Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 Next
Comments 60101 to 60150:
-
chriskoz at 11:28 AM on 16 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
What is the difference between "denier" and "denialist"? And similarly, between "denial" and "denialism"? I've seen people (including climate scientists) using both terms. The latter term is not explained by any dictionary (and is marked with squiggles in my spell-checking software) so it must be neologism. I wonder if that neologism has some peculiar meaning among climate scientists or if it is just a fashionable contortion of the established term. If the distinction exists, I'd like it to be added to the SkS dictionary of terms and acronyms, which is in the making according to the long heard rumours. Thanks! I think the difficulties of explaining AGW to the average person largely depends on who this person is: truly "average" and easy to convince, "skeptic", "denier" or "denialist"? :) -
RyanG at 11:27 AM on 16 April 2012NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
It's too bad that this letter to NASA couldn't be construed as advertising, it would have run afoul of the US FTC's Endorsement Guides. The most recent FTC Endorsement Guides, has the following relevant example: Page 8 of the PDF file: § 255.3 (b) Example 1: An endorsement of a particular automobile by one described as an “engineer” implies that the endorser’s professional training and experience are such that he is well acquainted with the design and performance of automobiles. If the endorser’s field is, for example, chemical engineering, the endorsement would be deceptive. -
william5331 at 11:22 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
Coral islands may well be destroyed by climate change but probably not because of sea level rise. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html It is important to get the reason right because if you don't and your argument is discredited, it is hard to convince anyone that your new argument is correct.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link. -
Chris G at 11:21 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
I was thinking it might be useful to put together a list of links where most, if not all, of Steve Case's talking points have already been hashed out. But, the list of good refutations is long, and perhaps people are more convinced by things they find for themselves than what they've been pointed toward. Simple searches on just this site alone yield multiple pages per topic, nevermind if you go off-site. Steve's arguments sound simple, and simple sounds good; to refute them you have to get more technical, but if your target audience doesn't even know what a Hadley cell is, how do you convince them about changes in rain bands and expanding deserts? In the end it comes down to an appeal to authority, unless you happen to actually be an authority, a publishing researcher in the area. So, I can only ask that any newcomers verify the information in the article independently, and ask themselves questions like (on just one topic): Ice sheet mass loss is measurably accelerating; where will this water end up? Why does Steve think that the sea level rise will not accelerate? Looking at the geologic record, has the sea level transition between one glacial state and another ever been slow and steady over the whole transition? What makes Steve think it will be this time? Is the habitable land area potentially gained from underneath ice masses more or less that the habitable land lost from a coinciding rise in sea level? Look at pictures of land exposed by receding ice; does it look very habitable to you? OK, here is as good a start link for that one topic as any: Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick -
william5331 at 11:18 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
The real danger of Natural Gas is that it will be a glut and hence cheap. This will force down the price of all fossil fuel and cause us to use far more energy than otherwise. Instead of replacing coal and hence giving us a small respite from our carbon emissions, the use of Natural gas will simply mean we have further to fall when the gas runs out as it certainly will. Worse, it will trash the initiative to switch to renewable energy. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:14 AM on 16 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
Issue of the week: "Based on your personal experiences, what is the most difficult aspect of manmade climate change to explain to the average person? The magical "natural variability" or "unknown factor" that the person seems to believe exists, but can't name or describe, that just has to be the real explanation to the warming [that isn't actually happening, because of the unknown factor that's causing errors in anything that "shows" warming], not CO2... ...and if I ever figure out what that is, I'll let you know if SkS has it covered! -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:13 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
