2012Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
For the non-scientist (and I count myself as one), this article is an excellent case study. You cover both the inner workings of the scientific review process (asking for clarifications) and the process of commenting on others work (I'm going to speak on your findings and thought I would give you a chance to comment). What's important for a site like this is we can see the attitude that the denier community plays when asked about the science: "It is too bad your employers could not find an objective scientist for this task. ... Do not waste your time with additional email. It will be shunted to the unopened file here." That, plus the fact that you're not welcome at their conference, speaks loudly to the anti-science slant so many legitimate scientists face when the offer serious, legitimate criticisms of scientific work that isn't intended to further scientific discovery. A legitimate scientist whould say why the question was off base, say why. These guys don;t have a leg to stand on. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:03 AM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
matzdj @ 58... "The above statements don't make me think there is significant data that this species is in trouble." If you are seriously interested in this topic you might want to take the time to engage someone who is actively involved in the research. I can pretty much guarantee you that everyone doing the research is going to tell you that the species is very much in danger. What is the polar bears' primary habitat? Sea ice. Specifically summer sea ice prior to the winter when they are feeding on ring seals in preparation for the coming winter. The sea ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. Within 20 years the Arctic sea will seasonally ice-free. Habitat gone. Does that mean every last polar bear will die? No. But it means that there will be a massive and rapid change in their numbers. -
Composer99 at 01:56 AM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
matzdj (or do you prefer going by Dave as per your signature?): Please provide either better data or better statistical analysis/projections to support your claim: I read their last full report and found that link between the data in this chart and the projections of extinction seem to be smoke and mirrors. You can say what you like but without data or superior analysis compared to the PBSG you cannot substantiate such a claim and hence your opinion is as valuable as mine. -
muoncounter at 01:50 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
matzdj: "there does appear to be a step change in the observed data" If you look long enough at the various temperature records, you will convince yourself of the existence of many past 'steps.' The problem is this: Climate science is not a stack of graphs. Climate science is applied physics, earth science, astronomy. These are where we find the causes for the data we see; they do not support 'steps'. No one claims that climate responds in a straight line fashion to a single forcing. Invoking 'temperature hasn't risen but CO2 keeps going up' is a good indication that you don't fully understand that the system is not just driven by CO2. -
Composer99 at 01:20 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
One often sees claims such as the below by matzdj made by pseudoskeptics: The most important data is the data that doesn't fit your models. If you can't explain it, you need to change your model to incorporate it. A little digging almost invariably finds that statements such as these are, by my estimation, unequivocally incorrect. For example, based on what we have known, for decades, about cyclical variation in solar radiation reaching the Earth and on the reflection of solar radiation by aerosol pollutants, we can predict that when we combine an extended trough in incoming solar radiation and extensive aerosol pollution, we expect to see cooling at a global scale. Further, based on what we have known, again for decades, of the physics of radiative transfer in IR-trapping atmospheric gases, we expect to see warming at a global scale when these gases are increasing in concentration. Based on the above understanding, periods where global temperatures or global heat content plateau or even decline slightly are expected to be the result of reduced solar radiation or increased reflection from aerosols outweighing the warming forcing from IR-trapping gases. (Global surface & atmospheric temperatures are, of course, vulnerable to large shifts in energy between these components and the oceans given the latter's much larger heat capacity.) As I have stated above, as far as I know this has been known for decades and is based on the interlocking support of physics theory, experiment (via lab or model), and empirical measurement. Bottom line for the TL;DR crowd: the current behaviour of the climate system is consistent with the present mainstream understanding of the factors driving the Earth's energy balance and its climate, contra claims to the contrary by self-identified climate skeptics. -
bath_ed at 00:19 AM on 18 May 2012Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
h pierce @ 28 It appears to have escaped your attention that trains have been hauled by electric locomotives for many decades already, including some of the heaviest freight trains, if not the heaviest such as on the Sishen-Saldanha line that transports iron ore with a 50 kV system. Bern @ 33 Producing synthetic fuels from coal as SASOL does in South Africa is certainly more carbon-intensive than conventional oil, but the figure of 60% of South African emissions isn't credible. As essentially all of SASOL's production is consumed in South Africa it would mean that producing the synthetic fuel would produce more carbon dioxide than burning it. It would also be more than all of the emissions of South Africa's electricity generation and heavy industries, which are overwhelmingly coal-powered. -