Excellent introductory to the topic, which I will glady point people to when they ask for information. For the sake of people reading these comments and wondering about the so-called debate on climate change, note that Steve Case @ 2 made a number of claims, but did not stick around to discuss them in a real debate. This type of activity is known as a 'drive by' and is a common tactic by those whose purpose is to spread confusion and misinformation. His list of points is known as a Gish Gallop, where there are so many things wrong that it is difficult to know where to start in addressing them. To be clear: there is no debate, amongst scientists who are actively researching and publishing peer-reviewed papers in the relevant fields, that anthropological global warming (AGW) is real, is happening now and is dangerous.Moderator Response: TC: To be fair to Steve Case, he is still actively discussing issues arising from one of his claims on a more appropriate thread as requested by the moderators. Therefore his actions cannot be characterized as a 'drive by'. As the moderator who explicitly made the request, I would like to thank Steve Case for his cooperation. -
lurgee at 10:40 AM on 16 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #15
Has any thought been given to what seems to be the emerging denier tactic of claiming interest in Climate change is 'dying out'? This claim was advanced in the Telegraph the other day ("the fading belief that the world is in the grip of runaway man-made global warming"), and soemthing similar was regurgitated on the radio here in New Zealand by a rightwing propagandist, Matthew Hooton. There have been couple of other recent examples as well. Sounds like a meme that denier propagandists are trying to plant in people's minds, hoping it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think we'll hear a lot more of this "old story, last years problem" in the future, as Climategate2 failed so miserably. Funny how the Other Side (pokes Daniel Bailey in the ribs) act in unison like this - while we're tearing big chunks out of each other over ice cores. Almost like we have real, if occasionally divergent opinions, whereas they all read from scripts. Surely not?! -
lurgee at 10:29 AM on 16 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
I was inspired by the estimable Albatross, in another discussion: "The last thing I want is to be responsible for sending someone to the 'dark side'." Some people seem to be drinking too much coffee. -
muoncounter at 10:16 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
sky, Seems this story has been around. Here's Nature Climate Change in March 2010: Karakoram glaciers seem to buck the trend, however. Several studies of a handful of glaciers in Pakistan have found that many glaciers there are steady at their snouts, and some have even advanced. ... But it makes sense that the Karakoram glaciers would respond differently from those in the Himalayas, says Armstrong. “It's colder. It's higher latitude,” up to ten degrees latitude farther north than Nepal. This figure accompanies the article, but doesn't separate out Karakoram:
--source
The marginal increase in a small area clearly cancels this more widespread downtrend.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:07 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
"When a non-monsoon season comes along, how do we release the water from these great storage depots?" They take in snow in the accumulation zone and rain in the ablation zone. They emit water from the lower reaches via the internal plumbing all glaciers have. This goes on for as long as the glacier has mass in the ablation zone (even in the non-monsoon season). -
Steve Case at 10:02 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
"These glaciers serve as storage depots for a great portion of the world's populations, buffering them against the lack of rainfall during the non-monsoon seasons." And the obvious question is: When a non-monsoon season comes along, how do we release the water from these great storage depots? -
skywatcher at 09:59 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Dead right mc - but as it would appear, the skeptic echochamber is desperate to twist any research these days, be it about Antarctic ikaites or CO2 during deglaciation. Their discomfort with the truth grows all the time, and they have no coherent explanations... -
muoncounter at 09:57 AM on 16 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
sky, All those US news outlets get the same feed from the NWS. Thank goodness the Daily Mail wasn't fooled: But the photos of the one-off event are so unbelievable that an army of online sceptics have cast doubt on their authenticity, suggesting that instead they may simply show large rocks. These must be the usual 'sceptics,' who rarely bother checking their facts. But the last time I was in the UK, even they didn't have rocks that could melt. -
muoncounter at 09:43 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
skyw, Nor should this new report be a surprise. Scherler et al 2011: More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, ... In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable. Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover 'No uniform response' ... that's a subtlety that won't play well in the echo-chamber, where all the answers are simple. Nuance need not apply. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:39 AM on 16 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
@ Tom"TOP's reference to the terms of use are a deliberate distraction."
Absolutely spot-on. And part-and-parcel of the usual TOP agenda to distort & misinform with due deliberation and intent. Any future comments made by TOP should heretofore be viewed as being suspect until proven otherwise. For his credibility-meter has flatlined. I would submit that it is impossible for a denier to admit to error, as that would be anathema to the denier worldview. -
skywatcher at 09:29 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
You know what's particularly annoying about that piece in the BBC - it's the headline that's on the front page of BBC "Asian glaciers 'putting on mass' " Now, what message do you take from such a headline? 1: That the mass balance of some glaciers in part of the Himalayas (one small region of Asia), measured over just nine years, slightly increased, contrary to the overall regional trend. 2: Or if you're casually browsing the intertubes, do you think that those darn scientists were wrong again about the glaciers, as it looks like Asia's glaciers (a big area) are all gaining mass, contradicting all earlier research? [This of course assumes you don't read the article] I don't know if the short headline is Richard Black's (the article author's) doing, but as so often happens on BBC climate articles, they can't quite manage to escape throwing a bone to contrarians, despite their very own Jones Report on impartiality. Here, the main article is also a decidedly mixed bag, notably failing to mention the context of worldwide accelerating loss of glacier/ice sheet ice mass. -
skywatcher at 09:13 AM on 16 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
mc, while the hailstorm and consequences were dramatic, I have a few doubts about the reports of 2-4 or 4-8 feet of hail actually falling (is there a better source than news media?) - I suspect those measurements were mostly from drifts where the flash floods piled the ice up. I don't doubt that there were large rainfall and hail totals however! And I don't want to take away too much from the weirdness of that weather - the video of the flash flood loaded up with ice is scary, the power, shape and destructiveness of the flood has more in common with a volcanic lahar than even a typical flash flood! -
muoncounter at 09:13 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Get ready for another onslaught from the echo chamber: Some Asian glaciers 'putting on mass' Prediction: The use of models to reach this conclusion will be ignored. And this tidbit will also be under-reported: ... between 1999 and 2008 the mass of the glaciers in this 5,615 sq km (2,168 sq miles) region of the Karakoram increased marginally, although there were wide variations between individual glaciers. See the Nature article here. -
Tom Curtis at 09:05 AM on 16 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
TOP @36 and DB inline comment, TOP's reference to the terms of use are a deliberate distraction. I will not be distracted - but see below. The important point that TOP is trying to distract from is that he is trying to represent a report that says polar bears are at risk as not saying that polar bears are at risk. Indeed he continues to do so, saying that "it is the habitat and not the bears that are at risk according to the article" (my emphasis). TOP is entitled to form and put forward any view he likes about the risk to polar bears. He is not entitled to misrepresent the opinions of others about that risk, and he is certainly not entitled to put forward those misrepresentations as evidence for his own opinions. As TOP's attention has been drawn to the misrepresentation, and as he persists in it regardless, the only reasonable supposition is that the misrepresentation is deliberate. Lest there be any doubt about this, the article says in its lead section: "Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable A3c ver 3.1" Where "Vulnerable" means: "A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild:"(my emphasis) So the article directly states that polar bears are "facing a high risk of extinction in the wild", which TOP represents as saying that it is "... not the bears that are at risk according to the article." The numbers after the classification indicate that polar bears are facing ..."A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following: ... 3. A population size reduction of ≥ 30%, projected or suspected to be met within ... three generations, ..., based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1."
... where A1 (c) specifies the reason for the risk as ..."(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat"
. So, contrary to TOP, it is habitat degredation, specified as being due to global warming in the article, which is claimed as the reason why the polar bears are facing "a high risk of extinction". The only reasonable conclusion at this point is that TOP is willing to straightforwardly misquote and misrepresent articles as saying the exact opposite of what they do so to further his cause. Everything he says should be understood in that light. Returning to TOP's attempted distraction, I note that terms and conditions do not apply to publicly accessible portions of the website, but only to those sections requiring login. What is more, limited quoting such as I have done constitutes fair use under copyright law, and the resulting product (my post) would constitute a "derivative work" under the terms and conditions even if they did directly apply. If TOP disagrees with my assessment, he is quite welcome to contact the IUCN, and I will modify my comment to comply with their directions. Indeed I would look forward to his doing so, for I would like to see their public comment on TOP's use of the material from their site. -
muoncounter at 08:48 AM on 16 April 2012Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
Weather records, indeed. April 11, Amarillo Texas: 4-8 feet of hail, followed by flash flooding as it melted. Quoting the anchorman, "I have never, ever, ever seen what you're about to show us." -