matzdj at 00:13 AM on 18 May 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Skywatcher, You may want to go back and check into those comment, too. Below are two examples of those comments about populations listed at "Very High Risk" of decline. "David Strait - New estimates of natural survival and current harvest suggest the population may begin to decline. Scientific and local knowledge suggest the population has significantly increased in the past." "Norwegian Bay-82% of PVA simulations resulted in population decline after 10 years; demographic data are 11 years old.Projections of decline are high also because of low sample size." Davis Strait is one of the larger populations and is listed as highly at risk of decline. This seems to say that we have some anecdotal data that the population used to be increasing, but our new estimates "suggest" the population "may" begin to DECLINE. The Norwegian Bay comment seems to say that they don't have any new data but we have a model (calculated from some very small sample that we do have) that says that if we had data, it could show us that there might be a decline. The above statements don't make me think there is significant data that this species is in trouble. I think PBSG should keep working and should get funding to understand what is happening. But we shouldn't be using their present results to say that Polar Bears have a global warming problem. There doesn't seem to be any data that supports that, based on their reports of increase or decrease in population. And yes, I do know there are programs going on to improve global water quality. But what I am concerned about is that we have limited resources - both the US and the rest of the world. There are lots of problems, both real and imagined. We need to prioritize how and where we spend those dollars based on real impact. [snip] DaveModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] off-topic, all caps etc. snipped. Please familiarise yourself with the comments policy. -
Utahn at 00:13 AM on 18 May 2012Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline
A very interesting and convincing history of the evolution of a false talking point, and the "telephone game" of increasing distortion that comes along. I am extremely impressed with the diligence and rigor with which you have sorted this out. One possible grammatical nit: I might be mistaken, but would a comma after Heartland in the title be the more correct way to address a statement to them? When I first read the title I thought of it like a newspaper article where the colon would indicate Heartland was saying the statement that followed (though obviously not a direct quote). Lastly, as a part time tone troll, I would submit that it is actually pretty rare for people to intentionally fabricate data (though this does occur), despite what the WUWT crowd might say. I'm also pretty sure the email quoted above to Willie and Noah asserting fabrication wouldn't have been the best way to get an answer as to why the 2006 point was plotted where it was, even if it had been an "honest mistake." I would wager that there is an alternative, confirmation-biasy, or slipshod-type explanation for the 2006 misplot, and that this might have been discovered with a "softer approach". No less horrible for our future, no less important to uncover, but possibly a bit less evil... Now don't get me wrong, an honest broker would print a retraction about the error once pointed out, and of course not use it again. Since it doesn't seem like such a retraction is forthcoming I would not consider Heartland or NIPCC honest brokers. I also cannot overstate how impressed I am at your heroic efforts to nip a distortion in the bud. I just wish we knew the definite real-life-human answer to why that 2006 point was a degree off, hence my tone trolling, for which I fully apologize. I also fully admit there could have been someone such as Noah who sat down and said "ooh, that 2006 point doesn't look good there, let me just move it down." But I bet he did something more subtle, human, and interesting than that, and figuring that out to me, holds greater hope for getting us out of the mess we are in... -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:08 AM on 18 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
matzdj You need to read the responses to your posts more carefully, I said very clearly that there is no real evidence for a step change in the observations and that it is very likely just the eye being fooled by the 1998 ENSO related peak. Neither hyperbole about the sky falling in nor failure to pay attention to the responses to your posts are likely to encourage people to respond to your posts any further. Here at SkS we are interested in the science. If you want to continue with your point then I suggest you perform a proper statistical analysis of the observations and present the calculations here. -
matzdj at 23:33 PM on 17 May 2012Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
In these posts, am I hearing Dikran say that there does appear to be a step change in the observed data, but it has not extended for long enough for us to statistically verify that it is not within the existing model? I'l buy that. But doesn't that suggest that maybe we should wait a bit longer to see what is going to happen before suggesting that the sky is falling and planning to spend Trillions of dollars on things aimed only at reducing CO2 emissions, just in case? {snip} DaveModerator Response: TC: Of topic ramblings snipped. Dave, you are welcome to comment here, but you are not welcome to ignore the comments policy. Read it carefully and comply. Failure to do so will result in moderation, and if you consistently fail to comply, moderators will take the easiest method of moderating your posts (deleting). In this particular case, just because one part of a post in on topic does not mean all are. Future of topic ramblings (Gish gallops) will result in the simple deletion of the offending post. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:09 PM on 17 May 2012Climate Change Consequences - Often Unexpected
Here's a well written brochure with some cost data on page 16: http://v3.mmsd.com/AssetsClient/Documents/sustainability/SustainBookletweb1209.pdf Deep tunnel cost is $2.42 per gallon. Green roofs are double that cost but have other benefits. Rain gardens cost more too, but with benefits. However lots of other solutions are much cheaper.
Prev 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 Next