muoncounter at 08:30 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Steve Case#16: "the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation." Indeed. But there's no prediction of the sort you made that precipitation will fall where you'd like it to. See "The wet get wetter, the dry get drier." Precipitation is projected to increase in the near-equatorial regions, which tend to be wet in the present climate. In subtropical land areas — places that are already relatively dry — precipitation is projected to decrease during the 21st century. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:04 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Steve, you make a specious point. It is quite possible for glaciers to gain mass in a warming world (even though the majority of the world's glaciers are in retreat). Glaciers can put on mass as long as the gains made in their accumulation zone outweigh the losses from their ablation zone. In the case of many of the Himalayan glaciers, increased precipitation in the accumulation zones is causing some to gain mass, despite increased losses in their ablation zones. These glaciers serve as storage depots for a great portion of the world's populations, buffering them against the lack of rainfall during the non-monsoon seasons. Despite the hand-waving to the contrary, this is all well-understood and well-documented. And non-controversial, despite the best efforts at denialists to manufacture controversy. -
Steve Case at 06:58 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Rob Honeycutt "Warming is anticipated to enhance the hydrological cycle. That means both wetter and drier conditions" No comment. Muoncounter So are glaciers disappearing due to a lack of precipitation or a warming climate? If it's a lack of precipitation then you have to deal with the fact as I pointed out earlier in the other thread, the IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation. If they're disappearing due to warming, and precipitation is at least the same, then you have deal with the question of what happens to the water. The claim was that fresh water supplies would disappear. -
funglestrumpet at 06:16 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
I would like to see a link to this article a prominent feature of the home page. If that is not possible, perhaps it could be linked to from the 'Newcomers Start Here' section. Unfortunately, if it were to form such a feature, then it would be necessary to either delete the comments, or preferably take the second comment’s string of unsubstantiated opinion and rebut each point raised. I would imagine anyone who would find the article a significant source of information on the topic may well hold the same opinions (it is after all what the mainstream media would have us believe) and thus the rebuttals would be of added value to them. Who knows, a certain member of the British aristocracy might learn something, seeing as said peer seems to hold many of the same misguided views on the topic and is even proud to parade his ignorance to all who will listen (and run away when challenged with the facts of the matter). -
dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 16 April 2012The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Thanks Larry, link fixed. -
muoncounter at 05:03 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Steve Case#13: There are sufficient data to show without question that diminishing snowpack results in decreased river flow. See this SciAm article about the western US: Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years, according to a new study. ... the plummeting snowpack could have serious consequences for more than 70 million people who depend on water from the runoff-fed Columbia, Colorado and Missouri rivers. So no, your "If a glacier disappears, it will still rain and snow in the watershed where the glacier was and the rivers in such watersheds will still flow" is wishful thinking at best. -
TOP at 04:27 AM on 16 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
@Tom I take it you have read and agree to Section 4 here. I read the article. I pointed out that it is the habitat and not the bears that are at risk according to the article. There were a plethora of possible events that could or are putting them directly at risk and that are currently responsible for their reduced numbers the chief of which is human/bear interaction. The last two assessments of their status flip-flopped which suggests they are borderline vulnerable right now. It would seem that limiting or changing human/bear interactions would have a far greater effect on their current survival. Hunting bears just for the fun of it is just sick.Moderator Response: [DB] The materiel cited earlier complies to the IUCN policies per these terms. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
Steve @ 13... "This discussion will eventually boil down the difference in melt rates between ice and snow." Don't you think this is exactly the problem? Warming is anticipated to enhance the hydrological cycle. That means both wetter and drier conditions. Glaciers, as I understand it, act to buffer the normal variation in wet/dry cycles of weather. This would act to keep the water supplies downstream more consistent, and is why large populations have developed in these regions. If we deplete that source of fresh water then those downstream populations will be subject to greater extremes. Times of extreme flooding and times of extreme low water conditions. Being that many of these populations are also poor their capacity to adapt to the extremes is very limited, which brings on a whole host of other problems. -
Chris G at 02:23 AM on 16 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Bob. All very real possibilities, no doubt. FWIW, I don't see integrity a boolean, all or nothing; it's more of a real number. -
climate rainbow at 02:14 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
Just thought it's worth mentioning, that there is up-to-date information for all of these subjects available. Best summary sheet that I've found for up-to-date records of the temperature data set providers is here:- http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html The temperature graphs it plots also show the CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. Arctic sea ice extent (as well as Antarctic sea ice extent) can be found here:- http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The problems with determining ice volume are discussed in a RealClimate.org article here:- link Sea level information is collated here:- http://sealevel.colorado.eduModerator Response: [RH] Added hot link to fix broke page formatting. -
Steve Case at 02:11 AM on 16 April 2012Return to the Himalayas
At the moderator's request, I am posting here.On this thread: Global Warming in a Nutshell
Gary M writes:
- What happens when the planet gets warmer? ...receding glaciers have consequences, such as ... disappearing fresh water supplies for billions of people.
I replied:
If a glacier disappears, it will still rain and snow in the watershed where the glacier was and the rivers in such watersheds will still flow.
This answer followed:
- Alpinist at 12:40 PM on 15 April, 2012
No, Steve, actually they might not….
The amount of water that flows in a river is a function of the precipitation that falls in the water shed minus evaporation and plus or minus the contribution of receding or advancing glaciers if there are any.
Currently many glaciers are receding, and as such more water flows in the rivers than is falling as rain or snow. When the glaciers either stop receding, or disappear, flow of water in the rivers will decrease.
If "Global Warming" schemes actually prove out to be successful in stopping the recession of the world's glaciers, the reduction of water flow in these areas will occur sooner.
This discussion will eventually boil down the difference in melt rates between ice and snow.
-
LarryM at 02:06 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
@John Hartz: Thanks, the name and link have been updated. @Eric (skeptic): That's a fair criticism, as some polar bear populations may survive. I changed the word "extinction" to "decline". -
LarryM at 01:33 AM on 16 April 2012The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
The link to the full report, "The Critical Decade", gives "file not found", but the report can still be found here. -
Tom Curtis at 01:11 AM on 16 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
TOP @35, the IUCN report says, among other things:"Polar bears rely almost entirely on the marine sea ice environment for their survival so that large scale changes in their habitat will impact the population (Derocher et al. 2004). Global climate change posses a substantial threat to the habitat of polar bears. Recent modeling of the trends for sea ice extent, thickness and timing of coverage predicts dramatic reductions in sea ice coverage over the next 50?100 years (Hassol 2004). Sea ice has declined considerably over the past half century. Additional declines of roughly 10?50% of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100. The summer sea ice is projected to decrease by 50?100% during the same period. In addition the quality of the remaining ice will decline. This change may also have a negative effect on the population size (Derocher et al. 2004). The effects of sea ice change are likely to show large differences and variability by geographic location and periods of time, although the long term trends clearly reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the annual time frames when ice is present."
(My emphasis, the sentence you quoted is underlined.) Straightforwardly, the sentence immediately preceding the sentence you quoted directly contradicts the conclusion that you wish to draw from the quote. That means whether deliberately or by incompetence you have quoted the report out of context, and in a deceptive manner. You suggest that Polar Bears are a flexible breed, but the report says:"While all bear species have shown adaptability in coping with their surroundings and environment, polar bears are highly specialized for life in the Arctic marine environment. Polar bears exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans. These factors make facultative adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios unlikely. Polar bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past. Due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years."
(My emphasis) Clearly the report adresses your claim and contradicts it. As counter evidence you provide us nothing more substantive than the infallibility of TOP speaking ex cathedra. Finally, you say that the article says that it is the habitat, not the bears at risk, whereas the report says:"There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%."
(Again my emphasis) A population reduction of greater than 30% in 45 years or less is a clear indication of a population at risk. Therefore in claiming that the article claims it is the habitat, not the bears which are at risk you have straightforwardly misrepresented the article. What is more, the article explicitly categorizes polar bears as "vulnerable", which is defined as meaning:"A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild."
(My emphasis) So you have quoted out of context, directly misrepresented the articles contents, and contradicted the article without supporting evidence. Why exactly are we supposed to take anything you say seriously? -
Kevin C at 00:19 AM on 16 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
You can check the original here. Figure 1 is labelled as thousands of years before 1950. The term 'before present' may the source of the confusion: see the Wikipedia article on the technical use of the term. -
John Hartz at 00:05 AM on 16 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
@LarryM: The contents of your “Links to Additional Information” box should be updated to reflect the fact that the Pew Center on Climate Change was transformed into the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) in Nov, 2011. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:57 PM on 15 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
lurgee, it is hardly skeptical to view things in terms of "Sides" (or "Tribes", as some put it). This "Side" discusses climate science in view of what the actual science has to say, viewed through the lens of the scientific method. The other "Side" you refer to prefers to employ insinuation, false balance, character assassination, misrepresentation and cognitive/confirmation bias in lieu of the science and scientific method. Unless you have a fascination for train wrecks. Then carry on. -
Manny at 22:54 PM on 15 April 2012Data Contradicts Connection Between Earth's Tilt and the Seasons
I said : "Greenland ice cores tell us that 6,000 years ago was a bit warmer than today". Moderator says: "Incorrect. Greenland ice cores show temps in the period you reference were similar to those of Greenland in the latter part of the 20th Century. Which are cooler than those of today." I say: Richard B Alley, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 19, Issues 1-5, 1 January 2000, Pages 213-226. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html The Alley 2000 data is available online. Here is an annotated graph of a portion of this data, clearly showing periods warmer than today in the past 10,000 years. Could you please explain your blunt dismissal of this objective observation?
Moderator Response:[DB] The Alley referenced data set uses a zero reference of 1950 (unless otherwise specified, ice core records are zeroed to 1950 by convention). Thus 95 years before present is 1855, not 2012.
This is all fully detailed in the SkS skeptic meme rebuttal "Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer". If you wish to pursue your claim further, take it there.
Perhaps you are unaware, but Jo Nova's blog is a known dissembler venue. And not credible.
Please resize all graphics posted to 450 pixels width or less. Thanks!
-
Eric (skeptic) at 22:42 PM on 15 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Tom, you are right that it isn't simple or cheap: e.g. in the case of Florida panthers http://alyxia.umd.edu/teaching/files/Pimm_et_al.pdf "These [studies of rescues prior to Florida panthers] show the benefits of added genetic diversity. The compendium of such direct studies is still so small that it provides scant support for managers justifying expensive rescues.." To their methods I would add artificial insemination to preserve desired traits. Old Mole, I agree that the Inuit have an immediate financial interest in more bears, and there is not enough information to determine what habitat changes have occurred and what those imply for the bears. See http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf for a diverse and thorough survey of Inuit opinion. -
Michael Whittemore at 20:47 PM on 15 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
I wonder why Shakun et al. 2012 did not use all the proxy data that was utilized in the Clark et al. 2012 paper. I understand that some of the proxy's used in the Clark et al. 2012 were for precipitation data, but it still looks like there was a lot more temperature records used compared to Shakun et al. 2012. Below is a comparison of the two papers with Shakun et al. 2012 on top and Clark et al. 2012 on the bottom, the blue dots on the Clark et al. 2012 graph are precipitation proxy's and I am not sure if these could also be used as temperature records.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
Phil at 20:11 PM on 15 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
William Haas #97There is no empirical data uncovered by this article to show that in the first 2,500 years since LGM that the green house gas, an increase in average atmospheric H2O did not have some role in global warming. At this point, how much of a role is speculation.
I may be missing some subtlety here, but surely the figure of 7% proposed by Shakun et al for the initial, pre CO2 warming includes any feedback due to water vapour - as also does the 93% for the CO2 de-gassing ? Hence the percentages for warming can be equated with forcings, and considerations of water vapour can be ignored. -
bill4344 at 17:30 PM on 15 April 2012Which plants will survive droughts, climate change?
Well, that's genuinely interesting. In my role as a professional Revegetation Officer I thank you for this article, John. -
r.pauli at 17:12 PM on 15 April 2012Global Warming in a Nutshell
I prefer to expand the scope to describe it as geological impacts of our anthropogenic era - and to atmosphere and lithosphere. Changes would include: global warming - climate change leading to ocean acidification, sea level rise, ice cap melt leading to isostatic rebounds & earthquakes. Humans have been amazingly powerful. -
lurgee at 16:58 PM on 15 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
I should add, thanks to Dana1981 for a very thorough, but easy to follow summary of the paper. Now that I've got my head around that, I might venture over to WUWT to see what the Other Side are saying. -
Michael Whittemore at 15:55 PM on 15 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
lurgee @95 You have made it quite clear that one proxy temperature data is not a good global representative and you have also made clear what you think about proxy data when you said "So feel free to provide evidence that the experts regard the ice core record as 'clean' and relaibale, rather than a confused, torturous mess which, unfortunately, happens to the best we've got, and ever will get." You go on to say that “Now it turns out 93% of the interglacial temperature increase followed the CO2 increase something that had previosuly been obscured by focusing (understandably) on Antarctic ice cores, which were among the 7% where the temperature increase preceded the CO2 increase.”. The paper only says that 93% of the warming happened after CO2 rise, when I graph all the proxy’s I find that only the far north of the planet lagged behind CO2 increase, when the latitudes 30N to 90S are averaged out, which can be seen here . Also to say that a particular proxy lagged CO2 you would have to compare it to the CO2 record. Each proxy data used is individually graphed here here here here here here But due to area weighting done in the paper, it would be hard to determine what proxy data was averaged together, without knowing this you could not compare your results with the paper. Like I explained before, I think that the only reason why when all averaged out the proxy data shows a temperature lag behind the CO2 rise, is due to the increased cooling seen in the north which bring down the other proxy’s when averaged out. I also found a serious issue with one of the proxy data sets, the (TR163-22) Lea et al., 2006. It had over ten proxy data records that were -999 degrees Celsius !! You can find the excel data sheet for all the proxy’s used here William Haas @96 You are missing the basic points of the Shakun’s paper, you say “If a green house gas was involved to enhance the warming in the first 2,500 years then it had to be H2O which covered most of the globe in some form or another at that time.” There was only warming in the far north, look at figure 4. It is clear as day, no global warming.. The orbit warming only affected the far north which caused the (AMOC) to stop. H2O would have had played a part in this small warming up in the north, because in that region there was warming from extra sun hitting that area. More sun means higher temperatures, means more H2O in the atmosphere, but only in the far north because H2O is temperature dependent. Due to the (AMOC) stopping the north cooled and the south warmed, H20 would have also played a part in this initial warming in the south. But what you fail to understand is, the north regions of 30N-90N are cooling due to no warm water coming in from the (AMOC). But due to the rise in CO2, and the fact there is no way H2O being produced in the south could make its way up to the north where it is much colder, CO2 is the only GHG that could have done it. -
Old Mole at 15:31 PM on 15 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Eric@27 I wouldn't bet the farm on the most recent survey results from Hudson's Bay if I were you. That survey was done by different people (the government of Nunavut instead of the government of Canada) using different methodologies (aerial survey instead of capture, tag and release) which by themselves could account for the slight increase. I think it is also pertinent to look into the "local knowledge" of the Inuit inhabitants that convinces them that the population isn't declining ... that they are seeing more bears in remote settlements where they had not ranged before. They could be right ... but it also might be that since Hudson's Bay isn't freezing over until November in recent years, and freezes for six weeks less on average, that bears with no natural sources of food who wake from hibernation with hungry cubs start looking for food in places they wouldn't ordinarily go. The more cynical might say that the Nunavut government's decision to raise the polar bear harvest quota last October from eight to twenty-one might have a bearing on it, particularly as hunters from farther south with more money than brains typically pay upwards of $50,000 for the opportunity to do the "harvesting". Best wishes, Mole -
Tom Curtis at 15:02 PM on 15 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
Eric (skeptic) @31, the problem with non-natural feeding is that, should we follow BAU, temperatures are expected to be elevated for tens of thousands of years. If we do not let the polar bears gather the majority of their diet, the will become "domesticated" within a few tens of generations. That is, they will loose intelligence, sensual acuity, strength, and probably other essential traits for survival in the wild. That probably doesn't matter so much if they are "returned" to a wild in which there are no comparable top predators. Domestic cats do very well when they go feral in Australia, where the "top predators" are 4 foot long monitor lizards and a variety of very deadly snakes. I believe they become lunch if they go feral in Africa, and "domesticated" polar bears will fair similarly poorly if required to feed themselves in an area with a genuine top predator. That assumes that it will be possible for them to be returned to the wild state, which assumes the large scale survival of a variety of seal species. Again, these can be kept alive in zoos in which case they will loose much of the ability to feed themselves in the wild. Or they can be kept alive in smaller refuges than are required for polar bears (because you do not require as much territory to sustain a large enough population for genetic diversity), but only if they have no predators in which case they will loose their ability to avoid predators within a few generations. I am sure care programs can be implemented that avoid many of these problems. It will not, however, be simple or cheap. As to whether it would be more expensive than providing adequate refuges without supplementary feeding? I could not say. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:34 PM on 15 April 2012Polar bear numbers are increasing
I was hoping the document I linked would have some cost estimates but alas it did not. The cost is somewhat speculative but zoos are relatively cheap and feeding a "reserve" area overpopulated with polar bears (somewhat like a large zoo) is an in-between case. If we require strictly natural feeding then costs would be much more substantial and it may be impossible. -
muoncounter at 14:28 PM on 15 April 2012It's not bad
Manny#235: "If malaria is not currently spreading to balmy Florida" This just in from balmy Jacksonville, Fla (2010): Duval County health officials issued an unusual warning Wednesday: Beware of malaria. Tests show that a 31-year-old Jacksonville woman has become infected with the typically tropical disease despite having no history of international travel, the health department announced. For the present, US wealth and infrastructure can control diseases that are normally found in tropical climates. Fast-forward to a time when tropical climates are more widespread and demands on under-funded public health services are overwhelming their capacities. What will you tell us then?
Prev 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 Next
